Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 06-24-2019, 09:18 PM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,909
Did I read correctly that NRR is the first tie-breaker if teams are tied on points? Why wouldn’t it be head-to-head first? If 3 or more teams, then record in common games first.
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10
  #152  
Old 06-24-2019, 09:26 PM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut View Post
Did I read correctly that NRR is the first tie-breaker if teams are tied on points? Why wouldn’t it be head-to-head first? If 3 or more teams, then record in common games first.
Points>Number of Wins>Net Runrate>head-to-head>Pre-tournament ICC ranking is the tie break order. If Sri Lanka and England both finish on eight points Sri Lanka would be screwed.
  #153  
Old 06-24-2019, 09:38 PM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisiate View Post
Points>Number of Wins>Net Runrate>head-to-head>Pre-tournament ICC ranking is the tie break order. If Sri Lanka and England both finish on eight points Sri Lanka would be screwed.
Right, but why? Isn’t the objective to win the game? Or is it who can beat up Afghanistan the most?
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10
  #154  
Old 06-24-2019, 09:41 PM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,729
Hell if I know - ask the BCCI.
  #155  
Old 06-25-2019, 03:55 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,710
I'm glad they've put "number of wins" ahead of nrr anyway. The chances of teams having identical nrr seems slim.
  #156  
Old 06-25-2019, 04:43 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
It's not clear to me that if two teams are tied on points, but one has achieved those points through one or more 'no result' outcomes, the team who has actually won more games on the field should be preferred. It seems to me the fairness heavily depends on who the rained off games were against. For example, if the team losing out by this method had a 'no result' against Afghanistan and South Africa, both of whom they could have been expected to beat, whereas the team tied with them on points had beaten one of those teams but lost to the other, is it fair that the latter goes through because they had more wins? They also have more losses, so it seems hard to argue they have performed better overall.

What I can say is that NRR is a fairer tiebreak than the result(s) between the tied teams. The simplest demonstration of this is to imagine the teams tied on points in fourth and fifth place at the end of the group stage played each other in the first match of the tournament. At the time neither team knew that this game would end up deciding their fate, this is effectively assigned retrospectively, making that game worth 3 points instead of 2. Whereas NRR shows how well you have performed across the whole tournament, not just in one game. There is also the fact that if two teams are tied on points but one has beaten the other, that means they have also lost to someone that the team they beat didn't lose to, so it's debatable which team has the better playing record overall - indeed, in some cases you can argue that the team the lost the head-to-head has a better overall record.
  #157  
Old 06-25-2019, 05:53 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
The way the fixture cookie has crumbed means we now have virtually a mini-pre SF tournament for ENG/IND/NZ/AUS

ENG has the toughest run home, playing the three nations above them.
IND has the easiest and an extra game so four wins is likely to pinch top spot.

Both AUS and NZ are virtually assured of a top four finish so the remaining surprise result is ENG v ENG expectations and the question is whether the best team (ENG) with their high momentum batting strategy (which is based on batting on roads) can hold their nerve should the groundsmen serve up pitches with just a bit of juice in them for the leather chuckers.

As Mark Butcher commented on the TGC podcast, it's one thing belting up 450 plus vs AUS/IND in the middle of just another ODI series and quite another chasing 250 vs anybody in a World Cup.
Well I've been reading that Dean Bilton on the Internet amd he seems to think that every rubof the green has gone against England and Australia have been lucky. Maybe they have been, but commets like "This stinks of the umpires call" come across as rather odd?

England could easily win, but UT I do disagree with your comment about Australia being decades behind in thinking that the first three had to get all the runs and the others provide cameos. In Gilchrists time his best innings were usually played down the order.
  #158  
Old 06-25-2019, 05:59 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,027
After being inserted on a deck with some bounce and lateral movement Aussies are looking solid without much fireworks.

Century off 18 partnership and a brace of 50s.
Predictor says 354 off 50 which AUS would take in a heartbeat.

England now seem to be waiting for Finch/Warner to make as mistake. Not sure that’s a percentage play.
  #159  
Old 06-25-2019, 06:25 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,410
Currently calling to mind Private Fraser's opinions from Dad's Army. i.e. We're doomed.
  #160  
Old 06-25-2019, 06:30 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,457
Starting to think after watching a number of overs 300 will be a good score.
  #161  
Old 06-25-2019, 06:36 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
Starting to think after watching a number of overs 300 will be a good score.
Australia are going to put up 330.
  #162  
Old 06-25-2019, 06:38 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,410
I say that - I think a lot will depend on Finch, Smith and Maxwell.
  #163  
Old 06-25-2019, 06:56 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
I do disagree with your comment ... In Gilchrists time his best innings were usually played down the order.
Yeah, but actually no.
Gilchrist played 287 ODIs. He batted 1 or in 260 (90%) @ 35.6 with 16 hundreds.
He only batted #3 once
In 26 innings batting at 4-11 he averaged 15 with highest score of 77 batting #6.
  #164  
Old 06-25-2019, 06:56 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,457
Bogging down. I still think 300 will be competitive givem the moisture around. Australia - on paper- has a better attack than previously. However, I agree Finch (especially,) Smith and Maxwell are the key to their innings. I havenen't seen much of Stoinis. Anf Finch will no longer be a key.
  #165  
Old 06-25-2019, 07:03 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
Yeah, but actually no.
Gilchrist played 287 ODIs. He batted 1 or in 260 (90%) @ 35.6 with 16 hundreds.
He only batted #3 once
In 26 innings batting at 4-11 he averaged 15 with highest score of 77 batting #6.
Factor in the Test appearances.

And I do like Nasser as a commentator.
  #166  
Old 06-25-2019, 07:20 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,410
Nasser and Atherton are our best commentators imo. Neither the most talented of players, so had to think about and analyse their games more than most to stick at the top level - and obviously captained too, so know a bit about that bit of the game. Also able to communicate what they know relatively effectively.

330 now looking distant. Getting Finch and Maxwell - the latter just as it looked like he was about to get going - probably the key. Still, don't fancy chasing 300 or so given Australia's bowling line up (Starc, Cummins - Lyon is our kryptonite too).
  #167  
Old 06-25-2019, 07:27 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,457
250 is looking distant!
  #168  
Old 06-25-2019, 09:45 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
250 is looking distant!
For England. Come on, you can't out-pessimise us English! Hoping the pitch drying out and shine coming off the ball will allow us to settle down and have a proper go at this. Australia firmly in charge with England at 53/4 off 14. One or two English players are going to have to have the knock of their life if we're even going to get close.
  #169  
Old 06-25-2019, 10:47 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,410
England are a bunch of flat track bullies aren't they?
  #170  
Old 06-25-2019, 11:27 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,710
We're certainly missing Roy at the top of the order. This is turning into a bit of a shambles, and England aren't playing the style of cricket that's got them to the top of the ODI rankings.

With Stokes gone, this is all over bar the shouting ("start the car", as Bumble might say), which means we've got beat at least one of NZ or India, and possibly both.
  #171  
Old 06-25-2019, 11:32 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,410
I've not been Ben Stokes' biggest fan - but fair play to him, he's the only one playing innings of substance in these last two, terrible, slow death, games, where we just can't get the bowling away. Took a bloody good delivery to get him too.

I would imagine that Jason Roy is playing on the weekend come what may. I really don't know how many more times we're going to see James Vince at international level.
  #172  
Old 06-25-2019, 02:42 PM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,729
Five for Behrendorff. Australia looking ominous and England now under immense pressure for their last two games.

Pakistan v New Zealand next. A Pakistan win will put them right back in the hunt.
  #173  
Old 06-25-2019, 06:36 PM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,457
Well, I stayed up as long as I could but an "all nighter" is beyond me these days. In the end it looked a rather easy win for Australia but there are some issues I feel need to be addressed.

Firstly however, for England, Stokes seems to be the key- an extremely talented player.

Australia need to get their batting order in the right order. As Nasser said, Smith is wasted at 4- the best player should be at 3. Also an extremely good bowling performance by Australia- hopefully they can do it again. The good or bad points is that both Cummins and Lyon didn't get a wicket and they are normally very reliable.

As mentioned, things are now rather difficult for England- I still think India will be in the final but now against Australia or the Kiwis. Kiwis are really doing what the Kiwis do- not headline acts but are an extremely good side. So much now depends on the weather.
  #174  
Old 06-25-2019, 07:00 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cumbrian View Post
England are a bunch of flat track bullies aren't they?
Well, they are the best bunch of a flat track bullies going 'round.

The AUS middle order totally rogered a sound base, by losing wickets and momentum in the final 15 overs to let a 310-320 total go to waste. So if (aunts, ball, uncles etc) that's the target to chase that puts ENG over 100 runs off the pace and that gap will require much more than Stokes and Roy firing.

ENG now need a road and a big chase vs IND and NZ.
Doesn't really matter if they say chase 380 vs IND and fall short a handful short.
A worse result for their longer term prospects would be to roll IND for 200 and chase that down in the final over. They need to reaffirm their strategy delivers.

At the moment it looks a bit like they have a Ferrari but it's racing on a 4WD track and they are being beaten by a Land Rover
  #175  
Old 06-25-2019, 11:47 PM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,729
I like it. Relentlessly optimised for speed but prone to falling apart when things get bumpy.
  #176  
Old 06-26-2019, 05:06 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post

ENG now need a road and a big chase vs IND and NZ.
Doesn't really matter if they say chase 380 vs IND and fall short a handful short.
A worse result for their longer term prospects would be to roll IND for 200 and chase that down in the final over. They need to reaffirm their strategy delivers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut View Post
Did I read correctly that NRR is the first tie-breaker if teams are tied on points? Why wouldn’t it be head-to-head first? If 3 or more teams, then record in common games first.
Above quotes are in the wrong order but according to this article on ESPN the number of wins is the first tie breaker in the case of teams being tied on points. Therefore a win- even by a small total in the final over is better than a small loss chasing a huge total.

I trust I am reading your posts correctly.
  #177  
Old 06-26-2019, 05:25 AM
Stanislaus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: London
Posts: 3,017
The cliche about being able to find a way to win even when you're playing badly. It's what marks out the great performers from the merely very good. Like penultima thule's Ferrari analogy shows, England can't find other ways to win.

They've built their team around a particular style of play, that requires among other things a particular style of opener. They had Roy. Failing him they had Hales. Now they have Vince.

With Vince in, they're not going to reach the end of the powerplay at 50-0 or 70-1. They're not going to dominate the bowling from the get-go. That shouldn't stop them winning. It's a 50-0ver match and they've got a lot of batting talent. But they don't seem to know how to approach a 4-1 situation. Stokes has shown he does. He can stay in, keep the run-rate manageable and start hitting big when he's got runs under his belt. But it doesn't seem like anyone else is keeping notes.

There's a lot of pressure on England - they've spent the last 4 years making themselves World Number One and favourites or near-favourites for this World Cup. And suddenly, 0-1 in a crunch match against Australia, that semi-final place looks less of bolted on cert than it used to. The mantra you hear from the captain and team - based on a lot of evidence - is that "if we play this way, we'll win". Which is good confidence building stuff. Except that when it turns out you can't play that way, the corollary seems to be that you're not sure you can win.

There was some great bowling from Australia. But sometimes you're going to face great bowling. Vince got out cheaply. Sometimes openers do. If the way you play can't cope with these hardly unexpected events, you need a new way of playing.
  #178  
Old 06-26-2019, 05:25 AM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
Above quotes are in the wrong order but according to this article on ESPN the number of wins is the first tie breaker in the case of teams being tied on points. Therefore a win- even by a small total in the final over is better than a small loss chasing a huge total.

I trust I am reading your posts correctly.
The number of wins only comes into play when there are cancelled matches (which is an issue this year, due to the weather). That wasn’t my complaint, although even that one seems unfair. My issue is that when 2 teams are tied on points, and the teams have completed their match, whoever won that match should get the higher position. In the case of more than 2 teams tied on points, it should be points earned in common games. The argument that a head-to-head match could have occurred early in the tournament, and thus may not represent who is actually playing better, doesn’t hold water.

It’s like the tie-breaker sequence is exactly backwards. If multiple teams are tied on points, it should be 1) points earned in common games, 2) NRR, and then 3) total wins
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10
  #179  
Old 06-26-2019, 07:29 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut View Post
The argument that a head-to-head match could have occurred early in the tournament, and thus may not represent who is actually playing better, doesn’t hold water.
Why not?

Look at it this way - imagine the top 2 teams have beaten all the other teams in the competition, except one of them (obviously) lost to the other, and the other lost to Afghanistan. So they finish on the same number of points. Who deserves to finish in the #1 position? The team who beat all the other teams but lost to the second best team, or the team that lost a game to the weakest team in the tournament?
  #180  
Old 06-26-2019, 08:50 AM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
Why not?

Look at it this way - imagine the top 2 teams have beaten all the other teams in the competition, except one of them (obviously) lost to the other, and the other lost to Afghanistan. So they finish on the same number of points. Who deserves to finish in the #1 position? The team who beat all the other teams but lost to the second best team, or the team that lost a game to the weakest team in the tournament?
Your example is reasonable when using the best teams in competition, but would only apply for semi-final seeding. The more important example would be for teams vying for the last semi-final slot. Presumably these teams would have multiple losses, not just against each other. My issue is that, knowing that NRR is an important tie-breaker, teams may be forced to play an entirely different game. That last game between Pakiston and Bangladesh might result in Pakistan having to employ a T-20 type strategy in order to improve their standing. Is that what we want?
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10
  #181  
Old 06-26-2019, 09:31 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
Not too bothered by that to be honest - by doing so, they lower their chances of winning the game (probably), though in a sense it is "risk free" (if a close victory isn't enough anyway). But it doesn't fundamentally change the game. For me, the more important factor is that they know what they have to do, whereas if they were potentially going to finish level on points with the team they played first up, they didn't know at that time that that game was effectively worth 3 points, not 2.
  #182  
Old 06-26-2019, 01:09 PM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
Pakistan currently showing England exactly how it should be done when chasing a modest total. Superb performance by them. New Zealand look a bit out of ideas.
  #183  
Old 06-26-2019, 03:36 PM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,729
Pakistan to win it all and party like its 1992 all over again.
  #184  
Old 06-26-2019, 05:26 PM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,457
I left towads the end of the NZ innings but at that time I thought the wicket had become rather placid snd I expected Pakistan to get the small number of runs easily. That they didn't do it all that easily is a bit of a surprise.
  #185  
Old 06-26-2019, 06:07 PM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,909
Now it’s getting exciting! I just need India to stay out of the mess and get a victory tomorrow. Why do I get the feeling Windies will play their best game and win tomorrow?
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10
  #186  
Old 06-26-2019, 10:22 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,027
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
I trust I am reading your posts correctly.
No, you are not.

I'm talking the strategy ENG need to win the WC, you are talking whether they make the semis and finish 3rd or 4th based on NRR.

ENG first choice line-up is the first team to deliberately set out to breach the technical gap between batting in T20s vs ODIs.

That four guys getting 60 off 50 anywhere in the order is a better team result than two guys at the top getting 100 off 100.

The strategy difference between ENG and AUS is shown in the selection of Khawaja. He's there specifically if Finch/Warner get broken up early. If they do he is a pretty handy conventional proxy opener to get the base established. If Finch/Warner bat for 25-30 overs (as they consistently have) then Usman is superfluous and should bat after Carey at #7, if not lower. But he bats at #3 so that he's in reasonable form when (and it's probably when) Warner/Finch cop a jaffa in the first over of a final.

There's a guy playing in the UK for Australia A at the moment, Matthew Wade. He is in the midst of an astonishing purple patch of batting form for the past 18 months (for Aust A 155 from 71 balls against Derbyshire and 117 from 67 against Northamptonshire plus 592 runs @ 42 in BBL08 and 1021 runs @ 60 in the Sheffield Shield) England would pick Wade over Khawaja every time. That's their ODI model, Wade is AUS's Eoin Morgan.

A curiosity is that the ENG model is way better suited if the WC was being played in India i.e. where are competent batting team can expect to bat 50 overs going hard and losing no more than 6 wickets. England (and perhaps NZ) is the one location where you cannot bank on flat, hard, lifeless roads as the platform to bludgeon any attack for 400 plus.

"Old" ENG with Cook, Bell and Trott at the top of the order might have beaten AUS on that Lords deck.
"New" ENG can chase 350 on a road but not 250 on a typical county deck.

ENG are still presumptive favourites to win IMHO if the semis and finals are played on roads and they have some form setting/chasing 350 plus as they have for the past four years against all comers. ENG's ODI strategy is that target can be done without blinking even from losing 2 in the first over. But if they get to the semi scratching out 220 and defending they will have lost faith in their own strategy.
  #187  
Old 06-26-2019, 10:39 PM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
No, you are not.

I'm talking the strategy ENG need to win the WC, you are talking whether they make the semis and finish 3rd or 4th based on NRR.

y.
No, I'm not talking about NRR at all. I'm talking of the decisive factor as stated "As number of wins is the first tie-breaker in the case of teams being tied on points, ".

I never mentioned NRR.
  #188  
Old 06-27-2019, 04:49 AM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,729
India starting slowly. I hope the Windies pull off a massive upset just for the hell of it.
  #189  
Old 06-27-2019, 05:09 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisiate View Post
India starting slowly. I hope the Windies pull off a massive upset just for the hell of it.
And I see Rohit has gone, so it is a start I guess. Trying to digest all the cricket (including highlights) that I have seen in the past week, I am starting to wonder if a few teams are as good as I imagined. Or as bad.

The two Kiwi all rounders handled Pakistan rather easily when the wicket matured in yesterdays game and then won the game but they should have done it more easily. The ball that got Williamson was a beauty but there was also a lot of rubbish.

If India go down in today's game the whole thing turns into a raffle.
  #190  
Old 06-27-2019, 05:35 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
Trying to digest all the cricket (including highlights) that I have seen in the past week, I am starting to wonder if a few teams are as good as I imagined. Or as bad.
I think every team has serious flaws that can be glossed over by their better performers, should they put together good innings or devastating spells with the ball. This is especially true for some teams who have been hit by injury - the step down from some of the first choice players to the next level has been revealed to be quite steep.

The consequence is a very interesting tournament with plenty of scope for intrigue. Contrary to my earlier fears at the start of the tournament, the lack of a couple of clear stand out sides means that there are likely to be fewer dead rubbers than I initially thought.

In such an environment, having a "big match temperament", "knowing how to win", whichever cliche you want to reach for, is likely to be a difference maker. England's high variance approach is difficult to beat when it comes off, but they've not won anything of significance and that's why I still think India (with Australia coming up on the rails) are a better chance than England to win the tournament.
  #191  
Old 06-27-2019, 04:41 PM
Wallaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Melbourne, Far South
Posts: 874
'The issue with using 'Number of wins' as the first tie-break, is that in England it rains - often. When a game is washed out or abandoned, your NRR is not affected. But you don't get credited with a win. You get assessed as 'Not winning' - when you never had a chance to win at all.


Example - Sri Lanka have had 2 washouts, from 6 games. 2 wins, 2 losses, 2 washouts. They have 6 points. If they win the next game, they will have 8 points - the same as England (from the same number of games). But England will be ahead because they have won 4 games while Sri Lanka will only have won 3. (Or do you get credited with half-a-win for a washout?).

Seems unfair to me.
  #192  
Old 06-27-2019, 05:01 PM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallaby View Post
'The issue with using 'Number of wins' as the first tie-break, is that in England it rains - often. When a game is washed out or abandoned, your NRR is not affected. But you don't get credited with a win. You get assessed as 'Not winning' - when you never had a chance to win at all.


Example - Sri Lanka have had 2 washouts, from 6 games. 2 wins, 2 losses, 2 washouts. They have 6 points. If they win the next game, they will have 8 points - the same as England (from the same number of games). But England will be ahead because they have won 4 games while Sri Lanka will only have won 3. (Or do you get credited with half-a-win for a washout?).

Seems unfair to me.
I think both teams get one point.
  #193  
Old 06-28-2019, 02:23 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
Yes, but not half a win. I think the point made by Wallaby is a fair one, which is why I would scrap the "wins" tiebreaker and go straight to NRR.
  #194  
Old 06-28-2019, 03:37 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
Yes, but not half a win. I think the point made by Wallaby is a fair one, which is why I would scrap the "wins" tiebreaker and go straight to NRR.
Good point, but I can see difficulties with both sides of the argument. JJ has put across they should be giving credence to teams that have faced each other and one beaten the other, but that could be several weeks ago and team form fluctuates on different pitches, players lose form and get injured etc. Similarly the argument about NRR has the added difficulty of teams beating up on weak teams and perhaps getting a flat track as opposed to other teams playing in swinging pitches.

I have no answer.

However if I could return to the game last night (Ind versus WI) can someone clarify a few things for me? From what I saw the pitch held few problems and Kohli made batting look really easy (as he normally does). The WI attack looked rather innocuous and I thought the pitch got easier to play on as the game wore on. I was surprised to wake up and find that India had won. Well, maybe not surprised as it is not a strong WI side but unless India bowled surperbly it was an achievable total. Perhaps the pitch was a bit two paced but I couldn't see it.

The remaining games will be interesting. England seem to have injury worries but are still a strong team. NZ, Australia and India look good but not one side has been dominant (India are unbeaten but not dominating).

Head on chopping block Australia and India in the final.
  #195  
Old 06-28-2019, 04:17 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post

However if I could return to the game last night (Ind versus WI) can someone clarify a few things for me? From what I saw the pitch held few problems and Kohli made batting look really easy (as he normally does). The WI attack looked rather innocuous and I thought the pitch got easier to play on as the game wore on. I was surprised to wake up and find that India had won. Well, maybe not surprised as it is not a strong WI side but unless India bowled surperbly it was an achievable total. Perhaps the pitch was a bit two paced but I couldn't see it.
Shami, Bumrah and Kuldeep were fantastic with the ball is about the size of it. They were very economical, giving the Windies little to work with and got all the danger men in their line up out relatively cheaply. The WI batting line up is, in theory, highly dangerous, particularly if some of them get set - we all know about Gayle but, in addition, Pooran and Hetmyer in particular are both explosive players - but the bowling squashed them thoroughly.
  #196  
Old 06-28-2019, 07:51 AM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,909
It seems to me that teams with several decent all-rounders try to get as many into their line-up as possible. Is simply playing 5 pure bowlers, and maybe just 1 all-rounder (in case of a bowler getting injured) not a viable strategy? I can see the value in maximizing all-rounders for the T-20 version of the game, since it calls for far more aggressive batting.

In the case of India, I think they’d be better suited to keep both Shami and Kumar in their line-up after the latter is fit again. Maybe leave Pandya in as the only all-rounder and play with only 6 legitimate batsmen.
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10

Last edited by Jackknifed Juggernaut; 06-28-2019 at 07:52 AM.
  #197  
Old 06-28-2019, 09:39 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
Good point, but I can see difficulties with both sides of the argument. JJ has put across they should be giving credence to teams that have faced each other and one beaten the other, but that could be several weeks ago and team form fluctuates on different pitches, players lose form and get injured etc. Similarly the argument about NRR has the added difficulty of teams beating up on weak teams and perhaps getting a flat track as opposed to other teams playing in swinging pitches.

I have no answer.
Don't forget the pitch won't necessarily affect NRR, that's where the "N" comes in. Putting up 400 on a flat track against AFG, where they then reach 250 in reply, will not benefit your NRR as much as struggling to 260 on a grassy strip and then skittling the opposition for 99. Or at least, I believe that's how it's supposed to work.

Ultimately, if you agree that the point of the group stage is to find the four teams that have performed best overall in the course of the group games, NRR is the only thing to do that fairly (not that I am suggesting it should be used instead of points scored - clearly a team with more points should progress over a team with fewer, regardless of NRR - that eliminates the problem of a team with fewer wins overtaking one with some no results solely by virtue of spanking a weak team).
  #198  
Old 06-28-2019, 12:27 PM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,909
Sunday”s game between England and India is looking to be huge. A win by either I think practically guarantees knockout round entry. But an India win opens up that 4th spot for all 3 of its subcontinent neighbors.

ETA: perhaps this was already obvious to you all
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10

Last edited by Jackknifed Juggernaut; 06-28-2019 at 12:28 PM.
  #199  
Old 06-28-2019, 07:02 PM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,729
Where was this South Africa when it mattered? They completely outplayed Sri Lanka.
  #200  
Old 06-28-2019, 09:13 PM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,457
Dead Cat, you're probably correct. As I said I have no theory that will be bullet proof and it appears that points alone will be the decider. Hope so anyway.

Lisiate I watched most of the game between RSA and SL last night, and the way I saw it, SL were simply terrible. They seemed clueless in all aspects of the game. I didn't think RSA were sensational, they just played professionally.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017