Using Added Value to measure cricket performances - Part 1

The palpable drop in air pressure from 41000 people collectively inhaling is something that is hard to understand unless you've experienced it. Dale Steyn was bowling to Grant Elliott.

Eden Park in full World Cup mode.

Elliott had been a controversial selection. In the first 5 matches he averaged 19.25 at a strike rate just below 82. That's hardly justifying the selectors faith in you.  However, an important innings against Bangladesh, followed by a breathtaking 27 off 11 against West Indies gave him momentum going into this match. Often the concept of momentum is a case of us over-fitting. We see a couple of good performances back to back and assume a causative effect, where there really probably isn't one. However, regardless of the causes, Elliott was playing the sort of innings that quickly made the critics forget that they had been calling for the coach's head for selecting him before the tournament.

There was a significant obstacle in his road to glory. Dale Steyn. Quite possibly the best bowler to have ever strapped on a pair of boots. Throughout history there have been terrifying bowlers. Fred Spofforth, Jeff Thompson, Andy Roberts, Waqar Younis and Brett Lee are examples. There have also been bowlers who could work a batsman out and exploit weaknesses unmercifully. Alec Bedser, Richard Hadlee, Wasim Akram and Glenn McGrath all shared this trait. In Steyn, South Africa had someone who was in both camps. Possibly only Larwood, Truman, Lillee, Holding and Marshall have been there like Steyn.

But now there was 2 balls left, and 5 needed. Steyn with his tail up bowling to Elliott on 78 off 72. Elliott had previously hit a bouncer for 6, and Steyn's last yorker had gone for 4. Eden Park's short straight boundary meant that bowling full was risky, and bowling short could ask for a top edge carrying for 6. Better instead to try to get him to hit to the longest boundary so Steyn opted for a length ball....

The palpable increase in air pressure from 41000 people collectively screaming with exhilaration as the ball clears the boundary is something hard to understand unless you've experienced it.

Comparing between eras part 2. The survey results

In the previous post I looked at some New Zealand batsmen throughout the years and compared them, by trying to take into account some of the factors that might have batting either easier or harder for them.

I did this by looking at the runs that each player scored at a particular ground, and then looking at how easy/difficult that ground was to score at during that player's career. After that I allocated each ground a modifier value, and multiplied the runs scored at each ground by that ground's modifier. As a result (for example) the 188 runs that Martin Crowe scored at the Bourda in Georgetown were worth 164.5, because (during Crowe's era) it was a batting friendly pitch. However, his 120 runs that he scored at Karachi were worth 135.1 because that ground favoured bowlers.

I wanted to try the technique across a wider range of batsmen, so I put a simple request on twitter, for people to send me their top 5 batsmen. The tweets started pouring in.

I need some crowd-sourcing help. I want a lot of top of head lists of the 5 best batsmen ever. Please reply with your 5 and then RT. Thanks!

— Michael Wagener (@Mykuhl) January 7, 2015

I received a few humerous replies such as 5 votes for Rohit Sharma, 5 votes for Graham Thorpe and my personal favourite:

@Mykuhl @TheCricketGeek Adam West Michael Keaton Del Boy Val Kilmer George Clooney

— Adrian Toomey (@adriantoomey) January 7, 2015

But eventually I had 159 serious lists of 5.

From the top 20 (plus ties) I then worked out their Normalised Averages. I left out two players, Barry Richards and WG Grace, as neither of their test careers were really the reason that people put them in the list. For both, test matches made up less than 5% of their first class career. I'll deal with them (and Charles Bannerman) in a future post.

Here's the list:

Rank	Name	Votes	Average	Norm Average
1	Don Bradman	119	99.94	101.03
2	Sachin Tendulkar	112	53.79	54.10
3	Brian Lara	108	52.89	54.41
4	Viv Richards	84	50.24	54.96
5	Ricky Ponting	55	51.85	52.50
6	Kumar Sangakkara	52	58.45	58.27
7	Gary Sobers	31	57.78	57.71
8	Rahul Dravid	28	52.31	52.73
9	Jacques Kallis	27	55.37	59.55
10	Jack Hobbs	24	56.95	63.01
11	Barry Richards	12	72.57	*
11	Wally Hammond	12	58.46	58.44
13	AB de Villiers	11	52.10	52.99
13	Steve Waugh	11	51.06	53.56
15	WG Grace	10	32.29	*
16	Graeme Pollock	9	60.97	59.91
16	Sunil Gavaskar	9	51.12	54.76
18	Herbert Sutcliffe	4	60.73	62.00
18	Dennis Compton	4	50.06	53.44
18	Martin Crowe	4	45.37	47.91
18	Adam Gilchrist	4	47.61	49.24
18	Allan Border	4	49.54	54.30

There are a couple of interesting things here. Less than 3/4 of people picked Bradman. Often they said that it was because they had never watched him bat, and that's understandable, but I would have thought his extraordinary average alone was sufficient to put him in the mix. You don't need to know much about batting averages to know that Bradman's numbers are almost unbelievable.

The tendency to only vote for batsmen that people had seen meant that players who had played since 2000 had to score at a lower average than players who had played before that. Here's a graph comparing the number of votes that a batsmen got with their normalised average:

There was also a tendency for people to nominate players who had done well against their sides. Most votes out of England included Brian Lara who hit both of hit triple centuries against England, while votes from India often included Ricky Ponting who averaged mid fifties against the Indians.

Here's the list ordered by their Normalised Average. I've added in two other older players who only got one vote each, Ken Barrington and Everton Weekes but who both had exceptional records.

Name	Average	Norm Average
Don Bradman	99.94	101.03
Ken Barrington	58.67	64.00
Jack Hobbs	56.95	63.01
Herbert Sutcliffe	60.73	62.00
Graeme Pollock	60.97	59.91
Jacques Kallis	55.37	59.55
Everton Weekes	59.46	59.39
Wally Hammond	58.46	58.44
Kumar Sangakkara	58.45	58.27
Gary Sobers	57.78	57.71
Viv Richards	50.24	54.96
Sunil Gavaskar	51.12	54.76
Brian Lara	52.89	54.41
Allan Border	49.54	54.30
Sachin Tendulkar	53.79	54.10
Steve Waugh	51.06	53.56
Dennis Compton	50.06	53.44
AB de Villiers	52.10	52.99
Rahul Dravid	52.31	52.73
Ricky Ponting	51.85	52.50
Adam Gilchrist	47.61	49.24
Martin Crowe	45.37	47.91

A couple of interesting things here are the way that players are rewarded for scoring on the harder pitches. Sutcliffe and Hobbs played together through a large part of their careers. But Hobbs was the one that scored the most runs when the conditions were the hardest for batting. As a result Hobbs' average increased by 6.06 while Sutcliffe's only increased by 1.27.

Jacques Kallis likewise scored a lot of runs at Newlands, which has been a graveyard for batsmen, and he has been rewarded for that. Kumar Sangakkara however, has scored a lot of his at the SSC, which is a place that batsmen have prospered, and so that saw his normalised average end up lower than his actual average.

I still have a number of players that I'd like to look at such as Victor Trumper, Bruce Mitchell, Zaheer Abbas and Andy Flower. But there's plenty of time for that in the next installment.

Tendulkulator

I'm sure that there will be tributes to Sachin Tendulkar all over the web at the moment. I wanted to do something uniquely CricketGeeky. So I've put together an interactive calculator. You enter in the 4 next scores and say if they are out or not out and then it will tell you where he will end up on the all time average leader board. The one joker in the pack is that Che Pujara is currently ahead of him, so if he has a terrible series, he might push Tendulkar up one.

I've excluded the supertest because, well, it was a bit rubbish and should never have been given test status.


I've done my best to lock it down, but it is a shared file, so if you find a way round the security, please don't vandalise it. Let everyone else play too.

Is Brendan Taylor doing too much?

Happier times for Brendan Taylor: captain, but not keeper

Zimbabwe have just come off a convincing 5-0 series defeat to India. While that result was not particularly surprising, the lack of runs from Brendan Taylor, normally their best batsman, was a surprise.

Some of that may have been due to India having done their homework on him. Duncan Fletcher is a clever coach, and will have been aware that Taylor is capable of winning games almost single handedly with a big innings. In 128 innings against good opponents (test teams or Ireland) he has 6 ODI hundreds. To put that in context, at a similar point in his career, Jayasuriya had 5 ODI hundreds. It would have been, therefore, negligent of India to have not had specific plans for Taylor.

But as much as that may have been a factor in this series (and also potentially in the last two against West Indies and Bangladesh where Taylor was also ineffective) there was possibly something else going on. In the last few matches he has been keeping wickets and captaining the team. Some players thrive when given the gloves and the captaincy, but most players find their batting suffers when they are both captain and keeper.

Batting first in ODIs revisited

Ravi Bopara - better batting second

My first ever post on this blog was about the benefits of batting or fielding in ODI matches. There's been over 2 years pass since that article so I though it was time to look back and revise the numbers. It's also interesting to see if any of the trends have changed with the innovations in the game in the last 2 years.

I've had to change my criteria somewhat as this search is over roughly 2 years, rather than 3, and hasn't included world cup qualifiers, so a lot of teams have played significantly fewer games. As a result I decided to look at any team who had played at least 15 matches. It means that the results for Ireland, Zimbabwe and Bangladesh are not quite as significant as I would have liked, due to the small sample sizes. However, it's better to have them in, and be able to draw conclusions than to not have them there at all.

Here are the numbers:

Team	Matches	W/L Batting	W/L Fielding	W/L Ratio
England	53	0.78	2.00	0.39
New Zealand	38	0.64	1.16	0.55
Bangladesh	29	0.42	0.72	0.58
Sri Lanka	66	0.75	1.28	0.59
Australia	60	1.57	2.33	0.67
South Africa	31	1.28	1.80	0.71
India	58	1.44	1.90	0.76
Pakistan	52	1.55	2.00	0.78
West Indies	53	0.64	0.76	0.84
Zimbabwe	23	0.37	0.33	1.12
Ireland	16	0.80	0.50	1.60

If the results were emphatic last time, they are remarkably so now. No team who has played more than 23 matches has a better record batting first than fielding first. Of the top 8, only West Indies does not have a winning record when bowling first.

New Zealand and England are the two teams that have the biggest difference between batting and fielding, so it's unsurprising that in the recent series every game was won by the team batting second.

The question also arises, is the difference due to the batting or the bowling. Are teams better at batting second, or are they better at bowling first. To assess this I looked at the whole team batting index for each team batting first and second.

Team	Matches	Batting first	Batting second	Ratio
Bangladesh	29	16.00	23.34	0.69
Australia	60	26.85	33.89	0.79
England	53	28.06	32.64	0.86
Ireland	16	20.91	23.35	0.90
Sri Lanka	66	25.60	28.58	0.90
West Indies	53	21.92	24.02	0.91
Pakistan	52	23.30	25.41	0.92
New Zealand	38	28.02	27.39	1.02
India	58	34.42	30.28	1.14
South Africa	31	32.71	26.48	1.24
Zimbabwe	23	23.87	18.38	1.30

We can see that New Zealand and South Africa are both actually better at batting in the first innings, despite being better at winning when batting second. This is very interesting, as it implies that for these teams the big difference is not the batting, but rather the bowling. Most teams are still better at batting second, but the difference isn't nearly as profound.

It also made me wonder about the batsmen. Who had the biggest difference between batting first and second in the last couple of years. I looked at every batsman who had scored at least 200 runs in each innings during the time period. As a result I found the batsmen who favoured each innings the most.

Bating first:

Name	Batting 1st	Batting 2nd	Ratio f/s
V Sehwag (India)	101.36	14.86	6.82
SR Tendulkar (India)	52.28	22.42	2.33
RA Jadeja (India)	35.60	16.32	2.18
JH Kallis (SA)	39.36	18.71	2.10
MS Dhoni (India)	70.62	34.19	2.07
IJL Trott (Eng)	49.90	27.22	1.83
BRM Taylor (Zim)	48.02	29.59	1.62
JP Duminy (SA)	39.70	24.52	1.62
Mushfiqur Rahim (Ban)	31.81	19.85	1.60
Mohammad Hafeez (Pak)	30.61	19.53	1.57
Younis Khan (Pak)	27.73	19.36	1.43
HM Amla (SA)	58.65	41.51	1.41
HDRL Thirimanne (SL)	27.77	19.81	1.40
LRPL Taylor (NZ)	46.09	32.98	1.40
KA Pollard (WI)	34.26	25.76	1.33

Batting second:

Name	Batting 1st	Batting 2nd	Ratio s/f
RS Bopara (Eng)	15.93	45.58	2.86
SR Watson (Aus)	28.49	74.07	2.60
AJ Strauss (Eng)	22.23	52.43	2.36
MJ Guptill (NZ)	22.57	52.07	2.31
V Sibanda (Zim)	19.20	39.17	2.04
Misbah-ul-Haq (Pak)	21.89	44.00	2.01
RR Sarwan (WI)	18.63	36.45	1.96
F du Plessis (SA)	18.19	32.92	1.81
MN Samuels (WI)	18.62	33.62	1.81
Shakib Al Hasan (Ban)	20.70	36.61	1.77
EJG Morgan (Eng)	28.61	47.12	1.65
AB de Villiers (SA)	64.62	98.64	1.53
V Kohli (India)	35.90	53.50	1.49
LD Chandimal (SL)	20.08	28.38	1.41
DJ Bravo (WI)	15.24	21.42	1.41

There is a theory that it takes a lot of experience to learn how to bat well in the first innings. Having Sehwag, Tendulkar and Kallis all in the top 4 probably backs that up. The numbers put up by Sehwag in the first innings are extraordinary. He's scored 655 runs, at an average over 80 and a strike rate over 120.

While the adage might be that 9 times out of 10 you should bat, the truth is that it's probably more sensible to have a bowl.

Mini-session Analysis First Test India vs Australia, Chepauk, 2013

Here is the final mini-session analysis for the first test between India and Australia at MA Chidambaram Stadium, Chepauk, Chennai

A mini-session is (normally) half a session, either between the start of the session and the drinks break or the drinks break and the end of the session. Occasionally a long session will have 3 mini-sessions where it will be broken up with 2 drinks breaks.

Mini-Session	Score	Winner
1-1a	Australia 64/1 off 14.3	Australia
1-1b	Australia 62/1 off 19.3	Australia
1-2a	Australia 38/3 off 17	India
1-2b	Australia 51/0 off 15	Australia
1-3a	Australia 56/0 off 15	Australia
1-3b	Australia 45/2 off 14	India
2-1a	Australia 32/0 off 17	Australia
2-1b	Australia 32/3 off 21	India
2-2a	India 34/2 off 10	Australia
2-2b	India 50/0 off 12	India
2-3a	India 51/1 off 14	India
2-3b	India 47/0 off 16	India
3-1a	India 21/1 off 13	Australia
3-1b	India 60/0 off 14	India
3-2a	India 75/1 off 13	India
3-2b	India 33/1 off 13	Australia
3-3a	India 82/2 off 24	India
3-3b	India 62/0 off 12	India
4-1a	India 57/2 off 13.3	India
4-1b	Australia 34/1 off 16	India
4-2a	Australia 32/2 off 16	India
4-2b	Australia 62/2 off 17	India
4-3a	Australia 47/4 off 16.5	India
4-3b	Australia 57/0 off 18.1	Australia
5-1a	Australia 9/1 off 9	India
	India 50/2 off 11.2

Final update, click here
India win the match by 8 wickets and the mini-session count 16 - 9

First drinks, Day 1: Australia lead the mini-session count 1-0

As there had not been a drinks break recorded, I decided the half way point in the session was after the fall of the wicket. Cowan and Warner were making an effort to keep the pressure on the bowlers. There's always a risk when you do that that you're going to either walk past one, or hit one straight to a fielder. Cowan did the former and as a result has looked like a bit of an idiot, but it was really a sensible risk to take. - Mykuhl

Lunch, Day 1: Australia lead the mini-session count 2-0

Australia lost a couple of wickets in succession, but they generally did well and stayed positive. If they had gone into their shells, and not looked to keep the scoreboard ticking over, the Indian bowlers may well have really tied them down. This match really rests on how well the Australian batsmen cope with the threat offered by India's trio of spinners. So far they have done quite well. - Mykuhl

Middle drinks, Day 1: Australia lead the mini-session count 2-1

It appears that Australia's batsmen haven't really handled India's spinners very well at all. Well, at least one of them. While Jadeja has been tight he hasn't threatened much. Harbhajan Singh has - Mykuhl

Tea, Day 1: Australia lead the mini-session count 3-1

Moises Henriques has managed to bat through more than an hour of difficult conditions with his captain on debut. He needs 34 more runs to have the highest ever score by a Portuguese-born test cricketer.

I've heard that the average first innings here is 285. Regardless of that, this feels like a very good partnership. At 164/5 Australia were looking very shaky, but they now are close to a score that keeps the game alive. - Mykuhl

Final drinks, Day 1: Australia lead the mini-session count 4-1

This is turning out to be another epic middle order partnership for Australia. Apparently the loss of Michael Hussey hasn't stopped this trend continuing. Australia are in the lead, but the 4-1 mini-session count isn't really indicative of the balance of the match, it feels more like 3-2. - Mykuhl

Stumps, Day 1: Australia lead the mini-session count 4-2

What an innings from Clarke. He has managed to carry Australia from the brink of disaster through to a respectable score. If he can put on another 85 runs with the tail, then Australia will be in a very strong position. - Mykuhl

Final drinks, Day 2: Australia lead the mini-session count 6-5

A much better day for India. They managed to knock off Australia's tail before lunch, and then have made steady progress with the bat. - Mykuhl

Stumps, Day 2: The mini-session count is tied up, 6-6

India are have shown a touch of the old and the new with these two partnerships. First it was Pujara and Tendulkar, then Tendulkar and Kohli. The three of them have restored the balance in the match. Australia are still probably slightly ahead, but this match could go either way tomorrow. - Mykuhl

First drinks, Day 3: Australia lead the mini-session count 7-6

A great period of pressure cricket from Australia. They managed to get rid of Tendulkar, and kept India to only about 2 an over. - Mykuhl

Lunch, Day 3: The mini-session count is tied up, 7-7

There's an old adage that batsmen should give the first hour to the bowlers, but they should make the most of the rest of the day. The Indian batsmen seem to have followed that advice. They were very defensive in the first hour, but then Dhoni and Kohli went mad and played like it was an ODI match. - Mykuhl

Tea, Day 3: The mini-session count is tied up, 8-8

Very good aggressive batting from India. They are giving themselves a genuine opportunity in this match now. - Mykuhl

Stumps, Day 3: India lead the mini-session count 10-8

Australia came back good right after tea picking up two wickets before drinks but after that it was one way traffic as MS Dhoni switched gears and went into his T20 rampage mode to help put on 109* runs in just 25.4 overs with Bhuvneshwar Kumar who did his part and kept the ball out contributing 16 runs to the partnership. - poshin_david

First drinks, Day 4: India lead the mini-session count 11-8

An outstanding tail-wag from India have got them into a completely dominant position. The match was quite close when the 8th wicket fell. 166 runs later the match had only 2 possible outcomes: an Indian victory or a draw.

Dhoni has occasionally won man-of-the-match awards at home matches for seemingly spurious reasons. If he doesn't win it from here someone else would have had to have put in an absolutely magnificent performance. - Mykuhl

Lunch, Day 4: India lead the mini-session count 12-8

It was looking like a positive start from Australia, until the last ball before lunch, when Warner departed. The match is starting to head quickly India's way. - Mykuhl

Middle drinks, Day 4: India lead the mini-session count 13-8

The vultures are starting to circle the Australia team. While their bowlers are decent with the bat in home conditions, tail-enders are often significantly worse away than at home. Top order players from outside of Asia have averaged better in Asia than anywhere else in the past 5 years. However tail-enders in the last 5 years have averaged worse in Asia than anywhere else. Australia need to bat 3 of the 4 remaining sessions with their top 6. However they've already lost 3 of them. They need a very big partnership now. - Mykuhl

Tea, Day 4: India lead the mini-session count 14-8

Australia's hopes are resting on the broad shoulders of Michael Clarke. They had a big partnership between these two batsmen in the first innings, and Australia will be hoping for a repeat dose. There is very little hope after Henriques. - Mykuhl

Final drinks, Day 4: India lead the mini-session count 15-8

The taking of a drinks break seems a little optimistic about the length of match remaining. Henriques will be looking for another 3 runs to become the top scorer in the innings. Nathan Lyon is capable of batting on a green top, but I'm not sure that his technique is as suited to a crumbling wicket. Australia need 17 more runs to make India have to bat again. - Mykuhl

Stumps, Day 4: India lead the mini-session count 15-9

What a fantastic partnership. Another 40 or so runs tomorrow and this is game on. More realistically there will be a wicket fall early and the the Indian batsmen will probably knock off the runs for the loss of 2 wickets. - Mykuhl

End of match, Day 5: India take the mini-session count 16-9

See previous comment. :-)

This was a commanding victory for India, but there were still some positives for Australia. Clarke and Henriques looked good, as did Pattinson and Lyon. But Australia still have a big mountain to climb. - Mykuhl

1000 test runs in a year.

Michael Clarke had a fantastic year in 2012. He scored 1596 runs at an average over 100. It brought up the question, how often do players score 1000 runs in a calendar year, and who has done it the most?

So I put together some data for all you trivia buffs out there

First the batsmen who have done it the most:

We can see that most of the players are from the modern era. The only players who are in this list who didn't play post 2000 are Taylor (retired '99), Border (retired '94) and Gavaskar (retired '87).

Interestingly Hayden managed the feat in 5 consecutive years, from 2001 to 2005, which is particularly impressive consistency. Mark Taylor is also quite impressive, because he only played test cricket in 11 years, so to score 1000 runs 3 times is outstanding.

The top few names are as we would expect for this sort of statistic. Tendulkar at the top, then Lara, Kallis, Hayden and Ponting. For me they are/were 5 of the 6 best batsmen of this era (along with Sangakkara).

The next list to look at is what countries have done the best.

Some countries play a lot more test matches than others. Of the 128 times that a player has scored 1000 runs in a year, only 11 times did that player play less than 10 test matches, and never less than 8. England have played 10 or more tests in a year 40 times, while Bangladesh have never played 10 tests in a year, so we would expect more English batsmen to have achieved the feat more often than Bangladeshi batsmen.

We would also expect batsmen from countries with easier conditions to do it more often than players who play half their matches on bowler friendly pitches. Since 1990, there have been more than 1.95 hundreds per match in India, Australia, England and Pakistan, but less than 1.7 in New Zealand, South Africa and Zimbabwe. As a result it's fair to expect there to be less South Africans, New Zealanders and Zimbabweans in the list than players from the India, Pakistan, Australia or England.

The surprise is that there are so many South Africans on the list. It is a clear example of their outstanding batting strength in recent years. Andy Flower managed it against the odds, having to play half of his cricket in Zimbabwe, and his team only playing 9 matches in 2000 when he achieved it. He was also keeping wickets that year, making him the only keeper to achieve the feat. He also lies second on the list for most runs in a year as keeper, with 899 in 2001, when he also only payed 9 matches.

The final thing to look at is how many times 1000 runs has been scored in any particular decade.

The trend towards bigger bats, shorter boundaries (except in the West Indies and New Zealand where cricket is being played more on single purpose stadia rather than rectangular ones) and more tests should lead to more players scoring 1000 runs in a year, and it has.

When Clem Hill scored 1060 runs in 1902 it was remarkable. Then Compton and Bradman joined the club in 1947 and 1948 respectively, with amazing years. However I don't think that Jonathan Trott scoring 1005 runs in 15 tests at 38.65 this year is quite as impressive an achievement.

It is another record who's significance has diminished somewhat in the age of the batsman, but that does not diminish from Michael Clarke's achievement. By any standard he has had a fantastic year.

Mini-session Analysis 2nd Test, Australia vs Sri Lanka, MCG, Melbourne, Australia 2012/13

Here is the final mini-session analysis for the second test between Australia and Sri Lanka at MCG, Melbourne, Australia

A mini-session is (normally) half a session, either between the start of the session and the drinks break or the drinks break and the end of the session. Occasionally a long session will have 3 mini-sessions where it will be broken up with 2 drinks breaks.

Mini-Session	Score	Winner
1-1a	Sri Lanka 36/2 off 12	Australia
1-1b	Sri Lanka 43/1 off 13	Sri Lanka
1-2a	Sri Lanka 55/2 off 13	draw
1-2b	Sri Lanka 22/5 off 5.4	Australia
1-3a	Australia 90/0 off 16	Australia
1-3b	Australia 60/3 off 23	Sri Lanka
2-1a	Australia 47/0 off 15	Australia
2-1b	Australia 41/0 off 15	Australia
2-2a	Australia 60/0 off 16	Australia
2-2b	Australia 34/3 off 11	Sri Lanka
2-3a	Australia 51/1 off 16.3	Australia
2-3b	Australia 57/1 off 16.3	Australia
3-1a	Australia 20/2 off 5.4	Sri Lanka
3-1b	Sri Lanka 43/4 off 13	Australia
3-2a	Sri Lanka 59/2 off 10.3	Australia
3-2b	Sri Lanka 1/1 off 0.5	n/a

Final update, click here
Australia win the mini-session count 10 - 4

First drinks, Day 1: Australia lead the mini-session count 1-0

Great start for Australia, after Sri Lanka chose to bat. Bird looks like a handy bowler. There is a little in this pitch, but I think it should settle down this afternoon, it doesn't look like the sort of pitch that will misbehave for too long.

Lunch, Day 1: The mini-session count is tied up, 1-1

Take a bow Kumar Sangakkara! He battled through reasonably difficult conditions and saw off some good bowling to bring up his 10000 career runs in the same number of innings as Tendulkar and Lara. He chose a good way to bring it up too, with a scorching square drive along the slow outfield to what is probably the longest square boundary in world cricket.

Middle drinks, Day 1: The mini-session count is tied up, 1-1

While Sri Lanka scored quickly enough that the formula almost gave them the hour, the two wickets were very big wickets. Australia are probably actually in the lead in this match. Sri Lanka need a very big partnership here, and probably one other if they are going to stay in this match.

Tea, Day 1: Australia lead the mini-session count 2-1

Absolutely awful stuff from Sri Lanka. There was some good bowling and (particularly) good captaincy, but it was just brainless by Sri Lanka. Within 3 balls of every break Sri Lanka lost a wicket. And a lot of the wickets in the match have been to particularly poor shots. Sri Lanka have tried to attack, but I think they have been just too aggressive.

Final drinks, Day 1: Australia lead the mini-session count 3-1

Sri Lanka are in a world of trouble. Eranga looks very poor against left-handers, Welegedera has had trouble with his length, Prasad has been erratic, and Warner and Cowan have been imperious.

I was asked earlier today who I felt the best batsmen I had seen were, and I mentioned Matthew Hayden. I don't think even Hayden had scored an attacking 50 while opening as good as this innings from Warner. The big feature has not been his power, but his placement. He has only faced 17 dot balls so far in his innings. Phenomenal batting.

Stumps, Day 1: Australia lead the mini-session count 3-2

Sri Lanka struck back well there. It started when Angelo Matthews removed Warner, and then Rangana Herath came on and started to build the pressure.

It could have been a lot better too. First Dilshan dropped Michael Clarke on 5 and then, 3 overs later, Sangakkara put down a relatively tough chance off Watson. If those two had been taken the match would have potentially been all square, but Sri Lanka couldn't take the opportunities, and are behind in the match as a result.

Australia are still well in control, but Sri Lanka are back in it.

First drinks, Day 2: Australia lead the mini-session count 4-2

A good mornings cricket. Both batsmen were looking to attack, but the bowlers were bowling well enough to keep them honest. Eranga in particular put both batsmen under pressure. He hit Clarke on the head, and generally had him looking quite uncomfortable. Australia will be very pleased to have come out of this hour without losing a wicket and having scored at about 3 an over.

Lunch, Day 2: Australia lead the mini-session count 5-2

Both batsmen brought up their fifties in that hour, but both were given lives in the same over by Herath. First Clarke should have been stumped, but Sangakkara couldn't gather cleanly. Then Watson edged a ball that hit Mahela in the chest, but was moving too quickly for him to grab. Sri Lanka are generally a good fielding side, and they will be very disappointed to have missed 4 chances so far in this innings.

Middle drinks, Day 2: Australia lead the mini-session count 6-2

Michael Clarke is relentless. Despite the bowlers generally bowling very well in this hour, he has advanced the score, and brought up his hundred. Watson is almost fading into the background of this fantastic Clarke knock.

Clarke's innings hasn't been chanceless, however. Herath has really caused him some problems. In this hour he edged one between keeper and slip. Sri Lanka have now given him 3 lives. He's not often one to pass up such generosity.

Tea, Day 2: Australia lead the mini-session count 6-3

Sri Lanka finally hung onto a catch. And it was contagious. After they got one they picked up two more. But it couldn't last: Hussey was missed by Sangakkara off the luckless Herath in the last over before tea. It was a good hour for Sri Lanka, but it's a long way back from here.

Final drinks, Day 2: Australia lead the mini-session count 7-3

Another good hour for Australia, but with a significant highlight for Sri Lanka, a brilliant catch by Rangana Herath to dismiss Hussey. Australia batted quite cautiously, but managed to score relatively quickly regardless. The Sri Lankan bowlers are starting to look tired.

Stumps, Day 2: Australia lead the mini-session count 8-3

Mitchell Johnson is working his way towards being back for the ashes. He has been sublime in this innings, looking almost completely untroubled throughout. It was Australia's day today. Sri Lanka are going to need to bat very very well in order to get back into this game. They really need to bowl Australia out quickly, then score something like 500 to have any chance.

The pitch is not nearly as easy as the score would indicate. There have been a couple keep low, balls have moved off the seam (even with the old ball) and some have stood up and bounced sharply. This has really been a fantastic effort from Australia, and they deserve to be in the lead.

First drinks, Day 3: Australia lead the mini-session count 8-4

Sri Lanka have managed to clean up the tail for the addition of only 20 runs. Another right hander dismissed by Eranga, although this one was not in the usual manner of caught behind the wicket. Now they have the small matter of knocking off the 304 run lead then posting a target.

Lunch, Day 3: Australia lead the mini-session count 9-4

If there was any doubt who was winning this hour has cleared it up. First Karunaratne was run out after turning blind. Next Dilshan hit a leg glance into his thigh pad and got hit at short leg. After that Mahela summed up his match by attempting to leave the ball, but just chopping it on instead. The final wicket in the hour was Samaraweera who was out plumb lbw. He reluctantly challenged, but it was to no avail. At the other end, Sangakkara is batting as well as anyone has this test. It was said of the New Zealand team's bowling in the 80's that it was like facing the World XI at one end, and the Illford 2nd XI at the other end. It must feel like that for the Australian bowlers at the moment.

Middle drinks, Day 3: Australia lead the mini-session count 10-4

Possibly the most futile drinks break in history, Sri Lanka effectively have only one wicket left. It looks fairly likely that Australia will win now.

End of Match, Day 3: Australia win the match by an innings and 201 runs and the mini-session count 10-4

And it only took 5 balls to wrap it up. This is the first time that a team has had an innings closed to lose a match after losing only 7 wickets. It's also Australia's biggest ever win over Sri Lanka. This match would have been much closer if the Sri Lankans hadn't been struck down with injuries (4 players injured, first Kulasekera in the warm up, then Jayawardene, Welegedera and Sangakkara), and also if they had taken their chances. It was really a case of poor concentration more than anything else. Sri Lanka lost wickets straight after every break except the final lunch break. They missed vital chances in the field. Then once the Australians got on top, they made the Sri Lankans pay.

Australia weren't as clinical or as comfortable as the scoreline would suggest, but they still played a lot better cricket than Sri Lanka and thoroughly deserved their win.

The news has come in that Sangakkara is out for 6-8 weeks, so this loss will have serious repercussions for the next test and the One Day Internationals.

Does Tendulkar do badly after breaks?

A while ago I was referred on to this article about Sachin Tendulkar having trouble after having a break from cricket. I get sent quite a few Tendulkar stats articles and normally I see them as a bit of a waste of time. There are a lot of articles and most of them are poorly written and make dubious statistical claims. There are some exceptions (Nicholas Rohde's contriversial piece springs to mind), but most are either Indian fans wanting to say that their man is the greatest ever, or anti-Indian fans trying to get a reaction.

When I read Jigar's piece, however it read well, and seemed well researched. My statistics antenna picked up, however when I read through his research, and wondered how significant his findings really were.

Here is a brief summary, for people who haven't read the article: Tendulkar has scored a large number of low scores immediately after returning from an injury or other extended time away from the game.

Jigar's theory was that SRT needed some time to get back to top form, and the troubles against New Zealand were simply because he hadn't been playing enough.

But I wanted to know if the numbers that he had provided were significant. The more I looked at them, the less certain I was. I needed a statistical tool to assess the significance.

To do this in a non-cricketing environment, the first call would have been to look at a confidence interval. Find a 95% confidence interval for the scores where Tendulkar was coming off a break, and, if his actual mean lay outside that, then we could say there was a significant difference. The only problem is that means and standard deviations don't really work with cricket. Not outs make things complicated. I've tried to develop a cricketing equivalent to standard deviation, but have yet to be successful.

My next port of call statistically would be to get an informal confidence interval based on median and inter-quartile range. The problem with this is that again not out's become very tricky to deal with fairly. If a batsman come in with 8 runs to win and scores 2*, how do you count that?

So I had to use a technique that I had heard about, but hadn't actually used myself previously: randomisation.

The idea with this technique is to see if a particular sample fits within the normal range for something. I attended a lecture where it was explained how it was used to test the distribution of berries in a forest and various other conservation related topics. The way that I approached it was this:

Jigar had taken out 47 innings that he described as being shorty after a break. So I looked at those 47 innings and found their batting average. Then I took a random sample of 47 out of the 773 international innings that Tendulkar had played (he's played since I started working on this) and found the batting average of the sample. I took 1002 samples (I intended to take 1000, but forgot to clear my first two test samples before running the program) and looked at how they were distributed.

The 47 innings that came after a break had an average of 41.8.

Here is a graph of my results (I grouped them by the nearest 0.25 of a run).

We can see that the idea of a set of 47 innings having an average of 41.8 isn't particularly unusual. There are a number of samples that were in that region.

We can also see that the distribution looks normal. I calculated the mean and standard deviation of the averages and looked to see how it fitted. Here's the graph of the distribution:

Given that it is so well modeled by a normal distribution, we can use the mean and standard deviation to decide if we can make a call.

The mean of the averages is 49.41. (this is slightly higher than Tendulkar's career average across all formats of 48.68, but close enough to use). The standard deviation was 8.24.

If we were able to make a call that Tendulkar was badly affected by a break, we would expect his average in matches where he has had a break to be at least two standard deviation lower than the mean. This would require the average to be lower than 32.2. Instead his average in the 47 innings that Jigar mentioned was 41.8. It is lower, but we can't really claim that it is significantly lower.