How To Fix a Tennis Match (by Alexandr Dolgopolov)

The campus of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem is the final stop for ATP player that are looking to pick up a few wins in the run-up to the final major of the year. In 2016, the tournament was even named as the '250 Tournament of the Year' in the ATP awards. However, the first main draw match of the 2017 edition has garnered attention for an entirely unwanted reason.

The match was between the Ukrainian former world #13, Alexandr Dolgopolov, and the Brazilian Thiago Monteiro. Monteiro was playing in his eighth hard court match at this level and was still looking for his first ATP main draw win on the surface. Alexandr Dolgopolov was coming off qualifying in Cincinnati, where he beat the in-form Kevin Anderson before losing to Nick Kyrgios. The opening odds with Pinnacle had the Ukrainian as the 1.36 favourite, implying a 73.5% chance of winning the match, while Monteiro was priced at 3.28, a 30.5% chance (the 104% total is due to the overround applied by bookmakers).

The odds remained steady from their opening price shortly after 1pm on Saturday afternoon (all times are UK time) until around 6:20pm on Sunday evening, just under two hours before the match was due to begin. The next 20 minutes would see Dolgopolov's price at Pinnacle drift dramatically, reaching 1.63 at 6:40pm from 1.37. At this point, Pinnacle would remove betting on the match, signifying that they were seeing something untoward in the market.

Dolgopolov's price on Betfair... pic.twitter.com/nZbiFcQXDc

— jimmy soixante-dix (@hotdog6969) August 20, 2017

Bet365, a major UK bookmaker, would continue offering the match up until 7:34pm, by which time, the price on Dolgopolov had drifted further, reaching a price of 2.37, implying just a 42.2% chance of winning the match. Coral, another UK bookmaker, offered it until 7:39pm, stopping their market once the price had reached 2.50, a 40.0% chance of winning.

The drift did not stop there as Dolgopolov's price continued to rise on the Betfair Exchange. We can see that 15 minutes before the start of the match, the prices had almost flipped entirely from the initial starting price, with Dolgopolov available to back at a price of 3.15, implying just a 31.7% chance of winning the match, compared to his initial 73.5% chance. At this stage, we were still 15 minutes away from the players even going onto court.

As the match started, plenty of tennis traders and followers had noticed the highly unusual odds movements and were watching streams of the match. Several bookmakers had decided to not even offer the match at all, which is unusual for an ATP match on the main show court. When he was broken in the fourth game of the match following back-to-back double faults, Bet365 decided that they did not trust the match and removed betting on the first set and slashed the limits for what could be staked on the match.

Ukrainian power in action today : Dolgopolov and Bondarenko having "funny" odds (Bet365 just removed 1st set market and has low ML limits) pic.twitter.com/3HJw8gXFyU

— Stefano Berlincioni (@Carretero77) August 20, 2017

As the match progressed, it became clear that there was little chance of Dolgopolov winning the match. Monteiro was priced sub-1.20 after winning the first set and when he broke early in the second set, he shortened to 1.07. Those that were watching the match seemed in little doubt as to what they were witnessing:

We're possibly witnessing the most obvious match fix of all time.

— Game Set Profit (@GameSetProfit) August 20, 2017

Dolgopolov not hiding this very well at all. Extremely suspicious ground stroke errors, no injury and betting patterns all over the board.

— Fight_Ghost (@Fight_Ghost) August 20, 2017

Dolgo with one of the most blatant fixes that I can remember seeing.

— Igor Puschkin (@Kalarou) August 20, 2017

If the ATP are serious re fixing that should have been Dolgopolov's final match

— jimmy soixante-dix (@hotdog6969) August 20, 2017

By the end of the match, Dolgopolov had not created a single break point chance on the Monteiro serve. In the past two season, there have been just two matches where Dolgopolov has not created a single break point chance - at the 2016 Australian Open and Wimbledon 2017, both against Roger Federer. It is the first time in Monteiro's entire career that he has not faced a single break point on a hard court. In his previous 7 hard court matches at ATP level, he had been broken no fewer than 31 times.

Now, it is true that Dolgopolov did have some strapping just above his ankle, which could have signified some form of injury. However, he did also have that strapping on last week and it did not seem to affect him then. Even if it was a more serious issue, one has to wonder how anyone found out less than two hours before the match and was so confident that it was serious enough to push his price from 1.37 out to 3.15. That sort of move is almost unprecedented and, in this scenario, suggests that someone knew of an injury so severe that it almost certainly meant that Dolgopolov had very little chance of winning the match. And that they only found out this information less than two hours before the start.

An alternative is that the match was fixed. It would take relatively significant money to move the Pinnacle market by such a significant margin and for them to decide to take the market down. The fact that every major bookmaker decided to suspend betting before the match started indicates strong suspicions among those companies that are able to see the bets being placed. The fact that several decided to not offer the match in-running only emphasises this fact.

From the outside, it is very difficult to determine what precisely has happened. However, what we can say is that the odds movements on this match are hugely suspicious. There are very few believable explanations for what might cause movements such as this and to this magnitude. It is important to note that there is no indication that Thiago Monteiro had any knowledge of anything that was occurring during the match. However, while there may be a valid explanation for what happened, it is impossible to deny that there are questions that need to be asked of Alexandr Dolgopolov.

Over the past 18 months, there have been a number of grand statements from the tennis authorities and the Tennis Integrity Unit about tackling the problem of fixing in tennis. If they are seriously about living up to those statements, then this is a match that they should be taking a very close look at. The TIU has said that it does not regard unusual betting patterns as an indication of corruption. However, to ignore them completely is to disregard one of the clearest indications of something amiss.

Potential Solutions for Grand Slam R1 Retirements

With eight retirements, seven on the men's side, in the opening round of Wimbledon, the debate over whether injured players are simply turning up for their first round prize money when they are clearly not fit enough to play has reared its head again.

There are two real concerns that people have with all of the retirements. Firstly, many fans seem to object to players simply turning up to collect their money with no real intention of being able to play a proper match. Secondly, there is the issue of not being able to see full matches of tennis being played. This second issue was particularly pertinent today with two of the retirements coming in back-to-back matches on Centre Court, where people had paid expensive prices for tickets or queued for huge periods of time to get those tickets.

Let us first address a couple of suggested solutions for the first of those issues. There have been suggestions that players should not be given any prize money if they do not complete their first round match. This would probably solve some of the retirements, but it is likely to simply lead to players just hanging around on court to see out the rest of the match without putting up any challenge. This would likely just lead to those same people that complained about the retirements complaining about players not putting in the effort. It also seems to unfairly penalise those players that suffer genuine injuries during a match. It seems quite harsh to take away the £35k prize money that Anastasia Potapova would get after she had a nasty fall when leading by a break in the second set. For a player that has a total career prize money of just under $16k, the prize money from Wimbledon is a huge deal.

Injuries happen in tennis matches and financially penalising players for them is a tricky question

There have also been suggestions of deducting a portion of prize money if you withdraw and also deducting prize money for tanking. In a perfect world, this could work, but how you would decide how much prize money to withdraw for a retirement would be tricky. Do you withdraw the same amount for a retirement in the second set as one in the fourth set? What if a player is leading by two sets, but gets injured? In addition, I am strongly against the idea of deducting prize money for tanking, simply due to the difficulty of determining whether a player is tanking. If a player is struggling with injury and decide that they cannot run to retrieve balls, is that tanking? If they decide that the best strategy given their injury is to look to hit winners early in every point and miss a lot of them, is that tanking? Something that could be the best strategy, but which is executed poorly, can easily look like a player does not care.

There is the argument that players should just withdraw before the match if they are not certain that they can finish the match. Again, that is a lovely idea, but players work for a year to earn their ranking and, for many players, the aim is to get their ranking to the point that they gain direct entry into the slams for the prize money that comes with that.

Let us take Janko Tipsarevic. He has been grinding away on the Challenger Tour for much of 2017, playing events in places like Bangkok, Qingdao and Anning to get his ranking up to the point where he can get direct entry into Wimbledon. He has played 32 matches in 2017 to earn his ranking and has earned $160k (around £120k). He stated that he felt pain in practice and was assured by the doctors that the injury was not serious. He was given injections and the injury felt better. He then went out on court today and the pain came back in the third game of the match.

The idea that he should have withdrawn beforehand because he had some pain that might have caused issues in the match and forgo the prize money that is equivalent to over 25% of what he has earned in the six months leading up to this is crazy. However, when there is pain during a match, there is always the question of whether playing on might aggravate the injury and extend any period of recovery.

Nick Kyrgios has been attempting unsuccessfully to play through injury, yet people still criticise him for it

Another solution that has been suggested is to reduce the prize money for the first round to reduce the temptation to simply turn up for the money. Ignoring the fact that the tour would almost certainly face a player mutiny if they tried to significantly reduce first round prize money, it arguably penalises a significant number of players that rely on the money for their career for the sake of solving a small issue.

In 2017, the ATP have been trialling a new system on the tour. This is where a player that withdraws before a first round match is still given the prize money and is replaced in the draw by a lucky loser. The lucky loser does not get any prize money if they lose in the first round, but if they progress, they gain whatever points and money they would expect from progressing through the rounds. The idea is that players that have an injury that might prevent them from completing the match have the incentive to withdraw and it gives the crowd an increased opportunity to see a full match, while it give the opportunity to a lucky loser that would not have otherwise been the case.

The restructuring of the lucky loser system was important alongside this to prevent the highest ranked player in qualifying from simply tanking his final qualifying match knowing that he was already in the main draw though. This system also helps to add a potential layer of protection against corruption as it lessons the chance that a player goes onto the court knowing that they cannot win.

Has this had much of an impact? Excluding the slams, there have been 18 first round retirements in 556 matches so far in 2017, meaning that there is a retirement in 3.2% of matches. In the past three seasons (2014-2016), there were 106 retirements in 2740 first round matches, which works out at 3.9% of matches ending in retirement.

It is a valid argument that there may be more retirements later in the season, so comparing the first half of this season to full seasons previously is not fair. If we simply look at all of the tournaments pre-Wimbledon in the past three seasons, the rate of retirements does drop slightly from 3.9% to 3.6%, but still higher than in the current season.

Is this enough of a change to say that the system is working? Probably not at this stage, but it is a promising start and there is an argument to suggest that this could be implemented in slams. You will still get people complaining that players are collecting prize money without even picking up a racket, but they have earned their place in the draw through the past year's tennis and it can be argued that they have earned the prize money.

It should also lead to fewer retirements and more tennis for the spectators at the event and for fans watching on television. The matches may not be any more competitive, particularly against the top players, but at least there is a significantly higher chance of getting more tennis played.

Is it an ideal solution? Maybe not. Is there an ideal solution? Almost certainly not. Every solution that has been raised has flaws and there is no solution that everyone will be happy with. Ultimately though, the chief aim for tournaments and the ATP really should be to maximise the tennis product that they offer and a solution that gets more healthy players on court and more tennis played surely must be an improvement?

Mark Lawrenson, Bakery Products and the Serena Slam

Is Mark Lawrenson a genius?

As is usually the case at this stage in the season, we start getting a range of articles on the 'lad banter' websites making fun of Mark Lawrenson and poking fun at how ridiculous his predictions and final league table are. Indeed, when he even gets teams in the correct position in the league, the fact that he has not predicted their actual points correctly is the next target.

However, how bad really are his predictions? We can take every match prediction that he has made this season and put a hypothetical £10 on the result that he predicts. With one week left in the season, he has made 365 predictions thus far, giving a total amount staked of £3,650. Using the Pinnacle closing odds from football-data.co.uk, Mark Lawrenson would actually have made a profit of £602.20 this season, giving him an impressive return of 16.5%.

This analysis has been done for previous seasons as well elsewhere. Using the analysis predominantly from wearepremierleague.com, we can see that he has done well in the past as well, recording a 17.5% return in 2012/13, 11.0% return in 2013/14 and 7.2% in 2015/16. The only season in the past five in which he has recorded a loss was the 2014/15 season, where he lost at 3.7%.

This means that if you had put £10 on every prediction from Mark Lawrenson in the past five seasons, you would have made £1,419 at a return of 8.6%. Almost any professional gambler would be happy with that return - maybe Mark Lawrenson is far smarter than we all realise...

Nadal, Carreno Busta and Tomic - the ATP bakery

Recently, I have been looking at how many bakery sets (6-0 bagels or 6-1 breadsticks) various players in the ATP have won in the past 12 months. One interesting stat is that Gael Monfils has won the same number of bagel sets as Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic combined. However, what I was really looking into was what percentage of sets each player won by one of these dominant scorelines. Of those players with at least 100 sets played in the past 12 months, here are the top players:

This is obviously dependent to an extent on the quality of opponents - a few matches against local wildcards gives a real opportunity for bakery sets, but what really stands out is how many dominant sets Rafael Nadal wins. Interestingly, he actually wins very few bagel sets - just three in the past 12 months, which is less than the likes of Pablo Carreno Busta, Gilles Simon and Benoit Paire. However, he has no equal when it comes to 6-1 sets. He has won 24 6-1 sets in the past 12 months in just 135 sets, meaning that 17.8% of the sets that he has played have finished with this scoreline.

At the other end of the scale, it is no surprise to see the big servers like Karlovic and Isner. Given the quality of their return games, it would be quite the shock if they were to win dominant sets, even against weaker opposition. However, they are both better than Bernard Tomic, who has just the one 6-1 set in the past 12 months, which came against Thomaz Bellucci at the Australian Open.

One interesting thing to note is that when it comes to opening set bagels, nobody has more in the past 12 months than Pablo Carreno Busta. The Spaniard, who has made great strides up the rankings in the past 12 months, has won no fewer than four opening set bagels, twice as many as any other player.

Serena Slam

In the wake of Serena's pregnancy and the question over whether she will return to tennis, I thought I would take a look at her level over the past seven years. If we use her combined score (% points won on serve + % points won on return), we can get a proxy for the quality of her game over this period.

We can see the incredible rise through the middle and end of 2012 and the peak in the 2013 US Open final against Victoria Azarenka, where her combined score came perilously close to hitting the 120 mark, which is simply unbelievable. As a comparison, at his most dominant last year, Novak Djokovic's combined score just rose above 115, so to come close to 120 is almost beyond comprehension. It is testament to Azarenka's quality that she was able to live with Serena for so long in that US Open final.

Unsurprisingly, that level was unsustainable as she aged and we see her drop down to the 112-114 range, which is still elite. It is interesting to note how much her level had dropped from its peak during the period in which she won the Serena Slam for the second time. While she was clearly still dominant, she was being pushed more than before in those matches.

For a number of years, the numbers have suggested that Serena Williams has been in decline as I have written about previously. The common response to this has usually been that she is still number #1 and is still winning slams. The simple reality is that her level was so unbelievable high before that she can decline a long way before any other players start to come close to her. That she is in decline and that she is still the best player can both be true.

T20 Cricket - A Few Thoughts

James Faulkner's Hitting

During the strategic timeout in the Rising Pune Supergiants against Gujarat Lions, the pundits were discussing potential changes for the Gujarat Lions and, in particular, the option of James Faulkner. One of the benefits of Faulkner was supposedly that he is 'capable of hitting big shots in the middle order'.

While there are a number of areas that James Faulkner is strong in, big hitting is certainly not one of those. Indeed, of all the players that have scored at least 1000 runs in T20 cricket, James Faulkner actually requires the most balls per boundary hit. Faulkner is elite at avoiding dot balls and rotating the strike, but hitting boundaries is really not his strong point. Just as knowledge of exactly how some players play does not appear to be the strong point of certain pundits.

Keeping Wickets in Hand

We always hear commentators talking about how teams should not take risks early on in order to keep wickets in hand for later in the innings. However, how much does keeping wickets in hand actually help?

The chart shows the number of runs scored in the final 5 overs of a T20 innings based on the number of wickets that have fallen by the start of this period. As we can see, each extra wicket in hand is generally worth around an additional 2 runs during the final 5 overs, although this does drop off dramatically if you have lost most of your wickets, but this is hardly a surprise. In reality, it seems that conserving wickets at the expense of scoring runs earlier might not necessarily be the best plan.

Use of Jason Roy

There were a few raised eyebrows at Jason Roy being brought in way down the order at #6 for the Gujarat Lions against the Mumbai Indians. Whilst it is understandable having Dwayne Smith and Brendon McCullum opening the batting, particularly given their long history of opening together for the Chennai Super Kings, it was a strange decision to not bring him in at the fall of the opening wicket.

Jason Roy is a player that scores 45.0% of his runs from fours, whilst not necessarily being a big six hitter. This is one reason why he is a very strong player in the powerplay overs, where there are limited players allowed outside the circle, and he is able to pick the gaps well and pick up the fours. Outside of the powerplay, there are less gaps to find those boundaries. We can see in his stats that during the powerplay, he hits a four every 5.07 balls compared to every 11.1 balls outside of the powerplay.

Jason Roy has a strike rate of 147.3 during the powerplay compared with 142.6 outside of it. In contrast, Suresh Raina, who came in at the fall of the opening wicket, has a strike rate of 127.0 during the powerplay compared to 139.1 outside of it. So, Gujarat effectively brought in a player that scores better once the fielding restrictions are relaxed during the powerplay, rather than a player that thrives under those conditions.

IPL Preview - Gujarat Lions

The Overseas Players

The pick of the overseas players that Gujarat Lions have signed for this season is undoubtedly Jason Roy. My model has him as the 5th ranked batsman in global T20 cricket with a rating of 1.26, which is outstanding. A strike rate of 146.0 as an opening batsman is excellent and, as I have written about previously, he is also one of the fastest starting opening batsmen in T20 cricket. Another interesting aspect of Roy's game is that while he is a decent six hitter, he is one of the best players at hitting fours - his average of a four every 6.14 balls faced is almost unparalleled. The only potential concern may be his ability against spin bowling, where his strike rate is 136.6 and he is dismissed every 17.1 balls faced against spinners, compared to every 23.3 balls against non-spin, but he is undoubtedly going to be a key player for the Gujarat Lions in 2017.

The IPL could be the stage that Jason Roy needs to prove his quality

The potential of Jason Roy alongside Aaron Finch and Brendon McCullum makes for an incredibly exciting top order for the Gujarat Lions. Finch (1.18 rating) and McCullum (1.17 rating) are both top class batsmen in their own right. In addition, they are both also among the fastest starting opening batsmen in T20 cricket, which raises the possibility of some huge powerplay scores for Gujarat if they all click on any given day.

They also have Dwayne Smith as a potential option to open the batting, but with a batting rating of 1.01, it is tough to make an argument for him over the other three. Whilst he does also provide an option with the ball, a bowling rating of 0.87 suggests that it is probably not a particularly good option.

The hugely experienced duo of James Faulkner and Dwayne Bravo provide all-rounder options among the overseas players. Faulkner has a bowling rating of 0.99, but is an above average death bowler, which does provide options. In terms of his batting, a rating of 0.83 is not particularly impressive, he has a fairly low strike rate and does not hit too many boundaries, but he does face very few dot balls, which can be useful with bigger hitters around him. Dwayne Bravo is virtually the most experienced T20 cricketer in the game, but a batting rating of 0.83 and a bowling rating of 0.91 does not really back up the fact that he is an overly useful player.

James Faulkner ability with the ball at the death will be important for Gujarat

They also have the option of Andrew Tye, an Australian bowler that tends to bowl at the death on a regular basis. However, a death bowling rating of 0.84 suggests that he is not as good as people think that he is and it is tough to really make any argument for him in this team.

The Indian Players

With a batting rating of 1.09, Suresh Raina provides another high quality batting option for Gujarat Lions. He has a reasonable strike rate, but he is very effective at not losing his wicket and is pretty adept at rotating the strike. As a foil to the big hitting overseas trio of Roy, Finch and McCullum, it gives Gujarat as good a top four as any team in the tournament.

In Dinesh Karthik, Gujarat have a wicket-keeper that is solid as a batsman as well. While his batting rating of 0.99 puts him almost perfectly at the global average, there are far worse options when it comes to keeping and, as an Indian player, it does not count toward their overseas quota.

It is important to have high quality Indian players and Suresh Raina is certainly that

However, bowling options are where there could be problems for the Gujarat Lions. Praveen Kumar is quite simply not good enough with a bowling rating of just 0.88. His economy rate is not too bad, but he just does not take wickets. My data shows him with 69 wickets compared to an expected 104.8 wickets, which is just not good enough. Shadab Jakati is another bowling option, but again, with a rating of just 0.90, he is not a bowler that is likely to be a major positive for Gujarat.

Whilst Ravindra Jadeja has proven himself to be a very decent test bowler, my model still feels that he has plenty to prove in the shortest format. A bowling rating of 0.93 suggests that he has some issues in T20 cricket and if you look at the batsmen that have thrived against him, the big hitters have tended to have a lot of joy with the likes of AB de Villiers (179 SR), David Miller (191 SR), Kieron Pollard (222 SR) and Andre Russell (250 SR) all being able to score rapidly against him.

Munaf Patel is a better option with a bowling rating of 1.02. He is particularly strong in the powerplay and the middle overs, but his death bowling rating of 0.81 suggests that, if he is selected, Gujarat would be best off using his overs earlier in the innings, rather than using him at the end.

The best bowler in this squad would appear to be Dhawal Kulkarni with a bowling rating of 1.04. He has shown in the past that he is an excellent bowler in the powerplay overs, particularly with regard to taking wickets, and with the limited bowling options, he may be relied on to get early wickets if Gujarat are not to find themselves chasing some big targets.

Gujarat will need Dhawal Kulkarni to perform well early in the innings

Based on this, Gujarat Lions will be hoping that one of their younger Indian bowlers can stand out and make a name for themselves, but Shivil Kaushik (0.81 rating) does not appear to be a likely candidate. The other two options could be Nathu Singh or Basil Thampi, but I have no data on them, so it is impossible to know whether they might be what Gujarat could need.

Final Thoughts

Gujarat have invested heavily on the batting side and they will relying on the batsmen to score enough runs to make up for the weaknesses with the ball. Roy, Finch and McCullum have the potential to form a devastating top order, but given the lack of bowling options, it may be that they can only afford to play two of those and need both Faulkner and Bravo to cover as bowling options. However, with Suresh Raina and Dinesh Karthik, they do have some decent batting to cover the loss of one of the star openers. The other area that will be interesting is that, outside of the top order, there does not appear to be a great deal of power hitting. Neither Bravo or Faulkner are particularly big hitters of the ball and none of the bowlers are particularly reknowned as lower order hitters. It may well be that they rely on the top order to get them off to a rapid start, but slow down as the innings progresses.

IPL Preview - Sunrisers Hyderabad

The Overseas Players

In their captain, David Warner, Sunrisers Hyderabad have one of the best T20 batsmen in global cricket. With a batting rating of 1.24, he is ranked as the 6th best batsman in my ratings and there are very few signs of any weaknesses in his game. He scores significantly faster than the average batsman, whilst being dismissed significantly less regularly. He has a strike rate of 139.0 against spin bowling and 142.6 against non-spin bowling and is also a player that is a fast starter at the beginning of his innings, with a strike rate of 122.0 in the 1st 10 balls that he faces. Whilst he does sometimes have a tendency to be dismissed early with 30.9% of his innings having between 0 and 9 runs scored, if he reaches 20 runs, he converts that into at least a half century over 50.0% of the time.

David Warner will need to have an excellent tournament for Sunrisers

Kane Williamson is the other overseas batsman in their line-up and despite his excellent test record, his T20 rating of 1.08 means that, while comfortably above average, he is far from an elite performer in this format. He is a player that does not really have the ability to score significantly above average with a strike rate of 123.5, which is only fractionally above what one would expect from an average batsman in his position.

Among the overseas bowling options, Sunrisers Hyderabad have recruited well. In Mustafizur Rahman, Rashid Khan, Chris Jordan and Ben Laughlin, they have four bowlers that can be very effective when used correctly. 18-year old Rashid Khan has a bowling rating of 1.12 for the middle overs and 1.08 for the death overs and is a very dangerous wicket-taking bowler as well as having above average economy. Mustafizur Rahman has an incredible 1.41 rating for the powerplay overs, driven in particular by an outstanding economy rate. He is not a huge wicket-taking bowler, but he is very difficult to score off. He could potentially form a decent partnership with Ben Laughlin, whose powerplay rating of 1.22 is driven more by wicket-taking than by economy. However, it would be advised not to use Laughlin toward the death, where a rating of 0.91 is pretty poor and he both takes fewer wickets and concedes more runs than might be expected. Chris Jordan is another player with a reputation as a death bowler, but his most effective use might appear to be as a wicket-taker during the middle overs, where he has taken 20 wickets compared to an expected 16.4 during his career.

Rashid Khan could be a breakout star of this tournament

Among the all-rounders, Ben Cutting is just about fine as a lower order hitter, but his bowling rating of 0.87 suggests that he is probably not really the best option. In addition, a real struggle against spin bowling means that the IPL may not be the best place for him to make an impact. A couple of recent innings against Ireland have suggested that Mohammad Nabi might be another option as a lower order hitter, although that has been somewhat at odds with the rest of his career. Similar to Cutting, his bowling rating of 0.90 is not great either. Moises Henriques is a significantly better batsman than either Nabi or Cutting and has a better bowling rating as well, so he is really the all-rounder option that you would look at among the overseas players if required.

The Indian Players

In Ashish Nehra and Bhuvneshwar Kumar, the Sunrisers Hyderabad have two slightly above average bowling options. Kumar is similar to Mustafizur Rahman in that he relies more on a good economy rate than wicket-taking, while Nehra is more rounded, but they give the team two solid fast bowling options. Barinder Sran played plenty of matches last year, but a bowling rating of 0.96 suggests that there are better options in the squad. Spinner Pravin Tambe burst onto the scene in 2013 and 2014 (albeit at the age of 41) and while his rating has dropped since then, he still has an overall bowling rating of 1.12 and is a wicket-taker during the middle overs.

Whilst the overseas all-rounders did not really have any obvious standouts, Bipul Sharma looks a very tempting option among the domestic players. While he has limited batting experience at this level, he looks a serviceable lower order hitter with a strike rate of 160.6 and his bowling rating of 1.04 makes him an option with the ball. On the other hand, Deepak Hooda has a batting rating of 0.90 and a bowling rating of 0.82 meaning that he really should not be getting much game time in this team.

Bipul Sharma could be a useful all-rounder for the Sunrisers

With a batting rating of 1.03, Shikhar Dhawan looks to be a very similar player to Kane Williamson. He is not a particularly rapid scorer with a strike rate of just 121.6, but he is capable of hanging around and holding up an end. With other more attacking batsmen around him, he is a useful player, but Sunrisers Hyderabad do run the risk of ending up with Dhawan and Williamson batting too long together while scoring too slowly if they find themselves at the crease together.

Naman Ojha seems likely to be the keeper for Sunrisers Hyderabad, but with a batting rating of 0.78, he is not a player that they are likely to want to rely on for too many runs.

That leaves Yuvraj Singh, whose batting rating of 0.93 suggests that he is well past his prime and, whilst his record of 14.7 balls per six is solid, he also faces too many dot balls (36.7%), which does not help when they do not have too many other boundary hitters in their squad.

Final Thoughts

The bowling options for Sunrisers Hyderabad look very solid with Nehra, Kumar, Tambe and Sharma giving them options among the Indian players and plenty of talent to supplement among the overseas recruits. However, they are going to need to rely on the bowlers in plenty of their matches this year as the batting looks worryingly short. While there may be a lack of real top quality death bowlers on this team, they have wicket-taking options in both the powerplay and middle overs and two very economical bowlers in Mustafizur Rahman and Kumar to build the pressure.

David Warner is the real standout in this team and they are going to need him to be at the absolutely top of his game. Kane Williamson and Shikhar Dhawan are solid options and, if their bowlers can restrict opposition teams to manageable totals, they should be adequate. However, they do not seem to have the players that are likely to be able to set or chase large totals, which could be an issue if the bowlers do not live up to expectations.

Random Player Stats

• Bhuvneshwar Kumar has conceded just 77 runs in 108 deliveries to Dwayne Smith, Brendon McCullum and Quinton de Kock, but has conceded 145 runs in 96 deliveries to Chris Gayle and AB de Villiers

• The three batsman that Mustafizur Rahman has bowled the most deliveries to in T20 cricket are Virat Kohli, Kane Williamson and AB de Villiers. He has dismissed all of them once and has conceded just 63 runs in 64 balls against the trio

• The only two bowlers that David Warner has faced more than 30 deliveries from with a strike rate of sub-100 are Dwayne Bravo and James Faulkner. However, he enjoys facing Yuzvendra Chahal, who he has hit 5 sixes off in just 38 balls

IPL Auction Review

Today saw the auction for the 2017 edition of the Indian Premier League (IPL) and it came with the usual fanfare. We saw two English players in great demand, a couple of potential bargains and some rather questionable purchases. On the flip side, there were players that one might have expected to be signed that were overlooked, some correctly and some could have provided good value to franchises. This article will look at a selection of players and look to classify them in terms of whether they were smart signings or not, or whether they should have been signed or not.

To achieve this, I will be using the ratings generated by my T20 model. I will not go into too much detail as to how it works in this article, but further information can be found by following the links at the bottom of the page.

Smart Signings

Anyone that has followed this blog before will know that my cricket model rates Tymal Mills very highly indeed. This table was from mid-January and shows the best and worst death bowlers in T20 cricket:

His performances in the last month in both the international matches against India and the Pakistan Super League have actually boosted his death rating further to 1.20, securing his spot as the top death bowler in T20 cricket. At 12 crore, it might be thought that he is expensive, but I would class this as a very good signing by Royal Challengers Bangalore, although it will be interesting to see how he deals bowling many of his overs at the very bowler-unfriendly ground in Bangalore.

Kagiso Rabada is a bowler that did not appear on the previous death bowling table due to inadequate overs, but a death bowling rating of 1.12 shows that he is another very good bowler in one of the most important periods of the innings. A rating of 1.10 in the powerplay overs also show that he is a real threat throughout the innings and he could be a very smart signing for the Delhi Daredevils.

Rashid Khan is a name that may well be unknown to many, but he was one of the surprise signings of auction day after being signed by Sunrisers Hyderabad for 4 crore. The 18-year old Afghan could turn out to be an inspired signing though. A middle overs rating of 1.16 is excellent and he is both economical and a wicket-taker during this period, while he has also been used in the death overs at times and has returned an excellent 1.16 rating. How much he will be used by Sunrisers Hyderabad remains to be seen, but he looks a smart signing.

Jason Roy and Martin Guptill are both smart signings as opening batsmen with batting ratings of 1.26 and 1.18 respectively. Gujarat already have Brendon McCullum, Aaron Finch and Suresh Raina, but the addition of Jason Roy gives them a very dangerous top 4 if they choose to play all of those players and alongside McCullum, they have two of the fastest starting opening batsmen in this format of the game.

Poor Signings

Nathan Coulter-Nile was picked up by the Kolkata Knight Riders, but it is tough to see the logic behind this signing. He is a good powerplay bowler with a rating of 1.12, but this drops to 0.98 during the middle overs and 0.90 during the death overs, which combined with a batting rating of 0.72, means that he is only really a feasible option if you bowl three of his overs during the powerplay.

Corey Anderson is another all-rounder that is a strange signing. A batting rating of 1.03, a powerplay bowling rating of 1.02, middle overs rating of 0.78 and a death rating of 0.85 really means that he does not really excel anywhere. There is a group of all-rounders that seem to be picked up regularly, despite not really being good enough at either batting or bowling to fully justify their place - Anderson is joined in this group by the likes of Darren Sammy and Dan Christian.

This may be a slightly controversial view, but I would class Ben Stokes as a poor signing, particularly given the money that was spent on him. His bowling ratings are 0.72 in the powerplay, 0.83 in the middle overs and 1.00 in the death overs, none of which are really anything to write home about. His batting rating of 1.05 is fine, but nothing more than that, so while he is not a terrible option, there is little to justify his billing as the most expensive foreign player in IPL history.

Unsigned Players

While there are plenty of good opening batsmen already signed in the IPL, the quartet of Alex Hales (1.24), Michael Klinger (1.19), Evin Lewis (1.12) and Mohammad Shahzad (1.08) might all feel slightly unfortunate to have been overlooked. However, one batsman that has been rightfully overlooked after many years of playing in the IPL is Ross Taylor, whose batting rating of 0.97 is just not good enough to justify a place in the elite competition.

Two all-rounders that were surprisingly, but correctly, overlooked were Irfan Pathan and Thisara Perera. Two players that have played in the IPL for many years, they have been living on their past reputations and potentially undeserved reputations as dangerous big hitters, but their stats do not really show anything to suggest that they would add to any of the current IPL franchises.

Moving onto the bowlers, there was surprise at the fact that Imran Tahir was overlooked. He only really bowls in the middle overs and a rating of 1.02 for that period suggests that he is a decent bowling option, but no more than that. He may have been unfortunate to be overlooked, but it is not necessarily the biggest oversight.

Ishant Sharma is one of the worst death bowlers in T20 cricket and it is smart by franchises to overlook him. He is not good enough in the powerplay to justify picking him and bowling him through the powerplay, so there is not a role for him in a good T20 team.

One player that can feel aggrieved to have missed out is New Zealand's Ish Sodhi. A rating of 1.30 in the middle overs is genuinely world-class and on potentially spin-friendly wickets in India, he could have been a big player at potentially a low price.

More Information on the Model
Finding the Best T20 Batsmen in World Cricket
Who are the Best T20 Bowlers in World Cricket

Death Bowling in the Big Bash

The death overs in a T20 match can often be crucial in determining which side wins the match. In the first innings, a batting team can seize control of the match by piling on the runs in this spell, while the bowling team can bring their side back into it with a couple of tight overs. Similarly, in the second innings, the match is literally decided in these overs. We have already seen in the Big Bash what can happen when a poor death bowler is tasked with defending even a relatively high number of runs in the final over when Eoin Morgan and Pat Cummins took 16 off a Ben Hilfenhaus over to win the match. So, let us take a look at some of the death bowlers in the Big Bash to see which teams have specialists in this situation and which teams could be in trouble.

In my model, the death overs are classed as the final four overs of the innings (i.e. the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th overs of a T20 innings). The model generates a rating for each bowler in this period by comparing their performance in terms of runs conceded and wickets taken to the global T20 average. If a bowler concedes fewer runs or takes more wickets than would be expected from your average T20 bowler, his rating goes up. Conversely, if he concedes more runs and takes fewer wickets, his rating will decrease. The expected runs are also scaled depending on the ground and the batsman to whom he is bowling.

There are 25 bowlers that have bowled in the death overs in the Big Bash thus far for whom I have at least 10 death overs of data for. The top five rated death bowlers in that group are:

As we can see, Sunil Narine is well clear at the top of the death bowler ratings in the Big Bash. The issue with Narine is that he is the Renegades best bowler in every situation, so saving his overs for the death may not necessarily be the best strategy. It is another spin bowler in Johan Botha, who is in second place, followed by the pace trio of Tait, Bollinger and McKay. Interestingly, with the exception of Sunil Narine, all four of the other bowlers are aged 33 or older. This could be a coincidence or it could be that experience is valuable when it comes to death bowling.

At the other end of the scale, we can see that Ben Hilfenhaus is among the worst death bowlers in the competition, raising questions as to why the Melbourne Stars persist with bowling him for two overs during this period. Brisbane Heat are also in trouble with both Ben Cutting and Mark Steketee in the bottom five of the ratings.

However, with the injury to Samuel Badree, there may be hope for the Brisbane Heat. They have signed the English fast-bowler, Tymal Mills, as his replacement and the Sussex player is actually an excellent death bowler. Indeed, his rating of 1.16 makes him the best death bowler in the entire competition, which is something that the Heat desperately need in case their power batting lineup fails and the bowlers are required to play their part. While not necessarily a great wicket-taker, Mills is excellent in terms of restricting runs at the death and an economy rate of 7.49 during the death overs is outstanding.