4th Test at Sydney (?) - Jan 5-9 2022

[Spark]

This is similar to Root and Wood saying before the third Test that the England team had had a 'serious chat' about how badly they had played and that they definitely wouldn't make the same mistakes again now.

Unfortunately they played badly because they're not great players and they're playing against a side who outmatch them. You can't just decide to be a really good player and then it just be immediately true.

CricViz are claiming based on the analytics that this is the statistically best bowling series they've ever measured. How much you believe that is... well, a matter of debate, and obviously how England have batted (very badly and very timidly) has had a big effect on how well Australia have been allowed to bowl, but they've still been facing high quality stuff.

 

[Teja.]

CricViz are claiming based on the analytics that this is the statistically best bowling series they've ever measured. How much you believe that is... well, a matter of debate, and obviously how England have batted (very badly and very timidly) has had a big effect on how well Australia have been allowed to bowl, but they've still been facing high quality stuff.

Tbf, Cricviz can't have been doing ball-by-ball bowling quality measurement very long, have they?

 

[Spark]

Tbf, Cricviz can't have been doing ball-by-ball bowling quality measurement very long, have they?

They claim to have ball-by-ball Hawkeye data from 2006 onwards.

 

[honestbharani]

This is similar to Root and Wood saying before the third Test that the England team had had a 'serious chat' about how badly they had played and that they definitely wouldn't make the same mistakes again now.

Unfortunately they played badly because they're not great players and they're playing against a side who outmatch them. You can't just decide to be a really good player and then it just be immediately true.

Do powers of projection and manifestation mean nothing to you?


*Hits RIS with a spell of being GIMH*

 

[honestbharani]

Tbf, Cricviz can't have been doing ball-by-ball bowling quality measurement very long, have they?

They also said the WTC final was the highest "quality" of cricket they have seen. But that time, they did release some data and percentages. Not sure if they actually shared any data points this time?

 

[Spark]

They also said the WTC final was the highest "quality" of cricket they have seen. But that time, they did release some data and percentages. Not sure if they actually shared any data points this time?

There's actually an article but most of it is paywalled. This seems the crux of it though:






But it also goes on to show that, well, they haven't exactly been put under pressure:

 

[Spark]

Those two Aus entries in the middle there confuse the hell out of me though. Weren't those the two series played on horrible roads where both sides scored billions...? Or was one of those an away tour?

 

[honestbharani]

There's actually an article but most of it is paywalled. This seems the crux of it though:

View attachment 30307

View attachment 30308


But it also goes on to show that, well, they haven't exactly been put under pressure:

View attachment 30309

I would say the first graph is bollocks as the other article I linked in another thread clearly shows release speed is not a big factor in how difficult the ball can be, to face as a batter. Second and third seem more a function of how bad England have been. Either way, I do not see any data point that they can use to even qualify "best quality bowling" whatever that means to anyone.

IIRC the WTC final they had a stat about how many difficult balls were bowled which would be expected to get wickets and how few of them actually did. That was a better metric IMO.

 

[Spark]

Either way, I do not see any data point that they can use to even qualify "best quality bowling" whatever that means to anyone.

I think that's exactly what xWickets is for; it measures based purely on ball tracking the expected bowling average of the deliveries bowled to an entirely average Test batsman. I.e. it doesn't actually depend directly on the quality of the batting in any way (obviously it depends quite a lot indirectly).

But yeah because the standard of batting faced has been so low and they've never been under pressure, I wouldn't class this series in the top echelon of best bowling I've seen, that one crazy hour in the evening on Day 2 at the MCG aside.

 

[honestbharani]

I think that's exactly what xWickets is for; it measures based purely on ball tracking the expected bowling average of the deliveries bowled to an entirely average Test batsman. I.e. it doesn't actually depend directly on the quality of the batting in any way (obviously it depends quite a lot indirectly).

Yeah but the graphs you had showed had xAve right? Isn't that a function of what the batting side is also doing?

 

[Spark]

Yeah but the graphs you had showed had xAve right? Isn't that a function of what the batting side is also doing?

Here's the accompanying text from the article:

Unsurprisingly, bowling of that pace matched with that level of relentlessly hitting a good line and length, has produced an exceptionally high level of threat. By CricViz’s Expected Averages measure, the deliveries Australia have bowled this series would (had they been bowled to a typical Test batsman) have averaged 23.5 - that’s the lowest Expected Average for any team in a Test series (of three matches or more) since 2006, when records began.

The model is built on historical ball-tracking data, going back to 2006, assessing a huge range of features on every delivery, including the simple facts of line, length, and speed, to more granular details like swing and seam movement, dip, bounce, release point and plenty more. What the model aims to do is to divorce the quality of the batting, from the bowling; for coaches and pundits, being able to distinguish between a ‘good’ 2-60 and a ‘bad’ 3-40 is valuable.

 

[honestbharani]

Here's the accompanying text from the article:

Fair enough. Having seen it, I dont think it is anywhere near true or accurate but numbers gonna numbers.

 

[Spark]

Fair enough. Having seen it, I dont think it is anywhere near true or accurate but numbers gonna numbers.

Yeah like I said it's, uh, not the conclusion I would have come to at all, but it does show that England haven't exactly been facing county trundlers. Which of course we already knew.

 

[honestbharani]

Yeah like I said it's, uh, not the conclusion I would have come to at all, but it does show that England haven't exactly been facing county trundlers. Which of course we already knew.

Yeah, Australia have bowled very very well but they did that even last series at home. How you handle them makes a world of difference because the average first spell of any good bowler will always be good, usually. I would say this - it does help they played Boland ad Jhye over the usual suspects who may have had a shorter than ideal length on those tracks. So maybe with that consideration, those numbers do make a bit more sense.

 

[Spark]

Yeah, Australia have bowled very very well but they did that even last series at home. How you handle them makes a world of difference because the average first spell of any good bowler will always be good, usually. I would say this - it does help they played Boland ad Jhye over the usual suspects who may have had a shorter than ideal length on those tracks. So maybe with that consideration, those numbers do make a bit more sense.

Starc has been objectively worlds better than he was last summer tbf. And Green is a proper bowler this summer too. There's definite upgrades there.

But yeah, when you pick a bloke best known as a solid FC journeyman and he takes 6 wickets in 4 overs, there's more going on than merely "good bowling".

 

[Red_Ink_Squid]

CricViz are claiming based on the analytics that this is the statistically best bowling series they've ever measured. How much you believe that is... well, a matter of debate, and obviously how England have batted (very badly and very timidly) has had a big effect on how well Australia have been allowed to bowl, but they've still been facing high quality stuff.

Yeah Aus do seem to have been bowling really well (I've only been able to follow via match reports and watching the highlights so I'm relying on other people's takes mostly) but that only adds to why it's ridiculous for Crawley to declare 'Im definitely gonna score a century this week 'cause I've decided it in my mind'.

I mean, I'd love it if he actually pulls it off (would give it long odds) but I'd rather the players were actually admitting that Australia have played great and that they are going to have to play at their very best to compete with them. Rather than 'we've had a good long chat/think and we've decided to win this week'.

 

[The Battlers Prince]

Starc has been objectively worlds better than he was last summer tbf. And Green is a proper bowler this summer too. There's definite upgrades there.

He’s bowled a fair amount of his usual stuff. He’s not a bad bowler, he’s not a great bowler. He’s up against terrible batting. He bowled this way last year against a class outfit who had had some warm up games.
Honestly, this is an English side without any warmups or games in between, furthermore this is not a series that has been thought out with anything but money in mind. The timeframes for this series are so tight.

 

[Spark]

I don't buy into the "Anderson and Broad are bad for team cohesion" narrative at all but I do think the fact that Anderson and Broad both have their own media platforms where they say whatever they damn well please isn't exactly ideal for the team. Creates an awful lot of external noise when the team are losing.

 

[GotSpin]

It probably hurt their feelings a little bit when Anderson said the batting was ****…

 

[Prince EWS]

It probably hurt their feelings a little bit when Anderson said the batting was ****…

Imagine batting 11 in such a team though. Was self-deprecating.