Who should win the NZ cricket awards

I was asked by Tony Veitch to put together some stats for the different awards on offer for the New Zealand Cricket Awards tonight.

I could have just brought up a list of averages, but that's really not the CricketGeek style, so I decided to delve into things a little more closely.

One of the difficult things in cricket statistics is to compare bowling success with batting success. For example, which is better taking 5/84 or scoring 172? We need a device to compare the two disciplines.

I decided to compare each player's year with the historical averages for their position. For example, for batting I compared the batting average with year end batting averages throughout history. I had a cut off of 10 innings, as making a cut off much higher than that excludes too many players, as most teams play less than 10 tests per year. I then compared a player's average to the historical average of averages, and the standard deviation of averages to generate a z-score. (For more on Z-scores, see This NFL blog post)

I used batting average and bowling average for test cricket, as really what we care about is scoring runs and taking wickets. I wasn't totally happy with the results, as there was no advantage for the players who had maintained a high standard over a number of games, rather than just one. (James Neesham, for example, averaged 171 this season, but only over one match).  I first filtered out anyone who hadn't either batted in 10 matches or who had bowled less than 100 overs. Then I multiplied the z-score by the square root of the number of innings that they had applied their skill in, in order to get a fairer list. It only caused a couple of positional changes, but the new lists looked more appropriate.

Here's the test lists.

Player - Skill	Average	Ranking
LRPL Taylor - batting	81.60	12.3
BB McCullum - batting	52.73	5.0
TG Southee - bowling	20.07	3.8
TA Boult - bowling	22.36	3.6
KS Williamson - batting	47.21	3.4
BJ Watling - batting	42.27	2.0
N Wagner - bowling	30.42	1.1
CJ Anderson - bowling	30.54	1.0
CJ Anderson - batting	32.70	-0.3
TA Boult - batting	32.25	-0.4

I would give the award to Ross Taylor. He scored 816 runs at an average of 81.60. He past 50 in half of his innings. McCullum, Southee, Boult and Williamson all had great years, but Taylor's average really makes his numbers stand out.

Next I looked at the ODI lists.

Here I decided to use the batting and bowling index developed by S Rajesh from Cricinfo (and me separately). Again I compared the players index to the historical data.

Here's the list:

Player - Skill	Index	Ranking
CJ Anderson - batting	84.48	16.1
LRPL Taylor - batting	43.77	6.9
MJ Guptill - batting	44.22	6.4
KS Williamson - batting	39.04	4.7
MJ McClenaghan - bowling	23.87	1.1
NL McCullum - batting	26.23	0.9
JDS Neesham - bowling	23.69	0.8
CJ Anderson - bowling	24.85	0.7
KD Mills - bowling	25.97	0.7
L Ronchi - batting	22.93	-0.1

Again a batsman takes the title. This, however was not particularly surprising. Anderson was immense with the bat, and generally the games were played on high-scoring pitches, which don't really flatter bowling statistics.

For the T20 award I used batting index, but my own metric for bowling. In a previous post I showed how each wicket worked out to roughly 5 runs in a t20. Accordingly we can take 5 runs off a bowler's total for every wicket they have taken. They then get a modified run rate. I used this to compare the NZ players' years to the historical data. This is a little less relevant, as there is not a lot of historical data (about 1/10 the quantity of test and ODI information) and also New Zealand only played 6 matches, so the sample size is very small.

Here is the list:

Player - Skill	Index/Modified run rate	Ranking
L Ronchi - batting	221.11	14.7
BB McCullum - batting	101.08	4.1
AF Milne - bowling	2.75	2.9
AP Devcich - batting	73.34	1.7
C Munro - batting	60.04	1.5
JDS Neesham - bowling	5.00	0.5
JD Ryder - batting	44.02	0.0
NL McCullum - batting	42.25	-0.1
NL McCullum - bowling	5.64	-0.3
HD Rutherford - batting	40.02	-0.3

Luke Ronchi is a bit of a surprise here, but I remember looking up his stats and being surprised as to how effective he has been in t20s recently. During the course of the year he averaged 133 at a strike rate of 166. Those are quite ridiculous numbers.

The last major prize left is the Sir Richard Hadlee Medal, for the best overall. For me that goes to Brendon McCullum. He managed to attract the attention of the whole nation with his 300, and he also captained the side particularly well across all the formats. There would be a fair argument for Taylor and Anderson, but for me, McCullum needs to be acknowledged some how, and that award seems appropriate.

Who would you give the overall award to?

Is the Southee - Boult partnership greater than the Hadlee - Chatfield partnership?

There is a theory that bowlers are supposed to hunt in a pack. That the two bowlers are supposed to work together to get the batsmen out.  There are some proponents of this theory, and some who feel that it is rubbish, and that each bowler is wholly responsible for their own figures.

In the light of their recent performances I've been looking into the opening partnership of Boult and Southee and then I've compared that to others opening partnerships throughout time. They are a fairly new pair, but they actually stack up quite well.

A good problem to have.

New Zealand have 4 good quick bowlers at the moment. However there's only space in the team for 3.  This means that one of them has to miss out.  Here's a quick look at the 4 contenders, and their strengths and weaknesses.

Test team of the year 2012

For the test team of the year, I’ve given extra weight to performances away from home. Often the mark of great players is that they can master foreign conditions. For each player I’ve generated a weighted average, and I’ve used that to pick the team.

I’ve also looked at openers as a separate skill to batting in numbers 3-5. I also feel that numbers 6 and 7 need to be multi-skilled players: who can contribute with the bat and either the ball or the gloves. As a result I’ve picked the best batsman among the keepers. It is very difficult to quantify the ability of keepers, and while I feel that Prasanna Jayawardene is currently without peer as a keeper, his batting (while improving) is significantly weaker than some of the other keepers.

With the bowlers I decided on at least 2 quick bowlers and at least one spinner. After that I picked the next best bowler. There were a few times that a team went in with either 3 spinners or 4 pace bowlers, but every time the results were not good enough to demand it being replicated in this team.

There were a couple of bowlers who had a good year without playing any away matches. For these players I looked at the average difference between home matches and away matches, and adjusted their weighted averages accordingly.

Openers: Alastair Cook and Graeme Smith.

While these two may not have the crowd in raptures with scintillating stroke-play, they have scored a lot of runs this year, both home and away.

Name	Overall Average	Away Average	Weighted average
AN Cook (Eng)	48.03	71.9	54.67
GC Smith (SA)	48.52	50.56	49.52
Mohammad Hafeez (Pak)	45.9	52.5	48.24
AN Petersen (SA)	47	43.06	45.09
TM Dilshan (SL)	40.13	42	40.67
DA Warner (Aus)	43.77	28.5	39.96

Numbers 3-5: Marlon Samuels, Michael Clarke and Shivnarine Chanderpaul

Michael Clarke has been amazing in Australia, but his away form was so poor that he was almost pipped for the spot by Amla.

Name	Overall Average	Away Average	Weighted average
S Chanderpaul (WI)	109.55	196	131.17
MN Samuels (WI)	86.6	94.71	89.94
MJ Clarke (Aus)	106.33	31.33	84.9
HM Amla (SA)	70.93	74.85	72.83
JH Kallis (SA)	70	56	63.3
Azhar Ali (Pak)	55.1	60	56.73
MEK Hussey (Aus)	61.61	36.5	53.68
AB de Villiers (SA)	58.21	46.78	52.5
Asad Shafiq (Pak)	47.11	64.25	52.38

All Rounder: Jacques Kallis.

While Samuels came out as the best all-rounder for the year, he is already in the team for his batting (and there’s also a chance he won’t be allowed to bowl). Kallis has had a much improved year with the ball, his averages were similar to Dale Steyn for the year.

Name	Batting	Bowling	Difference
MN Samuels (WI)	89.94	42.8	47.14
JH Kallis (SA)	63.3	30.89	32.41
Mohammad Hafeez (Pak)	48.24	28.36	19.88
KS Williamson (NZ)	30.52	41.67	-11.15
MEK Hussey (Aus)	56.73	73	-16.27
SR Watson (Aus)	31.7	48	-16.3

Keeper: AB de Villiers

De Villiers almost made the team as a batsman alone. Ramdin recovered well from having calls for his head at the start of the year.

Name	Overall Average	Away Average	Weighted average
AB de Villiers (SA)	48.55	48.55	48.56
D Ramdin (WI)	42.87	54.16	47.71
MJ Prior (Eng)	38.85	39.62	39.07
MS Wade (Aus)	36.27	39.6	37.31
MS Dhoni (India)	40.63	24.33	37.14
Adnan Akmal (Pak)	25.25	37.66	28.64

Bowlers: Tino Best, Tim Southee, Narsingh Deonarine and Vernon Philander

This was the big surprise for me. Where is Dale Steyn? Where is James Anderson? Probably the best two bowlers in the world and they don’t even feature. Likewise Saeed Ajmal just gets pipped. These are not the bowlers that I would pick if I were selecting a team other than on stats.

bowler	overall average	away average	weighted average
TL Best (WI)	16.27	14.92	15.69
TG Southee (NZ)	22.64	17.3	20.08
N Deonarine (WI)	19	-	20.27
VD Philander (SA)	21.11	21.83	21.45
BW Hilfenhaus (Aus)	21.67	20.8	21.49
Junaid Khan (Pak)	24.14	21.78	22.96
Saeed Ajmal (Pak)	20.56	29.93	23.17
PM Siddle (Aus)	23.09	38.33	24.14
KAJ Roach (WI)	22.25	34.25	24.3
MA Starc (Aus)	25.05	27.5	25.27
Abdur Rehman (Pak)	22.64	41.33	26.26
HMRKB Herath (SL)	23.61	62.16	27.12
MS Panesar (Eng)	26.03	29.31	27.23
GP Swann (Eng)	29.93	23.61	27.54
PP Ojha (India)	25.96	-	27.7
JM Anderson (Eng)	29.5	26.61	28.62
TA Boult (NZ)	30.77	27.05	29.1
DW Steyn (SA)	29.71	29.08	29.41

Mini-Session Analysis, Second Test, Ind NZ, Bangalore, 2012

Here is the mini-session analysis for the second test between India and New Zealand at M Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bangalore, India.

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	New Zealand 45/1 off 15	New Zealand
1-1b	New Zealand 63/2 off 14	draw
1-2a	New Zealand 88/1 off 13.2	New Zealand
1-2b	New Zealand 44/1 off 16.4	India
1-3a	New Zealand 64/1 off 16	New Zealand
1-3b	New Zealand 24/0 off 6.3	New Zealand
2-1a	New Zealand 33/4 off 8.4	India
2-1b	India 63/2 off 21	New Zealand
2-2a	India 61/2 off 12	draw
2-2b	India 44/0 off 14	India
2-3a	India 57/1 off 11	India
2-3b	India 58/0 off 20	India
3-1a	India 52/4 off 13	New Zealand
3-1b	India 18/1 off 5.5	New Zealand
	New Zealand 29/0 off 5
3-2a	New Zealand 40/3 off 13	India
3-2b	New Zealand 67/1 off 17	New Zealand
3-3a	New Zealand 45/1 off 14	New Zealand
3-3b	New Zealand 64/4 off 20	India
4-1a	New Zealand 16/1 off 4.2	India
	India 67/0 off 11
4-1b	India 21/2 off 9	New Zealand
4-2a	India 59/0 off 12.5	India
4-3a	India 27/3 off 12.1	New Zealand
4-3b	India 39/0 off 11	India
4-3c	India 49/0 off 7.2	India

Latest update here. India win the match, after the mini-session count is tied 11-11

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

An absorbing day of cricket. Punch and counter punch; featuring one of the best captain's innings you are likely to see. Taylor came out in the media before the match and said that New Zealand's batsmen needed to be more positive, and attack the bowling. He then went out and demonstrated what he meant.

He came in after the umpires again decided that the benefit of the doubt should go to the home side twice. The ball may have just clipped the off stump for McCullum's lbw, and may have flicked the bails for Williamson, but both of them were at best tight decisions, and have continued the trend of close calls going the way of India in this series.

Taylor could have responded to the team being under pressure by shutting up shop. He could have tried to get his eye in. Instead he started to swing the bat. His 18 boundaries have covered almost all the points of the clock, with only 12 o'clock and 5 o'clock missing out so far.

Taylor needs 11 more runs to become the fastest New Zealand batsman to score 3000 runs in terms of matches (one behind Martin Crowe in terms of innings). New Zealand have to a chance to get over 300, and allow their bowlers something to bowl at.

Final drinks, Day 1: New Zealand leads the mini-session count 3-1

The third hour that New Zealand have scored at more than a run a minute. To be over 300 before the end of the day would be something that the New Zealand team could hardly have dreamed of after the debacle at Hyderabad.

The Indian bowing has been exactly what the modern game tends to provide. Defensive bowling to attacking fields or attacking bowling to defensive fields. There had been a bit too much leg-side filth, trying to bore the batsmen out for my liking, but to be fair it seems to have worked against Guptill and Taylor.

The new ball will be interesting. I'd expect the spinners will get a bowl with it, rather than the quicks, but the extra bounce might be quite dangerous.

Stumps, Day 1: New Zealand leads the mini-session count 4-1

It's New Zealand's day here. 3 players in particular really took it to the Indians, first Guptill, then Taylor and finally van Wyk. Ojha was the lone bright light for India. He looks like he is the sort of bowler who is good against quality batsmen, similar to Trent Boult for New Zealand. Often the rule is that you take the ball away from the batsmen, but bring it into the bowlers. Ashwin started to look more dangerous once Taylor was out. While he didn't manage to get Bracewell out, he did manage to make him look troubled a couple of times.

It's a truism that the next morning is going to be vital. However If New Zealand manage to bat through the first 4 or 5 overs without losing a wicket, they could potentially go on to score 400, and really make the Indian team work in the second innings. There is not likely to be a complete reversal of Hyderabad, but it's amazing what scoreboard pressure does to players.

Inning change over, Day 2: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 4-2

A combination of good bowling, poor shots and some really bad luck saw New Zealand only add 33 runs for the loss of 4 wickets at the start of the day. India are certainly back in this game, but New Zealand still have the runs on the board, as the cliche goes.

The Indian response will be interesting.

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

Another session, another tough decision against New Zealand. Sehwag looked to be out off the first ball from the second over. There may have been some doubt on height, but after seven decisions that had more doubt than that being given out in the last three innings, it was surprising to see the umpires finally giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman.

The bad news for New Zealand is that Sehwag is not one to often squander a start against them. He has 7 centuries against New Zealand in international cricket. Once he is in he is a difficult man to stop. At the other end is Tendulkar. While he is hardly looking in vintage form, (4 off 41, no runs off his last 26 balls) the longer he bats, the closer he is to recovering his touch.

New Zealand need at least two more wickets before the clouds burn off. As the pitch is wearing quickly, they can't afford to give India a first innings lead.

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

On the first day we saw a fantastic counter-attack from Taylor, assisted by Flynn and van Wyk. Today it was Kohli, assisted by Raina and Dhoni. The game is quite even going into the last hour. We really have an absorbing test match on our hands here.

Stumps, Day 2: The mini-session count is tied 5-5

The game is now probably slightly in India's favour. New Zealand can not afford to allow India a lead, as the New Zealand lineup is not as suited to playing on a wearing pitch.

It's been a great partnership from Kohli and Dhoni, but batting will be more difficult in the morning with (probably) some cloud cover and a new ball. Again the first hour will be really important.

Tea, Day 3: New Zealand leads the mini-session count 8-6

This game is still very evenly poised. Both teams are yet to really grab the game by the scruff of the neck. New Zealand are probably still 150 runs from a score that's likely to win, but even chasing 200 will be difficult on this pitch for India.

The star of the day has been Tim Southee. His 7/64 is one of the best ever returns for a New Zealand bowler. He really took the spotlight off Virat Kohli's fantastic hundred. Kohli has scored 450 runs in his last 5 tests, at an average over 50.

Stumps, Day 3: New Zealand leads the mini-session count 9-7

R Ashwin has managed to get India back into the game. The second one side looks like they are winning, the other one strikes back. This is test match cricket at its' most absorbing.

Going into day 4, there is almost certainly going to be a result (unless there is some terrible weather or a phenomenal rear guard effort by Patel and Boult tomorrow.) We may even have the exciting prospect of a day 5 with a very small number of runs needed, and only a couple of wickets in hand.

First drinks, Day 4: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 9-8

A very aggressive start from India, after another horrible decision to end New Zealand's innings.

Sehwag and Gambhir have looked like they are playing an ODI match. If they keep this up, the game will escape New Zealand very quickly.

Lunch, Day 4: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 10-8

The roller-coaster lurches again. This test is starting to feel like the Hobart one. Tendulkar looks all at sea against Boult, but if anyone can battle through a bad patch, it's him. There is still a lot of work for New Zealand to do, but the momentum is back with them at the moment.

Rain break, post lunch, Day 4: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 10-9

India have taken hold of this match. It will take either some very poor cricket from India, some very good cricket from New Zealand or a combination of both for India to lose this now.

Brendon McCullum's missed stumping may prove to be very costly.


Final drinks, Day 4: New Zealand lead the mini-session count 11-10

It looked like India's game at lunch. Then an hour later it was New Zealand's. Now Dhoni and Kohli have taken back control. Is there another twist?

End of match: The mini-session count was tied 11-11

India won the match, mostly due to the batting of Virat Kohli. The rest of the teams cancelled each other out, but he shone above everyone else. When Dravid described him as India's best batsman in all three formats, he was not exaggerating to make a point. Kohli has turned potential into delivery. There is a long time to go, but at the moment he is truly a wonderful batsman.

Match report 3rd ODI WI v NZ Warner Park, Bassterre, St Kitts

If you had not seen any other matches this series and arrived to watch this one, you would think that New Zealand were such a superior side that there was little chance of West Indies being able to take a game off them.

This was a dominant performance. New Zealand batted better, bowled better and fielded better.

It started with a great innings from Rob Nicol. Daniel Flynn looked like a world class batsman before chopping one on. However West Indies managed to pick up wickets at regular intervals throughout the innings, but most of them were from short balls that the New Zealand batsmen mistimed. Sammy, Narine and Sammy managed to create some pressure on the New Zealand batsmen. Sammy in particular looked outstanding.

He gave some clues as to how he thought the pitch was playing by moving Chris Gayle into a short straight mid on during the powerplay, banking on New Zealand struggling to time the ball. After the game Williamson noted that the pitch was slower than they had expected, but he felt that it was a good cricket wicket, that gave a chance for both batsmen and bowlers.

New Zealand's innings stalled after the 22nd over, and it took until the 33rd before they managed to get some momentum, but they rode the tempo change well and recovered from 141/5 off 34 to get to what looked like a modest total of 249/9. However sometimes it is difficult to know how good a score is until both teams have batted.

The first over from Kyle Mills went for two boundaries, but the big story was the next over. Trent Boult was given the ball ahead of Tim Southee, with the wind coming over his left shoulder. Normally this end would be given to the senior bowler in the team, but Williamson got the decision completely correct in this match. Southee generally bowls outswing, and while having the wind at his back would help his pace, Boult looked quicker in practice in Jamaica. Mills is the ideal bowler to bowl into that sort of wind. It assists his shape away from the right-hander and also helps the ball sit up a bit more.

Boult's first over got Gayle to defend 4 balls, avoid a quick bouncer and then edge one just between first slip (who was probably too wide) and the keeper. It was a promising start. More was to come in his next over as he picked up the dangerous Johnson Charles; lbw to a perfect inswinging yorker.

Gayle seemed to be struggling with the pace of Boult, so Williamson brought on Southee to give him some quick bowling at the body from both ends. The plan worked. Gayle edged Southee to Nicol, and all of a sudden 250 looked a long way away for the West Indies.

4 overs later it was 52/4 and the game was firmly in New Zealand's favour. 2 more overs and Guptill produced some brilliance to run out Samuels, and West Indies were staggering at 62/5. New Zealand immediately took the bowling powerplay. The 5 overs with the field up cost a total of 9 runs. New Zealand had rediscovered their fielding prowess.

Darren Sammy showed that it was a good pitch to be a tall medium pacer on. Jacob Oram is also a tall medium pacer and it was equally good for him, taking 2/22.

Some rearguard tail-end hitting from Andre Russell almost provided some respectability for the West Indies, but they still lost by 88 runs. Russell's 43* off 24 balls was the only score over 20.

The man of the match was a difficult decision for this match. Nicol top-scored with 59, Nathan McCullum lead the recovery with 50 as well as taking 2 wickets, 2 catches and being involved in a run out, and Andre Russell took 4 wickets to go with his runs. The award went to Nicol, but it was a game with at least 3 outstanding performances. (Southee and Boult both bowled sensationally, without getting the same reward)

West Indies have now lost 4 of the 5 matches they have played at this ground. They will need a significant improvement to improve that record in matches 4 or 5.

The great choke

I've just gotten home from watching New Zealand lose an unlosable match to South Africa at Eden Park.

It was a terrible match to watch as a New Zealand fan, but a fascinating game as a cricket purist. Here were 5 things I noticed:

1. Jesse Ryder found then lost his mojo.

Ryder came out and started off well. He was scoring quite quickly, but he was (generally) doing it in sensible ways, and (finally) was moving his feet like he did in 2010, rather than standing and swishing like he did against Australia earlier this year.

Then the rain came. And he lost his foot work and his batting sense. With 5 overs to go, Ryder was on 44 off 25. He had been scoring well with boundaries, but off the 20 balls that he didn't hit to the fence he had scored 16. From his next 16 balls he scored 8 runs. He was pre-determining, not moving his feet and was generally like a possum in headlights, or Sachin Tendulkar right before a break.

2. Kane Williamson suddenly stopped being Kane Williamson.

If Williamson was a superhero his name would be Placement Boy. He has the ability to find the gaps and put the ball where he wants it to be. And that ability completely evaded him. Instead he hit 6 of 8 before going for a mad heave across the line rather than trying to hit a single.

3. Franklin and McCullum not swapping ends.

New Zealand needed 6 off 4, and nMac tried a paddle scoop shot. While it's a bit unorthodox, there's nothing particularly wrong with that. What was disappointing was the batsmen not crossing while the ball went half way to the moon before getting into de Villiers' gloves.

Franklin jogged through, rather than running through. McCullum stood and watched in horror as the ball headed to the keeper, and hardly moved at all. It was a play that a second division business house team would have been distraught at. It mean that the new man needed to face the next ball, and was somehow expected to score immediately, rather than leaving it up to the batsman who was in. Poor, poor cricket.

4. Sending out Southee rather than Hira to bat for the last ball.

Southee is a good bowler. He can hit a big ball. But it is a stretch to accuse him of having a track record of heady cricket. Hira is known precisely for playing smart cricket.

While it was likely that the batsman who was sent out would not need to face a ball, there was always the chance that there would be a no ball, and having someone who was quick to make a good decision would be a good idea. Someone who could get back for a second would be hugely valuable.

But instead New Zealand sent out Southee instead of the Worlds Fastest Indian. Having someone who could get (even halfway) back would have left Franklin in strike needing 3 or 4 to win, and potentially 2 to tie, and Hira there to run like only Hira or Guptill can.

5. Four bouncers in an over.

Marchant de Lange managed to find the zone just between where a batsman finds it comfortable to play a short ball and where an umpire will start to warn him for it.

His final over contained 4 bouncers, and he was still allowed his 1 per over, as none of them were high enough in the opinion of the square leg umpire to be his 1 for the over.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the best option at the death is full and straight, but at Eden Park, with the new layout of short straight boundaries and longish square ones full and straight is asking for trouble. Instead he bowled a fantastic final over and put all the pressure back on the New Zealand batsmen.

It seems in the age of darting left arm spinners, that there is still a place for aggressive fast bowling.