World Cup Simulation update 24th June

 Here's the update after the South Africa vs Pakistan match

Firstly, this pushed Pakistan's ranking back above Bangladesh's ranking, although they are both so close that the match between them is now predicted as 50.2% to 49.8%.

 Looking at the expected points, Pakistan have now jumped ahead of Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.

It's looking fairly likely that 5th place will be on 9 or 10 points, while 4th will be on 10, 11 or 12 points.

My simulation only uses net run rate as the tie breaker. Accordingly, there's actually a slightly higher probability of Sri Lanka and Pakistan getting through than this shows, and a slightly lower chance of England and Bangladesh.

It's takes a lot of processor time to improve the simulation, and it's likely to be less than 1% difference, but I might have a go at improving it once we get to the last 5 matches.

England are still the overwhelming favourite to be the 4th team to go through. There were still 41 out of the 50000 trials where New Zealand hadn't made it. So nobody is guaranteed through just yet.

If you have semi-final tickets - this is who you're likely to see.

The probabilities for Bangladesh and Pakistan being so low here are understandable. They both have about a 5% chance of making the semi-final, but, given that they both have about a 1/3 chance of winning each match against the top teams, it gives them a roughly 0.5% chance of winning the tournament from here. However, if Bangladesh, Australia and Pakistan win the next 3 matches, that number will rise.

It's starting to look like England's style that is so effective in series may not be so effective in one off matches. It will be interesting to see if that trend continues.

Preview - World Cup group match 5 - South Africa vs Bangladesh - The Oval

Today Bangladesh get their campaign underway, and South Africa get a chance to bounce back from their early loss.

This is predicted to be a win for South Africa, but I think the betting market are overstating the difference between the teams. Most of the bookies have an implied chance of winning of about 76% for South Africa, but my early model had them at 67%, and after their loss to England and Bangladesh's recent series win over West Indies (which looks more impressive now that West Indies have turned out to be quite good), the gap has shortened to 66.6% for South Africa vs 33.4% for Bangladesh.

The Oval pitch is one where there has been variety of conditions recently, so it's hard to know what a good score is until both teams have batted. Here's the historical graph:

The numbers have all dropped down by 2 or 3 runs as a result of the last match. 

One thing that does not play to Bangladesh's advantage here is the pitch. This is probably the bounciest pitch in England, and is more like a South African pitch than a typical English pitch. Bangladesh, however, play on probably the lowest, slowest pitches in the world.

If this match was at Taunton or Old Trafford, then Bangladesh may well be favourites. But not at the Oval. I'd expect South Africa to do well here. If they don't, then the semi-finals suddenly look a very long way away indeed.

A simulation to see who will win the World Cup

One of the main purposes of statistics is to help inform decisions. Cricket statistics are often used when deciding on selection of players, or (more often) arguments about who is the best at a particular aspect. They can help decide which strategies are best, what an equivalent score is in a reduced match (with a particular case of Duckworth Lewis Stern) or which teams should automatically qualify for the World Cup (David Kendix). They are often also used by bookmakers (both the reputable, legal variety and the more dubious underworld version) to set odds about who is going to win.

I decided to attempt to build a model to calculate the probability of each team winning, based on their previous form. This was going to allow me (hopefully) to predict the probabilities of each outcome of the world cup, by using a simulation. It didn’t prove to be as easy as I had hoped.

My first thought was to look at each team’s net run rate in each match, adjust for home advantage, and then average it out. That seemed sensible, and the first attempt at doing that looked like it would be perfect. Most teams (all except Zimbabwe) had roughly symmetrical net run rates, and they fitted a normal curve really well. The only problem was that Afghanistan was miles ahead of everyone else. The fact that they had mostly played lower quality opponents in the past 4 years meant that they had recorded a lot more convincing wins than anyone else.

This was clearly a problem. India and England both had negative net run rates, while Afghanistan, Bangladesh and West Indies were all expected to win most of their matches.

I then tried a different approach, based off David Kendix’s approach of using each result to adjust a ranking. But rather than having a ranking that was based off wins, I based it off net run rate. So if a team had an expected net run rate of 0.5, and another had an expected net run rate of 0.6, the first team would have an expected net run rate of -0.1 for their match. If they did better than that, they went up, and if they did worse than that, they went down.

However, I found that some results ended up having too much bearing. If I made it sensitive to a change in the results, it ended up changing way too much based off one big loss/win. England dropped almost a whole net run per over based on the series in the West Indies. So this was clearly not a good option.

Next, I decided to try using logistic regression, and seeing how that turned out. Logistic regression is a way of determining probabilities of events happening if there are only two outcomes. To do that, I removed every tie or match with no result, and set to work building the models.

My initial results were exciting. By just using the team, opposition and home/away status, I was able to predict the results of the previous three world cups quite accurately using the data from the preceding 4 years. (I could not go back further than that, as they included teams making their ODI debut, and there was accordingly no data to use to build the model.

The results were really pleasing. I graphed them here, grouped to the nearest 0.2 (ie the point at 0.6 represents all matches that the model gave between 0.5 and 0.7 as the chance for a team to win), compared to the actual result for that match. It seems that they slightly overstate the chance of an upset (possibly due to upsets being more common outside world cups, where players tend to be rested against smaller nations), but overall they were fairly reliable, and (most importantly) the team that the model predicted would win, generally won.

I could then use this to give a ranking of each team that directly related to their likelihood of winning against each other. The model gave everything in relation to Afghanistan, with the being 0, and any number higher than 0 being how much more likely a team was to win against the same opponent as Afghanistan. (Afghanistan was the reference simply because they were first in the alphabet).

This turns out to be fairly close to the ICC rankings. So that was encouraging.

I tried adding a number of things to the model (ground types, continents, interactions, weighting the more recent matches more highly) but the added complexity did not result in better predictions when I tested them, so I stuck to a fairly simple model, only really controlling for home advantage.

Next I applied the probabilities to every match and found the probabilities of each team making the semi-finals.

The next step was to then extend the simulation past the group stage, and find the winner.

After running through the simulation a few more times, I came out with this:

A couple of points to remember here: every simulation is an estimate. The model is almost certainly going to estimate the probabilities incorrectly, but it will get them close, and they will be close enough to give a good estimate of the actual final probabilities. It is also likely to overstate Bangladesh’s ability due to their incredible home record; overstate Pakistan’s ability as a lot of neutral matches for them they have had a degree of home advantage in UAE; and understate West Indies, due to them having not played their best players in a lot of matches in the past 4 years. But these are not likely to make a massive difference to the semi-finalist predictions.

Given this, I’d suggest that if you are wanting to bet on the winner of the world cup, these are the odds that I would consider fair for each team:

I will try to update these probabilities periodically throughout the world cup, and report on their accuracy.

Win the toss - bowl

Everyone bowls first if they win the toss in a test in New Zealand, but should they?

It seems to be established wisdom that bowling first in New Zealand is the right thing to do, but I’m interested to see if the numbers play that out. The first thing that people would want to look at is the results. I’ve first of all limited to the last 5 years, because that’s the period in which teams have always chosen to bowl first.

	Won	Lost	draw	Total
Bowl first	8	6	7	21
Probability	0.381	0.286	0.333	1
CI	0.173-0.589	0.093-0.479	0.134-0.535

While the team bowling first has won 33% more often than the team, that’s only 2 out of 21 matches difference. We know that if we had a perfectly fair three sided coin (hard to imagine, but go with me) and we flipped it 21 times, it would actually be very unlikely for it to land exactly 7 times on each side. (Just under 4% probability). Given the data that we have, and assuming that it tells the story about all pitches in New Zealand, we can say that if you bowl first, the probability of winning is likely to be between 17.3% and 58.9%, while the probability of losing is between 9.3% and 47.9%. These are massive confidence intervals, and there’s no way that we can make a call statistically from them. We would need to see more than a difference of two before we could statistically say that there is a difference in the expected result based if you batted or bowled first.

So perhaps the issue is the small sample size.

I could extend to all tests in the last 40 years in New Zealand.

	Won	Lost	draw	Total
Bowl first	45	42	56	143
Probability	0.315	0.294	0.392	1
CI	0.239-0.391	0.219-0.369	0.134-0.535

The difference in the experimental probability is 0.021, but the margin of error is much larger. We would need to have a difference of about 0.114 before we could say that there’s a difference statistically.

However this data also includes situations where teams have won the toss and chosen to bat. So eliminating those might make a difference…

	Won	Lost	draw	Total
Bowl first	29	28	34	91
Probability	0.319	0.308	0.374	1

At this point it’s pretty clear that winning or losing is not decided by the toss. Teams who have lost the toss and been sent in have won 28 as opposed to losing 29. We need to look deeper if we’re going to find anything.

I decided to look at what the normal score was in the first and second innings. If bowling first was the right move, then we’d expect the second innings to be more productive than the first.

It seems that it’s more the other way round. I’ve looked at batting average for the innings rather than score to account for declarations. (540/6 should be worth more than 550 all out).

In the first innings, we’d expect teams to get about 350 and in the second we’d expect them to get about 300. Interestingly, there’s actually a statistical difference here. We can say that teams tend to score more in the first innings than in the second innings.

This suggests that all the hype that says that teams should always bowl first in New Zealand is just that: hype. There’s no statistical evidence that says that bowling first is better than batting first, and – strangely – there is some that suggests batting first actually might be better.

Updated QF prediction chart

In my previous post I ran a simulation to find out potential quarter-final places. I received some criticism for having England so low, and Bangladesh so high, but events over the past 48 hours have shown that the respective probabilities of the two teams qualifying may not have been so far off.

The program that I wrote to do the simulation was corrupted when my computer crashed and I foolishly hadn't saved it, so I've written a different one to re-calculate. This time I made a couple of modifications. I moved from an additive model for run rates to a multiplicative one, as that seemed to be more sensible (teams are realistically a % better than other teams, rather than a fixed number of runs better. We would expect the margins to blow out more in terms of runs on better batting pitches than on difficult tracks).

I also slightly reduced the standard deviation of the simulation by moving it to one quarter of the mean rather than one third. This again made the results seem more sensible. There were too many teams scoring over 400 or under 100 previously.

Here are the new results. This table shows the probability of each team qualifying in position 1, 2, 3 or 4 in their group, and then the total probability of qualifying. Again I have not factored rain into this, and with Cyclone Pam heading towards New Zealand that may be a little optimistic.

Team	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	Quarters
New Zealand	1	0	0	0	1
Australia	0	0.976	0.024	0	1
Sri Lanka	0	0.024	0.9725	0.0035	1
Bangladesh	0	0	0.0035	0.9965	1
-	-	-	-	-	-
India	1	0	0	0	1
South Africa	0	0.976	0.024	0	1
Pakistan	0	0.017	0.664	0.1165	0.7975
Ireland	0	0.007	0.312	0.1405	0.4595
West Indies	0	0	0	0.743	0.743

The potential group results look like this:

Group A

NZ Aus SL Ban	0.9725
NZ SL Aus Ban	0.024
NZ Aus Ban SL	0.0035

Group B

Ind SA Pak WI	0.5295
Ind SA Ire WI	0.1985
Ind SA Pak Ire	0.1345
Ind SA Ire Pak	0.1135
Ind Pak SA WI	0.011
Ind Pak SA Ire	0.006
Ind Ire SA WI	0.004
Ind Ire SA Pak	0.003

The three interesting potential quarter final match-ups to watch for here are

SA vs Aus	4.7%
Ind vs SL	0.35%
Ire vs Ban	0.02%

In reality the probabilities of Ireland vs Bangladesh and Australia vs South Africa are higher, as they are both much more likely if rain starts to fall.

World-cup quarter finals simulation

After Pakistan's tremendous win over South Africa, and Ireland's remarkable victory over Zimbabwe, the make up of the quarter finals is not really much clearer.

They question as to who is likely to be going through, and who will play whom has been the subject of many, many twitter conversations.

I thought it might be helpful to run a simulation to look at some of the possibilities.

I used Microsoft Excel as it's quite convenient. I used the scores already made in this tournament to decide the probable scores. For each team I got their average rpo scored in relation to the overall group run rate, and their average conceded in relation to the overall. Hence if a team in group A averaged scoring 5.5 rpo and conceded 5.3 rpo, they got values of +0.4 for batting and +0.2 for bowling (as the average rpo in group A has been 5.1 so far). From that point I then used an inverse normal, with a random number between 0 and 1 for the area, the group run rate plus the batting run rate modifier and the other team's bowling run rate modifier as the mean. For the standard deviation, I used the smallest of one third of the mean and 1.6. This allowed me to make sure there was (almost) no chance of a team getting a negative score, but that the scores weren't going to blow out too much.  I used 1.6 as that's the standard deviation of all innings run rates this tournament..  This gave me a 50 over score for each team, and so which ever was ahead got the points for the win.

There are a few limitations with this method. I didn't take into account the quality of the teams that each side had faced. England has played Australia, New Zealand and Sri Lanka, but has yet to play Bangladesh or Afghanistan. Their numbers are not going to necessarily show how well they will do against less fancied opponents. Likewise no adjustments were made for the pitch that the match is being played on. We know that South Africa have tended to favour playing on bouncier tracks, so an innings at the 'Gaba won't necessarily tell us much about how they would go in Dunedin. I also haven't taken into account player strengths. Bangladesh's batsmen tend to struggle against tall bowlers, such as Finn and Woakes. England can expect that those two bowlers will perform better than average against Bangladesh, and hence their team is likely to do better than the numbers would suggest.

Another major limitation is that I haven't made provision for rain. That would obviously throw off all calculations. However, given the limited information I felt that a more simple model was best.

I decided to do 2000 trials, so that I could feel that the major source of uncertainly was the assumptions rather than the natural sampling variability.

First I found the probability of the different teams making the quarter finals with my simulation:

Team	Probabiity
New Zealand	100%
Australia	100%
Sri Lanka	99.95%
Bangladesh	82.51%
England	17.54%
-	-
India	100%
South Africa	100%
Pakistan	74.71%
Ireland	61.82%
West Indies	63.47%

We can see that Pool A has one crucial match (England vs Bangladesh)
Pool B, however, is still wide open. Ireland vs Pakistan is the last game of the round robin, and it's shaping up to potentially be one that has 3 team's fortunes riding on the result.

If West Indies make the final 8, they will almost definitely face New Zealand. It's very unlikely that New Zealand will not end up on top of Pool A, and impossible that West Indies will end up 3rd or higher in pool B.

Here's the full results for all possible matchups

Pool A	Pool B	Probability
New Zealand	Pakistan	14.99%
New Zealand	South Africa	0.35%
New Zealand	Ireland	21.23%
New Zealand	West Indies	63.44%
Australia	India	2.30%
Australia	Pakistan	43.11%
Australia	South Africa	27.57%
Australia	Ireland	27.02%
Sri Lanka	India	18.18%
Sri Lanka	Pakistan	15.83%
Sri Lanka	South Africa	53.75%
Sri Lanka	Ireland	12.19%
Bangladesh	India	64.74%
Bangladesh	Pakistan	0.75%
Bangladesh	South Africa	15.88%
Bangladesh	Ireland	1.15%
England	India	14.79%
England	Pakistan	0.05%
England	South Africa	2.45%
England	Ireland	0.25%

I'll redo this after tomorrow's results, and then again on Monday.

The most likely scenario at the moment is India to play Bangladesh, Australia to play Pakistan, South Africa to play Sri Lanka and New Zealand to play West Indies.

I've updated this here

South Africa vs Zimbabwe - things to watch for

Here are 5 things I'm going to be watching for in this match.

1. I really enjoy watching Elton Chigumbura. He's the sort of player who plays to win the match, rather than playing to have a good average. He gives himself the difficult jobs, and then puts everything into them.

2. Will Zimbabwe get Amla early. The Zimbabwean attack is quite suited to most New Zealand grounds, but if they don't get Amla early, then they will struggle to get him at all.

3. Quinton de Kock - can he rein his game in against the slower paced (but subtle and tricky) opening attack of Zimbabwe.

4. Brendan Taylor - Has he regained his touch that made him one of the best batsmen in the world in 2011.

5. South Africa's movement off the ball in the field. De Villiers has made it clear that he wants to see his team moving around more off the ball, like the New Zealand players do. This will be a chance to see if his talk has worked.

Match 2, NZ vs South Africa preview

Trent Boult may be a key player in match 2

We now have a little more information about Bay Oval, and what it's all about.  We also have seen both teams play.  And really, we don't actually know much more.

Here are some things that I noticed, and some battles to look forward to.

1. Trent Boult vs Quentin de Kock.  de Kock is a good batsman, in good form, but he looked somewhat clueless against Boult, and it looks like he will need to develop a better plan as to how to bat against him.

2. Vernon Philander vs Martin Guptill. Guptill looked completely out of form in the first game, but that's at odds with how well he played in the CPL just recently. Often a batsman looks out of form when a bowler is bowling in places that makes it difficult for him to score.  I think that is what actually happened in the first match. It will be interesting to see if Guptill has managed to figure out how to get some runs off Philander's bowling.

3. Kyle Mills vs Hashim Amla. If Mills plays in this match, it will be interesting to see if he can repeat the dose against Amla. Mills bowled 21 deliveries to Amla, and he managed to only score 12 before getting out. And those 12 mostly came from streaky, un-Amla like shots. Conventional wisdom would say that Amla's too good to repeat that performance, but Mills is a very crafty bowler, and his successes against Chris Gayle say that he is capable of targeting a player and really getting on top of them.

4. Brendon McCullum vs Morne Morkel.  McCullum backs himself to dominate anyone, but he has always found Morkel a difficult bowler to face. Morkel got him in the first match, and McCullum will not want a repeat in the second.

5. Jimmy Neesham vs Dale Steyn. Steyn will be particularly grumpy with the way that Neesham approached their confrontation in the first match. Neesham didn't look phased by the great bowler at all. It will be interesting to see what lengths Steyn bowls to him today.

Betting tips.

If I was betting $50 on this match, here's where it would go:

1. Total match run outs $10 on over 1.5 at $2.80
There were non in the first match, but there were 3 close calls, and that was without the sort of scoreboard pressure that normally brings about run outs. McCullum sets fields trying to get run outs, and ABdV has been working hard on getting the South African fielding back to where they were in years gone by.

2. South Africa top run scorer $10 on AB de Villiers at $5.00
de Villiers has a phenomenal record in the second match of a series. Over the past 3 years he's only had 2 times that I could see that he's hit less than 50 in the second match in a series. He's hit 3 centuries and 2 not out fifties.  He's also got the wood on most of the New Zealand bowlers.

3. New Zealand top run scorer $10 on Tom Latham at $7.50
Latham looked fantastic, and would have been likely to got a big score other than a piece of bad luck against Duminy.

4. Hashim Amla runs $10 on 0-20 at $2.55
I think opening against a line up featuring (at least 2 of) Mills, Southee and Boult is a very difficult prospect.

5. Head to Head $10 on New Zealand at $2.60
New Zealand are a better team than they showed in the last game.  Look for a big step up.

All odds are from NZ TAB and are accurate at time of writing.

Match preview 1st ODI NZ vs SA, Mount Maunganui,

The circular Bay Oval, Mount Maunganui

The countdown to the World Cup finally feels like it's started for real. South Africa are touring New Zealand for 3 ODI matches that are more a means to an end than an end in themselves.  Both teams say that they want to win these matches, and the players who get on the field definitely will.  But they are both aware that the real target is the World Cup.

Surprisingly this match is being played at Bay Oval in Mount Maunganui. It's the 4th ground in the Northern Districts area to hold an international match, and is not going to be used in the World Cup.  However, it is in New Zealand's fastest growing region, and is likely to be a place where a lot of international cricket will be played in the future.  It is also on the east coast, so it is a lot less likely to be rained off in spring time than somewhere like Auckland or Wellington.

As there has never been an international at the ground, there are some aspects that are hard to predict. A par score for the ground really has not been established at this level, and almost all of the players will go in without too much baggage (positive or negative) at the ground.

There were a number of warm up matches played there, and we can tell some things from those.

Firstly, bowlers that tend to bang the ball in were punished.  It seems that the fuller the pace bowlers bowled, the better they did. Secondly the scores were all over the place. Some teams were scoring 300+ while others were struggling to pass 150.  Also, the spin bowlers took lots of wickets but (with two exceptions) went for lots of runs. The two exceptions were Daniel Vettori and local boy Jono Boult (brother of Trent)

The ground is an interesting shape, particularly given it's name of Bay Oval. It is a perfect circle. The boundary is 68m from the centre of the pitch in every direction. This means that it has a straight boundary of 79m and a square boundary of 67m. This obviously favours players who are good at playing the hook, cut and scoop shots (which probably explains why bowlers who bang the ball in get punished).

I've looked through the records of the players at similar shaped, coastal grounds in the past 3 years and there are three names that feature at the top of the list: de Villiers, McLaren and well ahead of all else, du Plessis. The top New Zealand name is Williamson (who is not playing) followed by Neesham.

If I was looking to make a couple of bets, I'd look at putting some money on both du Plessis and McLaren to be top scorer. While it's guaranteed that at least one of these bets will fail, I think it would be a sensible move to cover both.  At time of writing, du Plessis is paying $4.50 and McLaren is paying $26 to be top scorer at the NZ TAB. I think this is good money for both of them. du Plessis has gone past 90 in 5 of his last 9 ODI innings. That's compelling form. I'd look at McLaren for a different reason.

The ball is likely to swing at Bay Oval. It's overcast, with showers likely. The tide will turn at about 11:00, an normally the ball swings around the turn of the tide (either just before or just after). Trent Boult grew up in Tauranga so this is his home ground. If he starts getting the ball to go round corners (as he can) he is almost unplayable. In the matches at the Champions League T20 when the ball swung, he was almost unplayable. To go with that, Kyle Mills has been a beast at similar grounds in recent times. He's averaged 11 at an economy rate of under 4. To back that up, in one of the warm up matches (for Auckland against Afghanistan) he took 2/14 off 7 overs. Mitchell McLenaghan is not in such form, but he has a good record against South Africa, and the ability to hurry up batsmen.  I think it's actually quite likely that New Zealand will take early wickets, and South Africa will need to rebuild. That will create a platform for someone like McLaren to succeed.

As far as New Zealand's batting goes, it is a bit difficult to make too many predictions.  Despite his game being suited to grounds like this, Brendon McCullum has never really been successful at this sort of ground. Neesham is opening for the first time, so that will test his technique more than coming in at 6 does, especially against Steyn, Morkel and Philander (Steyn has the second best figures at grounds like this, after Mills, with an average about 18 and an economy rate just under 5). The other interesting selection is Dean Brownlie. Brownlie is particularly good off the back foot, and has had some success against South Africa, but in every large innings that he has put together, he was dropped early (often more than once). If he gets started, he might be worth putting some money on for NZ top scorer, but I certainly wouldn't back him until he made it to 25.

The other thing to watch out for in this match will be the rain.  There may be some showers early on, but it's quite likely that there will be some serious rain in the evening. This means that there is a reasonable chance that the game will be called off early, and Duckworth-Lewis will need to be used.  I'm a big fan of the Duckworth-Lewis system, but it does hurt teams with good batting depth.  The two teams in world cricket that it works against the most are these two. As a result, the team that bats first is likely to have a slight advantage if it rains.

If I had $50 to bet on this match, I'd suggest these:

1. AB De Villiers to outscore Hashim Amla $10 at $1.92
2. Total match run outs over 1.5 $10 at $3.00
3. Faf du Plessis top South African scorer $15 at $4.50
4. Ryan McLaren top South African scorer $5 at $26.00
5. Whoever bats first to win the match $10 at what ever the odds are post toss.

(all odds from the NZ TAB at the time of writing)

Kallisculator

I'm sure that there will be tributes to Jacques Kallis all over the web at the moment. I wanted to do something uniquely CricketGeeky. So I've put together an interactive calculator, similar to the Tendulkulator that I did when Tendulkar retired. You enter in the runs and say if they are out or not out, then the basic bowling figures and it will tell you where he will end up on the all time batting and all-rounder's average leader board. You will need to scroll to the right to see the full all-rounder's numbers


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.

When not going for the victory is an act of courage

South Africa chose to defend the last 4 overs, rather than try and score 16 runs for victory. At first glance this seems like an act of either stupidity or cowardice, but I think it was neither.

They missed out on a chance to make history, by becoming the only team to have successfully chased over 450. But they also missed out on losing a match that would have meant that the series was unwinnable.

Instead Steyn and Philander looked at the options and decided that they were a better team than India, and backed themselves to win the next test. If they went 1-0 down in the series, the best possible outcome was a drawn series, but if the match was a draw, then it was still possible to win the series.

Imran Tahir was probably the next man in. In roughly 2/3 of his innings he has lasted less than 10 balls. That is not the player you want to have saving a test. Morne Morkel is more competent, but it's difficult to bat with only one leg working. It was entirely likely that those two could have been dismissed in the space of an over.

Given that restriction, it made sense that the South Africans decided to be positive with regards to the series, and back themselves to win the second match. It certainly would have been frustrating for them and for any South African fans, but it was probably the correct call.

It appeared to be an act of cowardice, but really it was an act borne of a confidence in their ability to win the second test.

Mini-session Analysis, First test, Pakistan vs South Africa, Abu Dhabi, 2013

Here is the final mini-session analysis for the first test between Pakistan and South Africa at Sheikh Zayed Stadium, Abu Dhabi

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.

More Net Run Rate issues

In my last post I looked at the problem with using net run rate in games where both teams lose a number of wickets. Only 2 days later the tournament threw up possibly the best counter-example to the net run rate system yet. New Zealand won an absolute cliff hanger over Sri Lanka. Even on the last ball there was a question of if the game was a tie or a New Zealand win. However, on the points table New Zealand were the most dominant of any team.

Because the game ended in the 37th over, New Zealand are recorded as winning with a net run rate of +1.048. The most comprehensive victory of the round, (England over Australia) only got +0.96. This is clearly not right.

Mini-session Analysis 3rd test South Africa vs Pakistan, Centurion, 2012/13

Here is the final mini-session analysis for the third test between South Africa and Pakistan at SuperSport Park, Centurion, South Africa

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	South Africa 42/2 off 12	Pakistan
1-1b	South Africa 62/0 off 13	South Africa
1-2a	South Africa 54/1 off 15	South Africa
1-2b	South Africa 43/2 off 11	Pakistan
1-3a	South Africa 86/1 off 23	South Africa
1-3b	South Africa 47/0 off 11	South Africa
2-1a	South Africa 59/1 off 13	South Africa
2-1b	South Africa 16/3 off 5.2	Pakistan
	Pakistan 9/0 off 5
2-2a	Pakistan 47/2 off 13	South Africa
2-2b	Pakistan 35/2 off 11	South Africa
2-3a	Pakistan 41/1 off 10	Pakistan
2-3b	Pakistan 24/5 off 7.4	South Africa
	Following on 14/1 off 9
3-1a	Pakistan 42/1 off 14	draw
3-1b	Pakistan 31/0 off 14	draw
3-2a	Pakistan 27/4 off 49	South Africa
3-2b	Pakistan 62/0 off 13	Pakistan
3-3a	Pakistan 59/4 off 16	South Africa

Final update, click here
South Africa win the match by an innings, and the mini-session count 10 - 5

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

A great start for Pakistan. They have managed to remove both of South Africa's openers, and while they have gone for a few runs, they will certainly be happy with this start. - Mykuhl

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

The ability of Faf du Plessis to take balls from outside the off stump through the leg-side makes it very difficult to bowl to him. The Pakistani bowlers have probably bowled too wide of off-stump as a result. Part of that, though, was that they were forced to, because Amla and du Plessis have batted so well. - Mykuhl

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

While Pakistan have competed well, South Africa have had a good day, and have pulled ahead in the match. They really are quite a team. - Mykuhl

Lunch, Day 2: South Africa lead the mini-session count 5-3

Pakistan have done well to pull this back. At 324/6 overnight there was a chance of South Africa going on to a massive score, but they have manage to keep them to 409. South Africa are still in a very good position, but Pakistan have a chance now. - Mykuhl

Stumps, Day 2: South Africa lead the mini-session count 8-4

Kyle Abbott has managed to ensure that Phlander won't equal George Lohmann's record for the fastest to 100 wickets. He became the third South African to take a five for on debut in the last 16 months.

Pakistan, however, look like they have no idea what they are supposed to do. South Africa are just too good. Even when Pakistan have had good sessions South Africa have still competed, but when South Africa have got on a roll, they really dominate. - Mykuhl

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

Pakistan have very little chance of saving this game, and yet they are batting well. It's not easy to bat when there is very little hope of a positive outcome. The one hope that they have is perhaps that if they score 350, they may be able to run through South Africa with their spinners for a famous victory on the final day. - Mykuhl

Tea, Day 3: South Africa lead the mini-session count 9-5

The question is no longer "will South Africa win this match?" It is now "How much will South Africa win by?" However the attitude of Sarfraz Ahmed and Saeed Ajmal is one to be admired. Cricket often reveals something of a players character, and theirs is to be admired. - Mykuhl

End of match, Day 3: South Africa win the match by an innings and the mini-session count 10-5

South Africa have wrapped up another match. In their last 15 matches, South Africa have 10 wins and 5 draws, with 4 innings victories. In the second innings Pakistan put up a reasonable fight, but South Africa took two bursts of wickets, 4 from overs 38 to 49 and then 3 from overs 64 to 70. It's their ability to tae wickets in bursts that has made them the best team in the world.

Mini-session Analysis 2nd Test, SA Pak, Newlands, 2012/13

Here is the final mini-session analysis for the second test between South Africa and Pakistan at Newlands, Cape Town, South Africa

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	Pakistan 21/2 off 13	South Africa
1-1b	Pakistan 39/2 off 14	South Africa
1-2a	Pakistan 21/0 off 14	draw
1-2b	Pakistan 52/0 off 16	Pakistan
1-3a	Pakistan 57/0 off 15	Pakistan
1-3b	Pakistan 63/1 off 18	Pakistan
2-1a	Pakistan 46/3 off 12.3	South Africa
2-1b	Pakistan 39/2 off 13.5	draw
2-2a	South Africa 33/0 off 11.3	South Africa
2-2b	South Africa 32/2 off 12.3	Pakistan
2-3a	South Africa 40/2 off 17	Pakistan
2-3b	South Africa 34/1 off 19	Pakistan
3-1a	South Africa 51/1 off 14	South Africa
3-1b	South Africa 58/1 off 14	South Africa
3-2a	South Africa 77/2 off 101	Pakistan
3-2b	South Africa 1/1 off 1.1	South Africa
	Pakistan 25/2 off 8
3-3a	Pakistan 30/1 off 17.1	South Africa
3-3b	Pakistan 45/0 off 18.5	Pakistan
4-1a	Pakistan 35/1 off 14	South Africa
4-1b	Pakistan 22/4 off 12	South Africa
4-2a	Pakistan 12/2 off 5.3	South Africa
4-2b	South Africa 66/2 off 17	Pakistan
4-3a	South Africa 46/1 off 11	South Africa
4-3b	South Africa 50/1 off 10	South Africa

Final update, click here
South Africa win the mini-session count 13 - 9

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

Another match at Newlands, another good hour with the ball for South Africa. If anything the ball has moved more in this match than it did in the first hour against New Zealand. The difference here is that the ball has missed the outside edge. As the pitch settles down, it may be even more difficult to bat here. - Mykuhl

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

Other than the one over from Morkel, Pakistan batted quite well in this hour. Younis Khan looked quite solid. It was still South Africa's hour, as it usually is at Newlands, but this may be a slightly better match than the recent ones at this fantastic stadium. - Mykuhl

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

A fantastic fight back from Pakistan. Younis and Asad put together an outstanding partnership. Both batsmen had a couple of scary moments early on, but once they saw off the new ball they prospered. The match is very evenly balanced at this point. - Mykuhl

First drinks, Day 2: The mini-session count is tied up, 3-3

A good hour for Vernon Philander, who picked up yet another Newlands 5-for. South Africa seem like they are not far from wrapping up the tail here, but this partnership has been a very valuable one for Pakistan. These 31 runs could be the difference between a losing total and a competitive one. - Mykuhl

Lunch, Day 2: The mini-session count is tied up, 3-3

South Africa will be happy to have wrapped up the tail reasonably cheaply, but the 64 run 8th wicket partnership was massive in the context of the innings. - Mykuhl

Middle drinks, Day 2: South Africa lead the mini-session count 4-3

A couple of interesting things here. First we got to see Mohammed Irfan bowl, and he did seem to create some pressure. The key moment, however was probably Younis Khan dropping Graeme Smith on 0. That's already cost 17 runs directly, but also meant that Pakistan has missed out on the momentum that an early wicket would have created. - Mykuhl

Tea, Day 2: The mini-session count is tied up, 4-4

Saeed Ajmal strikes again. Both openers back in the hutch. However, despite 7 overs being bowled by Ajmal, Pakistan have managed only 24 overs in these two hours. There have been two delays, but they really need to get through their overs quicker than that. - Mykuhl

Final drinks, Day 2: Pakistan lead the mini-session count 5-4

Another hour, another 2 wickets for Saeed Ajmal. The talking point here was the wicket of Kallis.

He was given out caught, and Kallis reviewed it, knowing that he didn't hit the ball. The replay showed that he didn't hit it, but that it was probably hitting leg stump. However it was umpires call for the lbw, and given that the umpire had not given the batsman out lbw, the umpires call was actually potentially not out for lbw.

The tricky thing here is that caught takes priority over lbw, so if the ball hits the pad plumb lbw, and then takes the bat and gets caught, the batsman is out caught, not lbw. The umpire doesn't have to rule on lbw if he feels the ball is caught.

What should have happened is once Bowden knew it was not out caught, he should have related that to Davis and asked if he felt it was lbw before looking at that. The rules do actually allow for that situation, but they were not totally applied correctly here. Kallis will feel aggrieved that he used up a review correctly, but was given out and lost the review for his team too. - Mykuhl

Stumps, Day 2: Pakistan lead the mini-session count 6-4

Another wicket for Ajmal, and now Hafeez is into the action too, bowling with his less favoured older ball. It will be interesting to see who Misbah goes to with the new ball (if South Africa make it that far). With the pitch taking turn, the option of Hafeez into the wind, and rotating the quicks in short spells from the other end is possibly an attractive option. Dean Elgar now has a chance to make his case for his spot in the team. He really needs to score big here to make the selectors decision between him and Duminy (once JP's fit) difficult. - Mykuhl

First drinks, Day 3: Pakistan lead the mini-session count 6-5

The role that luck plays is an interesting thing in cricket. AB de Villiers was dropped, then Dean Elgar got caught. As a result AB "did his job" by surviving the first hour, while Elgar "had another failure." - Mykuhl

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

This game is turning into a stunning match. The mini-sessions are tied up, but Pakistan are probably in the lead, given that South Africa will have to play against Ajmal on a wearing pitch. However 2 quick wickets in the morning will change that completely. The Younis Khan wicket was a very big one for South Africa, but this partnership has restored the balance for Pakistan. - Mykuhl

First drinks, Day 4: South Africa lead the mini-session count 9-8

While South Africa won that hour, they didn't win it by much. Pakistan still have the advantage of Ajmal ready to bowl on the final day. The Misbah dismissal was a big one, as South Africa really need Peterson to fire, given that Morne Morkel is out. - Mykuhl

Lunch, Day 4: South Africa lead the mini-session count 10-8

If the first hour was close, the last hour was anything but. In the space of 13 balls the whole match changed dramatically. South Africa picked up 4 wickets and Pakistan were left hoping that Saeed Ajmal and Tanvir Ahmed can repeat their heroics from the first innings.

Pakistan probably need another 30 runs to make the run chase difficult, but they will also be aware that almost all the South African batsmen got starts, despite none of them going on to post a score. That is a pattern that's unlikely to happen twice in one test. - Mykuhl

End of Match, Day 4: South Africa Win the match by 4 wickets and the mini-session count 13-9

If Pakistan had managed another 30 runs, this match could have had a fantastic conclusion. The 3 over spell where South Africa picked up 4/5 was the turning point in the match.

It always felt like a spell like that was approaching, and it was always likey to include Philander. He has now taken 30 wickets in 4 matches at Newlands. If he can pick up 13 wickets in his next match, he will equal one of the oldest records in cricket, George Lohmann's record for being the fastest to take 100 wickets (15 matches). - Mykuhl

Mini-session Analysis 1st Test South Africa v Pakistan, Wanderers, 2012/13

Here is the final mini-session analysis for the first test between South Africa and Pakistan at New Wanderers Stadium, Johannesburg

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	South Africa 27/0 off 13	Draw
1-1b	South Africa 41/2 off 12	Pakistan
1-2a	South Africa 57/1 off 14.4	South Africa
1-2b	South Africa 34/1 off 15.2	Pakistan
1-3a	South Africa 40/1 off 15.1	Pakistan
1-3b	South Africa 54/5 off 15.1	Pakistan
	Pakistan 6/0 off 2
2-1a	Pakistan 15/3 off 10.4	South Africa
2-1b	Pakistan 19/4 off 12.2	South Africa
2-2a	Pakistan 9/3 off 4.1	South Africa
	South Africa 45/0 off 9
2-2b	South Africa 28/0 off 10	South Africa
2-3a	South Africa 74/3 off 17	Pakistan
2-3b	South Africa 60/0 off 17	South Africa
3-1a	South Africa 68/0 off 9	South Africa
3-1b	Pakistan 47/1 off 14	draw
3-2a	Pakistan 26/2 off 26	South Africa
3-2b	Pakistan 31/1 off 14	South Africa
3-3a	Pakistan 45/0 off 19	Pakistan
3-3b	Pakistan 34/0 off 16	Pakistan
4-1a	Pakistan 50/3 off 14	South Africa
4-1b	Pakistan 35/3 off 11.4	South Africa

Last update, click here
South Africa win the mini-session count 11 - 7

First drinks, Day 1: The mini-session count is tied up, 0-0

An absorbing start to the test saw the South African openers survive, but they certainly didn't thrive. There were balls that went between bat and pad, and others that took the edge, but didn't carry. South Africa will be slightly happier than Pakistan, but only slightly.

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

It took 5 balls for Pakistan to take the lead in this match. South Africa was starting to look comfortable when they lost two wickets with the score on 46. However the second wicket brought Kallis to the crease, and at the moment he has looked as good as his record tells us he is.

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

South Africa had been looking comfortable, and Kallis in particular in control until inexplicably he played a loose shot and got out.

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

After Amla fell to the "so bad it's good" theory of bowling, de Villiers and du Plessis decided to see how slowly they could bat. At one point de Villiers had 3 off 31.

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

AB de Villiers has batted for 2 hour or more in the first innings of a match 29 times before this innings, but this is easily his lowest score of those innings. It's another case of a wicket falling right at the end of an hour. South Africa need to show better concentration if they are going to win this match.

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

The concept of a specialist new ball spinner is a fairly new one, but Mohammed Hafeez is probably the benchmark. He doesn't look particularly scary, but has the ability to get the ball to skid through quickly, and against tail-enders that is deadly.

Pakistan are well in the lead now. Everyone in the South African top 7 made it to 20, nobody made it past 50. Pakistan bowled well to create the pressure, but the South Africans can mostly blame themselves for their demise in that innings.

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

Dale Steyn is a special bowler. When he's in a mood like that, what are the batsmen expected to do? Philander has bowled 5 overs for 6 runs, while Steyn has bowled 6 overs and has 3/8. Morkel is looking positively expensive having conceded 5 runs off 10 balls.

There is a theory that swing bowling gets good batsmen out. I think that subtle swing bowling gets pretty much everybody out. Steyn hasn't swung many huge distances. In his entire spell there has only been one ball that was played and missed. The rest of them have taken the edge. The South Africans are masters at not doing too much with the ball.

Lunch, Day 2: Pakistan lead the mini-session count 4-3

While Pakistan might have won more hours, they are certainly not ahead in the match!

Since 1970 there have only been 5 teams bowled out for less than 50. Pakistan have a battle on their hands to stop that number increasing. Currently 2 of those 5 have been inflicted by Steyn, Philander, Morkel and Kallis. There is every chance that this group could add a third today. This really is a phenomenal South African side.

Middle drinks, Day 2: The mini-session count is tied up, 4-4

It's as though this match is being played on two different pitches. One when South Africa is batting, and one when they are bowling. But the truth is that the pitch isn't the thing that caused the Pakistani meltdown. It was fantastic bowling. Creating pressure, and bowling deliveries that ask questions. Cricket's a simple game when you're as good as the South African attack.

Stumps, Day 2: South Africa lead the mini-session count 6-5

South Africa are just relentless. There has been some controversy about the use of Hotspot in this match, but that really doesn't change how one sided this match is. South Africa are just playing at a different level at the moment, and when they click they are almost unplayable.

First drinks, Day 3: South Africa lead the mini-session count 7-5

Unless they bat very well, it's hard to imagine Pakistan being anything other than totally discouraged after this match. The difference between South Africa's approach in the two innings is summed up neatly by AB de Villiers. In the first innings he was in for 31 overs and scored 31 runs. In the second innings he was in for 35 overs and scored 103 runs. It's amazing what a change in match situation does to a batsman.

Stumps, Day 3: South Africa lead the mini-session count 9-7

While Pakistan are still in trouble, this is a very good partnership, and while they are still there there is still a (small) glimmer of hope.

First drinks, Day 4: South Africa lead the mini-session count 10-7

The difference that a new ball makes for South Africa is phenomenal. I'm not sure there's been a more potent trio of quicks in the history of the game. These three all offer something different, and all are suited to different conditions. If the conditions don't suit Steyn, they will probably suit Philander or Morkel. Today it looks like this new ball suits both Steyn and Philander, and that would be difficult for world class batsmen to survive. How much more so for tail-enders who have grown up on the sub-continent?

End of match, Day 4: South Africa win the match by 211 runs and the mini-session count 11-7

Another clinical performance by South Africa. While Roberts, Holding, Croft and Garner were more likely to injure batsmen, I fancy that this South African line up is more likely to get them out.

Pakistan didn't actually play too badly in this match. But they were completely outgunned by a South African side that didn't actually even look like they hit top gear.