yers use a sort of dating period to see how well they match up both on and off the court.Polands Monika Brzostek and Kinga Kolos

The things that are measured in cricket are typically self-evident. Interpretation is not required to count runs, wickets, deliveries, extras, boundaries or sixes. Other sports have embraced measurements that require interpretation. In tennis a distinction is made between a forced error and an unforced error. In baseball, earned runs and unearned runs are distinguished by judging whether or not a safe hit was the result of a fielding error or not. Baseball also has the concept of defensive indifference. In American football, things like decisive passes and assists and tackles are counted systematically.ESPNcricinfo records a control measurement for every delivery added to its database. This measure is based on the answer to the question Was the batsman in control of the ball? Two answers are possible - yes (in control) and no (not in control), but it is not always self-evident whether or not the batsman was in control or not in control. This is probably the very first attempt in cricket to develop a measure that involves the systematic use of judgement.If the bowler beats the bat, finds the edge, or induces a miscue, then even if no dismissal results, the batsman is said to be not in control. A lofted drive off the middle of the bat that results in a catch at the boundary is not in control. As readers will notice, these conclusions require the exercise of judgment. It follows that some judgements will be easily arrived at, others not so much. A classic example is when a batsman is tested just outside off stump and starts out playing at the ball but withdraws the bat at the last minute. Was the bat withdrawn in time? Whether or not the batsman is judged to be in control of the delivery will depend on the answer to this question.Currently this measure is applied to all types of cricket. This post is about what the control measurement tells us, and what it doesnt. At the end, I propose that T20, and perhaps the limited-overs game generally, requires a second measure to go with control.Here is a summary of the control measurement for the 2016 IPL, based on ball-by-ball details provided by ESPNcricinfo. The summary is prepared as a proportion of 120 balls faced. For instance, the average losing team in the 2016 IPL was in control of 88 out of 120 balls and scored 132 off those deliveries. An earlier analysis shows that on average, the batsman is not in control of one in every four deliveries faced in T20, and this figure holds for the 2016 IPL. The scoring rate off these not-in-control deliveries in the 2016 IPL is about three runs per over. Most dismissals occur when the batsman is not in control (this is due to the way the control measurement is defined).In the 2016 IPL, of the 90 or so deliveries in a T20 innings in which the batsman is in control, winning teams that set targets scored 34 runs more (165) than defeated teams that set targets (131). Winning teams scored, on average, two runs per over faster off those deliveries.For chasing teams, the scoring rate in control was about the same (about 9.5 runs per over) in wins and defeats, but winners remained in control for ten balls more than defeated teams.Put another way, when a team bats first, success depends on their ability to hit as relentlessly as possible. On the other hand, for a chasing team, success depends on hitting just enough for the longest possible time.Consider a player who makes 50 (off 30 balls) against a spread-out field while being in control for 24 out of those 30 balls faced. This player is in control 80% of the time. By T20 standards, this is above average control. What if the total came with five sixes, one four, 16 singles and eight dots? Against a spread-out field, singles are uncontested. Even the fielders inside the circle stand on the edge, happy to concede one in the hope of saving a couple of extra boundaries. It would be useful to know whether the singles were the result of hard hits that failed to find the boundary, or whether they were simply pushed to the fielders in the deep. While this type of innings may make sense in a chase, it is less valuable when batting first.The control measurement does not tell us this part of the story. In a Test match, this is not particularly significant. Risks are taken far less frequently in Test cricket. Wickets are the single most significant resource by a large distance. Since most Test matches that yield an outright result end before the full 15 sessions of play are completed, it could be reasonably argued that wickets are the only significant resource in a Test. Consequently, the ability to score runs reliably is paramount because it suggests that the player can be relied upon to make runs consistently.In T20, higher control is not necessarily better. Most teams do not use up their full quota of wickets in 20 overs. They could afford to lose a wicket or two chasing a few extra boundaries. In order to measure this effort, the control measurement needs to be accompanied by a hitting measurement. One approach to this measurement would be to provide an answer to the question Did the batsman attempt to hit a boundary? The answer ought to take into account the field setting among other things. Perhaps the measurement could even be termed boundary attempts.Instead of averages and strike rates, T20 batsmen could be measured by how much control they are able to enforce (or in the case of bowlers, how little they are able to concede) and how many boundaries they attempt to hit. For example, take a batsman who attempts a boundary once every three deliveries, or a bowler who forces batsmen to be not in control on 11 out of 24 deliveries. This could then be extended to consider the boundary attempts per dismissal, and the boundary attempts per balls faced. Much like hitters in baseball go through hot streaks and slumps, the form of T20 hitters could be measured on the basis of these measurements. A derivative measure could be control on boundary attempts (since not every not-in-control delivery produces a wicket).Together, control and boundary attempts (or hitting) represent the trade-off in the T20 game and could provide a language to describe T20. If T20 is to emerge out of the mother games vast shadow, such a language, which permits the measurement of merit in T20 on its own terms, is vital for T20 as well as for cricket in general. Discount Shoes Website . That gave fans outside Joe Louis Arena another chance to ask for autographs from the 19-year-old whose stardom in the NHL has arrived earlier than most expected. Cheap Sneakers From China . Pierce was ejected in the third quarter of Indianas 103-86 win Monday. George Hill stole a bad pass and was going in for a layup, and Pierce hustled back and appeared to be trying to wrap him up. http://www.shoesonfire.ru/ . The Redskins announced Monday that the quarterback who led the team to the Super Bowl championship in the 1987 season will serve as a personnel executive. Authentic Shoes For Cheap . And when it opened, every player was at his stall. Thats a sure sign that a team is in a slump and is searching for answers. "Its embarrassing to be at home and play the way we did," said defenceman Josh Gorges. Cheap Shoes Online Free Delivery . -- The proud fathers huddled near the Dallas Stars dressing room, smiling, laughing and telling stories while wearing replica green sweaters of their sons team. RIO DE JANEIRO -- Think of Olympic beach volleyball like the dance floor of a Rio nightclub: When the samba stops, its time to start looking for a new partner.Kerri Walsh Jennings is going for a fourth straight gold medal, but it would be her first with April Ross. Fellow American Phil Dalhausser, who won gold with Todd Rogers in Beijing, is playing with Nick Lucena now (after an unsuccessful dalliance with Sean Rosenthal).A beach volleyball partnership is often compared to a marriage, and teams all around the world use the years between Olympics to reassess their couplehood.Some stick together -- Walsh Jennings and Misty May-Treanor were the gold standard for three Olympiads -- but, sometimes, their eyes can wander.Its like high school dating, Dalhausser said after beating Tunisia 21-7, 21-13 on Sunday. The middle of the pack on the AVP tour, theyre always trying to move up. (There are) a lot of guys finding out from other guys they got dumped.Walsh Jennings plucked Ross off of the No. 2 U.S. womens pair right there on the sand after the gold medal match in London. (May-Treanor had said she would retire; Rosss partner, Jen Kessy, would be pushing 39 by Rio).Rogers is now 42, and didnt feel like he had another Olympic run in him. But Dalhausser, who is 36, wanted to give it another try.After our last match in London, he was like, `Well, it was nice playing with you. And I was like, `Yeah, we had a good run, Dalhausser said on Sunday. So there were no hard feelings there.Dalhausser formed what was expected to be a superteam with Rosenthal, himself a two-time Olympian, but it never really clicked. After being knocked out of two straight seasons with injuries, Dalhausser turned to Lucena, a longtime friend he left in 2006 to join up with Rogers.That was tough, Dalhausser said.Those arent the only partner-swappers on the Copacabana sand.Jake Gibb was with Rosenthal in Beijing and London but iss playing in Rio with Casey Patterson.dddddddddddd All four Brazilian teams -- including the mens and womens world champions, and all of them among the top seeds in Rio -- have formed since 2012.In extreme cases, teams are formed by federations or circumstances: When Viktoria Orsi Toth was bounced from the Rio Games last week after failing a drug test, Marta Menegatti needed a new partner with an Italian passport who met the qualifying requirements.She had never played with Laura Giombini before the Olympics began.Some of the other countries, that have a large pool, you see them switching often, said Canadian Heather Bansley, who joined up with indoor volleyball player Sarah Pavan after they each failed to qualify for London.In Canada, there arent a lot of options, she said. But I think theres a lot of value in sticking together.Part of that value is learning each others tendencies on the court, and how to best communicate and do it under pressure. But the partners also spend so much time together on the world tour that they need to get along off the court, too.True, there are tales of partners who cant stand each other but stick together for the good of the team. More often, though, the players use a sort of dating period to see how well they match up both on and off the court.Polands Monika Brzostek and Kinga Kolosinska have been together since 2009, one of the longest-running partnerships in the tournament.We do not have any serious problems. We enjoy each others company, Brzostek said. As far as I know, we do not want to change anything.Then she looked over to her partner for confirmation.They both smiled.Not for me, either, Kolosinska said.---Jimmy Golen covers Olympic beach volleyball for The Associated Press. Follow him at: http://www.twitter.com/jgolen . ' ' '