England v South Africa - The Series Everyone is Looking Forward to But isn't Talking About

So we're just over a day away from the start of the most anticipated cricketing clash of the year. Well, for neutrals anyway. We have a couple of very similar looking teams playing in conditions their bowlers will really enjoy, especially with the kind of weather predicted for the next month.

England are the number one side in the world & have won 7 consecutive series at home. South Africa are number three but can get to number one with a series win (Click here to play around with the ICC Rankings Predictor). They are also unbeaten in 9 away/neutral series spanning almost 6 years, and are the last side to beat England in England. England, ofcourse, are a much improved side from that series in 2008. South Africa, meanwhile, haven't kicked on from their historic series in wins in England and Australia and seem to stumble at the sight of the number one spot.

There are plenty of series previews out there talking of the head-to-head matchups and who the key players will be. The general consensus seems to be that England have the better opening combination, lower middle order and spinner while South Africa have the edge in terms of their middle order and pace attack.

Being the stats geek that I am, I decided to look at how the two sides have performed over the last three years. I broke the teams down into 4 groups - Openers, middle order, lower middle order, and tailenders. I then looked at averages for these four groups - for and against these two sides. I don't see much sense in comparing the averages of their batting order & bowling attack to each other as they wouldn't have batted and bowled on the same pitches (Apart from the 4-test series in 2009-10). I think it makes more sense to see the difference in average runs scored and conceded for each team & then comparing them to each other.

Okay, I said that in my head and it sounds really confusing. Hopefully this will make it more clear.

P = Runs/dismissal for England openers
Q = Runs/dismissal for openers batting against England
X = Runs/dismissal for South African openers
Y = Runs/dismissal for openers batting against South Africa

Final Difference = (P-Q)-(X-Y). This difference gives the advantage/disadvantage England have over South Africa in the openers' slot. Similarly, we'll have numbers for the middle order, lower middler order & tailenders.

Below are the numbers for both teams in all conditions over the last three years:

Batting Position	England			South Africa			Final Difference
	For	Against	Difference	For	Against	Difference
1-2	44.81	30.7	14.11	38.96	28.29	10.67	3.44
3-5	45.65	33.09	12.56	62.26	43.05	19.21	-6.65
6-9	31.44	25.38	6.06	27.16	22.66	4.5	1.56
10-11	11.33	11.1	0.23	15.2	9.58	5.62	-5.39

Predictably, England have the edge in the openers & lower middle order while South Africa are far superior when it comes to the middle order. They also seem to be better at wrapping up the tail. On the whole, South Africa do seem to be the better side although it remains to be seen how they will cope with Boucher's retirement.

Since the series is being played in England, I thought it worthwhile to compare England's numbers in home tests to South Africa's overall record. I would have liked to compare their numbers in conditions similar to England. Unfortunately, South Africa haven't played much cricket in such conditions since 2009. I guess you can call this an excercise in trying to see how much of a home advantage England have.

Batting Position	England (Home)			South Africa			Final Difference
	For	Against	Difference	For	Against	Difference
1-2	40.96	30.91	10.05	38.96	28.29	10.67	-0.62
3-5	52.27	28.32	23.95	62.26	43.05	19.21	4.74
6-9	35.11	24.45	10.66	27.16	22.66	4.5	6.16
10-11	10.5	9.65	0.85	15.2	9.58	5.62	-4.77

It's interesting that while England's openers average less at home than away, their bowlers don't seem to bowl out the opposition openers cheaper than they do abroad. Their middle and lower middle order has a very good record at home, especially when you consider how cheaply their bowlers seem to dismiss the opposition's 3-9. At home, they have a better differential through positions 3-11 compared to when they play abroad. This is what the South Africans will have to overcome if they are going to win the series.

I think they have positions 3-5 covered. Amla, Kallis (His record in England notwithstanding) and de Villiers should average more than Trott, Pietersen and Bell. But it's positions 6-9 that will be a major problem for them, especially with Boucher not playing like I mentioned before. They can either play the specialist keeper and weaken a lineup that doesn't bat deep, or they can give the gloves to de Villiers and play both Duminy & Rudolph.

By all accounts, Tsolekile is a better keeper than de Villiers who is also a crucial fielder for South Africa. I think they are better served to go with the regular keeper and allow de Villiers to focus on his batting. It will mean they get less runs at 7, but I'd rather get 20 less in that position than see batsmen scoring big hundreds after they were dropped early in their innings. If they do indeed pick Tsolekile, they will hope their bowlers don't allow Prior, Bresnan, Broad and Swann to have a combined average of more than 25. I think they will win the series if they're able to manage that.

My Prediction: It's hard to predict anything with the rain being such a major factor, but I'm going with 1-0 South Africa. It's about time they stopped making me look silly for saying they're the best side in the world.

Does Anybody Understand the Rankings?

It is always fun to see two sets of fans taking potshots at each other. The ICC Rankings have given them one more reason to display their ignorance. Depending on where your team is, the rankings are either a joke or an affirmation of a team's performance.

From December 2009 to August 2011 the Indian fans were pointing to the rankings and gloating about how their team was better than the rest. On the other hand, some thought India were number one only on paper. Some pointed to how India had never won a series in South Africa or Australia, how they didn't have a proper fast bowler, how the players didn't look hot in G-Strings. Now that England have taken that spot from India, you have scores of articles on how they are such a ruthlessly professional side and their rise to the number one position was inevitable. And the ones who were gloating a few weeks ago think England aren't really number one because they haven't won anything of note in the subcontinent for a decade. While that is indeed true, what is not true is that 9 of England's last 12 series have been at home. Some even think that they have the right to tell people that they do not have the right to belittle the Indian team after a bad series.

I wonder how many of these people actually know how the ICC Rankings System works. Jrod has pointed that England could lose their number one spot even before they play their next series. Those of you interested in finding out how can go to the ICC Website and fill in the boxes in the ICC Rankings Predictor to see how it's possible. If you want to dig deeper into how points are awarded to teams based on the series scoreline, here's the exact formula used to calculate it.

It looks like a really complicated calculation, doesn't it? Well, even if it is, it's quite clear that there is no extra weightage for away wins (or home losses). This means that if a team plays a dispropotionate amount of cricket at home, it can go up the rankings. This is quite possible over a 2 or 3 year period as the current FTP mandates teams to play each other home and away over 6 years and allows boards to add on series as they please. Hence, England can host the West Indies in 2009 just two years after a 4-test series between the 2 countries in 2007. Likewise, India hosted Australia for a 2-test series in 2010 (It was just an ODI series initially) despite hosting them for a 4-test series in 2008. Ofcourse these teams have to still ensure they win at home in order to improve/maintain their position, but I don't think many people would contest the argument that teams usually perform better at home than away.

Also, the rankings don't take into account the margin of victory/defeat. As far as they're concerned, a 1-run win is just as good as a win by an innings and 400 runs. Similarly, a draw with both teams scoring an equal number of runs is the same as a draw in which a team was 1 wicket away from an innings defeat.

One can debate the ratings system but it is what it is. There are other rating/ranking systems out there for those who want to look at alternatives. I quite like the system Russ from idlesummers has come up with. I agree with the parameters he uses for calculating the points although I don't know how much weightage he assigns to them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is there is way too much talk of ratings & rankings when all teams and fans should be worried about is their team trying to win every test they play. It doesn't matter if you're ranked 1 or 10, if you pull out of a chase with 15 overs to bat/bowl just because you're tired or think it's impossible to score 6 an over you're cheating the fans of a proper result.