Monday, 17 September 2012

Hampshire and the Theory of Doing Without

Given Hampshire's recent record with the white ball, it's hard to deny that they're onto something. Many have noted the production line of young local players, but what is just as impressive has been their thinking. Forced to marshall their resources, they appear to have developed a Theory of Dispensability. They probably don't call it that, but it's available for license from this blog, at a fee...

It's an interesting method of calculation, not unlike Duckworth Lewis in that it measures resources against requirements. It manifested itself on T20 finals day, when they fielded Dimitri Mascarenhas despite a shoulder injury more severe than anyone let on. Dimi couldn't bat or throw, but he could bowl. Hampshire gambled that his four overs with the ball were less dispensable than the 16 in which he would have to hide in the field. When they batted, he slid further and further down the order, until it became obvious that they wouldn't need him at all.

What they had figured out is that 20 over cricket is a game that can, in the right circumstances, be played without eleven men. In the semi-final Mascarenhas took 2-11, in the final 2-20. On both occasions he opened the bowling and bowled out, meaning his contribution effectively ended after eight overs of the 80 played. He was dispensable for large parts of the day, because Hampshire bet, and won, on his effectiveness at very specific moments.

They used the theory again, I think, on Saturday in the final of the CB40 competition. Just 21, Michael Bates is already an artist in gloves, his key skill an ability to stand up to seam bowling under the highest pressure. He is not yet, and may never be, a batsman in the vein his contemporaries Kieswetter, Bairstow or Buttler.

Yet few would deny Bates effectively won Hampshire the game. The amount of runs he prevented Warwickshire from scoring is actually incalculable, because the outcome of his skill is that it removes from the batsman the ability to bat out of his crease or run down the wicket. In an age when those methods are central to fast scoring, Hampshire had a proposition that prevented it from happening.

Bates' lack of batting was dispensable when compared to his value as a keeper. Going by the Theory, his value will rise in T20 cricket, because their are less overs for the others to bat, and an entire innings for him to influence in the field.

Everything in the modern game is analysed, and it would be a surprise if someone hasn't noticed that, as batting methods have changed, having a keeper who can take away so many runscoring options may outweigh the value of having another power hitter.

It would be something of an irony if T20 cricket were to be the arena that saw a return of the specialist keeper, but it is certainly not impossible.

6 comments:

Tim Newman said...

Another interesting tactic which SA used, and I believe is becoming more common, is to open the bowling with a spinner for just the first over. This is remarkably effective in reducing the opposing side's innings to an effective 19 overs, as few batsmen can (or do) smash a spinner in the first over of the day.

Imran MIS said...

Watch Sri Lanka vs Zimbabwe Live Stream ICC World Twnety20 1st Match Online Cricket On Pc



http://sachin1tendulkar.blogspot.com/2012/09/watch-sri-lanka-vs-zimbabwe-live-stream.html

http://sachin1tendulkar.blogspot.com/2012/09/watch-sri-lanka-vs-zimbabwe-live-stream.html


http://sachin1tendulkar.blogspot.com/2012/09/watch-sri-lanka-vs-zimbabwe-live-stream.html


http://sachin1tendulkar.blogspot.com/2012/09/watch-sri-lanka-vs-zimbabwe-live-stream.html

alanmcl said...

Been saying this for years, frustrated by South Africa's obsession with playing a bunch of allrounders in T20. You actually need the opposite - your best four specialist batsmen (4 times out of 5 nobody else needs to bat), and your best four specialist bowlers (because taking wickets is the best way to stop the scoring). You barely even need outstanding fielders because the other team isn't trying to steal singles (like they are in ODIs). And given the limited opportunities for taking wickets you can afford a specialist keeper who can't bat - if he turns one half chance a game into a wicket he's worth the place.

John Halliwell said...

The most enthralling aspect of Saturday’s final was, for me, and perhaps for you too, OB, the performance of Michael Bates. Watching him, so young yet so seemingly knowing of what bowler and batsman were about to do, was one of the highlights of the Summer; I wonder if Godfrey Evans, possibly the greatest keeper of all, who stood up to Bedser, possessed the same level of brilliance at 21? Whilst watching, the thought grew in my mind: would Flower and Miller ever change their view of the batsman/keeper issue? If they need a nudge in the direction of a Bates, they should be referred to your latest post, OB.

Mufti of Tufnell Park said...

OB - thanks for putting the case for an expert gloveman with such clarity.

In all cricket, the value of a keeper in the field is being undervalued in comparison to the value of a keeper with the bat. That's not to say that the best gloveman would be worth more than Prior or Gillchrist's batting in a test - just that glovework is being undervalued.

And yes, the shorter the game, the more critical an aggressive keeper is. Even without your point that all round skills are less important in a very limited game, an aggressive keeper, adept at standing up to a variety of bowlers, is vital.

There is what one can see with England - Graham Swann, whatever his injury problems, misses out on a wicket every other game with Kieswetter keeping (no data - just loose observation). But there is so much one can't see - the chances that would be created, and taken, through extra pressure caused by a good keeper, and through his brilliance.

Ben Scott played a significant part in Middlesex's T20 win a few years ago.

I haven't seen Michael Bates - but I will make an effort to watch him next summer.

Host PPH said...

I have to be honest with you dear blogger, I had not heard about this theory of doing without before and it caught my attention so much, nice post!