Eng Test tour of Pak, Dec 1-21

[sussexpob]

Clearly England took into account several factors : that the previous highest ever chase in Pakistan was 314 and no other had come close ; that a new ball would be available in the last hour of play ; that there would likely be a fairly significant period in which reverse swing would be effective during the last day - and came to the conclusion that the risk taken by an "early" close was outweighed by the chance of success

Using a uni variate analysis of 4th innings chases to determine a par score in this case would be a very misleading and foolhardy. The top score ever achieved might be 314, but two things about that stat render it somewhat null and void.

1. 48% of matches in Pakistan historically have been draws, which removes almost half of the data sample. Such a high draw rate also points strongly to how pitches do not break up late in games.
2. Pakistan hasnt hosted a single test in the two eras of cricket history that produce all most ALL of the highest 4th innings scores.

This can be further demonstrated by reality. 5 test match teams maintain a 4th innings wicket average in Pakistan higher than the top score achieved. Interestingly, the top two (Australia and India) in 14 combined innings in history, maintain a wicket average of nearly 50..... yet, only 2 of these matches lead to a result. India did not win a single game in 8 tests they batted last, despite averaging 48 a wicket. In fact, on pure data through all Pakistan games, 4th innings wicket averages are higher than the global all innings averages. You have more chance chasing 350 on a 5th day Pakistan pitch, than making 350 in any other venue in the world, in the 1st innings. What makes those figures even more crazy, is they do not include a single test match played in any of the 3-4 decades where test match scoring was at its historical highest. For their time, they are massive outliers.

You then ask, what about the venue in question? Rawalpindi has the highest wicket average out of all grounds currently in use to have hosted 10 tests. Its 5th all time out of all grounds - even without historical data, the pitch spoke for itself. It was a road.

Not interested in historical stats? Well in the only sample worthy of assessment since Pakistan started hosting tests again, in two matches in 2022 v Australia, Pakistan scored 282/0 on day 5 at Rawalpindi, and made 443/7 at Karachi, of which 5 wickets fell for 300 on day 5.

So whats that? 180 overs for 5 wickets at over 100 runs per wicket.... against the best ranked bowling line up in the world (4 of those that played are ranked in the top 15 test bowlers, including 1st overall).

And you are telling me the thought behind leaving less than 350 in 4 sessions was sensible and calculated?

Nope

[sussexpob]

Comparisons of the risk/reward calculation involved in declaration timing with dice throwing are simply not valid. One is pure chance ; the other is based on an assessment of the relative strengths of the two teams , judgement of the playing conditions , and estimates of the likely time and scoring rates necessary to obtain a result. Obviously a subjective one ; but one that professional sportsmen appointed to lead their team are paid to get right

Stokes said they made a blind predetermined decision to declare at tea whatever the state of the game, and McCullum said they accepted a high risk of losing in order to avoid a draw. I am not sure this represents much of a intelligent judgement on scoring rates and all that Jazz - they took a total punt in the dark and it worked, they say so themselves. Ben Stokes even said entertainment value was a main consideration. Its a far cry from what you are suggesting.

But that does not change the fact its a total punt in the dark, and that mulitple times in the future it will back-fire. As stated, you cannot just a decision always on the result - analytics will tell you making that decision 100 times, you will lose 60 percent plus of the time.... so its a bad decision.

Pakistan were 4/6 to win at the bookies, so using an objective analysis of risk and reward based on sophisticated mathematical models, one can say that England were indeed rolling the dice

[bigfluffylemon]

I'm not sure it represents a punt in the dark so much as a deliberate decision to improve their chances of winning, at the expense of the draw. One that they accepted came with significant risk.

If you accept the premise that you need to give yourself 100 overs to take 10 wickets on that pitch, then the only way to win was to give yourself 100 overs to do it. Not only the raw number, but 100 overs gives you a new ball and two evening sessions, and a target that means that Pakistan would have to look to score, rather than block.

You give Pakistan 100 overs to score 340 at 3.4 an over. So given the odds at the declaration, there's maybe a 35% chance England win, 55% chance Pakistan win, 10% chance draw (I'm not claiming these are definitely the figures, just using them to illustrate a point).

Suppose you bat on 20 overs, as I think most of us and the pundits might have been inclined to do. Even assuming a pretty conservative scoring rate for England in this match of 4rpo, you are then setting Pakistan 420 in 80 overs, at 5.25 runs an over, which is a massively different proposition and one that they probably wouldn't have taken on. Then you have 80 overs of Pakistan blocking, no new ball, and getting batsmen out on this pitch who are trying not to get out is going to be darn near impossible (even the number 11 held out for 8 overs once he just started deadbatting everything, and that's a guy with a highest first class score in the teens and a sub-6 FC average, so imagine how long a top order batsman would have held out). So at this point, there's maybe a 10-15% chance England win, 5% chance Pakistan win, 80-85% chance draw.

So what Stokes and McCullum are claiming is that the decision was taken to maximise that probability of an England win, even if they had to accept a higher probability of a Pakistan win to do so. Generally, in the first match of a 3 match series, most captains would minimise the chance of an opposition loss before declaring, and if that means waiting longer and a lower chance of winning, so be it.

I think you can argue it was a decision that was rational inasmuch as if your sole objective was to win the game and don't care about a draw, it probably gave England the best shot of doing so. It also gave them a massive chance of a loss, which is not usually an acceptable cost of such a decision when it is within your power to avoid losing. So it was a bad decision (that happened to work out ok) if your top priority is not losing i.e. win or draw is an acceptable outcome.

[sussexpob]

I I think you can argue it was a decision that was rational inasmuch as if your sole objective was to win the game and don't care about a draw, it probably gave England the best shot of doing so

If we were going to assess logic based on the subjective desires of a decision maker, then surely you can argue anything is rational, because any decision no matter how bad or good is based on some form of decision being based on the available information? I think in this case, its more pertinent to ask whether or not in an objective sense that logic makes sense - so is England's taking a high chance of losing to a lower chance of winning an objectively good decision?

Your argument to me is like trying to say a gambler as logic, because even though he bets on trash that will by the balance of probabilities make him poorer, the bets he makes are good because his objective is to win BIG..... the reality is, in the vast majority of cases protracted over time, he does the opposite. His action is therefore counter to his main goal of gaining economic rewards.

It would seem a little strange to me to suggest his thinking was sound or has any logic - his action is mathematically proven over infinite time to make him lose. Just because he wants to win, I am not sure what that matters - the steps he is taking for enrich are not sound.

Of course, if he lands a 1000/1 once in a life time shot, then I doesnt change that. Keep the same bet every time, you will not win in the end.

[alfie]

I have just spent an hour composing a detailed response to this and had it wiped because apparently I took too long and got logged out

So I will try not to be too grumpy but will try again ... in shorter bursts

Sussex , you and I will never agree on this ; but here goes ...

I Ignore Stokes saying "declare at tea regardless etc etc " - he isn't going to bore everyone with all the details of his plans. But you'd be naive to think he didn't consider what he was doing and why . Baz knows what he's doing too.

I agree the 314 top chase isn't greatly significant. Lots of other figures to say a higher total was feasible - I mentioned it only as an indicator. Perhaps more interesting is the fact that only 7 times in all Tests has a captain set his opponent less than 350 with four sessions or more to get them...and in every case he has been rewarded with a win . Coincidence ? Conditions ? Last day pressure ? Whatever - seven captains got it right or got very lucky...

Spare me the analytics , please. The day all Test Match decisions are made just on some mathematical probability spat out by a computer is probably the day I - and others - give up watching. This is about judgement : and I suspect the players at the ground are in a better position to make those judgements than any of us.

More on next page...

[alfie]

Where I do take Stokes at his word is that he has made it clear they aren't interested in coming to Pakistan for draws. They actually went into this match batting heavy so they weren't disregarding the dangers ; but from ball one they set out to score as quickly as possible in order to maximise their winning chance. Even when frustrated by Pakistan's batting for two days , they did not back off but pushed again as hard as possible to get where they were at tea : so it was obvious they were going to be keen to make sure the eventual declaration gave them a serious opportunity of winning.
After all , England had only ever won twice in all history in Pakistan ; and who knew - on these pitches - if they would get another such opportunity in this series ?

So consider : if they'd done as we (yes , myself included) thought advisable , and batted on after tea , what would have been the position ? Say another seven or eight overs ? Target north of 380 , presumably ; max 85-90 overs ...no chance Pakistan would have been interested in chasing. And on this pitch , with England lacking express pace or mystery spin , the only possible outcome would be a draw. (Which is therefore what we , in hindsight , were tacitly accepting) Not for Stokes.

Did they see a risk ? Of course they did. But (A) the batsmen had advised there seemed to be a bit more happening off the pitch than on days 1 and 2 ; (B) reverse could be expected to play a part on day 5 ; (C) last day nerves might trouble the batsmen - and there was the prospect of a new ball around the time the shaky Pakistan tail was hopefully coming into view... quite a few reasons to think the winning chance was actually rather good - as long as Pakistan didn't set out to stonewall from the start.

I don't call that a gamble. More a considered judgement that the chances of winning outweighed the dangers of losing : a judgement that inarguably proved - in this particular case - correct.

[alfie]

One thing I do find odd is that posters who for years have consistently berated Root , Cook - or Strauss - for declaring innings too late , are now complaining because an England captain is prepared to take more risk than the average keyboard warrior thinks acceptable. It may of course be that continuing to push as aggressively for victory as England have done over the last few months leads to some disasters in the future - I do not have a crystal ball. But so far seven wins out of eight is a fairly decent endorsement of the policies of Stokes and McCullum - and I am sure it is raising interest in this form of the game ; not just among England supporters.

Perhaps "complaining" is the wrong word. But trying to make a case that a decision which produced the desired effect was actually "wrong" - seemingly to justify the fact that the poster declared it to be crazy at the time - strikes me as just a little perverse.

Anyway as I say we will never agree so I won't bore everyone with more extended ramblings. (Still annoyed that my longer and much better written original draft disappeared into the garbage bin of lost posts )

So each to his own and let us all at least agree that the last day ended up being vastly more entertaining than appeared likely after the first three days...and look forward to the next match . Cheers all

[Durhamfootman]

one day, maybe in the next test, the wheels will come off and England will crash to a heavy, maybe even crushing, defeat and Stokes McCullum et al will end up looking like turnips for being so cavalier with what has generally been seen as a considered, more thoughtful form of the game

but I've been thinking that since the first NZ test. If playing this way fills test grounds around the world and not just in England, Australia and India, excites kids and still brings 7 wins out of 8, then I'll take that all day long..... and I say that as someone who appreciates the usually more thoughtful nature of test cricket.

What it will do is force other test teams to respond. I imagine that Australia are already working on ways to combat this in the ashes series next year... if they aren't then they need their heads examining. If this had been an ashes winter down under, I wonder how the Aussie public would be feeling right now, because they surely couldn't be expecting to just dominate sorry old England from day 1 at the Gabba, en route to (yet) another ashes whitewash

that has to be good for the game, doesn't it?

[sussexpob]

I think its as simple to say that the result in this case seems to have proven the theory, which assumes wrongly that all decisions are rewarded with the fate they deserve in every instance.

You scoff at analytics, but they are pretty accurate at identifying generic trends and probabilities. Not always accurate, and no one would suggest that, as there are varied probabilities in play, and at the end of the day the person making the decision is not the executor of it.... but to constantly give yourself 60% chance of losing, will in the end, mean you lose. You can beat the bandit so to say..... it also means 40 of the time, you will win, which is not insignificant...

Call me a fool, but I would take the judgement that leaves me more probability to win more of the time than lose. This seems to be an argument on one side where I am saying I favour the statistical path of best results, and you are countering with the fact that one isolated case against the rule disproves it.

You say people moaned about Strauss and Cook, but we are talking about the opposite ends of a large spectrum. There is a massive difference in choosing to declare when you are odds on favourites to lose, and choosing to declare when that chance is close to 0 percent, but the odds on winning drop dramatically also. I'd be quite happy for Stokes to say "we have a 60-40 chance here, lets do it". Cook never did that. Stokes did do that here.

As I said, the bookies implied probability of a Pakistan win was 60% at the time of declaration. I didnt remember the odds draw to England win, but assuming 20-20, that is a very low bar to accept the counter risk.... one that is, imo, reckless in the extreme.

But hey, if you want to take that as some covert mission to slag everyone off all the time, be my guest. I assure you my opinion is honest.

[alfie]

I think its as simple to say that the result in this case seems to have proven the theory, which assumes wrongly that all decisions are rewarded with the fate they deserve in every instance.

You scoff at analytics, but they are pretty accurate at identifying generic trends and probabilities. Not always accurate, and no one would suggest that, as there are varied probabilities in play, and at the end of the day the person making the decision is not the executor of it.... but to constantly give yourself 60% chance of losing, will in the end, mean you lose. You can beat the bandit so to say..... it also means 40 of the time, you will win, which is not insignificant...

Call me a fool, but I would take the judgement that leaves me more probability to win more of the time than lose. This seems to be an argument on one side where I am saying I favour the statistical path of best results, and you are countering with the fact that one isolated case against the rule disproves it.

You say people moaned about Strauss and Cook, but we are talking about the opposite ends of a large spectrum. There is a massive difference in choosing to declare when you are odds on favourites to lose, and choosing to declare when that chance is close to 0 percent, but the odds on winning drop dramatically also. I'd be quite happy for Stokes to say "we have a 60-40 chance here, lets do it". Cook never did that. Stokes did do that here.

As I said, the bookies implied probability of a Pakistan win was 60% at the time of declaration. I didnt remember the odds draw to England win, but assuming 20-20, that is a very low bar to accept the counter risk.... one that is, imo, reckless in the extreme.

But hey, if you want to take that as some covert mission to slag everyone off all the time, be my guest. I assure you my opinion is honest.

OK just want to say a couple of things on this (don't want to be boring for ever !)

First off , I am emphatically not calling you a fool for having an opinion with which I happen to disagree. Nor do I think you are on a mission to slag anyone off.

My issue with your persistence in criticizing the declaration despite its successful outcome is this : your rationale for claiming that the decision to declare at tea was flawed appears to be because it gave Pakistan a significantly better chance than England of winning the match. But that claim only stands up if we accept that the "odds" quoted by various posters - or betting sites - were accurate or meaningful. And since those odds estimates are all essentially just "opinions" there can be no objective standards by which we can assess them. Presumably Stokes and McCullum calculated the odds rather differently( I do not for a moment believe they are stupid enough to take a course of action they believed likely to fail !) - though again , their view was also only an opinion at that stage. The only absolute we can ever take from this game is the eventual result - a fairly clear 74 run win for England - which at least suggests the Stokes/McCullum judgement was more accurate.

You are of course fully entitled to your honest opinion - before and after. But , with all due respect , if you are claiming your judgement of the match situation late on the fourth day is/was likely to be superior to that of two very experienced Test Match professionals who were actually on the spot and personally invested in the result , then I think you are pushing the limits a bit.

As often before, I accept we disagree on this one but really no acrimony intended on my part . Cheers

[sussexpob]

My issue with your persistence in criticizing the declaration despite its successful outcome is this : your rationale for claiming that the decision to declare at tea was flawed appears to be because it gave Pakistan a significantly better chance than England of winning the match. But that claim only stands up if we accept that the "odds" quoted by various posters - or betting sites - were accurate or meaningful. And since those odds estimates are all essentially just "opinions" there can be no objective standards by which we can assess them. Presumably Stokes and McCullum calculated the odds rather differently( I do not for a moment believe they are stupid enough to take a course of action they believed likely to fail !) - though again , their view was also only an opinion at that stage. The only absolute we can ever take from this game is the eventual result - a fairly clear 74 run win for England - which at least suggests the Stokes/McCullum judgement was more accurate.

Considering the gambling industry is a multi-billion-pound industry, the opinions you are suggesting have no relevance, in practice are the basis of the most thorough scientific probability calculations that exist and have been proven in studies by academic professionals to be of extreme accuracy at the lower end spectrum of probability ratings (anything under 2/1 odds is considered very accurate and becomes more and more accurate with shortening of the odds, to the point there is a high degree of repetitive certainty in odds on calculations). When billions are at stake on a daily basis, it isnt a case of someone in an office somewhere just saying "ah, I think Pakistan will win"..... The idea that two cricketers came to a better calculation of the implied probability of winning is, quite frankly, ludicrous. It would be like saying Stokes and McCullum were better at mathematics than world leading mathematicians.


In fact, this is the part of the debate that I think people are misunderstanding. There seems an assumption that England "calculated" they had a better chance to win than not - judging purely on their explanation (happy to lose to have a chance at winning was the thing Stokes said) of the decision, and that of objective calculations into the win probability, one gets the sense that is not true. I think they were very mindful that they had a worse chance of winning than not ..... but accepted that risk.

though again , their view was also only an opinion at that stage. The only absolute we can ever take from this game is the eventual result - a fairly clear 74 run win for England - which at least suggests the Stokes/McCullum judgement was more accurate.

As I have said, the eventual result does really factor into the judgement of the decision. If we were to extend that line of thinking, then any decision that leads to an intended result can be classed as sound, even if the implied probability on guessing the right one is very low. I mean, if they declared with a lead of 120 and bowled out Pakistan for 119, would that be a good decision? The inference seem to be that yes, it is... when clearly its not.

Of course, we cannot treat this in isolation. In this case, maybe Pakistan had 60% of winning, but that leaves considerable possibility for other outcomes. 40% of the time, Pakistan will not win. No one is suggesting that just because of a slim odd making something more certain, it becomes 100% certain.

The key though is..... if making that decision an infinite amount of times, you will lose more than you win. Which makes it quite unjustifiable.

[Arthur Crabtree]

England's only change is to bring in Wood for the injured Livingstone. Which means no place for Foakes.

[sussexpob]

England's only change is to bring in Wood for the injured Livingstone. Which means no place for Foakes.

Interesting. Pope took one blinding catch near the end (with a nice moment from Foakes at the boundary signalling his approval), but he also made a few errors, notably letting the easiest of catches fly past as him from one tailender.

I guess he showed he can be a test match keeper with some work, but the error he made was pretty bad, so there is risk there...

What odds are we getting on Wood lasting 5 days on these pitches + heat?

[Arthur Crabtree]

I don't think LL bowled a ball in that Test, so England will get a useful extra option, even if Wood doesn't bowl that many overs.

[Durhamfootman]

Looks as though England feel they need an extra pace option for the next test, but don't want to take any of the batters out.

After the way Foakes got dropped for the purposes of expediency last time he managed to work his way into the team, it looks as though the timing of this latest injury could not have been any worse.