Ashes Preview, stat-attack and pun-athon

After the shortest wait in Ashes history, this week sees the return to the England-Australia cricketing battlefield. After England's successful summer, the record stands at 31 series victories each (5 drawn), only adding to the significance of already something of a meaningful set of matches. With England marginal favourites to repeat their triumph of 2010-11, all of the talk, predictions and injury-waiting will soon be at an end. Few would argue that the 3-0 victory in the summer was perhaps not as convincing as the scoreline would suggest, and it'll take a marked improvement from Cook's men to repeat the trick down under. That being said, you could say there is a lot more to come from the likes of Cook, Trott and Pietersen - leaving the Aussies quaking at the prospect of absurd run-scoring like the last time in Oz. 

It is interesting to compare the two squads in relation to the last time we were here, namely November 2010. Believe it or not, I like a stat. Especially when I have a hunch then do the research and the genuine stats reflect what I wanted to say (I don't like having to Cook them up)

Looking at the top 5 ranked batsmen from each team now and from the 18th November 2010 tells an interesting story:

England top 5 batsmen
2010	Ranking	2013	Ranking
Trott	16	Bell	10
Pietersen	23	Cook	11
Strauss	25	Pietersen	13
Bell	26	Trott	15
Cook	29	Prior	17
Total:	119	Total:	66
Australia top 5 batsmen
2010	Ranking	2013	Ranking
Clarke	14	Clarke	5
Katich	15	Watson	32
Ponting	18	Warner	36
Watson	24	Smith	43
Hussey	30	Rogers	46
Total:	101	Total:	162

Prior (pun intended) to last time here, the Aussies had theoretically the marginally stronger batting line up, yet there is little question as to whose batsmen dominated the series. This time, the difference in Rankin places between the top 5 is simply astonishing. Joe Root is England 6th highest ranked batsmen, and at 33, would be in Australia's top 3. 

Don't pretend you don't want to know how the bowlers line up as well. Here you go... (you won't be disappointed)

England top 5 bowlers
2010	Ranking	2013	Ranking
Swann	2	Swann	7
Anderson	5	Anderson	10
Broad	9	Broad	11
Finn	24	Finn	20
Panesar	26	Bresnan	24
Total:	66	Total:	72
Australia top 5 bowlers
2010	Ranking	2013	Ranking
Johnson	6	Harris	6
Bollinger	7	Siddle	7
Siddle	15	Hilfenhaus	15
Hilfenhaus	16	Lyon	21
Watson	29	Johnson	23
Total:	73	Total:	72

Never again can the word 'statto' ever have negative connotations (I never understood the Root of that criticism anyway). England's bowlers were ranked slightly better last time out, but ahead of this week's clash, they are tied dead even. I appreciate that these won't be the 5 bowlers each team play (especially as England only play 4) but there's no denying the similarities. Something else that is striking, and which may be a huge factor as the winter develops, is the consistency of England's squad, both in batting and bowling - 4 of the top 5 have remained the same in each category. Consistency doesn't equal success but it could go a long way. This may ring a Bell from this summer, given that there's little doubt that inexperience cost Australia in the summer, failing to convert promising positions and being unable to dig themselves out of tricky situations. It's not to say that we'll Swann our way through the first couple of days, but there will be a lot less fear and "rabbit in headlights" than last time we were here.

Will England make history in winning 4 series in a row, for the first time since it all began, when they won 8 on the Trott? I've made a fool of myself with Broad predictions too many times to repeat the trick here so I'll just say that I would love to hear Warne embarrass himself further by saying we're too defensive yet again. It seems he'll only be satisfied if we beat them 5-0.

PS I apologise if you've Haddin-uff of the puns. Clarke my words, I'd be Lyon if I said it was easy to Ballance writing a real post with one that just Stokes the reader's fury. I was glad to Finnish though

A quizzical US Open preview

With the 2011 US Open nearly upon us, and the men's singles draw done, it is customary for a tournament preview. But rather than my usual rolling out of docile and ultimately inaccurate opinions on who's on form, who will win and who to watch out for, I thought I'd find out the right answers first, then make you do the work. 

Rafa later regretted agreeing
to do the quiz himself

That's right, it's a US Open quiz (mostly focussed on Djokovic, Nadal, Federer and Murray), combining my geeky love for stats with my obsessive love for tennis, and hopefully producing some vaguely interesting facts to raise an eyebrow or induce a "really?". The real dream for a quiz creator is for the quizee to google (other search engines are available) something because they find it so astonishing that it can't possibly be true. (Not ideal if it turns out to indeed be too good to be true, but I'm sure that won't be the case here). Anyway, I digress. 


Happy being bemused, befuddled, bamboozled, bewildered and ultimately bored bowled over like a Lasith Malinga yorker. Answers at the bottom



1. Last year, Juan Martin Del Potro was reigning champion after his 5 set defeat of Federer in '09 - how far did he get defending his title? (2 points)


2. Which of the top 4 have lost the most number of matches at the US Open? (1 point) How many times has he lost? (1 point)

3. Put the top 4 in order of their all-time winning percentage at the US Open. (2 points or nothing)


4. How many double faults did Djokovic serve during last year's US Open? (3 points if you get it exact, 1 point if you're within 3)


5. This is the first US Open since which year that Federer has been seeded outside of the top 2? (2 points) Who was top seed that year? (1 point)

"Come on Roger, you know this!"

6. How many times in the last 4 years of Grand Slams (i.e. out of 16) have Federer/Djokovic been on one side of the draw with Nadal/Murray on the other side? (2 points - exact answer or nothing)


7. Which of the 4 was in the top 20 fastest servers at last year's US Open? (2 points) BONUS point for the speed of the serve

8. How many times in the Open Era has someone won the US Open without dropping a set? (Wimbledon has been won once, Aus twice, French five times) (2 points)

9. Which of the 4 made most line call challenges during last year's tournament? (2 points) BONUS point for the number of challenges

10. There has never been 8 different nationalities represented at the QF stage of the US Open. Which two countries had more than 1 player in last year's quarters? (1 point for each country)


11. Which player/players have a positive overall head-to-head record against the other 3? (2 points)

"I should have known that
Scotland wasn't the answer to 14."

12. Excluding JMDP in '09, who was the last man to win a Grand Slam other than the top 3? (1 point for the name, 1 point for the year + GS)

13. Which of the 4 won the US Open Boys' Singles title? (2 points) BONUS point for the year

14. After the USA, which country has the most Open Era US Open Men's Singles titles? (2 points)

15. Which is the only of the 4 to have lost more Grand Slam singles matches in a year than he won? (2 points)

BELOW ARE THE ANSWERS - I SINCERELY HOPE YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY SCROLLED DOWN TO CHEAT. 

I'M NOT ANNOYED AT YOU, JUST DISAPPOINTED. SLOW SHAKE OF THE HEAD

Post a comment with your score - if you've not done too embarrassingly that is. Maximum is 32 (35 if you get the bonus points too)




1. He was injured, so didn't compete in the tournament at all.


2. Nadal - he has lost 7 times (from 8 appearances). Djokovic, Federer and Murray have all lost 6 times. ND/AM from 6 appearances, RF from 11


3. Federer 90.32%, Djokovic 81.25%, Nadal 80%, Murray 73.91%


4. He made 28 double faults, the tournament leader was Verdasco with 36 but my favourite has to be Berankis, with 30 from just 2 matches!

5. 2002 - Lleyton Hewitt was top seed. Federer was 13th seed. Pete Sampras, seeded 17, was victorious

6. 15 of the last 16 Grand Slams have had that pattern. Roland Garros 2010 is the only time that it hasn't been Murray/Nadal on one side of the draw and Djokovic/Federer on the other side, despite constant variations in seedings

7. Andy Murray, with a 136mph serve.

8. Never - the US Open is the only Grand Slam to have never been won without the loss of a set

"I was right with all 23 challenges,
Hawkeye got the other 14 wrong"

9. Djokovic, with 23 (9 of which he was correct. Their successful challenge percentages were Nadal 46.67%, Djokovic 39.13%, Murray 35.29%, Federer 25%)

10. Spain and Switzerland with Nadal/Verdasco and Federer/Wawrinka respectively

11. Only Nadal. His record against the others is 45-24. Djokovic is 27-34, Federer 28-34 and Murray 16-24

12. Marat Safin - 2005 Australian Open. (not Gaston Gaudio at Roland Garros 2004 as I put first!)

13. Andy Murray 2004 - incidentally, Gael Monfils won all 3 of the other boys' Grand Slam titles that year 

14. Australia, with 6 (USA have 19 titles, Switzerland are third with 5, all Federer) 

15. Federer, in 1999, lost in the first round of Roland Garros and Wimbledon, while not playing in Aus/US

PS If you hated my quiz and thought it terribly dull or boring, please try this one then come back to me.

Top 8 = Last 8? And other stats

There is the real possibility that in two days' time a phenomenon may occur in Melbourne that has never occurred yet (as far as my research can tell me) - the top 8 seeds will make it through to the Quarter finals and therefore be the last 8 players in the tournament. Surely this is the whole purpose of the seeding process - getting the best players taking on each other in the closing stages? Yet never before has it happened. It nearly happened two years ago at the Australian Open '09, but Murray (4) let slip a 2-1 set lead to Verdasco (14) in the 4th round, leaving 7 of the 8 top seeds to fill the QF slots. 


Strangely enough it is Verdasco (9) who arguably has the biggest chance of spoiling the party this time round too, up against Berdych (6). That said, the Czech does lead the head-to-head 6-4 and 4-1 on Hard courts. 


Another one who could ruin it is Stan Wawrinka. He ruthlessly punished Monfils in R3 and certainly can threaten A-Rod. I'll still back our capped friend. 


Answers to this conundrum on a postcard: Stan has never even taken a set from Roddick yet he leads the head-to-head 2-1. *answer at the bottom*


Nadal again showed his class today - I warned you Tomic could be dangerous, but Rafa kept his nerve and demonstrated all of his fabled battling qualities from 4-0 in the second set. Tomic has an incredibly languid style (description from John Lloyd - patent pending), and seems almost lazy in thumping away winners. Unfortunately his UFE count meant that the only significant thumping was the one Rafa dealt him in the end. Lots of potential but needs to concentrate and not expect success to fall into his lap. Even Federer has to work hard. I fear Cilic may be reliant on divine intervention to have a chance of seeing the QFs this year, although he comes from the right town for it so who knows...


I was pleased that Baghdatis did the business over JMDP, as predicted, so it's a shame he had to pull out against Melzer. I fancy Murray over the Austrian (the Scot leads the head-to-head 4-0) but the Cypriot could have made it interesting.


So Rog and Raf are still there and still looking like giving us our first dream final since their clash here two years ago. Having tipped Rog because of his easier run to the final, I did some research (prompted by an off the cuff comment made on BBC Live text - see 11.52). Is it actually of benefit to avoid seeds on your route through? 


Not necessarily it would appear. Take a look at Federer's route through the Aussie Open since 2005 and you'll see that he's been in 4 finals (won 3) and only once in those years (4th round 2006 vs Haas, who was ranked 41 (having missed a lot of 2005 after stepping on a ball at Wimbledon and spraining his ankle) at the time, but made it to 11 by the end of 2006) has he played a non-seed after the 2nd round. 
The years in which Roger has been an abysmal failure, and only made the semi-finals ('05 and '08), he took on a non-seed in the 3rd round, and again in the 4th in 2005, before losing to the eventual winner each time.
Rafa is similar, last year he played non-seeds in the 3rd round and QF before losing his semi to Murray but his victory in '09 came off the back of wins against seeds in R4, QF and SF. 


Maybe the tougher route is the better one after all. 




Another bit of trivia, the two active players who have played the most consecutive Grand Slam tournaments are 1) Roger Federer (with 45) and 2) Tommy Robredo (with 41) - who play each other tonight.


* trivia question answer - both of Wawrinka's victories over A-Rod have come from the American's withdrawal due to injury, both in the first set (once SW was 4-0 up, once AR was 4-3 up). Congratulations if you got it, and a special mention to my wife who's not exactly a tennis enthusiast but figured it out pretty much straight away