Cricket Thread..

[Mus]

Holy hell I thought it was won

 

[ManUnitedXI]

Don't like blaming for losses but one thing that completely killed our momentum and mini-dominance was Johnson's first over back after replacing Starc. Wastes 3 balls to Anderson which cost 14 runs by bowling short and going around. If Johnson stayed over and kept the same or similar line that Cummins and Starc bowled to Anderson, we would've had a little bit more runs to defend with the last wicket to get. That completely tilted the scales back to NZ's side.

But, faark that was one heck of the game!! That's why the battle between the ANZ(AC)s will always be the biggest rivalries in all sports.

 

[Xifio]

that ... was ... insane!

I could imagine the headline being something about a Starc hat-trick grabbing the most dramatic victory from the jaws of defeat ... when a six to win the match with 1 wicket to spare is an anti climax, you know it's been a pretty crazy day ...

 

[Alex]

Don't like blaming for losses but one thing that completely killed our momentum and mini-dominance was Johnson's first over back after replacing Starc. Wastes 3 balls to Anderson which cost 14 runs by bowling short and going around. If Johnson stayed over and kept the same or similar line that Cummins and Starc bowled to Anderson, we would've had a little bit more runs to defend with the last wicket to get. That completely tilted the scales back to NZ's side.

But, faark that was one heck of the game!! That's why the battle between the ANZ(AC)s will always be the biggest rivalries in all sports.

Yep agreed. Johnson really hasn't been the same bowler this summer. He was the slowest of the 3 Aussie quicks too. I think that says it all.

Starc was brilliant.

This game illustrates exactly why net run rate is a terrible separator for ODI tournaments. This officially goes down as a thrashing, as it only took NZ 23 overs to get the runs.

 

[Xifio]

This game illustrates exactly why net run rate is a terrible separator for ODI tournaments. This officially goes down as a thrashing, as it only took NZ 23 overs to get the runs.

please explain ... coz it is a thrashing if wickets aren't considered; I assume the latter part is the issue?

 

[Alex]

please explain ... coz it is a thrashing if wickets aren't considered; I assume the latter part is the issue?

If I need to explain that, you're an idiot, and I needn't bother anyway,

Yes, wickets are the issue. It was a close match, not a trashing. Why wouldn't wickets be considered in a match where one side was bowled out, and the other was 9 down? Ridiculous statement.

 

[Xifio]

lol I know your team lost, but don't get your knickers in a knot ... it's easy to get pissy about a system when it shafts you ... but leaving that aside, let us know [objectively] your alternative to the current system -- i.e. how you propose to mathematically factor in wickets to the NRR equation ...

 

[Xifio]

not as much damage in the fantasy world as I had expected today, despite the low-scoring games; thanks are owed to Starc and McCullum:

takes me into the top 5k in the world ... not bad, after missing 4-5 games ...

 

[Alex]

lol I know your team lost, but don't get your knickers in a knot ... it's easy to get pissy about a system when it shafts you ... but leaving that aside, let us know [objectively] your alternative to the current system -- i.e. how you propose to mathematically factor in wickets to the NRR equation ...

Nothing to do with my team losing. We deserved to lose, and batted terribly. The fact remains that if we took that final wicket the RRs would have been almost identical. As we didn't, NZs goes down as twice as large. Looking at it from another angle, if both sides played exactly the same, but we batted second, the run rates again would have been very similar (assuming the final NZ wicket fell not long after).

Mathematically the fairest solution would be an index, such as Duckworth Lewis, that takes wickets, overs and runs into account.

There is a reason that they don't just use average run rate for rain effected chases.

It does make thing's complicated, but the average fan has no idea how to calculate NRR anyway. I do, and I'm sure you do, but most blokes wouldn't understand the figure, or calculation to get it, that appears next to a side on the table.

 

[Xifio]

Duckworth Lewis, I think you'll agree, is convoluted, and generally unpopular ... but the need for such convolution in rain-affected matches is not applicable to overall performance ...

consider this scenario: a tie occurs if both teams score the same number of runs in 50 overs, *regardless* of the wickets column ... but in a rain affected match, the factoring of wickets in the chase is necessary because it is harder to bowl a team out in fewer overs; forcing one side to do so (say in 25 overs) and not the other (who would have had, say, 50 overs) is patently unfair ... this does not [and should not] apply to a match where both sides have a full complement of 50 overs to bowl the opposition out ...

 

[Alex]

Duckworth Lewis, I think you'll agree, is convoluted, and generally unpopular ... but the need for such convolution in rain-affected matches is not applicable to overall performance ...

It's unpopular because average fans understands it. It is easily the fairest system anybody has come up with for rain effected games. Average fans mostly already don't get net run rate, and it's not something they'd usually have to worry about - Duckworth Lewis pops up all the time.

consider this scenario: a tie occurs if both teams score the same number of runs in 50 overs, *regardless* of the wickets column ... but in a rain affected match, the factoring of wickets in the chase is necessary because it is harder to bowl a team out in fewer overs; forcing one side to do so (say in 25 overs) and not the other (who would have had, say, 50 overs) is patently unfair ... this does not [and should not] apply to a match where both sides have a full complement of 50 overs to bowl the opposition out ...

I'm not suggesting Duckworth Lewis should apply. I'm suggesting that the separator should be based on an index, such as Duckworth Lewis.

Both sides did have the full fifty overs to bowl each other out. NZ won and deserved to. However they were 9 wickets down when they won. The number of overs remaining was irrelevant, as clearly neither side would have gone close to batting out their overs.

Your example is ludicrous - where an I ever suggesting that Duckworth Lewis should be applied to full length matches? I'm simply suggesting that wickets should be taken into account when deciding how close a game was (which is the purpose of net run rate).

In traditional ticket terms, NZ won by 1 wicket. That's the narrowest winning margin possible in cricket, when the side batting second wins. Yet, due to the system basing our run rate on our side facing all fifty overs, became we were bowled out earlier, but NZs based on only the overs they faced because they scraped over the line, is ludicrous.

 

[Alex]

Consider this - based on net run rate, NZ beat Australia by more in this match than Australia beat England by in their opening game.

 

[Alex]

A well written article explaining:
http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-champions-trophy-2013/content/story/640383.html

 

[Xifio]

Your example is ludicrous - where an I ever suggesting that Duckworth Lewis should be applied to full length matches? I'm simply suggesting that wickets should be taken into account when deciding how close a game was (which is the purpose of net run rate).

that's what it seemed like you were leaning towards ... that's what the cricinfo article argues: victory exclusively in terms of runs, after applying D-L ...

In traditional ticket terms, NZ won by 1 wicket. That's the narrowest winning margin possible in cricket, when the side batting second wins. Yet, due to the system basing our run rate on our side facing all fifty overs, became we were bowled out earlier, but NZs based on only the overs they faced because they scraped over the line, is ludicrous.

winning by 1 wicket = smallest margin; winning with 27 overs to spare = massive margin ...

the point NRR makes is: it doesn't matter how many wickets you lose when you win or a tie while chasing in a full match ... your point via rhetorical is: why does the number of overs left matter?

I'd much rather see NRR normalize runs scored against the exact number of overs batted, even for the team batting first ...

 

[Alex]

that's what it seemed like you were leaning towards ... that's what the cricinfo article argues: victory exclusively in terms of runs, after applying D-L ...

No it doesn't at all. It suggests victory is as victory has always been. However measuring the margin of victory should account for BOTH resources in an ODI match - overs and wickets. THAT is they key to Duckworth Lewis, that it understands that there is two key resources in a one day game, overs and wickets, and if you run out of either you lose.

winning by 1 wicket = smallest margin; winning with 27 overs to spare = massive margin ...

the point NRR makes is: it doesn't matter how many wickets you lose when you win or a tie while chasing in a full match ... your point via rhetorical is: why does the number of overs left matter?

No this isn't my point. Not at all. You're not a very clever person are you? Your point seems to be that net run rate is fair, yet it ONLY accounts the resource of balls. Duckworth Lewis was invented for rain effected matches as this system was universally accepted as unfair. There are two key resources that should be judged when determining a margin of victory - balls and wickets. I was accounting for BOTH. Not one. Not the other. I never implied balls left didn't matter. I clearly stated that by themselves, without accounting for wickets, they were meaningless.

I'd much rather see NRR normalize runs scored against the exact number of overs batted, even for the team batting first ...

That would be ludicrous. A team could lose a game and come out of it with a positive net run rate. Your net run rate would be better if you were bowled out for forty off three overs than if you scored 400 from your fifty.

 

[Xifio]

Your example is ludicrous - where an I ever suggesting that Duckworth Lewis should be applied to full length matches? I'm simply suggesting that wickets should be taken into account when deciding how close a game was (which is the purpose of net run rate).

that's what it seemed like you were leaning towards ... that's what the cricinfo article argues: victory exclusively in terms of runs, after applying D-L ...

No it doesn't at all. It suggests victory is as victory has always been. However measuring the margin of victory should account for BOTH resources in an ODI match - overs and wickets. THAT is they key to Duckworth Lewis, that it understands that there is two key resources in a one day game, overs and wickets, and if you run out of either you lose.

lol what? we're both talking about the notion of applying D-L to determine the NRR -- doing this converts the margin of victory solely to runs, regardless of whether a team batting first or second wins ... that's exactly what you seem to want; that's exactly what the article suggests ... yet you want to disagree with me saying that that's what you and the article are after ...



---

No this isn't my point. Not at all. You're not a very clever person are you? Your point seems to be that net run rate is fair, yet it ONLY accounts the resource of balls. Duckworth Lewis was invented for rain effected matches as this system was universally accepted as unfair. There are two key resources that should be judged when determining a margin of victory - balls and wickets. I was accounting for BOTH. Not one. Not the other. I never implied balls left didn't matter. I clearly stated that by themselves, without accounting for wickets, they were meaningless.

hahaha no, D-L was not accepted because the "system was universally accepted as unfair" ... D-L was adapted because:

in a rain affected match, the factoring of wickets in the chase is necessary because it is harder to bowl a team out in fewer overs; forcing one side to do so (say in 25 overs) and not the other (who would have had, say, 50 overs) is patently unfair ...

---

I'd much rather see NRR normalize runs scored against the exact number of overs batted, even for the team batting first ...

That would be ludicrous. A team could lose a game and come out of it with a positive net run rate. Your net run rate would be better if you were bowled out for forty off three overs than if you scored 400 from your fifty.

if you were bowled out for 40 in a 50 over match, you'd lose ... yes, you'd have a positive NRR, but you'd have no points ...

 

[Alex]

lol what? we're both talking about the notion of applying D-L to determine the NRR -- doing this converts the margin of victory solely to runs, regardless of whether a team batting first or second wins ... that's exactly what you seem to want; that's exactly what the article suggests ... yet you want to disagree with me saying that that's what you and the article are after ...

I) I never said Duckworth Lewis as the separator - the article did. I said an index along the lines of Duckworth Lewis.
II) You implied I wanted Duckworth Lewis to decide outcomes of all games. That's not the case, I suggested it to decide the margin in games. They're very different things.
III) Applying Duckworth Lewis doesn't convert the margin to runs. You've completely misunderstood both my theory and that of the articles. It could still easily be converted into a difference in run rate. If the team batting second completes the chase, their run rate would be indexed based on overs left and wickets left. This is how Duckworth Lewis works, and it's how any fair separator should work. If the team batting first wins, you already have a fair run rate comparison.

hahaha no, D-L was not accepted because the "system was universally accepted as unfair" ... D-L was adapted because:

This is where you're wrong. It was invented purely because the old systems were unfair. The first used was pure run rate, and then it was run rate without your lower scoring overs. Neither worked, because both ignored the key to limited over cricket - there are TWO limited resources. If either run out, the innings is over. They are wickets and overs. It's quite simple really. I'm dumbfounded that you don't understand that, for somebody who tries to make out like he's an expert.

if you were bowled out for 40 in a 50 over match, you'd lose ... yes, you'd have a positive NRR, but you'd have no points ...

This is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion which basically disqualifies yourself from any cricket opinion in my eyes. Wickets are a key aspect of cricket. Bowling a side out is just as good a way to restrict runs as bowling maiden overs. Based on your theory, if teams tied, but one was bowled out after 20 overs, the other batted their 50, the side bowled out essentially wins from the the match (at least they take something out of it). If this is the case, the match is a tie, as it should be.

 

[Alex]

Based in your posts, I think the maths is above you, but anyway:
http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/the-trouble-with-net-run-rate.html?m=1

 

[Alex]

Guessing you're saying D/L is only using "runs" as a separator, because most D/L models illustrate the outcome as a runs for/against model.

Firstly, even if this was the case, you could just as easily apply the D/L index to create a run rate. However, at the end of the day your comment that it's just comparing runs is ridiculously out of context anyway. It's comparing an index of runs, based on wickets AND overs.

Saying it's just comparing runs is like saying NRR is only comparing runs. They are both looking at runs, one per fifty overs, one per over.

 

[Alex]

This suggests runs for/against which I don't totally agree with, but it's much better than the current system.
http://www.cricket.geek.nz/2013/06/more-net-run-rate-issues.html?m=1