Kartikeya Date
How to make a 14-team World Cup fairer
Replace knockouts with Qualifiers and Eliminators and change the points system to one that takes into account the margin of victory
Kartikeya Date
09-Apr-2015
It's clear that, as a sporting matter, the World Cup needs to remain a 14-team tournament. The Associate teams have done better in 2015 than ever before, and as ICC officials point out, this is in no small measure due to the efforts of the ICC. The World Cup is the marquee tournament in cricket. Fifty-over cricket lends itself to many moods and different mini-contests. There are just enough good teams in the world for an exciting tournament to be possible. In this post, I will propose a format to make a 14-team tournament work over six weeks.
The 2015 tournament lasted six weeks. India played eight games over 40 days. Their workload was far lighter than it is in the average bilateral series. Consider that they played four Tests over a month in an unusually strenuous tour of Australia. Had the Phillip Hughes tragedy not occurred, they would still have played four Tests in 36 days. Of their eight games in the World Cup, four were against Zimbabwe, UAE, Bangladesh and Ireland. At one point in the tournament, Australia did not play for nearly two weeks, thanks to a washout against Bangladesh.
In a good format the fate of teams does not hinge on a single bad day. An ideal World Cup format would accomplish two things. First, it would reward sustained quality. (A format that requires the same amount of work from a team that wins six games in six and another that wins three in six in the league stage, to win the World Cup is an unfair format.) Second, it would give every team a fair opportunity to give an account of itself. Keeping this in mind, a 14-team World Cup can be divided into two broad stages:
Full postWhy does cricket need the Associates?
Because it gives more young people the chance to enjoy a sport, and society is better for the existence of sport
Kartikeya Date
22-Mar-2015
Every four years, teams from beyond the Test world participate in the World Cup. And every four years the question of whether or not they should be allowed into the next one comes up.
Every four years, some of us take the large-hearted view that if cricket is to be a global game then more teams must play it at a high standard and the way to achieve this is to ensure more frequent competition between the best teams and the "lighter teams" (formerly pejoratively known as "minnows" until MS Dhoni rescued them with this elegant phrase). A few others take the hard-hearted view that since the lighter teams are not as good as the best teams, matches between the two are boring and should be kept to a minimum. And a few pragmatic ones take the long-term view: if we invest in the lighter sides today, we might have a bigger, more profitable game in some distant tomorrow.
All these positions are unsatisfactory because they miss the basic point. It is irrelevant how good the best players in a country are at playing cricket. The total amount of cricket played - for leisure, for pleasure, for friendship or for exercise - is at the essential heart of the matter.
Full postThe DRS and the difference between close calls and clear ones
It has been said that when a player review of an lbw ends in an "umpire's call" verdict, the reviewing team should not lose its review. Here's why that is not justified
Kartikeya Date
10-Mar-2015
Two of the greatest players in recent times agree on one aspect of the DRS and persistently argue their case on commentary. Shane Warne and Ian Botham have said during the World Cup that in cases where a player review ends in an "umpire's call" verdict, the reviewing team should not lose its review. Their reasoning is that the umpire's call verdict means that the reviewing team was not wrong on the merits of questioning the umpire's decision. This is a popular view that many other commentators and players have agreed with in the seven years of the DRS era.
I will call this the Warne-Botham view for the remainder of this article. I will argue that this view is wrong.
Umpire's call is specific to lbw decisions. The lbw depends on three distinct parameters. For each of these - pitching point, point of impact with batsman's body, and hitting stumps - three outcomes are possible. An lbw review for DRS can therefore return 27 distinct outcomes. Exactly one of these 27 results in an out verdict. Nineteen result in umpire's call verdicts, while seven result in not-out verdicts.
Full postIndia v Pakistan across the eras
The two sides' records against each other have had very little to do with their form against the other top teams
Kartikeya Date
24-Feb-2015
When India play Pakistan, what people expect is not a sporting contest but a war minus the shooting. I sometimes suspect that some of us would not mind a little bit of shooting if it could be sneaked past the pesky Laws of Cricket. How often have you heard of Indian cricketers being reminded that no matter what else you do, you don't lose to Pakistan in the World Cup? In the 2011 World Cup, many Indian fans would have minded India losing to Australia in the quarter-final less than they would have minded India losing to Pakistan in the semi-final - though the former loss would have meant an earlier exit.
Overall, Pakistan hold the edge against India, as they do against all major opposition. Pakistan have won 72 of 126 ODIs against India to date. Pakistan hold a 19-11 record in India, while India hold a 11-14 record in Pakistan.
This history can be broken down cleanly into four periods. Many of you will recognise the dates in the table below. They mark red-letter days in India-Pakistan ODI contests. Whether these breakpoints were causes of shifts or symptoms of them is an open question. I tend to favour the latter view. Each breakpoint represents an iconic India v Pakistan game which is embedded in the collective minds of cricket fans in the subcontinent.
Full postHow effective are left-right batting pairs?
Why it is a myth that left-right batting combinations have an advantage over other batting pairs in ODIs
Kartikeya Date
09-Feb-2015
In cricket, being left-handed comes with some peculiar advantages (and disadvantages). Bowlers, on the whole, tend to be right-arm bowlers and find it difficult to get lbws against left-handers if the ball isn't swinging. On the other hand, this same predominance of right-arm bowlers means that lefties invariably face a massive rough outside their off stump as a Test match progresses.
The desire for a left-right batting combination has produced many a change in batting orders. Commentators often argue that in ODI cricket, left-right combinations might find it easier to score quickly, as the bowler has to keep adjusting his line and length and bowl to different fields if the strike is rotated regularly. This increases the chance that the bowler may bowl a bad ball. To take a hypothetical case, should this extend to promoting JP Duminy ahead of Faf du Plessis to join Hashim Amla at the wicket? Is there any evidence to suggest that left-right stands are more prolific than others?
Full postGiving the batsman the benefit of the doubt? It's in the law
Why going in favour of the batsman on lbws is more than just a tradition in cricket
Kartikeya Date
22-Jan-2015
On the final day of the Adelaide Test between India and Australia, Marais Erasmus consistently declined to give lbws in cases where the batsman was well forward and the height was marginal. Erasmus did give M Vijay out to a delivery that, according to the ball-tracker, was similarly high, but Vijay was deep in his crease when the ball clattered into his pads.
Many believe the idea that the batsman should get the benefit of doubt is a matter of tradition, not law. Lbw is governed by Law 36, the relevant portion of which states that the striker is out lbw if he intercepts the ball with any part of his person and "but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket". In this article, I will argue that Law 36 does contain within it the basis for the practice of giving the batsman the benefit of the doubt. My view, based on reading the law, is that this is not merely a matter of convention or tradition.
If you throw a ball at the stumps, exactly two outcomes are possible: the ball hits the stumps, or it does not hit the stumps. You hit or you miss. A third possibility does not exist. In order for lbw to come into the picture, it must be the case that the ball does not actually hit the stumps. The umpire has to predict what might have happened had the ball not hit some part of the batsman (typically the leg, i.e. the pad). Hence, the number of possibilities here are not the same as those in the simple case of throwing a ball at the stumps unimpeded. However, the number of possible decisions remains exactly two: out and not out.
Full postIn defence of the bouncer
The delivery is essential to the game, but we need to guard against its abuse
Kartikeya Date
05-Jan-2015
Phillip Joel Hughes was hit by a bouncer during a Sheffield Shield match between South Australia and New South Wales on November 25, 2014. Two days later, he died. His death has brought on questions about the legitimacy of the bouncer in cricket. Mishaps are often a matter of millimetres - as it was for Hughes, unfortunately.
Pranay Sanklecha has argued that a moral question is in play when it comes to the bouncer. He is not persuaded by the standard arguments in favor of the delivery. These, he writes, are as follows:
"[…] it's thrilling (which Test cricket needs to stay alive), it maintains the balance between bat and ball, it's a test of courage and thereby reveals character (men from boys and all that), it is part of the tradition of the game."
Full postBowling to blame for India's poor overseas record
The inability to build pressure by denying runs, even on pitches with sufficient help to keep batsmen honest, is India's biggest problem
Kartikeya Date
21-Dec-2014
It's New Year's Day 2011. India have just beaten South Africa in Durban in the Boxing Day Test. The series is tied at 1-1. In the final Test, in Cape Town, Sachin Tendulkar scores a brilliant 146 to take India to a competitive first-innings total. Jacques Kallis responds with two fine centuries. India hold on for a draw on the fifth day. They are the top Test team in the world.
Since that Test, India have played 19 Tests in England, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. They have lost 15 of those, and won just once - at Lord's in 2014. They should have won in Johannesburg in 2013. And they should have won in Wellington, and in Melbourne. The Melbourne result is especially instructive. Australia made 333 on a pitch that was not flat, with no batsman looking set. No batsman, that is, bar one. Tendulkar played a blinding innings of 73 in 98 balls to take India to 214 for 2. He was bowled by a Peter Siddle special before stumps on the second day. For some measure of the wicket, consider that after Australia took a first-innings lead of 51, India reduced them to 27 for 4 and then to 166 for 8, before letting them reach 240. But 292 was a steep chase on that wicket and India were bowled out for 169.
Other than that, it has been a one-way street. The defeats have generally not been close. The retirement or removal of veterans like Tendulkar, Dravid, Laxman, Harbhajan Singh and Zaheer Khan has not made a big impact. Since Tendulkar retired, India have scored 30.1 runs per wicket and conceded 44.6 runs per wicket in 11 Tests in Australia, England, New Zealand and South Africa. Much has been made of India's batting collapses. The chart below has made an appearance more than once on your television sets.
Full postGanguly or Dravid: who was a better ODI captain?
Both backed younger players but their leadership brands were different and so were their win-loss records
Kartikeya Date
11-Dec-2014
The freewheeling banter at the launch of Sachin Tendulkar's autobiography was revealing, perhaps unintentionally so. Sachin Tendulkar made his views about Greg Chappell clear. Rahul Dravid was non-committal. Chappell contributed an essay to Timeless Steel, a collection of essays published by ESPNcricinfo on the occasion of Dravid's retirement. John Wright did too. For Wright, Dravid was "the rock around whom the rest moved". For Chappell, he was "the eternal student". This says a lot about Wright and Chappell. It also says something about how Dravid, perhaps, sees the Chappell era.
Dravid's tenure as India captain coincided with Chappell's tenure as coach. Chappell, as we've learned recently, was not averse to challenging older players (or "senior" players, in the parlance of our times) and the order they found comfortable. Apart from the standard-issue comments about Dravid's character, Chappell gives one concrete example about the way India improved under Dravid - in chasing totals in ODI cricket.
India had a problem chasing runs. Chappell tells us that Dravid decided to confront this problem head on by choosing to field first irrespective of the conditions. Both assertions are supported by the data.
Full postRohit's innings a symbol of ODI batting's changing mindset
The recent trend of massive individual scores in ODIs owes to batsmen realising they can get a lot more out of each ball
Kartikeya Date
25-Nov-2014
Rohit Sharma broke Virender Sehwag's world-record ODI score of 219 by 45 runs at Eden Gardens on November 13. Beginning with Glenn Turner, the record has been broken in the 20th, 216th, 264th, 1209th, 2873rd, 2962nd, 3223rd, and 3544th ODIs.
Rohit's world record caused some dismay among fans. To some extent, this has to do with the fact that it was Rohit Sharma who broke the record. He is seen, rightly or wrongly, as a player who has been given more than his fair share of opportunities. Be that as it may, he has now scored more than 200 in ODIs twice. Perhaps the closest analogy I can think of is Chris Gayle making two Test triple-hundreds. If you are feeling even less charitable, Ravindra Jadeja making three first-class triple-hundreds.
The idea that runs have been devalued in ODI cricket in recent years is not a new one. It is put down to superior bats, changes in fielding restrictions, and the general improvement in hitting ability, thanks to the proliferation of T20 leagues. I have shown that the increase in the scoring rate is not due a decline in dot balls but to an increase in boundary-hitting and, especially, six-hitting. Scoring has changed the least on the bigger grounds in Australia, while it has exploded in New Zealand, South Africa and India. But the story is not merely one of exploding scoring rates. I'll use four charts to explain that ODI cricket has evolved into a contest in which there is more action per delivery than there was 25 years ago, not simply more runs.
Full post
Terms of Use|Privacy Policy|Your US State Privacy Rights|Children's Online Privacy Policy|Interest - Based Ads|Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information|Feedback
© 2024 ESPN Sports Media Ltd. All rights reserved