Of Risks and Odds in Test Cricket

South Africa and England went into this Test Series equally matched. England had a slight edge in the batting department, while the South African bowling line up has shown explosive form in the last eight to ten months.

With the return of Andrew Flintoff, the English bowling attack was definitely bolstered in the Leeds Test, but this was offset somewhat by absence of the in form Ryan Sidebottom. Overall, it would be fair to say that on paper, this was a series between two well-matched sides.

The visitors' lead is somewhat surprising given England's recent Test Match results in New Zealand and then in the home series against New Zealand. Their batting line up is more settled than at any time in recent memory (even during the 2005 Ashes, Ian Bell's slot was still uncertain).

Yet, the South Africans have outbatted and outbowled them at Leeds. The visitors began the series tentatively. Graeme Smith made an ill-fated decision to field first at Lord's and spent the next two days in the field as England romped to a first innings of nearly 600.

The South African pacemen looked out of sorts on the first morning when the wicket and the conditions were at their most helpful. They survived at Lord's thanks to their batsmen and a wicket which England did not have the means to exploit. A good second spinner to assist Panesar would have come in handy for England at Lord's.

The reason why South Africa find themselves ahead today is because they have played better Test Cricket. What I mean by this is that they have shown better awareness of the demands of Test Match play. Their batsmen have been willing to graft and work hard for their runs, allowing their bowling the time it needed get it right.

It started with McKenzie and Smith who played superbly according to the situation of the game at Lord's. Smith scored his runs faster than McKenzie, but the caution was evident in his play. McKenzie seems to be temperamentally well suited to the long haul and took to the Lord's situation like a duck to water.

England have some right to feel that the rub of the green did not go their way in South Africa's first innings in the Leeds test, but how many times have we seen the side which gets it right most of the time get all the breaks? How many times have we seen Glenn McGrath for example have edges carry to lone slips, while lesser bowlers have their stray edges streak between slip and gully?

At the end of the day, this phenomenon is easily explained by way of odds. McGrath is likely to get his man more often than a less accurate bowler, because he is likely to create an edge inducing more often than a less accurate bowler.

The art in Test Cricket at the end of the day, is about judging risks. Every player who plays at the Test level is aware of basic batting technique, and all bowlers get sorted out with time. Mystery and brilliance rarely win Test Matches, and the advantage of these is always temporary.

By creating a finely balanced contest between bat and ball, where each has a stake, and where a certain basic quality is required of each, an episodic battle ensues marked by shifting risks and odds. If you look at the batting averages of the English and South African batsmen in this series, you will find that England's batsmen have scored quicker than South Africa's batsmen.

The South Africans have showed a greater ability to graft and bide their time. For most of their first innings in the Leeds Test, they were scoring at less than three runs per over. The runs flowed only after South Africa had put the first innings beyond doubt.

What makes Test Cricket such an intriguing spectacle is that different players have different basic tendencies—some are more aggressive than others, some favor certain wickets more than others, some favor certain types of bowling more than others. These individual tendencies of a batsman do play a role in how he assesses risk.

The "natural game" which everybody keeps touting is almost always only half the story. Often a player going off the boil and experiencing a lean run, is basically assessing the risk wrongly, or is not assessing it very well (on account of form, technical problems etc.).

In this light, it will be interesting to watch India play Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka in the coming weeks. The presence of Ajantha Mendis makes for an interesting battle, especially if Mendis shows himself capable of handling the rigors of Test Cricket.

That the first Test is to be played at the Sinhalese Sports Club, where the wicket has traditionally offered some assistance to the medium-fast men makes it even more interesting. Will the Indian batsmen choose to go after Mendis, match situation permitting, if the wicket doesn't assist spin bowling too much?

Or will they choose to use the easier (likely to be) wicket to have a good look at him in view of the tougher battles to come? Will Sri Lanka field Mendis at all if the wicket is likely to be a particularly true one?

With Vaas and Kulasekara likely to open the Sri Lankan bowling, it looks as though they lack depth in the pace department, given the injury to Farveez Maharoof. India hold a slight edge in the pace stakes with Zaheer Khan and Ishant Sharma leading their new ball attack.

Much like the current England v South Africa series, the Sri Lanka v India Series will be won by the side which is able to play according to the match situation better. Between two evenly matched sides, it is always the more professional side, which makes fewer unforced errors, which wins.

Recent history suggests that Sri Lanka are extremely good at playing solid professional cricket, even if they may not be able to match the outrageous brilliance of a Sehwag. India's recent Test Match success has been due to the fact that they have played solid percentage cricket quite well. Their fortunes in Sri Lanka will depend on whether they are able to continue that trend.

Bowlers also deal with odds in Test Cricket, but in a different way as compared to batsmen, because bowlers "make the play" in a sense. A batsman can only play the ball based on the line and length that the bowler delivers. The essence of good line and length is to find one where the batsman finds it difficult to get into good position to play the ball.

The "good length" of course is one which is too short for the batsman to play forward, yet too full for him to play back. A "good line" is one which the batsman cannot leave with any confidence, while at the same time causing him to debate whether or not he needs to play. If a bowler is able to bowl a good line and length for a given wicket and given conditions and a given batsman's strengths and weaknesses consistently enough, his chances of inducing a fatal error of judgement from the batsman increase.

Anil Kumble made a telling point while discussing his newly developed googly a few years ago. He said "They pick it, but they still have to play it"—his point being, its still a well-pitched delivery. Occasionally a bowler will try a high risk delivery—like a widish half volley as a bait or a yorker or a bouncer, both of which could cost the bowler plenty of runs if he gets them even slightly wrong.

Successful Test sides are invariably masters at playing these odds and judging these risks. Thats what enables a side like South Africa, which cannot match the exceptional talents of Pietersen, Vaughan and Flingtoff, to beat England. That they have done so in England, is even more creditable. If anything, India have an even tougher assignment in Sri Lanka.

This is a good time if you're a fan of Test Cricket.