There are however many problems with measuring competitive balance in county cricket with the techniques used for baseball, basketball, gridiron, ice hockey, rugby, [Australian rules] football and even soccer leagues. These include:
- county cricket games often — in some seasons more often than not — can end without any result
- over the history of the County Championship, methods of point scoring have varied immensely
- since 1968, in fact, a large part of scoring has been “bonus points” not directly related to the result of a match
- the result is that a consistent measure of balance may not be accurate for all eras of county cricket
- up until World War II, counties usually played schedules of substantially varying length, which makes calculating the idealised standard deviation by conventional means impossible
For these reasons, I plan to analyse competitive balance in county cricket by multiple criteria to see how they compare and how competitive balance has changed over time in the sport.
This first post will analyse competitive balance based purely upon percentage of wins in finished matches. This was the original method of calculating the Champion County, but was discarded because it was seen as encouraging unattractive cricket. Nonetheless, thinking about this idea over many years I have always thought of analysing the observed standard deviation of win percentage in finished matches as the default method by which within-season competitive balance in county cricket might be estimated.
In order to gain at least some idea of the idealised standard deviation of winning percentage in finished games, I have calculated the arithmetic mean of the number of finished games in each season, and based the idealised standard deviation on the ordinary formula of (sqrt(n))/2n. I have then calculated a competitive balance index as the ordinary formula of (ASD-ISD)/(MSD-ISD), where:
MSD = sqrt((N+1)/(12(N-1)))
with N equalling the number of teams in the competition. I have also included skewness and kurtosis for more details on the actual shape of the distribution. Extreme values have been shaded as I previously did in my 2024 study of the “Revolution of 1959”. I have also provided all-series averages for every season of single-division official County championship cricket.
CBI for Each Single-Division County Championship Season, 1890 to 1999:
|
Season |
CBI | SKEW | KURT |
| 1890 | 0.462358 | -0.960141 | -0.054772 |
| 1891 | 0.331451 | +0.229151 | +0.170827 |
| 1892 | 0.842595 | -0.210308 | -1.337585 |
| 1893 | 0.239742 | +0.168580 | -0.539230 |
| 1894 | 0.618669 | +0.176070 | -0.782851 |
| 1895 | 0.327522 | +0.307711 | -0.623449 |
| 1896 | 0.450441 | +0.452382 | -1.143677 |
| 1897 | 0.774982 | +0.049695 | -1.104113 |
| 1898 | 0.750282 | +0.411154 | -1.371064 |
| 1899 | 0.468059 | +0.436129 | -1.087182 |
| 1900 | 0.784729 | -0.012455 | -0.383119 |
| 1901 | 0.571871 | -0.119775 | +0.485723 |
| 1902 | 0.317136 | +0.446170 | +0.238533 |
| 1903 | 0.550588 | -0.429954 | -0.294312 |
| 1904 | 0.575301 | +0.493857 | -0.213935 |
| 1905 | 0.732449 | -0.140498 | -1.168476 |
| 1906 | 0.784290 | +0.241416 | -1.432568 |
| 1907 | 0.761771 | +0.046237 | -0.682596 |
| 1908 | 0.635791 | +0.542957 | +0.016871 |
| 1909 | 0.697139 | -0.043934 | -1.021497 |
| 1910 | 0.621227 | -0.364317 | -0.144691 |
| 1911 | 0.774390 | -0.538290 | -1.187153 |
| 1912 | 0.913412 | +0.081078 | -1.385633 |
| 1913 | 0.564809 | +0.335478 | -0.908739 |
| 1914 | 0.796326 | -0.222787 | -1.080853 |
| 1919 | 0.456512 | +0.216030 | -1.152839 |
| 1920 | 0.794512 | -0.380103 | -0.857362 |
| 1921 | 0.709633 | +0.240165 | -1.242194 |
| 1922 | 0.839410 | -0.026496 | -1.020781 |
| 1923 | 0.835631 | 0.336090 | -1.018051 |
| 1924 | 0.839410 | -0.120697 | -1.175160 |
| 1925 | 0.858227 | +0.271994 | -1.036225 |
| 1926 | 0.791844 | +0.469658 | -1.004929 |
| 1927 | 0.667121 | -0.257271 | -0.864866 |
| 1928 | 0.878656 | +0.073174 | -0.473664 |
| 1929 | 0.666758 | -0.310386 | -0.995948 |
| 1930 | 0.690781 | +0.662334 | -0.771007 |
| 1931 | 0.454629 | +0.085538 | -0.322792 |
| 1932 | 0.793709 | +0.245013 | -1.078973 |
| 1933 | 0.733655 | 0.011935 | -1.166727 |
| 1934 | 0.573070 | -0.166672 | -1.118039 |
| 1935 | 0.572791 | -0.067031 | -0.122990 |
| 1936 | 0.508035 | -0.395538 | -0.508390 |
| 1937 | 0.657703 | -0.532268 | -0.112059 |
| 1938 | 0.474863 | -0.208981 | +1.354882 |
| 1939 | 0.523154 | -0.687685 | +0.030232 |
| 1946 | 0.519580 | +0.543093 | -0.433125 |
| 1947 | 0.445312 | +0.434828 | +0.002714 |
| 1948 | 0.373594 | +0.137454 | -1.469418 |
| 1949 | 0.367723 | +0.279477 | -0.318211 |
| 1950 | 0.465111 | +0.634463 | -0.357330 |
| 1951 | 0.505072 | -0.065867 | -0.496338 |
| 1952 | 0.508765 | +0.484745 | -0.211689 |
| 1953 | 0.362378 | -0.676085 | -0.018059 |
| 1954 | 0.522281 | -0.256696 | -1.183995 |
| 1955 | 0.409663 | +0.266860 | -0.459407 |
| 1956 | 0.373128 | -0.090026 | -0.838410 |
| 1957 | 0.495334 | +0.373986 | -0.129682 |
| 1958 | 0.161731 | -0.570909 | -0.314868 |
| 1959 | 0.141932 | -0.737029 | -0.058184 |
| 1960 | 0.388917 | -0.502500 | -0.743616 |
| 1961 | 0.299882 | -0.241965 | -0.244088 |
| 1962 | 0.497791 | -0.362190 | -0.683229 |
| 1963 | 0.323291 | -0.403720 | -0.159527 |
| 1964 | 0.569966 | -0.003793 | -1.185038 |
| 1965 | 0.242032 | -0.021824 | -1.123755 |
| 1966 | 0.196613 | +0.002542 | -0.898257 |
| 1967 | 0.337281 | -0.660471 | +0.625506 |
| 1968 | 0.215358 | -0.549002 | -0.357759 |
| 1969 | 0.484943 | +0.583272 | +0.128426 |
| 1970 | 0.072694 | +0.721005 | +0.298446 |
| 1971 | 0.193056 | +0.223475 | -1.189572 |
| 1972 | 0.521367 | +0.177093 | -0.235752 |
| 1973 | 0.520214 | +0.108313 | -0.004182 |
| 1974 | 0.623300 | +0.225952 | -0.517476 |
| 1975 | 0.541885 | +0.173766 | -0.741075 |
| 1976 | 0.139265 | -0.147423 | -1.202972 |
| 1977 | 0.217728 | -0.506065 | +0.113360 |
| 1978 | 0.446960 | +0.975866 | -0.540541 |
| 1979 | 0.427807 | -0.728434 | +0.028456 |
| 1980 | 0.107447 | -0.616210 | +0.674108 |
| 1981 | 0.361980 | +0.183950 | -1.009637 |
| 1982 | 0.462704 | -0.551719 | +0.520057 |
| 1983 | 0.630372 | -0.121651 | -1.771580 |
| 1984 | 0.497179 | -0.408316 | -0.375583 |
| 1985 | 0.307034 | -0.082135 | -0.762481 |
| 1986 | 0.004652 | +0.188331 | -0.508590 |
| 1987 | 0.521703 | -0.022970 | -1.246956 |
| 1988 | 0.163785 | -0.567549 | +0.368864 |
| 1989 | 0.239509 | +0.967162 | -0.077891 |
| 1990 | 0.334461 | +0.777225 | -0.488989 |
| 1991 | 0.052972 | -0.127006 | -1.252023 |
| 1992 | -0.097526 | -0.367632 | +1.399614 |
| 1993 | 0.238570 | +0.230888 | +0.209866 |
| 1994 | 0.179998 | +0.525857 | +0.763104 |
| 1995 | 0.462702 | +0.681663 | -0.761303 |
| 1996 | 0.636679 | -0.283181 | -0.378578 |
| 1997 | 0.337709 | -0.472894 | -0.460810 |
| 1998 | 0.556307 | +0.653322 | +0.184129 |
| 1999 | 0.180620 | +0.947094 | +3.056189 |
| Average | 0.48758245 | +0.02190829 | -0.4853056 |
Graph of Competitive Balance with 5- and 15-Year Means:
 |
| Competitive Balance Index by Win Percent in Finished Games in the County Cricket Championship, 1890 to 1999 |
Graph of Competitive Balance Index, Skewness and Kurtosis:
 |
| Competitive Balance Index by Win Percent in Finished Games, alongside Skewness and Kurtosis of Win Percent in Finished Games, in the County Cricket Championship, 1890 to 1999 |
Conclusions:
The first graph above clearly shows an improvement in competitive balance in the County Championship since the middle 1930s. In fact, as a fifteen-season running mean, the (ASD-ISD)/(MSD-ISD) index as defined above fell from around 0.75 for the fifteen seasons centred upon 1922 [1911 to 1929] to less than 0.27 for the fifteen seasons centred upon 1987 [1980 to 1994]. This constitutes a dramatic contrast to [Australian rules] football, soccer and basketball leagues, which have seen no improvement in competitive imbalance over the past century-and-a-quarter.
There are several possible explanations for the dramatic improvement, which are not mutually exclusive:
- standardised professional squads after the 1930s meant that no team relied on low-quality amateur players as many counties before 1930 substantially or largely did
- the exceptions or partial exceptions were:
- Lancashire, Nottinghamshire, Surrey and Yorkshire — and to a smaller extent Kent, Sussex and Warwickshire
- these counties received sufficient industrial patronage to afford large professional staffs so would only play amateurs who could compete with their best professionals
- Kent (again), Middlesex, Essex and Hampshire
- these counties possessed a substantial number of high-quality amateurs associated with business in London but able to devote full or partial summers to county cricket
- standardised mass production and improved coaching of pace and seam bowlers produced more uniform quality amongst counties after the middle 1930s
- this made bowling much more consistently economical in runs conceded and also much cheaper to develop
- of course this greater uniformity at the cost of eliminating the possibility of financially self-supporting first-class cricket, which requires overwhelming predominance of spin alongside the most limited pace and seam
- increasing breadth of search for players, which began in earnest in the 1930s and 1940s (e.g. Jack Walsh), should have reduced variance in performance
- in this context, the introduction of “special registration” for England-eligible players after World War II should have further improved competitive balance as players were no longer held by teams without need
The skewness data does not suggest a great deal of interest from cursory examination.
The kurtosis data suggests increasing (less negative) kurtosis over time, which is highly consistent with the theories of standardisation noted in 1) and 2) above.
The data suggest that standardisation has either been more radical or more effective (or both) in county cricket than in most other team sports, where similar standardisation has either had no effect on comptitive balance or even, as in [Australian rules] football, lowered it as the talent pool becomes more and more limited. Why a focus on tall, fit pace bowlers that developed after the 1948 Ashes series — and can be traced back earlier — should not lower the talent pool as a similar focus in [Australian rules] football since the 1980s has does deserve discussion as I cannot see a definitive and obvious answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment