Limited Overs

Yesterday (or, errrr, today, depending on where you live), Michael Clarke scored a double century for his country. It was the 59^th time a captain had scored 200 or more in a Test match.

The last time it happened was on the 24^th of January of this year: Michael Clarke against South Africa.

Before that: Michael Clarke against India in Sydney on the 3^rd of January, 2012.

You have to go all the way back to July of 2010 to find another captain who scored at least 200 for his country: Kumar Sangakkara against India in Colombo.

Clarke is not the only captain to have scored a double century multiple times however, not even close:

Allan Border – 3

Sir Donald Bradman – 4

Greg Chappell – 3

Stephen Fleming – 3

Javed Miandad – 2

Mahela Jayawardene – 3

Brian Lara – 5

Bob Simpson – 3

Also, interestingly, the captain opposing Clarke for South Africa, Graeme Smith, has done it three times himself: 277 against England in 2003; 259 against England in 259; and 232 against Bangladesh in 2008.

The 200+ score by a captain has happened in the first innings all but six times: Bradman’s 270 against England in 1937; Bradman’s 212 against England in 1937; Martin Crowe’s 299 against Sri Lanka in 1991; Peter May’s 285 against the West Indies in 1957; Nawab of Pataudi’s 203 against England in 1964; and Saleem Malik’s 237 against Australia in 1994.

While a captain has scored 200+ 59 times, the captain’s country went on to win only 26 of those matches…less than half.

However, 57 of the 59 ended in at least a draw. And I am sure those double centuries had a great deal to do with most of those.

A great deal of extra responsibility comes with the Captain’s armband. One of which is to score runs when your teams need them the most. Whether it be 25, 50, or 350. And in the matches above, dollars to doughnuts says the teams needed at least 200 from their captains. And their captains delivered. The list above is a real who’s who of Test cricket captains. Some of the best to ever play, and some of the best to ever lead their countries.

Australia needed that double century from Clarke to save the match. And he delivered. And the fact that he did so put him in rare company.

Note: Only once has a captain scored 200+ in a losing effort: Brian Lara against South Africa in 2003. The West Indies were chasing 360ish and had a day and a half to do it, but Lara, despite his 202 in the first innings, was bowled by Pollock in the second innings for five and his team lost by 189. Of course, the West Indies are not even in the argument without Lara’s first innings knock.

But the match that stuck out to me the most among all 59 innings, was the first Test between Pakistan and Sri Lanka in Karachi in February of 2009: because it featured a double century (plus some) from each team’s captain: Jayawardene’s 240 in the first innings for the guests, and Younis Khan’s 313 for the hosts, also in the first innings.

Sri Lanka had put up a massive score of 644 in their first innings, and so Pakistan desperately needed someone to put a boatload of runs on the board, and Khan obliged, leading his country to a tremendous score of 765, the fifth highest Test match score of all time. The match ended in a draw.

I have written about this match before: two weeks later, in Lahore, the Sri Lankan team bus was attacked by gunmen, and Pakistan has not hosted an international match since.

*

This post took an odd turn. Anyway. Congrats to Michael Clarke. Great innings.

Last night, and I went to bed around 11:30pm central time. Ed Cowan had been run out, and Michael Clarke was still under 200, but it had still been a marvelous, marvelous day for the Australians. They had saved the match.

Going to bed with two plus hours left in the day was actually quite comforting. I am going to sounds a bit over-dramatic, but there was something soothing knowing that on the other side of the world, in brilliant mid-afternoon Brisbane sunshine, the cricket was still going on.

There is a line in Flaming Lips song that I have always enjoyed:

“You realize the sun doesn’t go down, it’s just an illusion caused by the world spinning ‘round.”

Of course, I am not an idiot, I have always intellectually understood that the entire world is not on central time, but there is something soothing in seeing the forest for the trees, in realizing that the sun really does not go down. Ever.

And even when it is not the middle of the night, there is something to be said for having a Test match going on in the background as you go about your day. This, of course, is more true for those that live in Test nations, for the majority of the match days are, unfortunately work days. There are meetings, and kids to pick up from school, and gas to get, and dinners to cook. You might get lucky and be able to watch big chunks of the play on the weekends, but for the most part, except for the most fervent fans, most cricket fans are forced to follow the action via their phones during the day, and then if they are lucky, catch a highlights program at night.

And that in a roundabout way brings me to this thought: if Test cricket wants to attract more casual fans, they need to institute day/night tests, and they need to do it now.

Start the matches at around 15:00, take lunch at 17:00…etc. Then sell discounted tickets for post-lunch only, so more casual fans could head to the ground after work and still catch the majority of the final two sessions.

As much as I love the traditional test times, yesterday the ground at Brisbane was beyond empty. There were maybe 2,000 people there. And that’s a problem. Not a new one, of course, but one that I think could be easily solved by instituting day-night Tests. You allow current, more casual, fans to take in the play either at the ground or live on TV, and you introduce new people to the game at the same time.

Time to make it happen.

As much as I will miss prime time cricket during the Australian summer, this is what has to happen.

*

Back on the pitch and it is looking more and more like a draw. Currently the hosts sit at 487/4 with 6.5 hours to come on the 5^th day – or about 105 minimum overs – leading by only 37 runs. Let’s say Australia continues on at their current run rate (four an over) and declares at lunch: they would sit at 637, a lead of 187. Which means South Africa would need to chase 187, get a decent lead, and bowl out the hosts…all in just the 60ish or so overs left in the day. For that reason, Clarke, despite being a bullish captain, might as well stay out there until tea, and let match end in a quiet draw, because it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point.

But I have been wrong before.

Either way, Captain Clarke stood up when his team needed him, and dragged them over the line. Put the team on his back and carried them. Sure, Cowan’s effort was impressive, but he does not get his first Test century with anyone else batting alongside him, I don’t think.

*

I have a work event tonight, and my wife is playing a show, so I will miss the day’s play. I will check my phone for updates, and will watch the highlights later. Just like those that live in a Test nation, which is truly shameful, when you think about it.

*

This post was updated at 13:24 CT, 13 November 2012.

*

Finally: GOD DAMN RAIN COST US ANOTHER BELTER OF A TEST.

Here I am, watching the cricket:

A wider view:

It has been a great couple of days of Test cricket. South Africa looked to be ready to bury Australia, but the hosts have battled back, thanks in most part to a lovely partnership from Clarke and Cowan.

Last night I was able to watch the entire day’s play. Sure, I had dinner, and coffee, and beer, and watched some Farscape during lunch and tea, and occasionally goofed off generally on the Internet with the game just a small box in the corner, but for the most part, the game was my central focus.

And I must stay, despite how everything has gone for Australia, the hosts look, to me, like the better team right now. Seriously. You take away the Amla-Kallis partnership, and the match is even, and considering how South Africa have seemed perfectly okay with the match playing out to a draw,  you have to give the edge to Australia: they look like they want to win.

South Africa look asleep. Australia, in their bowling and in their fielding specifically, look like they are up and ready to get stuck in.

This despite the fact that the Gabba has been largely empty for the bulk of the three days of play.

I predicted that Australia would win this test. And while I must unfortunately back down from that,  I do think Australia are going to earn themselves a hard fought draw.

Now, back to full screen.

*

I just learned that the test series between Bangladesh and the West Indies will be carried live here in the states on ESPN3.

This is how it is shaping up then:

#ausvsa: 1st test: Nov 9-13; 2nd test: Nov 22-26; 3rd test: Nov 30-Dec 4

#bangvwi: 1st test: Nov 13-17; 2nd test: Nov 21-25

#indveng: 1st test: Nov 15-19; 2nd test: Nov 23-27; 3rd test: Dec 5-9; 4th test: Dec 13-17

#ausvsl: 1st test: Dec 14-18; 2nd test: Dec 26-30; 3rd test: Jan 3-7

(All of above are those test matches live on either Willow or ESPN3 here in the states).

Conclusion:

We are going to be spoiled rotten with test cricket here for the next two months. Let’s enjoy it while we can.

Last night, I watched the cricket.

Put my feet up on the desk, put on my noise cancelling headphones, cracked a Fulton, and watched the cricket.

It was brilliant.

And I mean that.

There are few things in this life that give me more pleasure than watching test cricket.

And I mean that, too.

And by “few” I mean, like, 50. Which sounds like a lot until you start to think about all of the things there are in the world that give me pleasure.

And 50 is high. It could be as low as 25, or even 20.

But when Willow is streaming, and the outfields are green, and the uniforms white, I feel this supreme sense of calm wash over me. I am lulled not to sleep, but into this lovely zen like state where nothing matters outside of my relationship with the game.

It is not like other sports. I rarely exclaim, or groan, and I rarely watch a match while standing (I am a notorious pacer during Arsenal games). Instead it is like taking a warm bath after a long day.

In my house, during the Australian summer anyway, it is dark and drafty with winter roaring away outside, and life roaring away inside my mind; but on the computer it is warm green sunshine peace.

Cricket can be a violent sport. It is of course not nearly as pastoral as this is making it seem. But even the violence feels like part of the game’s rhythm. And of course everything is ruined when Willow TV gets the hiccups, and occasionally I step out of my meditation zone to discuss the match at cricket’s virtual pub (Twitter), and sometimes it rains, but last night, for the most part, I was positively 100% content to watch Hashim Amla quietly pick apart the Australian attack, Fulton in hand, at peace with the world, and all of those in it.

*

“Then in the Arctic half-light of the canyon, all existence fades to a being with my soul and memories and the sounds of the Big Blackfoot River and a four-count rhythm and the hope that a fish will rise.”

All right, here we go. My month long, and entirely hackneyed, previews of Australia versus South Africa are finally over and we are less than 24 hours away from the first match of the former series.

Brisbane. Amla. Ponting.

I can’t wait.

I will of course continue with some previews of India versus England as their first test at Ahmedabad is still a week away, but I must say that the series down under, despite being only three matches, could very well be the more entertaining of the two.

To wit: Of Australia’s last 20 matches, only four have produced draws; and of South Africa’s last 20 matches, seven have produced draws. 11 draws out of 40 matches.

Meanwhile, of England’s last 20 matches, four have produced draws, which is the same number that India’s last 20 tests have produced. Eight out of 40.

Wait a minute. What was I saying?

Please ignore the previous three paragraphs, and let’s take a look at my prediction above from a different angle:

Of the last 20 test matches played in India, six have ended as draws.

Meanwhile, of the last 20 matches played in Australia, only two have ended as draws.

There, you see, that’s better. 30% versus 10%. A 20 point gap. Barack Obama would murder for that kind of mandate.

Also, honestly, my gut just tells me that Australia versus South Africa is going to be attacking and aggressive and fun; while India versus England will only provide one of two scenarios: England remorsefully accumulating runs, or England getting buried by Indian spin. The latter is preferable to the former, but neither really gets me all that excited.

Furthermore, last winter, we saw Australia destroy India, and last summer, South Africa gave England a rather decent hiding, the same England that had shattered India in 2011, so based on recent form alone, we can reasonably expect BOTH series to be close, but the recent South Africa v Australia series in South Africa was an absolute belter; it was Arsenal versus Manchester United in 2002; while England versus India in England was Arsenal versus Manchester United in 2012; that is to say: yawwwwwwnnnnnn.

Anyway, enough of that, I am looking forward to both, but there is just something to be said about the Australian summer….

*

As you may or may not be aware, tomorrow is Election Day here in the United States.

Trying to relate American electoral politics to cricket has turned into a bit of a fool’s errand.

Only one cricket match ever has been played on the same day as a US election: an ODI between New Zealand and Bangladesh in 2004 at Chittagong. The Kiwis won by a 100 and some odd runs. It was nothing to write home about. Chris Cairns steered his side to 224 all out with a score of 74 off of 83, then New Zealand bowled out the hosts in just 31.5 overs thanks to Kyle Mills’ 4-14.

That said, if the rain holds off, tomorrow we shall see the second cricket match to take place on an American election day, as New Zealand are set to play Sri Lanka tomorrow at Pallekele.

*

The big story for tomorrow of course is Obama versus Romney, but there are other races here locally that are just as important: the 6th and 8th districts, for instance, plus two potentially very destructive constitutional amendments.

I have very, very few Minnesota based readers (my wife doesn’t even read me anymore), so I won’t bore you with the details. But I will say that I am nervous as hell. Completely on edge and distracted and just want nothing more than to go vote and then start drinking.

Which, of course, in a lot of ways, is exactly how I feel before a big Arsenal match.

Sport and politics; politics and sport. Two twins, separated at birth.

Winners, losers, cheerleaders. Opinion, polls, cable channels. Flags, slogans, and lots and lots of frothing at the mouth.

Books have been written on the subject of course. I am not the first to point this out. And I am not the only one who watches poll results like others watch batting averages. And I am know that I am not the only person sitting on pins and needles today.

The big difference however is that while political elections can have very real and very lasting affects on ones life, sport is nothing of the sort. Sure, I get down a little when Arsenal play like shit and lose to Man United, but if Obama finds a way to lose tomorrow we could very well see another war and the most conservative Supreme Court in our history; and if the marriage amendment passes I will all of a sudden have good friends and good neighbors that will be constitutionally discriminated against.

Despite the similarities sport is the antidote to politics; it’s what we will all use to forget about tomorrow’s results, whether they go our way or not.

So I am looking forward to enjoying Arsenal v Schalke tomorrow to ease my nerves, and I am looking forward to Australia versus South Africa in just four days to help me recover from the election season.

*

Win or lose though, life goes go. That’s the important thing to remember. Whether it be Arsenal or the Ashes or an election. Life goes on.

As a commenter mentioned in yesterday’s post, those of you in England (or thereabouts) are going to have a difficult time watching  Australia versus South Africa, because of the time zone issue.

First ball for those of you in GMT will be at midnight for Adelaide and Brisbane and 02:30 for the Test in Perth. The match in Perth will actually be okay, as the middle of the second session on will be at not-so-unGodly hours.

As I have mentioned over and over and over and over again, while being an American cricket fan can be frustrating at times, there are times when it is just great, and one of those times is when Australia is hosting a Test match. First ball at 18:00, and you are in bed by 02:00 at the absolute latest.

And it doesn’t get any better for England fans on 15 November with India versus England: first ball at 04:00 (or even earlier).

No matter what, however, cricket fans will be in heaven when the second Test at Adelaide overlaps with the second Test at Mumbai: non stop cricket for twelve straight hours (with about four hours worth of overlap).

I am not going to lie to myself or to my reader and say that I am going to be able to watch a great deal of India v England. I have good intentions, as I always do, but getting past midnight on a work day even with copious amounts of coffee is difficult. But I am going to do my best to watch every minute possible of Australia v South Africa – as this happens but once a year for American cricket fans: Test cricket in Prime Time.

*

South Africa of course is two hours ahead of England, and so South African cricket fans are going to have a bear of a time watching their team in Australia. First ball at 02:00 in Adelaide and Brisbane means they will only comfortably be able to watch the final sessions of each day, except for Perth where they will probably be okay seeing everything after lunch. And by “comfortably” and “okay” I mean at normal waking times of a normal day.

*

None of the above really takes into account work, or kids, or life getting in the way of the cricket. Because, sure, the West Indies are just one hour ahead of me, and sure England’s Test matches are for the most part taking place during a normal waking times, but they are not in prime time. You can’t relax with a beer and Twitter. You are instead at work following on Cricinfo and listening to the BBC or sneaking in a few minutes with Willow over lunch. It’s not the same.

And really, people in my hemisphere are among the few cricket fans in the world who get to enjoy Test cricket in such prime viewing hours. The only folks that come close are those India/Bangladesh/Pakistan/Sri Lanka when their squad happens to be playing in England. But that is only once every four years or so, while I get TWO Australian Test series every single winter.

All of this makes it sound like I am an Australia supporter, but I am not. Not in the least. I find the vast majority of their cricketers, past and present, really difficult to stomach.

They have great fans though, and great venues, and they always seem to be interested in playing attacking, aggressive cricket; so that in concert with the time zone thing is enough to forgive the general disagreeableness of their cricketers.

*

Like I mentioned above, my intentions are always good, but this time they are better. Instead of kicking back with a beer in hand, I am going to try the coffee route and really give it a go. We shall see what happens. I am not in school anymore so my responsibilities have technically been halved since India toured Australia last winter, so the odds really are better this time around.

*

This post has been shit. I know. I could have summed up everything in 50 words but whatever. I wanted to get a post out.

*

I cannot begin to tell you how excited I am for Test cricket to be back. Only five more days until Australia versus South Africa.

Five measly more days.

Totally doable considering it has been almost two months since the last Test (India versus New Zealand in Bangalore).

The longest wait between Test matches was of course during World War Two.

I have written about the last match before the war previously, but I have never explored the first match to take place after the fighting was over: New Zealand versus Australia at Wellington on 29 and 30 March, 1946.

It was Australia’s first Test match in New Zealand, and the visitors won the one-off match by an innings and 103 runs.

The hosts won the toss and chose to bat, only to collapse for only 42 all out. The highest score for the Kiwis was a measly 14 for Verdun Scott. Australia went on to amass only 199 before declaring (I think) and forcing the follow on – and promptly bowling out their hosts for only 52.

The match was a disaster for New Zealand, and there is really not a whole lot more to say about it.

The match did feature Walter Hadlee for the Kiwis, who would go on to be one of the most powerful men ever when it comes to cricket in New Zealand until a poorly thought out recomendation in 1980 that South Africa be granted Test status put a black mark on his legacy.

Mr. Hadlee was also, of course, the father of Sir Richard Hadlee, the greatest New Zealand cricketer of all time.

*

The month long previews of #ausvsa and #indveng continue…

*

Yesterday’s post was flawed, I know. Mostly because in order to really see how much the first test matters to the outcome of a series, you need to bring the number of tests in the series into the calculation.

Unfortunately, I am not sure exactly how to create any such algorithm, but here is the raw data:

Series Start Date	Winner of first Match	Winner of Series	# of Tests in Series
1933	England	England	3
1951	Draw	Draw	5
1961	Draw	India	5
1964	Draw	Draw	5
1972	England	India	5
1976	England	England	5
1981	India	India	6
1984	India	England	5
1993	India	India	3
2001	India	India	3
2006	Draw	Draw	3
2008	India	India	2

As the number of tests increase, the less the result of the first match has on the series. For series that had three tests or less, the opening match result predicted the series result all four times. For series that had five or more tests, the opening match correctly predicted the series result only 67% of the time.

Unfortunately, for this project anyway, India have never hosted England for a four test series, but I still think I can be confident in saying that if the first match ends in a draw (and all signs point to it doing so), then the series will end in a draw.

*

Here is the same information for Australia v South Africa:

Series Start Date	Winner of first Match	Winner of Series	# of Tests in Series	Does first match predict series?
1910	Australia	Australia	5	Yes
1931	Australia	Australia	5	Yes
1952	Australia	Draw	5	No
1963	Draw	South Africa	5	No
1993	Draw	Draw	3	Yes
1997	Draw	Australia	3	No
2001	Australia	Australia	3	Yes
2005	Draw	Australia	3	No
2008	South Africa	South Africa	3	Yes

Of the nine tests series where Australia has hosted South Africa, the first match has correctly predicted the series result five times. Two of those occurrences happened in five test series, the other three in three tests series. So it looks like the number of tests in a series does not play a major factor.

Factoid: South Africa has never won a series in Australia after losing the first match

Factoid: Australia has only lost the opening match once, and they ended up losing the series

Factoid: Only two of the nine series ended in draws.

Prediction? We are going to get a result. And the first match matters. (Says Captain Obvious.)