In-form Aussies have something to worry about

Sunday, May 09, 2010

The way Australia played (and won against) India in the Super Eights was superb. Our expert delves into the game and wonders if the Aussies will peak too early.

Australia dismantled the Men in Blue in what was billed as a clash of the titans. Take away Rohit Sharma and the rest of the Indian batsmen managed just 46 runs between them; Harbhajan Singh and Mr. Extras were the only ones to reach double figures. It’s a promising sign for Australia who are now, by popular consensus, the favorites to win it all this year. However, results from recent T20 tournaments indicate that Australia might be in danger of peaking too early.

One caveat to begin with - a team may not have to worry about winning consistently if there is a wide talent gap between teams. For instance, if Australia played the Netherlands in 10 straight games, it wouldn’t be a surprise if Australia won them all. Similarly, in the MAGS era (that’s the Matthew- Adam-Glenn-Shane era, you know who I’m talking about!) the talent gap between the Aussies and the rest of the world was fairly high and Australia were expected to win a significant percentage of Test and ODI matches they played.  In today’s world, there is little disparity between the top eight international teams, particularly in T20s in which results are unpredictable. Even in the IPL, there isn’t much difference in skill levels between the eight franchises. And it’s precisely in these types of competitions with roughly equal teams that peaking too early has been a problem.

Case in point - the World T20 2009 won by Pakistan. The team that peaked too early - South Africa, who had three consecutive dominant displays heading into the semis. Sure they were undefeated, but let’s get deeper into the numbers - they beat New Zealand by just 1 run in their second match and had a poor outing with a bat at the start of the tournament. They really started to peak in the Super 8 stages, beating England by 7 wickets, the West Indies by 20 runs and India by 12 runs - all of which were comfortable victories. And then they lost to Pakistan - the Proteas peaked too early. Sri Lanka suffered a similar fate in the final right after two emphatic wins - 48 run victory against New Zealand and a 57 run win against the West Indies.

In general, the odds of playing consistently well in over four consecutive matches against competitive oppositions is extremely hard and the team Castrol Index (CI)) does a good job of illustrating that for IPL 3. The average CI for a team across all matches was 133 for the tournament. That number by itself may be hard to understand, the key here is to understand a team’s performance relative to the average. For instance, a great team performance will have lead to a CI score of about 170 or more- a relative score of 1.25 or more with respect to the133-baseline. A poor performance results in a CI score of about 100 or less, a relative score of 0.75 or less

In IPL3, there were 9 dominant ‘streaks’ of 3 or more matches - a streak being number of consecutive matches with a CI score above 133 or a relative score above  1. Of these, five were 3 match streaks and four were 4 match streaks- there wasn’t a single streak longer than 4 matches! And what happened at the end of streaks- teams tended to come up with a poor performance and in some cases that started a losing trend. The two charts below highlight the most significant streaks (the ones in which teams were truly dominant and had an on average relative score of about 1.2 across the streak)

Deccan, Mumbai and Rajasthan all dropped after a three match streak

Bangalore and Delhi peaked too early

These graphs indicate that all these ‘hot teams’ or ‘momentum teams’ or ‘in-form teams’, whatever you want to call them, all had a big loss at some point. The Delhi Daredevils are a perfect example of a team peaking too early and losing steam when it mattered - they won their 6th match in the tournament by 17 runs, the next three by 40 runs, 67 runs and 37 runs respectively. And then they lost to KKR by 14 runs which started a 3 match losing streak and an eventual knock out against Deccan. Similar story with the other teams, though some had their setbacks early enough to bounce back.

The implication for Australia - they better be careful about getting hot too soon and fizzling out at the end. The odds suggest they are probably better off losing one of their early matches or at least being tested early. A danger of dominating too much too early is that you never really get pushed and complacency may set in, which can be a real danger in a competition of relative equals. That’s probably the silver lining for Indian fans after the trashing on Friday - at least they aren’t peaking too early!

A look into Jayawardene’s and Raina’s 100s

Friday, May 07, 2010

Our expert compares the fine centuries of Raina and Jayawardene at the World Twenty20 in the West Indies so far.

Suresh Raina’s 101 (off 60) held sway as the top-WT20 innings for a day. Then Mahela Jayawardene scored 100 (off 64) against Zimbabwe. Before I completed the Sri Lanka-Zimbabwe match analysis, I felt that Raina’s hundred would hold on to the top position since it was faster and against better opposition. However, when I did the analysis I found to my surprise that Jayawardene’s hundred (567.6 rtgpts) had overtaken Raina’s (548.4). Since I have tested and re-tested my algorithms, I was not unduly perturbed and forwarded the tables for publication.

However, I realize that this is an opportunity to explain to the readers how this came about and presents an opportunity for the readers to get an insight into the Rating methodology.

Jayawardene got 537.5 base points while Raina, 542.9.

The table below compares the other weights.

	Jayawardene	Raina
BowlingQuality:	1.09	1.05
Pitch:	1.04	0.97
% TeamScore:	1.12	1.10
Support:	1.04	1.00
Scoring Rate:	0.94	0.96
TeamStrength:	0.98	1.02
EntryPosition:	1.00	1.05

Target/Location/Result/MatchIndex weights are same for both.

Jayawardene is ahead on 4 criteria, with the surprise being the bowling quality. Surprisingly, Zimbabwe’s bowling attack is better than South Africa’s. Look at the averages, Chigumbura (15.83), Cremer (7.33), Lamb (12.25), Mpofu (18.75), Price (14.38) and Utseya (17.33). These numbers surely support this startling revelation. Now we know why they defeated Australia and Pakistan.

Jayawardene received much less support, the next two scores being 23 and 13. Raina received better support, the scores being 37 and 16/16. Jayawardene scored 57.8% and Raina 54.3% of their respective team scores. The India-South Africa pitch was much better, an RpW value exceeding 35 while the Sri Lanka-Zimbabwe match had an RpW value of 25. 

Raina scored at 1.683 while Jayawardene scored at 1.5625. India and South Africa were more closely matched than Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe. Finally, Jayawardene entered at 0 for 0 while Raina entered at a worse situation of 4 for 1.