With the seeming failure of the Southern Premier League getting off the ground, Australia's Big Bash Twenty20 tournament is taking matters into their own hands with Cricket Australia allowing each state to recruit up to two international players to their teams. This is a great idea as the appeal of the Indian Premier League has shown that the lure of international stars is big business. Of course while the Australia competition can't compete in money terms with the IPL the timing of the tournament means that it's a good additional option for international players as it will never clash with the cashed up Indian tournament.
Without having a clear understanding of the touring schedules of the different nations it's interesting to see that just about every state has gone for Sri Lankan players. Ajantha Mendis for South Australia, Lasith Malinga for Tasmania and there's talk of Kumar Sangakkara playing for New South Wales and most exciting is the possiblity of Muttiah Muralithuran playing for Victoria. In fact, the only other international stars announced so far appear to be West Indian, with Chris Gayle for Western Australia and Dwayne Bravo for Victoria. Chances are they are the only nations who don't have conflicting tours during the time of the competition mind you there's also word that former Queenslander Brendon Nash is on a bit of recruiting drive for his former state in attempts to lure some of his West Indian tour mates to play for the Bulls, but it will be interesting to see what other players are announced in the coming weeks. A question I have, does Queensland want Brendon Nash? And if they do, does he count as an international player these days? And if they don't want him - isn't that a bit of an awkward situation?
I can just imagine the conversation between the Queensland Bulls rep and Brendon Nash:
BULLS: Hi Brendon, we're looking to recruit some players for the Big Bash tournament this summer.
NASH: Oh sure, I'd be happy to come back and play for you guys!
BULLS: Uh, yeah, um, that's great that you're keen, but, uh, we were kind of wondering if you could have a chat with some of your team mates.
Cricket is one of the world's most statistical sports, and mathematicians in cricket-loving nations love nothing more than delving into the minutiae of the numbers and diving into averages, strike-rates and custom-made measures of batting and bowling effectiveness.
For many people, including me, cricket isn't just a sport, it is a way of life.
These words could easily have come from me, but are actually the words of Rob Eastaway, a cricket-loving mathematician from the UK, and originator of the official International Cricket Councilcricket-ratings which rank not only teams, but players within each team. Over at The Mr Science Show podcast, I chat to Rob about how you mathematically rank cricketers.
Listen to this podcast here - note a few audio issues, see below:
Ranking individual batsmen and bowlers is no small task. A common method of comparing batsmen is their average, which is the average score the batsman compiles each time he comes in to bat. This method, however, has a number of issues as it does not take into consideration the opposition, playing conditions and how recently the runs were scored. How can you compare a score of 60 against a world-class opponent on a dodgy pitch with a score of 150 against a lowly rated team in easy batting conditions? This is what Eastaway's ranking system attempts to do - and the maths is quite difficult (far more difficult, in Rob's words, than the Duckworth-Lewis method of determining the winner in a rain-effected game!) As well as taking into consideration the strength of the opposition and playing conditions, the ranking system places a greater emphasis on recent performances. The overall system has a number of feed-back loops - the individual player ratings contribute to a team's rating, which effects how many rating points an opposition player can earn against that team - remember, a score of 50 against tough opposition will be worth more than 50 against low-class opponents. Similarly, how each player in a match performs influences how many points are on offer. For example, a score of 45 out of an overall team score of 100 will be more highly valued than a score of 45 out of 450. As such, large amounts of historical data are used to come up with the final numbers. Limited overs cricket has the additional dimension of strike-rate - a batsman who scores his runs quickly will be rated more highly than a slow scorer.
The system was first developed in 1987 by Eastaway with former English cricketer Ted Dexter and colleague Gordon Vince, and at first the system was greeted with scepticism by many cricket lovers. Nowadays, however, it has gained credibility and has even been used by international cricketers to help negotiate their contracts - for example, Michael Bevan was for a long time rated number one in the One Day International version of the rankings and used this in contract negotiations, however he could not secure a Test spot. Known originally as the Deloittes Ratings and in later years the PwC Ratings, the system was officially adopted by the International Cricket Council in January 2005.
With a background in Operations Research and a love of cricket, Eastaway is essentially my idol! You can read more about the maths of his system in his article Howzat in Plus Magazine.
As many of the equations used in this system are now copyrighted, you can't find the exact algorithms published anywhere. However, if you are a big nerd like me, you might like the book Deloitte Ratings: The Complete Guide to Test Cricket in the Eighties by Marcus Berkmann. The book details the ratings changes after each Test series in the 80s, and the appendix contains many of the equations which underpin the system. I was given this book when I was 10 and didn't much understand it back then, but I was very happy to find it in storage when I returned from the UK, and I now find it a maths-cricket-nerd's delight!
I'm fascinated to know if they come up with something for Twenty 20. The ultra-shortened form of the game brings in loads more complexities, not least of which is that unless you are an opening batsman, you may not even get a bat! Here's hoping Australia can win the World Twenty20 - oh and The Ashes! If only I was in the UK this summer!
I hope you enjoy this podcast - however, please note there are some audio issues. I had a great chat with Rob in a cafe in London, however my recording equipment was set on the wrong setting and so captured a lot more background noise than I had hoped! So please hang in there - this was one of my very favourite interviews. Rob is a fascinating person and had some really interesting observations on maths and sport. I really shouldn't have gone to The Chemical Brothers the night before, I probably would have had the microphone on the right setting!
The recent news that Richie Benaud is set to retire saddens me, not so much because Ritchie is retiring, but because of the bunch of commentators he’s leaving behind. I liken Richie to Bert Newton - they both look a bit like frogs, they’re old blokes in the TV industry and I don’t completely understand their appeal, but they’re pretty good at what they do. I like Richie as he doesn’t over-commentate like so many of his colleagues - he doesn’t pretend to know why the ball deviated at 11.3 degrees off a crack, as opposed to some others like Ian Chappell or Mark Nicholas who try to wow us with their knowledge. I love the non-stop natter of cricket radio commentary, but on TV, I love the sound of the crowd, the leather on willow, the Channel 9 cricket theme song - not the commentators! Ritchie never said more than he needed to, and when he did say something, it contributed.
And another thing, whilst we’re ranting, why is it that the commentators throughout the Twenty20 commentary have to continually tell us how good it is, how it’s such a different game, how kids bring their parents along yadda yadda yadda. We know! That’s why we’re watching it!
I’d like to see James Brayshaw do more cricket - he’s big in Victoria, has some insight and is interesting to listen to. But for some reason he’s hosting the new Channel 9 show “WipeOut” - it beats me how a modern-day version of “It’s a knock-out” got through a programmers’ meeting, but anyway… Brayshaw would be much better than some of the others - you can pretty much bet against anything Healy says. If he says in his monotone that Bracken is going to try and bowl a yorker, Bracken will bowl a bouncer. If he says Ponting is due for a big score, call up John the bookie and put $10 on him for under 10 runs. As for Mark Nicholas, well, he’s OK, but if I'm allowed a moment of patriotism, does Channel 9 really need to pay Nicholas to come out to Australia for 6 months of each year chasing the summer, simply to hear his Westminster accent? Not that he’s bad, he’s quite good, but there are certainly better commentators in Australia. As for Michael Slater - as a batsman, he was great - fearless and exciting. Nowadays he’s clearly been through a few too many media-training courses for Sunday morning TV.
I’ll miss Ritchie and I think we’ll feel his void when he’s gone.
Cricket is one sport tailor made for Wii, and there has been much speculation for a long time about if and when cricket will debut on Wii. There is this youtube group and the very popular Wii want cricket campaign.
EA Sports has called the game 'Cricket 9' and it is accredited to Electronic Arts in Canada, which was responsible for the 2008 NHL and FIFA games.
However a platform for the title isn't specified . I hope it comes to X-box too.
Having gotten used to Australian dominance for the last decade or so, our recent slump in form has me kind of worried about the state of Australian cricket. The selectors, who are not the most popular of people here at HTB, have decided that it is time to blood some young talent in an effort I suppose of starting afresh and rebuilding the side and restoring our glory.
This was evidenced initially by the selection of Dave Warner into the shorter form games, with debatable success.
I think the gutsiest call though has come with the selection of Phil Hughes as the replacement for Matthew Hayden on the South African tour. I think it's particularly gutsy because of the elevated importance of tests over one dayers and Twenty20 matches. Where a throwaway selection happens all the time in one dayers, and Twenty20's test match selection, particular a tour squad selection is a much more considered thing, due to the importance of the matches themselves over one dayers. Sure you have the odd injury related call up to anyone of citizenship who is playing in the local competition, but when you're named in the touring squad and it's clear you're the only option they're selected, this is a deliberate thing.
Phil Hughes is a starter for Australia, and he will be the youngest player since Craig McDermott to debut for Australia. His form has been sparkling, and he totally deserves his spot. He's a young and exciting player, and I praise the selectors for taking a punt on what could be great investment for the future.
Nick was captain of the indoor cricket teams The Spice Boys and Backnet Blitz and was robbed of a maiden outdoor century when he was "timed out" after showing up late to the second day's play. A muscular all-rounder, Nick could turn his gaze to other sports, and completed the baseball dream of a grand-slam home run.
Marc managed to score nearly all his career runs in 1998 before he discovered going out on a Friday night. His top score is 114 for Glenorie vs Mt Colah, and the stars somehow aligned for a best bowling performance of 5/12 for the Illawarra Catholic Club. He has also been hit for 22 off a fantastic 9 ball over, and has yes been out "Handled the Ball" (oh, and hit-wicket).
