Showing posts with label qualifying. Show all posts
Showing posts with label qualifying. Show all posts

Friday, November 18, 2011

Guus Hiddink leaves Turkey: He's just not that into you

Guus Hiddink's reign as manager of Turkey has ended with nary a whimper. His tenure faded ignominiously into the Black and Aegean Seas: Turkey received 3-0 losses in both legs of the Euro 2012 qualification playoffs from a journeyman Croatia side. He's now a free agent and joins Carlo Ancelotti as the biggest - and most marketable - free agent in his profession.

It would surprise no-one were he to return to Chelsea in a Director's role, creating with Andre Villas-Boas a management "Dream Team". Rumours of him taking over as manager, however, are greatly overstated.

It was always likely Hiddink would depart the Bosphorus nation should Turkey fail to qualify. This is in part due to his meandering nature and wandering eye; also because it became apparent nearly from the start that this partnership wasn't nearly as affectionate as past flings with Russia, Chelsea, PSV, Australia and South Korea. Fittingly, in his last home match, he was booed by Turkish crowds.

For the first time in the decade since he ascended from "coach" to "miracle worker", he's criticised his former employers on departure, saying Turkish youth development pathways weren't of sufficient standard for consistent performance at international level.

It marked the second time that Hiddink leaves Turkey without adding to his reputation: in 1991 he was dismissed from Fenerbahçe with a win rate of only 40%. In seventeen games with the Ay Yıldızlılar, he compiled an patchy seven wins, five draws and five losses (41.18%). Both numbers stand well below his career win percentage of 56.52.

Questions are now being asked if the Dutchman's magic has worn thin. His last two jobs have finished unsatisfactorily with Russia and Turkey enduring qualification playoff defeats. Even understanding the "Fool me once, fool me twice" mindset, this analysis is premature and, at worst, a little mean-spirited. As in most break-ups, both parties eventually realised they were just wrong for each other in the first place.

Looking at his greatest achievements (with the exception of his first stint at PSV), Hiddink and his teams have performed best when unfancied and under little pressure. It should be the first rule of football - never bet against a Guus Hiddink team.

Over the last decade, he coaxed a Euro 2008 semi-final berth out of Russia when outsiders didn't know what to expect. When expectations rose after players like Arshavin and Pavlyuchenko got moves to high-profile clubs, the squad underperformed and went down to Slovenia in a winner-takes-all bout over two legs for a place at the 2010 World Cup.

At Chelsea, he was recruited to salvage the season after Luis Felipe Scolari's dismissal. With minimal pressure - it was a temporary appointment and everyone was aware the title had long gone - he once again attained maximal results.

His quotes on masterminding a gritty, but not overly talented Australia to the second round of the 2006 Cup could define his coaching career: "Our goal is the second round. Why not?" Fourth place in 2002 with then-tiny South Korea was nigh-on miraculous. By fostering belief in his players, Guus Hiddink has spent the past decade getting the best out of underdogs with reasonable expectations.

After a stupendous Euro 2008, both Turkey and Russia had reason to be ambitious in expectation. However, this was followed by failure to qualify for South Africa despite quality players and enviable home-field advantages. It should have worked - but didn't. No-one manages expectation like Hiddink - so when it becomes rampant, his work becomes more difficult and less masterly in its execution.

We'll see Guus Hiddink again soon. Rumours persist of a 22 million pound offer to manage Anzhi Makhachkala. If he cares to protect his Lama-like coaching reputation, he won't take that job. It's too glitzy, too dangerous and just not his type.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

An Alternative to Exclusion: The Statistical Basis for an ICC World Cup Qualifying Tournament

The ICC have announced that affiliate nations are to be excluded from the World Cup in 2015, only to be reinstated from 2019 after a mooted ODI League begins. As well as manifestly defending without consequence the full member nations Bangladesh and Zimbabwe at the expense of the affiliates, there are several flaws in the ICC's logic. Their thinking is that Bangladesh and Zimbabwe deserve protection as developing cricket nations. Perhaps the ICC, when considering the following analysis, should expand their vista somewhat.


Over the last two World Cups, perhaps the most startling comparison is each team's success rate. Ireland have recorded four wins, one tie and eleven losses, Bangladesh went 6-10 and Zimbabwe managing two wins and a tie from nine matches. In fact if you take into account every ODI each nation has played since June 2006 (Ireland's first ever ODI), records are even more enlightening.


Nation

Games

Wins

Losses

Ties

N/R

Bangladesh

119

52

67

0

0

Zimbabwe

95

28

66

1

0

Ireland

64

30

30

1

3


Although Irish results don't quite measure up to those of Bangladesh, these tables don't take into account a decline in Bangladesh's form since their Super-8 appearance in the 2007 Cup in the West Indies. Comparing last decade to this, Irish cricket appears well in advance of their third-world neighbours in development:


Nation

Games

Wins


Losses


Ties

N/R

Bangladesh

119

52

43.7

67

56.3

0

0

2006-2009

86

40

46.51

46

53.49

0

0

2010-2011

33

12

36.36

21

63.64

0

0

Zimbabwe

95

28

29.47

66

70.53

1

0

2006-2009

69

19

27.54

49

71.01

1

0

2010-2011

26

9

34.62

17

65.38

0

0

Ireland

64

30

46.88

30

46.88

1

3

2006-2009

41

17

41.46

20

48.78

1

3

2010-2011

23

13

56.52

10

43.48

0

0


Given that many of Ireland's ODIs have been against ICC-trophy opposition, this is hardly conclusive proof that Ireland are a comparable side to either Zimbabwe or Bangladesh. However, what must be remembered is that while they may face weaker opposition more often, almost all of their matches are played "away". The same can't be said of Bangladesh and Zimbabwe.


Every nation uses Key Performance Indicators in their overall analysis of performance. Since Ireland entered the ODI arena, theirs compare well with their subcontinental and African cousins:



Statistic

Bangladesh

Zimbabwe

Ireland

Bowling KPI

Runs conceded p/wkt

26

25.08

27.05

Runs conceded p/over

4.56

4.54

4.68


Batting KPI

Highest Score

320

351

329

Lowest Score

58

44

77

Average Total Score

217.96

205.42

240.53


Let's examine both individual performances in both the last two World Cups to see how, on a per-match basis, the Irish stack up.



Bangladesh

Zimbabwe

Ireland

Game 1

191

221

221

Game 2

318

204

132

Game 3

94

349

190

Game 4

106

262

266

Game 5

178

123

165

Game 6

184

166

263

Game 7

147

327

92

Game 8

243

164

169

Game 9

230

147

81

Game 10

370


205

Game 11

178


327

Game 12

59


210

Game 13

225


275

Game 14

160


272

Game 15

284


306

Average runs conceded

197.8

218.11

211.6

Total wickets taken

95

58

103

Average p/wkt

31.23

33.84

30.82

Adjusted Avg runs conc.

207.71



Adjusted avg/p/wkt

30.94



In this analysis, "Adjusted" removes the influence of any low totals made by the team while batting first - ie. Bangladesh's record-low 58 is not considered in the "Adjusted runs conceded". This has the happy benefit of decreasing their average per wicket (Adjusted avg/p/wkt) as they only took one West Indies scalp when attempting to defend their meagre total.


With batting, the story is very similar.


World Cup

Bangladesh

Zimbabwe

Ireland


Runs

Wkts lost

Runs

Wkts lost

Runs

Wkts Lost

2007

1372

72

522

30

1452

79

2011

1017

51

1276

52

1393

51

Totals

2389

123

1798

82

2845

130

Average p/wkt

19.42

21.93

21.88


Perhaps rather than automatic ascension to ODI status, it would be best to enforce qualification rules upon the weakest two Full ICC Members - a simple, round-robin tournament evaluated by wins, losses and run-rate. It could be there that Ireland, the Netherlands, Canada and Kenya - perpetually the strongest four affiliate nations - could compete against Bangladesh and Zimbabwe for entry rights.


Such a setup may also strengthen those full members as it would provide another focal point at which things need to be "going right" in order to avoid the humiliation of failing to qualify. It only needs to be for one (two at most) World Cup and could easily be superseded by an ODI League.


Any suggestions the Bangladeshis or Zimbabweans would crush the competition in a qualifying tournament is fatuous in the extreme. To throw in one final statistic, in the past two Cups three Irish batsmen have scored hundreds. None have from Bangladesh or Zimbabwe (though one of each has come close). Ireland's batsmen seem to fire after playing themselves in - they have only eight unconverted 50s to their credit, while Bangladesh have managed nine half-centuries and Zimbabwe have eleven.


In all the statistics put together today, there's plenty of evidence that suggests that Irish, Bangladeshi and Zimbabwean cricket is relatively well-matched. Indeed, it's eminently possible to throw a blanket over the differences in each nation's stats. All statistical indicators point to a very even three-cornered series.


As with any developing cricketing nation, no-one is really sure who is going to step up on any given day to play a key hand. What it does seem however, is that Ireland are fully capable of upsetting bigger opponents, and their form is only improving rather than the cul-de-sac into which Bangladeshi cricket seems to have turned. The only fair way to ensure the development of cricket across the globe is to give the affiliate nations something to strive for, and Full member nations something to fear. That should take the form of World Cup qualifying.