Friday, 11 November 2011
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Saturday, 13 June 2009
Mr Gul, who can't seem to decide how to spell his name, just took 5 for 6 off of 3 overs, the first michelle in international T20s, and also the most economical figures in the format of the game (and probably ever, what with it being the shortest form too).
These figures are undeniably the best, I'm fairly sure no one would put anything else above those 3 overs, but at the same time, what really makes one set of figures better than another?
Classically I think that it's very rare that the more wickets the more valuable the performance when spread over a longer format, but not always, and even less so within the super mega short formats.
As a captain would you rather see wickets or maidens? Initially that's probably a reasonably equality to make, 1 wicket = 1 maiden. In T20, maidens are much rarer than wickets, but in terms of the impact, roughly the same maybe.
Of course, if the details outside of this go awry then either achievement is quickly forgotten... would a captain care about his favourite middle overs dobbler taking 3 wickets if he went at 16 an over? Or, to complete the analogy, bowled 2 maidens and then was slogged for 8 sixes and 3 fours in the other 2 overs?
So moving on from maidens, and dot balls along with them (as nice a stat as it can be in T20, props to Sky for adding them to the players summaries), the blindly obvious alternative is of course economy rate.
As it turns out, Um(a|e)r's economy was similarily amazing, going at 2rpo, BUT if he had also been slapped around, the "best ever" bowling analysis in T20i could well be 5-32, which compared to the newy relegated 4-7 (Mark Gillespire vs Keny, 2007 World T20) wouldn't be considered better. Yet there it would of been, sitting atop the table.
So using magic imaginary numbers, complete the equation -- 5 for 30 == 4 for X
20? 10? If there was an equation, I'm sure it'd be hated as much as D/L. If I crawled over statsguru long enough I could probably have a stab at a magic ratio, but that sounds like hard work for zero return.
The big arse pain about stats is always that they miss the realities of the match, who was the opposition, was it the openers falling, or a drab skittling of a sorry tail end? Those annoyances aside, there's surely a point, especially in the short game when all the commentators seem to talk about are dot balls being golddust, where "best" can't always mean "most wickets".
Saturday, 6 June 2009
England lost to the Netherlands. Can't be arse to comment on that, as it's too interesting. Instead I was thinking about things which are dryer than a moisture lacking entity in an environment generally known for it's lack of water content.
This loss could cause a problem for the ICC, just like it did in the ODI World Cup when Ireland went through against all odds and ended up playing 7 more matches than they should. If England don't go through that will then be 7 matches with lower viewing figures, 7 matches with lower gate takings, 7 "worse" matches.
I can see the appeal of the league formats, from a cynical and genuine perspective, more matches, more money, more team exposure etc. But that leaves the problem of an exciting end. The IPL format seems odd with a big long hard fought league to ditch half the teams and then just 3 matches to sort out the top 4... weird, and unattractive.
Here in the World T20 this stupid "Super 8" thing is such a bad idea for the same reasons. In addition, going from 12 to 8 with just two matches per side clearly shows that those 4 getting the chop are not meant to make it in the first place. They are supposed to be token gestures, every one of them. If you look at how many matches are played by each level of progression we get:
4 teams play twice
4 teams play 9 times
2 teams play 10 times
2 teams play 11 times
Total matches - 86
Seems odd. The whole thing looks ugly and unbalanced. how about this...
Firstly, 16 teams instead of 12, and in that first group there are more games, meaning that the two teams going through from each group have more right to go through, so less shocks in theory.
Secondly any shocks that do happen are (probably) only going to last 3 more matches, not 7. After that round, you'd be really quite confident that normality should of been restored, and if not, then whoever it is clearly deserves to be there after all.
Thirdly there is a good balance between knock out and round robin leagues - it's a triangle. Everyone loves triangles accordingly to Dairylea.
Tallying up matches again:
8 teams play 3 matches
4 teams play 6 matches
2 teams play 9 matches
2 teams play 10 matches
Total matches - 86. You could not make this stuff up! Well you could, as I did the maths in my head and i'm tired... was I right?
I reckon this looks much much nicer. Less matches per team at most stages, but for the better I think. How many matches in any of these groups is going to be pointless for a team that progresses to the next round? Depends on numerous things really, but ultimately there would be less than the super 8 matches for sure.
I reckon this is fair. Does anyone else?
Thursday, 14 May 2009
...Who's the blandest of them all?
Which county side is the most drab and forgettable? Who's club mascot should be a glass of tap water or a bag of plain flour (non of that crazy self raising mumbo jumbo around here please)? Which opponents are you so utterly indifferent about that when your side plays them you find yourself thinking about interesting things like how many sheets of paper are actually in your printer at the moment, or if the levels of precipitation are indeed higher in the flatter areas of Spain as opposed to those with a more dynamic geography?
It's Derbyshire, isn't it? It is, right? Yeah?
Tuesday, 5 May 2009
After literally no response whatsoever, least of all any donations towards it what posted last year, and the total lack of further thought on the subject until watching the FP match on Sky at the weekend, I'm thrilled to announce that the Chris Read Needs A New Hat appeal is a full and unqualified success.
Look at his semi-toothful grin. Doesn't he look both fully rejuvinated and more like Gollum at the same time, in his nice new headwear?
Maybe what we should all be really pleased about after the successful completion of the appeal is just that I've got a new LCD TV and Sky HD since then. Success for me at least.
Sunday, 3 May 2009
In the time honoured tradition of throwing statistics at just about anything related to willow planks, when feeling annoyed how few Warwickshire games are being televised this year I thought I'd create a chart!
Why do Sky clearly hate Derb... Leices...Nort... Durham? No idea, nothing blidnly obvious as far as I know, unlike some. Maybe Murdoch had his money on Notts for the LVCC last year? it's not like we'll win anything this year, and probably not get to be written in the box currently containing "TBC" much either, so maybe we'd get one extra match televised? Meanwhile Notts counties like Lancs will probably pick up a sack load of extras...
I'm trying to see an anti-north thing here, Somerset get a truck full, including their recent humiliation by Durham over 4 days. but Lancs get loads, with Yorkiedoodles close behind, so sadly I don't think I can say that they're *that* racist. Does look like they're trying to get the moneys worth within the big city though, with Middlesex and Surrey coming up well. Are they officially prettier sides?
Does this mean that I actually have to go to Edgbaston in person?? Oh the humanity!
Anyway. Have a chart on a nice Sunday morning.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Sooooo, I managed to make it to the first FP match at Edgbaston on the weekend. Beautiful lovely super mega awesome sunny day, so I took the boy along to watch T'Bears bat reasonably well and fail with the ball. He's not 4 yet, and not really interested in the game in the slightest, but on the way up the M6 he remembered that there were bears, and that one had a bow. Bless him. Plan was to take him and bring him back home when he got bored, and hopefully return alone later. Expecting this to be leaving after 10 overs, the dude managed 47 overs in the end. That's my guy.
Actual player reviewy bits...
Bell did well. His ton came at a rate around 90, but with plenty of signs that he was there to prove form for England rather than win the match. He perished for 108. I have to assume that once he did get the ton he immediately hit out and got caught. I have to assume this as the little man needed the loo, and whilst I managed to drag out the route to the toilets while Bell painfully slowly went from 96 to 100, I didn't dare delay him any longer..! More evidence of him trying to prove form was that when Bears were fielding he dissapeared a little over half way through, with Miller replacing him as a sub for the rest of the match.
Woakes also had a reasonable day. At least as reasonable as any bowler on the side which only took 2 wickets in 45 overs. He and Ant Botha responsible for converting a probably average 240ish score to 271, both of them going at over 150. Nice to see that after a slow middle due to a collapse containing a duck for Maddy and a single for Tiny Tim.
Also good to see was the new boy Keith Barker. On debut from the 2nd XI (with Carter being crook) he hit a nice 28 and then bowled a really tidy 1/47 off of his full 10 overs. Maybe we'll see more of him in the future. Nice one.
So outside of my attempt at being serious, how's this...
We're in the pavilion in the first innings, because the little man wanted to get inside and have a snack. He loves fiddling with things and kept asking to open the sliding doors there, to which I say no so he doesn't annoy people. Now after a bit a nice little old lady comes along the front and goes to open the door, and I suggest Jake might like to help her. He's a shy little dude, so politely declines. Meanwhile the lady has come in, and is aware that he didn't want to help her. With a really nice smile and a soft gentle voice she says:
"They never do want to help do they? Children these days, I don't know. Oh well. It's how you lot bring them up, you know."
Anyone else been the subject of such a massive sweeping insult but be so amazed at the time to even realise it until the moment's gone?
Oh and there's a lovely new hover cover there. Rock on.
Thursday, 16 April 2009
Andy Flower is, as expected, the new England Coach. Seems that Strauss didn't want a Coach role at all, more a team manager, but daren't say so to the press. Either way, good luck to him. Please.
This appointment is important, right? It's a widely held belief that the coach is responsible for form and results to a level where he (or she, or it) is held more accountable for failures in a team than the goons holding the lumps of willow themselves.
So with that established, how is it logical that that person is allowed to not be of the nationality of the team? If it's so critical then that surely means that it is significantly representative of the country in question, so how can Johnny foreigner be allowed that job?
Seems to be even more so the case with Association Football, where out national team had a Swede, then a Brit (for national pride to be restored) and then when national pride was seen to be a sack of poop, he was given the elbow and replaced with an... Italian? Or is he Spanish? Not sure. When England failed to get in that Euro tournament the other year, the manager got the boot, not the players.
Anyway, seems I'm just saying the same thing again and again so I'll stop.. but isn't it just a little weird logically??
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
I was trying to work out how I ended up following one of the disputed greats of English cricket in Coventry last week.
Then I realised that he must have come up the M1, off at Junction 14 to the M45 and then along the A45, B4113, A429, A4053 and then 4th exit to Croft Road to get to the new IKEA there.
How anyone could not take advantage of the discounted Ringo barstools I have no idea. They'll look just great in the new Rob Key bar in the Rob Key pavilion, at the north end of the Rob Key ground in his back garden. He had to cut a hole in the side of the
Formal dedication next Tuesday, limit of 2 mini sausage rolls per person, BYOB.