Plunket Shield update - Round 2

At the end of round 2, I thought it would be good to do an update on the progress of the tournament, and look at some trends that have emerged.

One thing that I thought I would focus on is how the runs have been scored, rather than just how many.

I looked at each innings and looked at the total runs from boundaries, and the total other runs (I called them run runs, but they include no balls and wides, as they were too hard to separate).

I plotted them on a graph, to see if there were any interesting patterns emerge.

There were a couple of things that I noticed. Auckland, Otago, Wellington and Canterbury have all had similar rates across the different innings that they've batted, while Northern Districts and Central Districts have had more variety in how they've accumulated their runs.

The triangles seemed to be higher up the chart on average, with all of them being above the median boundary rate, so I thought that I'd see if there was a correlation between the rates and the total competition points gathered in a match.

There is a reasonably strong relationship between the boundary rate and the points earned in a match, however, there's almost no relationship at all between the speed of accumulation of non-boundary runs and the points earned.

There is a theory that regularly rotating the strike makes it easier to survive a match, as it doesn't allow the bowlers to settle. I certainly know that I hated batsmen hitting singles off my bowling, and I remember Dale Steyn saying in a press conference something to the effect of "I don't mind dropped catches that much. Dropped catches happen. But I get really upset when a fielder lets a batsman get off strike when I had him under pressure."

Of the 7 innings played by a losing side, 5 of them had a run-runs rate below the median. That made me wonder if there was a pattern there. I looked at the final innings by teams that batted out a draw or lost, and looked to see if there was a difference in the rates for the teams that lost vs the teams that drew.

This graph isn't particularly meaningful at the moment, with only 5 innings to look at, but I intend on building this up as the season goes on.

Looking at it as individual points makes it more clear:

I've circled the point at the bottom, because that was an innings where Canterbury lost their last wicket with only 6 balls remaining, and so it was very close to being a saved match. Interestingly the teams that have scored a lot of boundaries have lost, but it is a very small sample to be drawing too many conclusions from.

The final table, with other information, looks like this:

This made me wonder which correlation was stronger, scoring rate with total points, or the traditional value of Net Average Runs Per Wicket (batting average minus bowling average).

The Net Average Runs Per Wicket seems to be a better predictor of success, but there is a clear relationship with the scoring rate also.

I'll be interested to see how these develop as the season progresses, but for now we seem to have a separation between the sides, with Auckland, Canterbury and Otago all needing to find another gear for the next round.

Warner in Perth

I have written before about how impressed I am with David Warner's running between wickets. I genuinely believe that he is one of the best at judging a run that I've seen.

Accordingly I was surprised to see that he had scored the same number of singles as boundaries in the second innings at Perth. I also heard the commentators describe it as a typical innings from Warner. It made me wonder if it actually was a typical innings.

First of all I looked at how Warner compared to other batsmen.  The method I chose to look at was to compare the boundary percentage (boundaries per delivery) and the activity rate (runs scored per non-boundary delivery). I filtered out any batsman who hadn't faced more than 650 deliveries since 2000, hadn't hit more than 50 fours and hadn't played in the past 2 years. I then put the rest of the batsmen on a single graph.

I divided up the batsmen into 4 categories. Aggressive, Block Bash, Pushers and Defensive. Close to the extremes of each group were players who have been reasonably successful.

In the defensive group are players like Rahul Dravid, Peter Fulton, Tino Mawoyo, Ed Cowan and JP Duminy.
Block Bash contains Angelo Mathews, Shane Watson, Chris Gayle and Yuvraj Singh.
Pushers includes Kane Williamson, Shiv Chanderpaul, Jonathan Trott and Thilan Samaraweera.
Aggressive include Ricky Ponting, Sachin Tendulkar, Darren Sammy and David Warner.

Warner has a higher activity rate than anyone in the list. But he also hits more boundaries than most batsmen.

 

Warner's activity rate for his career is 0.353 and his boundary rate is 9.3%. His innings in Perth lasted 140 deliveries. We would expect 13 boundaries, perhaps 12 fours and 1 six. Off the other 127 deliveries we would expect him to score 45 runs. Overall we would expect that he would be on about 99, rather than 112, so he scored slightly faster than we would expect, but the big difference was the make up of the innings.

Warner scored 80 runs in boundaries. That's about 40% more than we would normally expect him to get.

I used the same graph as above, to analyse Warner's other innings. I've included every innings where Warner has scored more than 30. I've drawn in lines to show which group the innings would have fit in.

We can see that Warner's innings does fit in with some of his other innings, but really is closer to the Block Bash quadrant than almost any of his other innings.

It was an interesting innings, because of the context and the opponent, but also because of the way that he scored the runs.

Sharp work

Here's a little video I noticed recently.  This was from yesterday, day one of the four day match between Auckland and Canterbury.

Auckland had just been bowled out for 165 and Canterbury were at 6/1 in the 7th over. George Worker is facing Matt Quinn. Jeet Raval is out of shot, but he is at short leg, under the helmet.

 

There are three impressive things here.

Firstly the awareness of Raval to try for the run out. It's easy to just appeal. Especially when a player isn't that far out of his crease. But instead Raval, who must have been only just out of shot, was aware of the possibility of the run out.

Secondly how quickly and accurately he got the ball in. The stumps are hit about 1 second after the batsman hits the ball. It means Raval has gathered the ball and then released it to throw down the stumps in about a third of a second. That's scarily fast.

Thirdly the outstanding umpiring. Worker was given out without a replay. When I went through the video frame by frame, the bat appears to be on the line as the ball dislodges the bails. One frame later and the bat is in the crease. That's either some poor benefit of the doubt, or some very good umpiring. I think it's kinder to assume the latter.

Below is the frame where the ball dislodges the bails. Do you think it's out?

Sorry Kieron

watch Pollard's running between wickets.He's incredible, but nobody notices, because when he hits 6's they go a long way. #AusvWI

— Michael Wagener (@Mykuhl) February 6, 2013

That was the worst jinx ever.

— Michael Wagener (@Mykuhl) February 6, 2013

Why I Love "The Boring Middle Overs"

Possibly not the most balanced field in an ODI.

In a couple of days, New Zealand and South Africa will play an ODI in Paarl.  And the press box will be almost empty.  There was close to 60 people in the press box just down the road at Newlands for the test match. Admittedly quite a few of them weren’t actually press, but just people who managed to get a pass in order to get a good seat some free food, and internet access to block up the lines for the people who actually needed it, but there were still a significant number of writers there, hunting out stories about the epic mismatch. In Paarl there is likely to be less than 10 actual journalists.

Part of that is because there is the African Cup of Nations on at the same time, and some of the newspapers and agencies only have so much budget to cover sport.  Paarl is a long way away from Potchefstroom and Kimberly, where the other two matches are.  A number of the writers are going to watch the first match on TV in Johannesburg and then drive to the other two matches. Others are not going to go to any of the matches, watching instead on television.

But as much as budget is a reason, so is the fact that most of them don’t actually like one-day cricket.  Some of them like tests and t20’s, some of them just like tests, and some of them don’t really like cricket at all, they just like how many stories there are in a cricket match.

I hear people saying things like “there’s those horrible overs between over 10 and over 40” and “it’s dreadful, killing the game.” Both of these sentiments make me wonder if they actually like cricket at all.  Because for me the middle overs of an ODI are almost as pure as cricket gets. When I said that to some South African cricket writers over dinner they looked at me as if I was crazy.  One of them actually suggested getting me professional help.  However, let me explain why I love the middle overs.

Part of it probably stems from growing up in New Zealand in the 80’s and 90’s.  The first cricket game I went to by myself was during the Cricket World Cup in 1992, where dibbly-dobbly bowling almost took New Zealand to the title. I also played as a spin bowler who often didn’t spin the ball much, and relied on variations in flight, pace and bounce to get wickets.  However I think my love of ODI cricket, and the middle overs in particular are more than just nostalgia.

Cricket is more than a simple bat and ball game that involves hitting a ball as far as you can.  The subtlety is what makes cricket a better game (in my opinion) than baseball, softball, rounders or any other similar game.  Cricket is, at its core, a game of risk vs reward decision-making. Most batsmen are capable of scoring at close to 2 runs a ball, for a while.  The problem is that when they try that it is very risky.  They tend to get out quite quickly if they aim to go at 2 a ball. So they find ways to reduce that risk. Instead of trying to hit the ball over mid off, they try and place it past him along the ground.  Instead of trying to hit the ball over the covers for 4, they push it down to third man for a single, or leave it alone.

A defensive shot is pure foolishness in baseball, it’s booed and jeered in kilikiti but it has merit in cricket. Even the most attacking players have a balance between attack and defence. But pure defence is only occasionally called for. Different game states call for different mindsets from the batsmen.  But not just the batsmen.  The bowlers and captains also have to make decisions about how attacking/defensively they play.

A out-swing bowler is most likely to get wickets if they bowl half volleys.  The only problem with this is that they are also likely to get hit for four if they do that.  There are times when they are prepared to roll the dice and try, but it’s risky.  So they weigh risk and reward, and tend to only bowl half volleys occasionally (or at least they intend not to bowl them). Likewise a spin bowler is more likely to take wickets with a slow, flighted delivery, that's full enough to bring a batsman forward, but short enough to turn.  However if he bowls that ball too often the batsman is likely to step out of his crease and deposit him over the straight boundary. Accordingly the spin bowler mixes up their flight, pace and line (and sometimes spin direction) to keep the batsman tied down.

A captain has a lot of options when it comes to setting a field, even within the ODI rules about field placement. There are 16 main zones where a batsman scores runs, and 9 fielders.  Accordingly the art to setting a defensive field is often damage limitation. However a good captain and bowler will work together to make sure the easiest runs have an element of danger to them. For example, a captain will set a deep point to an off-spinner, and leave a gap for a batsman to score a single there.  However to do that requires hitting against the spin, and if the ball bounces a little more, or turns a little more, there’s a chance that playing the ball out to that man will result in an edge.

Likewise a popular tactic is for a left arm spinner to come round the wicket and bowl on leg stump, with a field set in close on the off side, and (other than one player) deep on the leg side.  A batsman can score a single off most deliveries without much risk, but to try and score more is a significant risk. And if he misjudges slightly he is at risk of creating a run out, where the man at (normally) shortish mid-wicket can field the ball and throw down the stumps.  That has become a position for some of the best fielders in world cricket.  Previously the likes of Ponting, Rhodes and Harris fielded at backward point, now Guptill, Gibbs and Warner can often be seen in at shortish mid-wicket.

This balance, and battle of wits between batsman and fielders is most on display during the middle overs of an ODI.  There are what Gary Naylor of 99.94 and testmatchsofa brilliantly described as “agreed singles” where both teams are happy with a single off a delivery, and these can be frustrating, but not if you watch what the bowler is trying to do.  A bowler like Andrew Symonds or Chris Harris would often leave mid off back, apparently gifting the batsman an easy single, but then they would back themselves to save any ball hit there.  When watching this period I ask myself what the plan is to try and get a wicket without taking a risk. What is the shot that the captain is letting the batsman have, and what’s the risk for him in that?  These are the questions that make the middle overs enjoyable.

Sure there are less fours, sixes and wickets.  However there is still the battle of wits.  I’m not sure what the attraction is in watching big hit after big hit.  I prefer the balance between the mental and physical battle that only cricket really provides.  And, for me, there’s nowhere better for that than the “boring middle overs.”

A Risk Analysis of David Warner's Running Between Wickets

David Warner - photo courtesy of Flickr user Paddynapper

I enjoy watching David Warner bat. I think he approaches the game in the right way: when he's batting, he tries to score runs. He is famous for his big hits, and his unorthodox shots, but I think that an under-rated part of his game is his ability to find runs in the field.

He has a phenomenally high activity rate in test matches. (for a description of activity rate, click here) The rest of the opening batsmen in the world have a collective activity rate of 0.248 over the past 2 years. Warner has an activity rate of 0.381.

This means that he is effectively about 54% better than the average opener at finding runs in the field. This is a massive difference.

However it seems to have come at a cost. In recent matches he has been run out, and has also been involved in a run out for his partner.

It's difficult to quantify the effects of a run out. They are often worth more than a normal wicket, because they come against the normal run of play. I wrote an article about this last July in relation to One Day Internationals.

Warner has run 488 runs, with one run out (to him). The rest of the test openers in the same period have run 8808 runs with 13 run outs, or 677.5 runs per run out. (I only look at run outs for the batsman, rather than their partners, as it avoids double ups. To make the comparison fair I had to do the same with Warner.) On the face of it, it seems that Warner's approach is too risky. However there is another way to look at it.

A batsman gets out eventually, and they have a number of balls to use to score runs between dismissals. A run out is different from other dismissals in that it's not really related to the skill at hitting the ball. As a result a simple batting average isn't the best way to assess it. Instead we need to look at how a batsman uses both the resources that they have, namely their wicket and their deliveries between getting out in some other method.

The average opening innings lasts 68.7 balls, and includes slightly under 16 run runs. Warner only lasts 59.2 balls on average, but includes just over 20 run runs.

If we assume that if Warner had run between wickets like the other openers that he would not have been run out, then we can look at what his average would have been if he had been more careful with his running. Instead of 20.33 runs per innings from running, he would have got 13.24 runs per innings. He would have scored 170 less runs in his career to date. (892 rather than 1062) Also, instead of 24 dismissals, he would have only been out 23 times.

If everything else was the same, except for the running, and we assume that his innings where he was run out was a not out, his average would have dropped from the current 44.50 to 38.78.

While his running may seem risky, it is actually a big part of why he has made such a successful start to his career. As he is taking his running to the next level, his entire game is improving with it.

World T20 Statistics

Here is a list of tables of some different statistics from the World T20. I have separate tables for the Group stage, the Super 8's and the overall data. Interestingly the batting numbers are reasonable similar, but the bowling numbers are significantly different. This is possibly a reflection on the strengths of the teams that missed out on the next stage, Bangladesh, Ireland and Afghanistan all have strong bowling line-ups and while Zimbabwe's strength is normally more about their batting, it didn't really fire in this tournament.

All of these are statistics that I have worked out previously, although I had to modify my DL partnership formula to reflect the nature of T20 cricket. I decided to use a score of 147 as an expected score as it's 56.6% of 260, and 56.5% is the resources left in an ODI match shortened to 20 overs.

I will try to update these regularly throughout the tournament.

Best innings:

For more info on how this is calculated see this post:

Group stage
Super 8's
Knockout Stage *
Overall Tournament

Best Partnerships:

Here I take into account the teams situation at the start and the teams situation at the end. Effectively these are the partnerships that have made the biggest contribution to their team's score. For more information see this post:

Group stage
Super 8's
Knockout Stage *
Overall Tournament

Contribution made by bowlers:

Every wicket is worth about 5 runs to a teams total. So I subtract 5 runs per wicket, and then work out the economy rate. For more info see this post:

Group stage
Super 8's
Knockout Stage *
Overall Tournament

Activity rates:

This is the runs a batsman scores per delivery that doesn't get hit to the boundary. I explain this in more detail in the glossary:

(minimum 10 balls faced)

Group stage
Super 8's
Knockout Stage
Overall Tournament

*I have reached my page limit on this platform, so these pages are in a different format.

How to almost double Bangladesh's success rate.

In One Day cricket there are a few cliches. Some are general like "catches win matches." Others are more specific, like "keep wickets in hand for the final overs" and "it's a cardinal sin to get bowled out before the end of 50 overs." (not referring to the Filipino version.) However there is one factor that is regularly overlooked, run outs.

In their last 193 matches that ended in a result, Bangladesh have taken 116 run outs. In the matches where they haven't taken a run out they have won just over a quarter, 25.9%. In the matches where they have taken at least one run out they have won just under half, 48.2%.

A similar (but not so dramatic) difference is true for most teams. Here are the winning percentages from the last 200 matches for each team (I've excluded Zimbabwe as they have not played sufficient matches against reasonable opposition recently):

Team	No run outs	With run outs	Improvement
Australia	66.3	69.4	4.6
Bangladesh	25.9	48.2	86.1
England	40.2	60.2	49.7
India	50.6	67	32.5
New Zealand	44.1	62.7	42
Pakistan	49	62.1	26.9
South Africa	65.9	63.8	-3.1
Sri Lanka	52.6	59	12.2
West Indies	35.4	47	32.7
Overall	47.4	60.1	26.8

It is fairly clear that run outs make a significant difference to a teams winning percentage. Only Bangladesh and West Indies have losing records if they manage a run out, and then it's only by a couple of matches.

The surprising exceptions here are South Africa and Australia. South Africa are the team most likely to run someone out, taking .78 run outs per match, but they actually do better when they don't manage to run anyone out than when they do. There are a couple of possible reasons for this. Run-outs are often a result of pressure, and so when a team is under pressure they are more likely to get run out. However, if a team has a reputation as being very good at fielding, then teams take less risks. Taking less risks results in less runs. It may be that the times that South Africa don't get run outs is when their opponents are not taking risks, and as a result they are scoring less anyway.

Breaking the numbers down further, it is interesting to see how they work in more detail.

Here are the winning percentages by number of run outs. This covers 1634 completed innings, but there were very few innings with 3 or 4 run outs, so the numbers are less reliable for those two categories (4 run outs have occurred only 6 times in this time period.)

Team	0 run outs	1 run out	2 run outs	3 run outs	4 run outs
Australia	66.3	67.2	77.3	60	-
Bangladesh	25.9	44.4	58.8	0	75
England	40.2	65.1	47.8	57.1	-
India	50.6	66.1	72.7	66.7	0
New Zealand	44.1	54.5	65.2	100	-
Pakistan	49	58.1	72.2	100	100
South Africa	65.9	61	66.7	72.7	-
Sri Lanka	52.6	56.1	61.9	80	-
West Indies	35.4	43.6	50	66.7	-
Overall	47.4	57.5	63.5	72.2	66.7

If we look at the overall rate, we can get an idea as to what a run out is worth. Every run out roughly adds 8% to the winning percentage.

However this does not adequately explain the data, as there is a big fluctuation between the better teams and the worse teams. A better option is to look at the losing percentage. It turns out that every run-out reduces the chance of losing by 19%. For example Pakistan lose 51% of their matches when they have no run outs. If they have 1 run out that is reduced by 19% to 41.3%, so we expect them to win 58.7%. If we look at the table above they actually win 58.1% which is remarkably close.

This is nice, but what does it actually mean in a game situation?

Simply it means that creating, and then taking, run out opportunities is a very effective way for a side to win games. It may be an idea for teams to actually think about how they are going to achieve run outs, rather than just hope that the batsmen make a mistake. An example of this is perhaps Martin Guptill running out Marlon Samuels in Wednesday's game at St Kitts. Guptill was sharp enough to be able to run out Samuels without Samuels even setting off for a run. It was amazing skill on the part of the fielder, but also awareness of the situation and good field placement by Williamson.

This sort of skill is as likely to turn a game as bowling a wicket maiden or hitting a quickfire cameo is, and as such it is something that captains and fielders need to think about, and plan for.

Captain Sammy

I believe that Darren Sammy could be the best captain in world cricket.

I don't believe, however that he is yet.

As far as I can see there are three things that are required to be a good captain. The first thing is someone who can bring out the best in his players. The bowlers will bowl better and the batsmen bat better with a good captain who is setting good batting/bowling plans. The second thing is good decisions as to when to change his bowlers and when to declare. A captain that does this well can create extra pressure for his opponents and really make a difference to the flow of the match. The third thing that a captain needs to do is set good fields. This is an incredibly difficult art as there are a number of things to think about.

I believe that this is the area that Sammy needs to work on.

Over the time that he has been captain, he has managed to get most of his bowlers bowling better and his batsmen batting better.

Of the 6 batsmen who played a significant number of innings both with and without Sammy as captain, 4 have averaged better under his captaincy. Most of them quite significantly better.

Of the 8 bowlers who bowled both with and without Sammy as captain 6 have a better average with Sammy than they had previously.

He is clearly good at getting the best out of his players.

I have also enjoyed his bowling changes and decisions regarding declarations etc. It's very difficult to measure the ability of a captain at this, but he seems to do this well, exemplified especially by the pressure he put on Australia in the recent series.

The field settings however are a different story.

There are a number of things that a captain needs to balance out. One of these is how many fielders are in attacking positions, how many are saving singles and how many are saving boundaries. Another is what parts of the field need special protection, and where a batsman is likely to give up an opportunity. There needs to be a combination of homework, observation, psychology, intuition and good luck in setting a good field.

One key part of setting a field is playing with the head of the batsman. Stephen Fleming was a master at this. He knew what a batsman's favoutite shot was, and put 4 fielders there. The bowlers then made it as easy as possible for the batsmen to hit the ball in their favourite spot, but the field made it too risky. Saleem Malik was another who had a real ability to make the batsmen hit the ball where he wanted them to. It was a bit part in the success that Pakistan had under his watch. (Especially impressive considering he wasn't always wanting to win every match)

It is hard to measure statistically the field setting skills of a captain, but one thing that can be measured is how their opponents score their runs. If a team is scoring their runs in boundaries, it's likely that the field is up close. If they are scoring them by running, then it is likely that the field is set back. It's not a fool-proof assumption, but I think it is a fair one to make.

So I looked at all matches that had a result in the last 10 years, and saw if there were any patterns. I noticed that there was a difference in how the captains that won and lost conceded the runs. I've averaged the runs out to runs per 90 overs (ie. runs per day)

result	Boundary runs	Run runs	Extra boundary runs (%)
lost	144	141	2.1
won	131	115	13.9

Teams that win the match tend to have their field up more than teams that lose. This is not particularly surprising, as teams that are losing tend to set defensive fields. However the difference is more than I would have expected.

Then I looked at teams playing against Sammy.

Boundary runs	Run runs	Extra boundary runs (%)
113	145	-22.1

Sammy actually conceded less runs from boundaries than from running. He is very intent on defending boundaries, but at the expense of letting in a lot of singles. Captains that win matches only concede on average 113 run runs, but Sammy concedes on average 145 run runs.

So it appears that Sammy is too defensive of the boundary, and leaves too many singles.

But the big issue is in the 4th innings. He has had a few opportunities in recent matches to bowl teams out, and each of them he has not managed to take the vital wickets. He has actually had 7 chances to bowl at a team in the 4th innings. Here are the numbers:

result	Boundary runs	Run runs	Extra boundary runs (%)
lost	132	116	13.8
won	156	147	6.1
Sammy	107	173	-38.2

The numbers tell the story. He is so scared to concede boundaries that the fields are set well too deep.

If he can rectify this balance Sammy could be a magnificent captain. He makes good changes, gets the most out of his players, but really needs to set better fields.

Running between wickets

I have long been a believer that running between wickets is the most important thing in a limited overs cricket match.

More important than catching. More important than bowling, more important than hitting boundaries.

It is difficult to quantify this, but the focus on it has meant that when I look at statistics I look at them slightly differently sometimes.

One of the main things that I look at when assessing a batsman is their activity rate. This is the number of run runs (ie runs that did not come from boundaries) divided by the deliveries that they did not hit to the fence.

This statistic is a good guide to the form of a batsman. The ability to accumulate runs without really taking risks is really the sign of a classy batsman.

But I wanted to look at who was the best between wickets. This has in part been due to watching Azhar Mahmood playing for the Auckland Aces. He has batted very well, but his running between wickets (and fielding) has been awful. He scored a brilliant hundred against Canterbury, but there were about 6 or 7 times that he wasn't quick enough to get back for a second, and so the team missed out on a number of runs. (He also let in about 6 or 7 runs in the field).

He has been out run-out in about half of his innings in the HRV Cup, which got me thinking about accounting for a batsman's propensity to get run out when I'm assessing how good they are between wickets. It would be better again to check how often there is a run out when they are batting, because a bad call that runs your partner out is as bad as a bad call that runs yourself out. However that data is very hard to get, and so I have to use what I do have.

So I decided to work out a metric for running between wickets. I started with looking at who scored the most run runs per dismissal in ODI's (ignoring how they were out). A couple of the results were quite surprising:

(all figures here are over the last 5 years, in ODI cricket. I have only looked at batsmen who have faced more than 1000 deliveries in that time period)

Run runs per dismissal

Name	Matches	Runs	Run runs	Run runs per dismissal
RN ten Doeschate (Neth)	27	1282	750	41.67
S Chanderpaul (WI)	63	2549	1653	38.44
IJL Trott (Eng)	40	1798	1222	34.91
TLW Cooper (Neth)	18	864	540	33.75
MS Dhoni (Asia/India)	137	4762	2890	33.22
HM Amla (SA)	54	2705	1555	32.40
JH Kallis (SA)	77	3154	1904	31.21
MJ Clarke (Aus)	112	3871	2537	30.20
MEK Hussey (Aus)	115	3408	2274	29.92
JP Duminy (SA)	77	2273	1557	29.38

I had to look up Tom Cooper, as I really knew very little about him. It will be interesting to see if he can keep that up as the Netherlands start to play more matches. From a quick look there are a lot of players that learned to play their cricket in the Southern Hemisphere, Dhoni and Chanderpaul being the exceptions.

Next I looked at the activity rates:

Activity Rates

Name	Run runs	Non-boundary balls	Activity rate
Shahid Afridi (Pak)	857	1254	0.683
JP Duminy (SA)	1557	2520	0.618
MEK Hussey (Aus)	2274	3699	0.615
DL Vettori (NZ)	569	928	0.613
JR Hopes (Aus)	730	1194	0.611
HM Amla (SA)	1555	2665	0.583
DJ Hussey (Aus)	562	967	0.581
MV Boucher (Afr/SA)	636	1106	0.575
IJL Trott (Eng)	1222	2147	0.569
AB de Villiers (Afr/SA)	2156	3802	0.567

The name at the top of the list here was a big surprise. When you think of Shahid Afridi, running between wickets is certainly not one of the things that you think of. However he has scored extremely quickly from run runs. Looking at different time periods and in different forms of the game another couple of names that occur regularly are Prior, Pollard and Dilshan. All three are thought of more as big hitters, but are also very effective at turning over the scoreboard. (Although this may be partially due to opposition captains being happy to conceded a single to them.)

The next thing that I looked at was the runs per run out. There were a number of batsmen who were not run out once, so I couldn't provide an average. In the interest of comparison, I have counted them as having been run out once for the sake of the average.

Run runs per run out.

Name	Matches	Run runs	Run outs	Run runs per ro
AB de Villiers (Afr/SA)	97	2156	0	2156
Yuvraj Singh (Asia/India)	115	1689	0	1689
WU Tharanga (Asia/SL)	95	1477	0	1477
Mohammad Yousuf (Asia/Pak)	60	1332	0	1332
IJL Trott (Eng)	40	1222	1	1222
EJG Morgan (Eng/Ire)	70	1142	0	1142
V Sehwag (Asia/India)	77	1067	0	1067
E Chigumbura (Afr/Zim)	90	928	0	928
S Chanderpaul (WI)	63	1653	2	826.5
AD Mathews (SL)	62	799	1	799

There are a number of batsmen who have been very careful between the wickets. However I think it is probably stretching the truth a little to suggest that Yuvraj Singh is one of the best between the wickets in the world.

So I combined these results using a variety of formulations until I found one that seemed to give the right results. (I can provide it if anyone is interested, it basically multiplies the activity rate by a modified run runs per dismissals, giving a higher weight to run out dismissals). Here were the best runners using my scoring system:

Name	Matches	Average	Activity rate	Score
IJL Trott (Eng)	40	51.37	0.569	22.82
AB de Villiers (Afr/SA)	97	52.46	0.567	22.79
RN ten Doeschate (Neth)	27	71.22	0.542	22.41
Mohammad Yousuf (Asia/Pak)	60	43.1	0.537	20.94
S Chanderpaul (WI)	63	59.27	0.492	19.64
JP Duminy (SA)	77	42.88	0.618	17.94
A Symonds (Aus)	41	44.3	0.549	17.93
MEK Hussey (Aus)	115	44.84	0.615	17.46
MS Dhoni (Asia/India)	137	54.73	0.562	16.72
Misbah-ul-Haq (Pak)	77	44.26	0.529	16.28

So the top of the pile is Trott, de Villiers and ten Doeschate.

An extra statistic that I found interesting was who relied on run runs the most and the least. This is a list of the run run percentages for batsman, ie for every 100 runs they score, how many are not in boundaries. The two surprises there are how high Kandamby is (I've only seen him bat twice, and both times he seemed only interested in finding the rope) and how low Herschelle Gibbs is. Gibbs is so quick between the wickets it is unusual that he scores such a low percentage by running.

Name	Matches	Runs	Run runs	Running %
GD Elliott (NZ)	37	716	500	69.8
JP Duminy (SA)	77	2273	1557	68.5
P Utseya (Zim)	82	849	579	68.2
IJL Trott (Eng)	40	1798	1222	68.0
AR White (Ire)	51	655	445	67.9
SHT Kandamby (SL)	34	847	571	67.4
MEK Hussey (Aus)	115	3408	2274	66.7
...	...	...	...	...
HH Gibbs (SA)	54	1752	728	41.6
JD Ryder (NZ)	37	1094	452	41.3
AC Gilchrist (Aus)	37	1127	457	40.6
PR Stirling (Ire)	34	1349	541	40.1
ST Jayasuriya (Asia/SL)	70	1988	756	38.0
CH Gayle (WI)	73	2454	898	36.6
V Sehwag (Asia/India)	77	3269	1067	32.6

2011 End of Year Activity Rates

A batsman's activity rate is the runs scored per delivery not hit to the fence.

For example two batsmen have 10 off 10. One has hit two 4's, two singles and faced out 6 dot balls. He would have an activity rate of 0.25 because he hit 2 runs off the 8 balls that he didn't hit a boundary off. The second batsman hit one 4, two 2's and two singles. He would have an activity rate of 0.67 because he hit 6 runs off 9 balls that didn't go to the fence.

Here are the batsmen with the highest activity rates:

Test Matches (min 100 balls faced, average of 20)

Player	Matches	Boundary runs	Run runs	Activity Rate
MJ Prior (Eng)	8	234	285	0.544
GP Swann (Eng)	8	46	49	0.516
SCJ Broad (Eng)	7	140	99	0.452
DL Vettori (NZ)	4	120	178	0.401
Shakib Al Hasan (Ban)	5	208	243	0.395
DA Warner (Aus)	3	94	101	0.388
BRM Taylor (Zim)	3	154	204	0.370
V Sehwag (India)	7	230	154	0.364
GC Smith (SA)	5	156	166	0.360
R Ashwin (India)	4	110	72	0.348
HMRKB Herath (SL)	10	140	154	0.347
IR Bell (Eng)	8	478	472	0.346

It's interesting to note the prevalence of spin bowlers in the list. Swann, Vettori, Shakib, Ashwin and Herath as specialist spinners and Warner, Sehwag and Smith as part timers. As a spinner (although not in their class) I normally liked it when batsmen tried to hit boundaries off me (particularly 6's) as it gave me a chance to get them out. I didn't like them milking singles off me (unless it was a really good batsman, in which case I didn't mind them being at the other end). If this is common among other (better) spinners, then this possibly translates into why they are so keen on running.

One Day Internationals (min 100 balls faced, average of 20)

Player	Matches	Boundary runs	Run runs	Activity Rate
JP Duminy (SA)	15	152	411	0.688
Shahid Afridi (Pak)	27	250	212	0.688
KS Williamson (NZ)	9	100	170	0.669
AB de Villiers (SA)	10	208	259	0.652
MN Waller (Zim)	7	120	125	0.622
MG Johnson (Aus)	22	100	108	0.621
EJG Morgan (Eng)	16	176	267	0.611
DA Miller (SA)	5	48	69	0.611
MEK Hussey (Aus)	16	142	272	0.606
SK Raina (India)	29	332	390	0.601
F du Plessis (SA)	13	98	190	0.59
IJL Trott (Eng)	29	408	907	0.588
R Dravid (India)	5	36	88	0.583
IR Bell (Eng)	25	180	432	0.581
SPD Smith (Aus)	20	70	134	0.580

Again a number of spinners at the top of the list, with Swann, Botha and Ashwin all being in the unfiltered top 15, but missing out on not having a high enough average. This time the spinners and part timers at the top are Duminy, Shahid, Williamson and Waller.

Twenty20 Internationals (min 60 balls faced)

Player	Matches	Boundary runs	Run runs	Activity Rate
Misbah-ul-Haq (Pak)	5	26	58	0.879
KC Sangakkara (SL)	4	46	60	0.800
Umar Akmal (Pak)	5	44	67	0.761
TM Dilshan (SL)	3	94	42	0.737
SPD Smith (Aus)	6	12	57	0.722
LD Chandimal (SL)	3	40	40	0.714
CL White (Aus)	6	58	61	0.709
RG Sharma (India)	3	44	36	0.706
BB McCullum (NZ)	2	100	45	0.703
MJ Guptill (NZ)	2	60	47	0.681
Mohammad Hafeez (Pak)	5	86	77	0.664

There are not many t20 internationals, so there were a much smaller number of players face 100 deliveries. Misbah-ul-Haq is an interesting person to be at the top of the list, as he is not someone that I think of as being quick between the wickets. Likewise Sangakkara. Although both of them have made a test career out of eeking out runs and managing to release pressure. In the t20 game they have obviously found ways of doing this faster. Players like this are actually remarkably useful.

The Block-Bash players:

At the other end of the spectrum are the players who specialise in blocking the good balls and cashing in on the bad ones. These players don't see a lot of value in singles, and prefer to get their runs in multiples of 4 or 6.

Test Matches (min 100 balls faced, average of 20)

Player	Matches	Boundary runs	Run runs	Activity Rate
Nazimuddin (Ban)	2	76	45	0.153
MJ Guptill (NZ)	5	182	134	0.172
Naeem Islam (Ban)	2	38	46	0.174
Yuvraj Singh (India)	3	92	44	0.184
TMK Mawoyo (Zim)	3	156	154	0.190
BJ Watling (NZ)	1	20	22	0.195
Asad Shafiq (Pak)	9	208	201	0.197
SR Watson (Aus)	6	184	81	0.198
Tanvir Ahmed (Pak)	3	60	26	0.203
JL Pattinson (Aus)	3	44	44	0.206
Nasir Hossain (Ban)	4	122	87	0.208
CR Ervine (Zim)	2	56	40	0.211
NT Paranavitana (SL)	11	246	334	0.212

A surprising member of this list is Martin Guptill, in that he is probably the quickest between the wickets in world cricket. If he was to ever bat with Inzamam-Ul-Haq he could be turning for the third before Inzy was even thinking about the second. But he has tended to get bogged down in test matches recently, and he really needs to add an extra quick single finding shot.

One Day Internationals (min 100 balls faced, average of 20)

Player	Matches	Boundary runs	Run runs	Activity Rate
W Barresi (Neth)	10	126	123	0.339
R Rampaul (WI)	15	84	46	0.341
TM Odoyo (Kenya)	5	56	46	0.354
Ahmed Shehzad (Pak)	15	208	163	0.357
Imrul Kayes (Ban)	18	206	215	0.358
S Randiv (SL)	7	50	33	0.359
Shahriar Nafees (Ban)	11	96	129	0.365
AS Hansra (Can)	10	116	176	0.367
CH Gayle (WI)	8	132	70	0.368
BJ Haddin (Aus)	24	350	284	0.377
Usman Limbada (Can)	4	50	51	0.378
CO Obuya (Kenya)	8	138	166	0.384
V Sibanda (Zim)	13	262	216	0.385
Mohammad Hafeez (Pak)	32	578	497	0.391

Both of the West Indians in this list, Gayle and Rampaul, score their runs at a strike rate over 80, and yet are poor at taking singles. To be fair, when Chris Gayle is on strike, it's probably better for him to see as much ball as possible, so a quick single is often not as good an idea as blocking one and hitting the next ball for 6.

Twenty20 Internationals (min 60 balls faced)

Player	Matches	Boundary runs	Run runs	Activity Rate
J Charles (WI)	2	28	29	0.475
DM Bravo (WI)	3	54	36	0.529
AD Hales (Eng)	4	38	37	0.536
SR Watson (Aus)	5	150	45	0.549
DA Warner (Aus)	6	76	53	0.558
SK Raina (India)	4	80	35	0.574
CJ Chibhabha (Zim)	4	70	42	0.583
DJ Hussey (Aus)	6	28	53	0.596
EJG Morgan (Eng)	4	98	55	0.604
LMP Simmons (WI)	3	58	39	0.609
Asad Shafiq (Pak)	5	68	56	0.629

The name that surprised me this time was David Hussey. He seems like a busy player who is always looking for runs. On closer inspection, he was still scoring a large proportion of his runs in singles, but was generally having a bad run. Still some of his knocks were vital. His 25 off 27, with an activity rate of 0.6 actually carried Australia home for a win.

You should totally read

Warner-Dravid-Sehwag

Wes has done some good work here. :)

As an aside, I really hope that we don't hear a bunch of stuff about Peter Roebuck that is going to tarnish my thoughts about him. He was truly one of the great cricket writers, and his excellent analysis will be sorely missed. (even if I often didn't agree with him)

"England vs India" vs "India vs England"

In a series where one team wins comfortably, it can normally be expected that that team would score the most runs. I was interested to see that in the England India series in England that was not the case. In fact, Duckworth and Lewis decided the result of every game except one, and as England was always batting second, they had to score a lot less. England actually faced 421 less deliveries than India, that is about 1 and a half innings normally.

** Trivia Alert **
This was the second ODI series this year where a team got clean swept despite scoring more runs than their opponents - It also happened in the West Indies tour to Sri Lanka.
** Trivia over - back to statistics **

Despite playing shorter innings, England relied on the boundaries less than India, instead getting their runs inside the field. They ran about 58% of their runs, while India ran about 54.5%.

However If we look at the series in India, the results are reversed. India still ran about 54.5% of their runs, but this time England only ran about 51% of their runs. Each series the team that relied the most on boundaries lost the series.

The activity rates were interesting too. In England it was England 0.64, and India 0.54. In India it was England 0.45 and India 0.56. It is interesting, because the difference between the two teams at home and away was largely the running between wickets and fielding. Both of them scored a similar number of boundaries in either series.

It leads me to question if it is harder to judge a run in home conditions or away conditions across the board, so this was the next thing I looked into. Here are some numbers from the last 10 years:

team	run runs (rr)	run outs (ro)	balls faced (bf)	rr per ro	bf per ro
home	119488	682	275772	175.2	404.4
away	117718	746	281803	157.8	377.8

Now this is a quite significant difference, about 10%. It certainly brings up questions for further analysis. It would be interesting to see if this is true for other modes of dismissal, and which teams have the biggest difference between their home figures and their away figures.

A quite remarkable innings

Kane Williamson was somewhat overshadowed again in hitting his second ODI hundred.

His first came in a loss against Bangladesh. He was the last wicket to fall, caught at deep midwicket, with New Zealand needing 9 runs of the last 4 balls. His strike rate was a fairly disappointing 81.81

His second was in the same innings as Ross Taylor scored 119, and it was done without much big hitting or fanfare. Which really made it more remarkable.

His chances of a hundred looked dead and buried when Taylor got out, and Nathan McCullum was in strike in the last over. Williamson needed seven to get to his hundred, and there was only one ball left. But Ncube obliged, bowled a beamer, which Williamson hit for 4, and then (after a change of bowler due to repeated beamers) Williamson manages to run 3 on a push to mid on, requiring a dive to make his ground.

His innings was the second fastest century by a New Zealander (off 69 balls) and the second fastest by anyone to not have a majority of runs scored in boundaries (after MoYo's 68 ball 100 against Zimbabwe in 2002). This was the thing that really impressed.

He scored 11 4's and 1 6, meaning that he got 50 runs in boundaries, and ran 50. His activity rate (runs per ball removing boundaries) for the innings was 0.877 - quite remarkable really. It was a triumph for placement, timing and running between wickets, rather than the less effective brutality coming from the other end.

And yet very few people will remember it, for 2 reasons. 1. It was against Zimbabwe. And they are rubbish. 2. It was in a losing cause, in a dead rubber. But regardless, it was a beautiful innings, that perhaps is a sign of things to come from a prodigious young batsman.

The dangers of lazy cricket

I have had my first go at coaching a cricket team this year. I have previously coached 3 sports that I know much less about, but never cricket. I found the experience quite rewarding, and also quite frustrating. Most of the players that I am coaching are actually quite good cricketers. They have more athletic ability in their little fingers than I have in my whole body. It is a little upsetting to see me show one of them master something in 2 minutes that took me about 20 hours of net work to almost get. But the most frustrating thing is watching the games.

When I am watching there are three things that I get particularly upset with.

1. I dislike my captain setting defensive fields, and giving away easy singles.
2. I dislike fielders not committing themselves to cutting down a run.
3. I dislike lazy running between wickets, or a batsman hitting a ball hard to a boundary fielder for 1, instead of softly for 2.

These three things were all in evidence from the Indian team in the previous series. If I were Duncan Fletcher, I too would be a grumpy man.

In fact the Indian's were slightly better at hitting boundaries than the English. They hit 7.40% of deliveries to or over the boundary, while the English hit 7.37% While this is only marginally different, in some of the games the difference was quite profound: For example in Birmingham, England hit 7.1% to the fence, while India hit 9.6% and 12.3% of their deliveries to the fence. And still got thrashed.

The big difference was what they did with the other deliveries. While the main difference was that they didn't get out as often, the other thing was that they were much better at getting runs.

A statistic that I look at from time to time is the Activity rate. This is effectively the runs per ball that didn't go for 4 or 6.

Throughout the series India scored 1906 runs, but 1150 of them came in boundaries (over 60%). With the rest of the deliveries they had an activity rate of 0.213.

England scored 2643 runs, and about half of them came in boundaries - 1324. The English were much better at using the balls that they couldn't hit for 4, and their activity rate was 0.322.

Effectively that means that England's batsmen are going to be under less scoreboard pressure than their Indian counterparts.

Even having Tendulkar in your team can not save you from the dangers of lazy cricket.

Keiron Pollard and the World Cup activity ratings

Last night we saw an amazing innings for Keiron Pollard. When he arrived at the wicket, West Indies were in trouble. It was 130/3 off 32 overs. Devon Smith was looking about as comfortable as a penguin in the Sahara, and Ireland had the sniff of blood.

Pollard hit 5 sixes and 8 fours, and scored 94 off 55 balls. But interestingly he scored 62 runs in boundaries, off 13 balls, meaning that off the rest of his innings, he scored 32 off 42. Even if you remove the boundaries he scored at a strike rate better than 75.

His running between wickets had an effect on Devon Smith also. When Pollard arrived at the wicket Smith had a strike rate of 72.2 During the time that they were batting together Smith scored 29 runs off 25 balls. Pollard took the pressure off Smith, and he responded by batting a lot better. (Obviously he had got his eye in also, but the change in his attitude was quite evident watching the game.)

We all know how powerful Pollard can be. We think of the big sixes that he has hit. But the subtlety that he showed last night showed us that he is capable of being much more than a big hitting circus performer.

In his whirlwind 60 against the Netherlands, there were only 18 balls that he didn't hit to the boundary, and he managed to get 16 off those. The next step for him will be to repeat this against a test playing nation.

His activity rate (runs per ball not hit for a boundary) is far above anyone in the World Cup, but there are a couple of other interesting names in the list:

Name	Runs	Balls	Runs from boundaries	Activity rate
KA Pollard	154	83	106	0.787
DPMD Jayawardene	134	123	58	0.697
V Sehwag	254	195	146	0.667
AB de Villiers	266	247	120	0.664
Younis Khan	128	159	28	0.658
HM Amla	169	196	48	0.658
IR Bell	193	227	60	0.624
KC Sangakkara	252	281	92	0.618
AJ Strauss	298	299	136	0.609
IJL Trott	289	369	76	0.609
Tamim Iqbal	152	158	66	0.606
Misbah-ul-Haq	192	259	44	0.594
V Kohli	154	161	68	0.593
G Gambhir	128	143	52	0.585
RN ten Doeschate	148	165	62	0.57
T Taibu	117	140	44	0.566
BRM Taylor	140	154	62	0.561
KJ O'Brien	164	125	110	0.535
SR Watson	141	153	68	0.533
RS Bopara	106	140	36	0.53
Shakib Al Hasan	111	144	40	0.53
TM Dilshan	283	279	158	0.521
Umar Akmal	167	193	76	0.52
CR Ervine	113	133	52	0.504

The three players who have been near the top of a lot of the activity rate charts are Sehwag, Dilshan and Tamim Iqbal. All are in this list, although Dilshan is a lot lower down than usual.

The bottom of the list features a number of players from associate nations, but there are a couple of very good batsmen who have made it into the list also.

Sorted from lowest to highest

Name	Runs	Balls	Runs from boundaries	Activity rate
AS Hansra	142	264	72	0.282
W Barresi	99	154	52	0.333
A Bagai	102	180	44	0.343
CO Obuya	144	212	72	0.367
WTS Porterfield	106	169	46	0.38
BJ Haddin	84	116	44	0.381
MJ Guptill	192	251	104	0.388
DM Bravo	112	149	58	0.397
TLW Cooper	140	213	60	0.404
Imrul Kayes	111	149	56	0.407
CH Gayle	119	149	64	0.41
Kamran Akmal	118	169	52	0.423
P Utseya	86	150	24	0.431
EC Joyce	136	207	52	0.433
KP Pietersen	131	136	80	0.436
DS Smith	202	253	102	0.439
WU Tharanga	258	292	144	0.445
SR Tendulkar	213	222	126	0.451
GC Smith	87	151	20	0.459
PW Borren	86	101	44	0.462

Haddin has managed to feature in the bottom list for other formats also, showing that he is very reliant on hitting boundaries for his usually good strike rate. Also at the wrong end of the table is Martin Guptill. Watching Guptill he doesn't seem to have a reliable single scoring shot against spin bowlers. Accordingly the more that spin bowlers bowl against him, the lower his activity rate falls.

It wil be interesting to see if Pollard manages to keep up his extrodinary rate as the competition heats up, and also if the likes of Tendulkar, Smith and Gayle can get their rating up towards 0.5.

Bring back the Tosh?

It is almost like the Auckland selectors were doing a favour for the New Zealand selectors by picking Tim McIntosh for their one day team. After all this is a guy who three weeks ago had a domestic record that was decidedly average. He averaged about 23 in List A matches at the start of the season, and scored his runs very very slowly. And yet for some reason the Auckland selectors felt that he would be worth giving a go opening the innings in the domestic game. There was a train of thought that they were trying to get him a chance to show the selectors why he should be in the test team.

However in 5 innings for Auckland he has scored 313 runs with one not out, for an average of 78.25 at a strike rate of 95.71. Even more interesting was the final innings. He scored 161 off 138, with a stunning acceleration at the end of the innings. He scored 50 off the first 62 balls, with 1 6 and 3 4's, (32 runs that were run off 58 that were not hit to the boundary - activity rate of 0.55, strike rate 80.6) The next 50 runs took 40 deliveries, and included 1 4 and 3 6's (28 runs that were run off 36 not hit to the boundary - activity rate 0.778, strike rate 125) then he really accelerated and hit 61 off the next 36 deliveries, including 5 4's and a 6, (35 runs that were run off 30 deliveries that weren't boundaries - activity rate an incredible 1.167, strike rate 169.4)

I've noted before how poor he is at collecting ones and twos, so the encouraging thing with this innings is the way that he got the runs. He was probably assisted in this by having Lou Vincent as a runner for the latter half of the innings, and having the nimble Gareth Hopkins at the other end. However it is an encouraging sign.

The other thing to note is that his 313 runs include 282 from 2 innings, and 31 in the other 3. This again goes to show that once he is in, he is very difficult to dislodge. The thing that he needs to do if he wants to cement his spot in the team is to get his feet moving early now. This is the last thing that he needs before I will start the "bring back the Tosh" calls genuinely, rather than in jest.

Vettori's Innings

At the close of play yesterday, I had a quick look at Vettori's score. He had 38 off 59 with 4 4's. This gave him a strike rate of 64 and an activity rating of 0.4. I looked at his last 65 innings (roughly since he started batting well) and looked at every time he had made it to 20 deliveries, what his activity rating was.

Activity rating	Average
Less than 0.2	24.83
More than 0.2	55.54
0.4 or higher	65

His incredible rate of hitting runs continued even when he had Martin and Arnel at the other end, with his final total of 110 coming from 166 balls, and containing 10 4's and 1 6. This gave him an activity rating of 0.413.

He has generally scored his runs quite quickly, but his ability to turn over the strike, and score runs by running has increased dramatically throughout his career.

Range	Activity rating
1997-2002	0.246
2003-2007	0.306
2008-present	0.342

This puts him near the top of all batsmen since 2008:

Name	Activity rating
TM Dilshan	0.451
MJ Prior	0.389
V Sehwag	0.388
DL Vettori	0.342
RT Ponting	0.329
GC Smith	0.323
KC Sangakkara	0.317
Mahela Jayawardene	0.316
Harbhajan Singh	0.314
AB de Villiers	0.311

A surprising thing about this is how high Harbhajan Singh is. He always struck me as a batsman that scored most of his runs in boundaries, but it appears that he is more competent at hitting runs than I gave him credit for.

So far the Pakistani batsman have not found it so easy to find runs in the field, Azhar Ali has an activity rating so far of 0.2 and Taufeeq Umar has the McIntoshesque rating of 0.168.

It will be interesting to see if they can improve this as the innings progresses.

Duckworth Lewis as a prediction tool

A few years ago I signed up with bet365.com to see how good my cricket prediction skills were. I'm not really a gambler, so I quite liked the fact that I could make 20c bets, where the aim was really to see how good my skills are.

I discovered that I'm quite good at betting on cricket, but terrible at betting on American sports, Rugby League and Football. Overall the different sports have canceled each other out, I put in $60, I've taken out $75, and I have about $7 in there at the moment. (As I said I'm not a big gambler). My highlight was probably my very first bet, Bangladesh to beat India at $8.00 at the world cup.

One thing that I found to be quite useful was a score predictor that I made using the Duckworth-Lewis tables. While they are not fool-proof, they are certainly better than any method that I've found. They just need to be applied using common sense. If New Zealand are playing bump the score up a little (given that New Zealand bowlers are better at batting than New Zealand batsmen), if a minnow is playing drop the score down a little (non-test teams tend to suffer terrible collapses - tail often starts at 5 or 6)

The tables are also not much use for the first 5-10 overs, but the scores normally start to be realistic about over 15.

For example, in the South Africa - India game last night, after 20 overs the DL predictor had South africa getting 273 (they eventally got to 289) while after 20 overs it had India getting 161 (they got 154). These are fairly good predictions after 40% of the innings.

Another interesting game is the first match between Bangladesh and Zimbabwe from December 1. After 20 overs Zimbabwe were 84/3, with a DL score of 219 (they eventually got 209). Bangladesh were cruising at 76/1 (DL score 270). However a Ray Price wicket followed closely by a run out left Bangladesh in trouble after 22 overs at 83/3 (DL score of 205) and this turned out to be the turning point, as they eventually were bowled out in the final over for 200, falling 9 runs short.

It is also a useful tool to quantify contributions of partnerships. Just after de Villiers and Duminy came together it was 82/3 off 14 (DL score of 247). Just after de Villiers departed it was 215/4 off 36 (DL score of 335). The difference that their partnership made was an increase of 88 to the DL score, which is really quite impressive.

> As a side note their partnership of 131 contained only 36 runs in boundaries, and yet it came at a run a ball. More evidence of the importance of running between wickets (and fielding)

More on activity ratings

My last post looked at a batsman's activity rating (their runs per ball not hit to the boundary).

Here I'm going to look at some more figures to do with activity ratings.

I first looked at the last twelve years of test cricket (I'm missing some data for 1997, so I can only look from 1998 onwards). During this time there has been a noticeable increase in batsman's activity ratings. This may be due to a number of factors, perhaps the fielding is better now, so many shots that would have got 4 now get 2's or 3's. Perhaps captains are setting more defensive fields, and so there are more gaps, or perhaps the batsmen are just getting better at scoring ones and twos.

Year	Activity rating
1998	0.234
1999	0.232
2000	0.222
2001	0.238
2002	0.236
2003	0.240
2004	0.251
2005	0.252
2006	0.256
2007	0.266
2008	0.263
2009	0.276
2010	0.277

If you plot it on a graph (and I did because I'm a maths teacher) it has an incredibly linear relationship, with the annual activity rating increasing by about 0.004 per year.

The next thing that I did was to look at the the results for ODI's and twenty twenty internationals. The interesting thing here is that the same trend did not reoccur. The ODI numbers were fairly constant, between 0.4 and 0.5, while the T20 results show not consistency at all (possibly due to the format being so new, and it initially been seen as not very serious).

Year	ODI	T20
1998	0.491	-
1999	0.440	-
2000	0.450	-
2001	0.460	-
2002	0.459	-
2003	0.424	-
2004	0.450	-
2005	0.463	0.650
2006	0.436	0.570
2007	0.447	0.628
2008	0.461	0.560
2009	0.478	0.673
2010	0.480	0.629

The interesting thing here is that 2002 and 2006 both were significantly lower than the other years in ODI's. It might warrant some further investigation as to why this is, although 2006 was the first year that matches between non-test playing nations were considered ODI's, and games involving Bangladesh and Kenya were first recognised in 2002, so these could be contributing factors.

The next thing that I looked at was the ratings for each team for the last 3 years. With the exception of Sri Lanka, the ranking of the teams by activity is the same as the ranking of the teams by the ICC, and (with the exception of Bangladesh and Sri Lanka) it is a very good guide to the ICC ranking points.

Team	Activity rating
Sri Lanka	0.311
India	0.290
South Africa	0.280
England	0.278
Australia	0.276
Pakistan	0.250
West Indies	0.249
New Zealand	0.243
Bangladesh	0.226

I'll draw some more info out of it in my next post.