Pakistan v England stats

I always rather enjoy going through Statsguru on Cricinfo, and after looking at some of Sri Lanka’s stats yesterday, today I thought I’d look at Pakistan’s and England’s statistics over the last twelve months and how they compare going into next month’s Test series.

England and Pakistan have been the two best sides over the past twelve months by a considerable distance. England have won seven and lost just one Test in that time and Pakistan have won five and lost one. No other side has a win-loss ratio above 1.00 and no other side has won more than four Tests in that time. (Australia have won four and lost four, India have won four and lost five.)

England have been in dominating form. The twelve month period began with the defeat at Perth, but then included a pair of innings victories over Australia and India each and one over Sri Lanka. The gulf between England and the rest of the world with the bat is astonishing. England average 48.30 with 17 centuries (five of them unbeaten) both numbers easily the best in the world. The next best average is Pakistan’s 39.56 and the overall average for the rest of the world is 29.57. In other words England average almost 200 runs more in a completed innings than the rest of the world. There were 57 centuries hit in the past twelve months by teams other than England, with the most for any one team being India’s ten. England’s 17 centuries come at an average or 1.7 per match (fairly easy maths there), whilst the rest of the world average 0.84 centuries per Test and that is not even accounting for the number of times England have only needed to bat once! There is less of a gap with the ball, as England’s bowling average of 26.58 is only the second best in the world, behind Pakistan’s 26.14. The average amongst other sides in this case is 34.78 so England are still comfortably better, but not by as much. England have also done well bowling sides out. They did so in eight of their ten matches over the past year and averaged 18.7 wickets per match (as a fielding side, i.e. including run outs). Only Pakistan at 19.4 fared better and the average amongst all other sides was 15.8.

Statistically then it should be a fantastic series in January. The best attack against the best batting order and the second best attack against the second best batting order. England’s stats have come against stronger sides than Pakistan’s in that time, but both sides beat Sri Lanka 1-0 at home. England have also never played in the UAE, so an analysis adjusted for home field advantage cannot be made. I’m very much looking forward to seeing how things play out come 17 January.

South Africa v Sri Lanka preview

My first thought when looking at the fixture list is that this is going to be a one sided series. South Africa have their flaws, but they are a good side overall and Sri Lanka have rarely looked like testing their opponents. Still it is South Africa and they do have a knack for choking.

Sri Lanka though will really need to work to make any of the matches close. Sri Lanka have not won a Test this year and excluding the match at Galle that was played on a minefield their bowlers have an average almost fifty over the past twelve months. In thirteen innings they have only bowled their opposition out five times and in the eight matches in that time (still excluding the Galle Test) they took twenty wickets just once. Their bowlers average just eleven wickets per Test, the worst in the world in that time, including Bangladesh. (The best is Pakistan, incidentally, with an average 19.44 wickets taken per Test.) Their batting has been their strength and they have saved six of the nine Tests in which they have played this year, but they have also been inconsistent in that time. They collapsed badly in Cardiff and were bowled out cheaply in the first two tests in the UAE as well. (Though admittedly both of those were against good bowling attacks.)

Their build-up to the series has not gone according to plan either. Four of their seamers, including a first choice one, were ruled out before the tour and Nuwan Pradeep tore a hamstring after arriving in South Africa. They only played the one warmup match and in it they allowed the South African Invitational XI to get to 245-2 at one stage. Each of the top five of the SAI XI went past fifty and of the Sri Lankan bowling only Herath looked like a proper threat. In addition to Pradeep’s injury in that match, Kumar Sangakkara also tore the webbing of his hand, putting him in doubt for the first Test. The only bright spot for Sri Lanka is that Paranavitana scored a century when they came to bat, but the rains meant that they did not get to bat for long and that they are going to be very short of match practice going into the Test.

South Africa are harder to predict. There are more mercurial in general and they have not had a lot of cricket recently to allow their form to be judged. It’s fair to say that their performances against Australia were all over the map. They certainly have the batting strength to put a weak Sri Lankan attack to the sword, if they play as well as they ought to, but whether they have the bowling to force victory against a Sri Lankan side used to clinging on for draws is more of a question. Dale Steyn remains world class, of course, and this is an attack that reduced Australia to 21-9. (Though that was not entirely their doing.) It’s also an attack against which that selfsame Australian side successfully chased 310 to win, however.

I don’t see the depleted Sri Lankan attack taking twenty wickets in any of the matches and with their lack of time in the middle they will struggle to save the first Test, especially if Sangakkara does not recover in time. They may improve for the next two, but I think it will be too late, even with South Africa’s historic problems finishing off series. I’m tipping South Africa to win the series 1-0.

New Zealand win by seven runs

The second test just came to a thrilling finish with Australia being bowled out for 233 and losing by seven runs. Doug Bracewell, in his third test, took a match winning 6-40 in the second innings whilst David Warner, in his second test, carried his bat for 123.

It’s a great victory for New Zealand. It’s the first test they have won in Australia for quite some time (25 years?) and they did so after playing very poorly at Brisbane, losing Vettori before the match started and then being bowled out for 150 in their first innings. Australia will have some questions to ask themselves however. They collapsed badly in the first innings to be bowled out for 136 and then lost six wickets for 40 runs in the second. That last one took them from a very strong position to one in which they did well to make the match as close as it was. Some of it was down to inspired bowling, Bracewell in the second innings most notably, but there was a lot of poor batting as well. The shots Haddin played were inexcusable, especially in the second innings. He chased a ball so wide it would not have hit a second set of stumps, despite having edged the ball before between third slip and gully. Warner also displayed some odd decision making late in the run chase. He took a single off the first ball of the 56th over and exposed Pattinson to the bowling of Bracewell. Two ball later Pattinson edged to slip and two balls after that Mitchell Starc was bowled. He continued in the same vein however. Both times there were LBW decisions reviewed against Lyon he was only on strike because Warner had taken a single off the previous delivery. When Lyon was bowled to end the match Warner had taken a single off the first ball. I don’t think that Warner is culpable for Australia’s defeat of course, but a more experienced player might have done a better job of hogging the strike.

Still, Warner ought to be happy with his performance. He scored an unbeaten 123 out of his side’s 233 all out and technically won Man of the Match (though only because Channel Nine let the viewers vote on the award; Bracewell was far more deserving). He is almost guaranteed a spot in the starting XI at the MCG, which can not be said of many of the Australian batsmen. Phil Hughes played very well last night, but lasted only five balls this morning before departing in the familiar manner of c Guptill b Martin. His 20 was actually the third largest score of the innings (fourth largest if you include the 21 extras), but I can’t see it being enough to save his place in the side. At the same time none of Khawaja, Ponting or Hussey did much to improve their chances of selection. Marsh and Watson are likely to return to the side for Boxing Day and whilst both are versatile enough to either open or bat in the middle order, most likely one opener and one middle order batsman will be dropped. With Hughes the only candidate amongst the openers it only leaves a question in the middle order. In many ways Khawaja is the easiest to drop as he is not very well established in the side. He only returned due to the injury to Marsh, so it is logical for him to make way. That would be the easy route for the selectors, however. Hussey looks like he is terminally out of form and if only one middle order batsman goes it ought to be him. That all is assuming that Ponting does not decide to retire, however. If Ponting does retire than Hussey could keep his place, but I would rather see Marsh and Watson both bat in the middle order and Ed Cowan open with Warner. I would actually quite like to see that even if Ponting does not retire. I think it would be a good positive move by the selectors. They’ll be under pressure to do something, certainly. India may have struggled badly in England, but they are a better side than New Zealand and Australia will need to improve to feel confident of victory.

Should Bangladesh play test cricket?

I haven’t watched very much of the Bangladesh v Pakistan test this week. It hasn’t been on TV here to the best of my knowledge, and in any case after the first two days of Australia v New Zealand I don’t really need to watch any more poor strokeplay for a while. What I’ve seen on Cricinfo has been incredibly one sided though. The Bangladeshis were bowled out for 135 in their first innings (after Pakistan opened the bowling with a spinner) and proceeded to concede 594-5 declared.

It’s yet another pretty pathetic performance from a Bangladesh side that don’t seem to be improving. Right now they don’t look like a test quality side, and really they never have. They were granted test status on the back of ODI performances and whilst they have looked intermittently competent in the shorter formats their bowlers have never had the quality to take twenty wickets and their batsmen have seldom applied themselves and played a proper innings. (Though they are not the only ones, as we’ve seen in the recent Australia series.) I would not back them to win the County Championship were they playing in that competition.

It raises the question again of whether they ought to have their test status revoked. Whilst they are reflecting poorly on test cricket as a whole, the loss of funds would immensely damage cricket in the country. The loss of test status would also mean they would play more limited overs cricket, which would not help them. In addition, most of the test nations except the original three were very weak for many years after starting to play test cricket. New Zealand were probably the worst (26 all out still being a record) but even they improved enough that they had a period of respectability. It was many years before England sent a full strength squad to tour India, or before the West Indies stopped playing ‘calypso cricket’. It is quite possible that Bangladesh may come around eventually and play at a respectable level.

At the same time, constantly losing (and usually losing badly) is not likely to be productive. They need to be tested against similar opposition more often than they are. And whilst Bangladesh may come around, there is no guarantee that they will. India and the West Indies did not start off playing one day cricket, as it hadn’t been invented yet. They could and did devote their resources to improving as test sides. One day cricket has always been Bangladesh’s strong point however and watching them play gives the strong impression that they are a one day team trying to play a test match. If they continue to focus on those formats (as they could be forgiven for doing, since ODIs are more lucrative for them and usually more of a contest) they are unlikely to improve as a test side. Least important, but still relevant I think, allowing Bangladesh to have test status and not Ireland is inconsistent. I strongly suspect that Ireland would beat Bangladesh in a test match at the moment.

I would prefer if Bangladesh had their test status revoked. What I would like to see is Bangladesh and the Associate nations play a lot of first class cricket amongst themselves and against the ‘A’ sides. (Full tours of three or four first class matches, ideally four days, plus limited overs matches would be ideal.) I don’t know how this would be financed, but if the ICC want to spread cricket around the world I think they need to find a way for the smaller nations to play more cricket in the longer format. Otherwise we will have more sides like Bangladesh playing test cricket when they are clearly unsuited to it.

Saturday review – 10 Dec

I had a bit of trouble assembling my customary review this week, like last week there were quite a few very good pieces and I like to stick to just five. The five I selected are presented in no particular order.

To begin with, at Cricinfo Christian Ryan writes about the relative lack of left arm orthodox spinners and explores possible reasons for their scarcity.

Keeping with the theme of spin, Barney Ronay in the Guardian writes about the modern trend of ‘mystery spinners’ and offers a brilliant summary of their career:

claim a sensational televised three for 12; invent a delivery called the Zangler, the Knucklechuck or the Massive Pie; become the officially recognised next big thing; play a season for the Bangalore Cheesesteaks; get the yips; get no-balled for chucking; have a tantrum while playing for Devon; disappear completely.

On the BBC website Jonathan Agnew looks at the squad for England’s tour of the UAE and suggests perhaps that Bairstow out to have been picked over Bopara. I’m tempted to agree, as Bopara has never really looked like a test level batsman, but I’d rather not blood Bairstow in the UAE.

In the wake of Andrew Flower suggesting that he might step down before the 2015 World Cup, Lizzy Ammon has a pice in the Mirror about his history and the incredible effect he has had on the England side since he was given the top job in 2009.

Finally, on the week of Peter Willey’s 62nd birthday Rob Steen writes at the Cricketer about Willey and the defiant innings he played to save the 1980 Oval test against the West Indies.

150 all out plays 81-7

It’s lunchtime on the second day of the second Australia v New Zealand test. Yesterday the Kiwis capitulated to 150 all out and so far today, needing just to bat decently to establish a commanding lead, the Australians have slumped to 81-7. It’s an very green wicket, but the batting has been terrible on both sides. No batsman has looked comfortable playing the moving ball and they have just gone after anything with width. It is a technique that is acceptable on a shirtfront, but on a pitch as green as the outfield batsmen have to show more patience. Rahul Dravid showed in England last summer that even against a good attack on a difficult pitch a batsman with proper technique can prosper, but he seems to be one of only a handful of batsmen prepared to grind out an innings.

I don’t have anything against most T20, but batsmen must get out of the mindset that they have to score runs quickly. If you look at the list of the highest run scorers last year only two of the top ten have a strike rate over 55. Amongst those ten the highest strike rate is KP’s 64.12. It is not necessary that all batsmen play like Geoff Boycott, and it’s certainly not a guarantee of runs, but they have to know how to alter their game when the situation demands it. It’s not a skill that is extinct, nor one that will go extinct, but it does seem to be less common than it used to be. The result is the sub 200 scores of which we have seen so many recently.

Test squad for UAE tour

England have announced the squad for the three test series against Pakistan in the UAE in January. In a sign of not only unusual but almost unprecedented stability there is only one chance from the Ashes squad with Ravi Bopara replacing the retired Paul Collingwood. The selection probably closest to a surprise is that Steve Davies retains his place as reserve keeper for the test matches. There was a strong suggestion that he’d fallen behind Bairstow in the pecking order, but it seems that was only for limited overs matches. Hopefully it won’t be relevant, of course. Matt Prior has a strong case for being the best wicket keeper in the world right now and if England have to field any reserve it will be a huge blow. Monty Panesar retains his place as the second spinner, which is not a huge surprise. It was not so long ago that he was the first choice and the other possible selections don’t look like challenging him at the moment. Samit Patel still has a lot of work to do to get into the test side, even if he is moving in the right direction, and Simon Kerrigan is still unproven, even at county level. There wasn’t any place in the squad for Graham Onions, putting a swift end to my suggestion that he play as a fourth seamer.

The squad announcement doesn’t leave much room for speculation about the starting XI in Dubai. Barring any late injuries, nine of the order are set in stone and a tenth, Eoin Morgan, is almost a certainty given the selectors’ preference for six batsmen. (With which I disagree, given the batting abilities of Prior and Broad, but that cause is long lost.) That leaves Bresnan, Tremlett, Finn and Panesar competing for the last bowling spot. I’ve said before that I’d give it to Bresnan and I still would, despite the lure of playing a second spinner. We saw in the Pakistan v Sri Lanka series that pace can be effective in the UAE, and Bresnan is a better bowler overall than Monty.

Pakistan have been playing very good cricket recently, and if they keep it up (a pretty big ‘if’ I know) they will be a huge challenge for England. It’s a strong squad though, there are no injuries (as much as I hate going six months without any cricket there are fitness advantages) so it should be a stronger side than the one that beat India so comprehensively at Edgbaston and the Oval last summer. It is shaping up to be a fantastic series and I’m starting to wish it too had a fourth test.

Hobart preview

The second test of the Australia v New Zealand series starts in a few hours. The Aussies are heavy favourites after a convincing win at the Gabba and I don’t see the Kiwis putting up much more of a fight. Although the wicket in Hobart should be more akin to what the Kiwis are used and I think they probably will bat better, to challenge even a weakened Australia they will have to improve almost beyond recognition. They will also have to field far better than they did in the first test, and I doubt they will have had enough time to improve noticeably.

Theoretically the Australians have a strong home field advantage in Hobart having never lost a test there, but there are some considerable caveats to that statistic. The matches there tend to be against weaker sides; in addition to New Zealand only Pakistan, Sri Lanka and the West Indies (in 2005) have played in Tasmania. Also, the Bellerive Oval only started hosting matches in 1989, so most of the previous nine matches were during Australia’s period of dominance. New Zealand’s bowling coach is very familiar with the ground having played in Tasmania for ten years during his first class career, so I don’t think the Aussies will actually have a marked home field advantage. That said, I don’t think they will need any home field advantage to overcome New Zealand.

The most interesting part of the test will probably be the selection battles ahead of the series against India. Two batsmen are going to be dropped when Watson and Marsh return and all of them bar Clarke are candidates to make way. The obvious direct competitions are Warner v Hughes to see who will survive the return of Watson and Khawaja v Ponting v Hussey to see who will make way for Marsh. But since Watson can, and many argue should, bat down the order it will probably not be so straight forward. Right now Hughes and Hussey are probably under the most pressure and will need centuries to ensure they retain their place on Boxing Day. Hughes has a good record in first class matches in Hobart, but the conditions are expected to favour swing and seam and I think he will find the going very difficult.

As far as the result of the match is concerned I’m predicting another heavy victory for Australia, by 250 runs or eight wickets.

Why Phil Hughes should not be dropped

It has been suggested that Phil Hughes will be ‘rotated’ out of the Australian XI for the second test at Hobart. If there is a change it will almost certainly be either Hughes or the equally out of form Hussey to make way for all-rounder Daniel Christian. Hussey has already expressed unease at the prospect of rotation and has counselled Hughes not to change his game. Hussey appears to be worried he will be the one to miss out in a rotation policy and is trying to make sure it’s Hughes instead.

I hope it isn’t Hughes to go, however, I like having Hughes in the Australian side. A look at his career statistics and history shows why. His first class form is very impressive, but in tests overall he averages 36.13 with three centuries and three fifties. That’s six times he’s gone past fifty in thirty innings. Hughes’ career is based almost entirely on the second test of his career, in which he scored 115 and 160 against South Africa in Durban. It was only a decent series apart from that. He scored nought and 75 in his first test and 33 and 32 in the last test of the series before going to England for the 2009 Ashes. He fared poorly against shorter bowling in England and was dropped for the third test. (And announced it himself, on Twitter.) He was dropped to give him a chance to work on his technique, but he never really improved. He had one-off tests against Pakistan and New Zealand after the 2009 Ashes, but his best score in those two matches was 86* against New Zealand. Regardless of his failure to improve, the injury and subsequent dropping of Katich during the 2010/11 Ashes gave him a more permanent place.

Since his debut tour to South Africa Phil Hughes has scored just 633 runs at an average of 27.52. His lone century in that time was against a Sri Lankan ‘attack’ at Colombo a few months ago and he has passed fifty only three times. The only time he has done so against an international quality attack was his 88 in Jo’burg last month. His technique was lacking against in England in 2009 and he has never fixed those problems. His footwork is non-existent and he can only play the short ball in the sense that he can play it in the air to gully. And this is why I want him to stay in the side. I hope the selectors continue to look at his extremely impressive domestic form and drop Hussey instead because in 2013 I want to see him walk on to the pitch at Lord’s on an overcast July morning and face Jimmy Anderson with the new ball. I really, really want to see that.

Australia win by nine wickets

To say that New Zealand played poorly in the first Test is an understatement. Australia did play reasonably well, but the Kiwis failed to put up any sustained fight. The scoreline is probably not indicative of the gulf in talent between the two sides, but it was certainly a fair result given how they played.

The New Zealand top order was the most culpable. It can be reasonably said that they bat down to seven with Vettori, but those seven batsmen averaged just 28 in the match. Without the first innings heroics of Vettori and Brownlie it falls to just 16. Of the 13 top order dismissals, no fewer than nine of them were needless. (That’s including Vettori’s suicidal run out in the first innings, though he deserves credit for having played well up until then.) They looked like they had not realised they were no longer playing one day cricket and were allowed to leave balls outside off stump. When they were in the field they let the Australians off the hook multiple times. They dropped catches, took wickets off no-balls and possibly most damningly allowed Mitchell Starc to score 32 not out on debut as Australia put the match out of realistic reach. They will have a lot on which to work before the next Test.

Australia do deserve some credit. They bowled well enough to induce the brainless errors by the Kiwis and batted with discipline for the most part. (With the exception of Phil Hughes, who is probably nearing the end of his career.) It’s a bit difficult to determine how effective the new Australian bowlers really were; with New Zealand batting poorly and only Peter Siddle against whom to compare them there is an element of guesswork. I think Pattinson looked like a genuinely good find though. He bowled with proper pace and hostility and did pick up a couple of wickets that were not the direct result of poor batting. Lyon looks like he will be the first choice spinner for the foreseeable future, which would finally bring some stability to the role. I don’t think Mitchell Starc had much of a debut though, his unbeaten 32 notwithstanding. He took only two wickets in the match, both off poor shots by Kiwis in the first innings (McCullum and Ryder). He’s the most likely to go when Cummins returns, unless Clarke wants to play a very inexperienced attack against India.

I can’t really see New Zealand winning the second Test, or any Test against a side better than Bangladesh at the moment. They need to improve all facets of their game in the longest format, as right now they are fielding an XI who don’t seem to know how the game is supposed to be played.