Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 07-03-2019, 01:41 PM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,908
I guess I’m not the most experienced cricket follower here, but the NRR tie-breaker looks even worse than when I first complained about it. My first thought that head-to-head should supercede NRR was based on the premise that it’s the World Cup, and games earlier in the tournament should be just as important as those that are later. The retort was that NRR actually tells us who is playing better, which is why it’s ahead of head-to-head. To me Pakistan has played better than both NZ and England (although England still deserves to be in since they’ll end up with more points). But Pakistan beat NZ, are playing better than NZ, and will still be left out due to NRR.
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10
  #252  
Old 07-03-2019, 01:54 PM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,705
There isn't an easy, obvious answer, to be honest. There are situations where head-to-head is bad, there are situations where NRR is terrible, there are certainly situations where "number of wins" is bad.
  #253  
Old 07-03-2019, 02:40 PM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut View Post
I guess Iím not the most experienced cricket follower here, but the NRR tie-breaker looks even worse than when I first complained about it. My first thought that head-to-head should supercede NRR was based on the premise that itís the World Cup, and games earlier in the tournament should be just as important as those that are later. The retort was that NRR actually tells us who is playing better, which is why itís ahead of head-to-head. To me Pakistan has played better than both NZ and England (although England still deserves to be in since theyíll end up with more points). But Pakistan beat NZ, are playing better than NZ, and will still be left out due to NRR.
Why do you feel Pakistan have played better than England and NZ? They have (or will have) all played the same opponents (washouts excepted, which is unfortunate but inevitable - it's not like any cricketing country is immune from them, plus a guaranteed point is sometimes a good outcome), and England (and potentially NZ) will end up with more points and a better NRR than Pakistan. Those are the indicators of "played better". Sure, Pakistan beat both teams in their encounters, but they've lost to other teams.
  #254  
Old 07-03-2019, 03:47 PM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,726
This is just getting embarrassing. Woeful batting yet again.
  #255  
Old 07-03-2019, 04:05 PM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
Why do you feel Pakistan have played better than England and NZ? They have (or will have) all played the same opponents (washouts excepted, which is unfortunate but inevitable - it's not like any cricketing country is immune from them, plus a guaranteed point is sometimes a good outcome), and England (and potentially NZ) will end up with more points and a better NRR than Pakistan. Those are the indicators of "played better". Sure, Pakistan beat both teams in their encounters, but they've lost to other teams.
Hate to harp on this, but first thing is that if Pakistan lose to Bangladesh on Friday, then they clearly donít deserve to go through. But letís assume they win comfortably (which might be at risk, due to their NRR problem and the desperate measures that will have to employ). The argument that NRR is a better measure falls apart when you take a look at Pakistanís win versus NZ, which could ironically be the game that we point to when reviewing Pakistanís demise. A game that they won very comfortably with 5 balls left and 6 wickets in hand....and got almost no NRR benefit. In retrospect, Pakistan will regret not chasing down the low score that NZ put up against them earlier. Perhaps they should have foreseen the potential points tie with NZ, and hastened their chase. But is that the point of the game? Arenít teams trained to calibrate their batting aggression level to maximize their chance of winning? Teams donít calibrate to maximize NRR. That would be a different goal and change the basic strategy. For example, youíd always bat first. Did Pakistan play better than NZ and England throughout the tournament? Hard to say. But we do know they beat them both pretty comfortably.
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10
  #256  
Old 07-03-2019, 04:59 PM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
I wouldn't say Pakistan beat England comfortably, England were three big hits away from chasing down their total. And as you say, while always in control against NZ it wasn't a walk in the park for them. Conversely, they have been stuffed by Windies and India, and only scraped past Afghanistan.

I do agree with you that it's unfortunate if teams change their tactics due to NRR considerations - we've already seen some of that with India the other day and NZ today, it tends to make for less exciting finishes to the game in progress, which is disappointing. As has been said there's no ideal solution though taking everything into consideration, personally I prefer NRR as least worst but agree to disagree I guess.
  #257  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:27 PM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
It's actually one of the bigger grounds, which makes the number of boundaries even more impressive. But yes, the wicket has been deemed probably the best batting track of the tournament so far, according to my feed. In theory NZ ought to be able to make use of that too, but winning the toss was massive here.
Thanks. I finally got to see the Innings and thought the ground was very large and then the commentators started talking about its "generous proportions".
  #258  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:28 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,013
Well that was disappointing.

NZ beat all the teams below them, canít beat the teams above and so ďbest of the restĒ is well earned.

Was toying with the possibility of the semis being ENGvAUS and INDvPAK but thatís all but mathematically impossible.

You can make a narrative that whomever of ENG, IND or AUS win that they are the best side in the tournament.

But itís 1999 all over again.

Bugger the inventive, creative, explosive, exciting strategy of ENG thatís won 75% of ODIs in the past four years.
That ODIs are simply long playing T20s.
Itís get on a road, win the toss, have one of your top three score 100 from 100, nudge and noodle in the middle and with a bit of a tail end flurry, post 300 and defend it. NEXT!

Who was that guy saying ENG or IND are the only teams capable of scoring 400 plus?
  #259  
Old 07-03-2019, 06:21 PM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,447
The commentators were saying that in the majority of games the teams batting second have a difficult time getting the runs- the wickets have seemed to slow after about thirty overs. I would certainly hope that the toss isn't the deciding factor.
  #260  
Old 07-04-2019, 03:55 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
Maybe the semi-finals and final should look to eliminate the toss as a factor by playing them as "best of two" games, with each side being deemed to win the toss once each. Obviously if one side wins both games, they progress, if not then the margin of victory is used to decide (and if that is level they have a super over).
  #261  
Old 07-04-2019, 03:59 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
Maybe the semi-finals and final should look to eliminate the toss as a factor by playing them as "best of two" games, with each side being deemed to win the toss once each. Obviously if one side wins both games, they progress, if not then the margin of victory is used to decide (and if that is level they have a super over).
How would you decide the difference between a 4 ticket win and a 10 run win?
  #262  
Old 07-04-2019, 04:13 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead Cat View Post
Maybe the semi-finals and final should look to eliminate the toss as a factor by playing them as "best of two" games, with each side being deemed to win the toss once each. Obviously if one side wins both games, they progress, if not then the margin of victory is used to decide (and if that is level they have a super over).
Call me cynical, but I doubt that a pitch would be prepared that would ever disadvantage the home team. I was in a cricket message and this was discussed (the toss) and nothing satisfactory was ever presented.

On a finals tack, and I think Australia has a better balanced and improved team than at the start. Heaven only knows if that will be enough to beat the other finalists - obviously fine teams- but I'm trying to give myself some hope. Obviously if Starc gets an ingrown toe nail he would be nigh impossible to replace.

Neesham impressed me a lot last night in terms of containment if not in strike power. Southee seems a light of former days.
  #263  
Old 07-04-2019, 05:06 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
Call me cynical, but I doubt that a pitch would be prepared that would ever disadvantage the home team. I was in a cricket message and this was discussed (the toss) and nothing satisfactory was ever presented.
Up here, in the County Championship 4 Day stuff, they instituted a ruling a few years ago that the away side could either insert the opposition, without a toss, or hold the toss anyway. The theory being that the away side could take a look at the wicket and make some sort of decision, and this would negate home cooked pitches. The jury is out on whether this has been a success - actual numbers probably need looking at - but my confirmation bias says that a lot more games have gone into day 4 than they used to and that the away side has had a fighting chance a bit more.

The problem in a tournament such as this is there is no home side - except when England are playing, and it would seem a bit weird to have a toss ruling in every game involving them (though you could argue it negates home advantage throughout the tournament, I suppose - which makes it fairer overall - quantifying this would probably be hard).

I think it's been a good tournament for the bowlers - they've performed well (would agree that Neesham kept it tight for instance, Australia have built off the back of good bowling performances, as have India, and England's two most recent wins have demonstrated the importance of Woakes, Archer, Plunkett and Wood strangling the first 20 overs). This is the point before the balls go softer - Bairstow and Roy going hard after the new ball has been a major feature of England too and it is telling that England's middle order has largely struggled - so is critical for arresting boundaries. I also think the pitches have not been as flat as was thought, which has not helped scoring rates. England have been forced away from their strategy by the conditions and good bowling, imo. If they could batter everyone for 50 overs, I think they would be doing it.
  #264  
Old 07-04-2019, 06:18 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,447
Thanks Cumbrian. I meant to say "cricket message board" and the discussion went on for years. In the end I think the toss was considered pretty fair all around. That England happens to have a powerful fast scoring top order means good luck to them. At the end of their innings last night the tail enders seemed to be able to score boundaries, albeit with taking the associated risks and the field settings changed.

I have seen very little of the second innings due to time differences. Just having a quick look it seems that 13 teams batting second have won as opposed to 23 batting first. (I stand to be corrected). A lot of the outcomes would have been expected no matter what order they batted. It seems inconsistent though in that Australia have lost one batting second (against India) and also won one. (Afghanistan). I can't draw much from that , as when they have batted first they have rarely scored huge scores. (Sorry to concentrate on Australia but they are my focus).

No. Don't know.
  #265  
Old 07-04-2019, 06:35 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,447
And that six from Hetmyer was one of the cleanest strikes I have seen since Gilchrist.
  #266  
Old 07-04-2019, 06:55 AM
Novelty Bobble is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 8,721
NRR is a thorny issue, there probably needs to be metric or index by which we break tied positions and so if not NRR then what?

The biggest mark against it is that it doesn't fully capture the nature of a performance for bowling and batting. If a team bats 200 for their 50 and you knock it off with 10 overs to spare and 8 wickets left, that is different (or at least it feels different to me) from doing it with 10 overs to spare and 9 down. But that isn't reflected in NRR at all.
Could wickets remaining be included as a weighting factor? boundaries? I'm not sure. Also we need to be careful not to over complicate matters by including to many factors as we then give further opportunities to play the game according to those additional factors, rather than the central desire to win the match outright.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #267  
Old 07-04-2019, 09:43 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teuton View Post
How would you decide the difference between a 4 ticket win and a 10 run win?
NRR, of course!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cicero View Post
Call me cynical, but I doubt that a pitch would be prepared that would ever disadvantage the home team.
You could argue that a lot of the pitches in this tournament have not suited the home team. I believe groundsmen will always vehemently deny preparing a pitch to suit one side or the other, and while it does no doubt happen sometimes, I don't think it's been an issue in World Cups.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
NRR is a thorny issue, there probably needs to be metric or index by which we break tied positions and so if not NRR then what?
The absolute best method is a scheduled play-off day (effectively a quarter-final) between two teams tied on points for fourth and fifth in the table. It might add a little time to the tournament, and a fair bit of cost booking all the broadcasting stuff that may well not be needed, but it is the fairest way. Of course, even that only gets you so far - if 3 teams are level on points for fourth spot, you need at least 2 games to resolve things (whereby one team has a lucky bye to the 'quarter-final' and the other two play-off for a chance to face them in what could be described as a 'last-16' match; creating the amusing distinction of two teams who, after 9 games in a 10-team tournament, qualify for the last 16 ). But you could draw the line at one quarter-final day and then revert to NRR (or some other method) to separate other ties, which would still be an improvement. Perhaps the cost-benefit analysis of such steps would say they are not worth it.

Quote:
The biggest mark against it is that it doesn't fully capture the nature of a performance for bowling and batting. If a team bats 200 for their 50 and you knock it off with 10 overs to spare and 8 wickets left, that is different (or at least it feels different to me) from doing it with 10 overs to spare and 9 down. But that isn't reflected in NRR at all.
Could wickets remaining be included as a weighting factor? boundaries? I'm not sure. Also we need to be careful not to over complicate matters by including to many factors as we then give further opportunities to play the game according to those additional factors, rather than the central desire to win the match outright.
Yes, fair comment. My suggestion of double headers (with NRR as a tiebreaker) was only semi-serious.

Last edited by Dead Cat; 07-04-2019 at 09:43 AM.
  #268  
Old 07-04-2019, 10:48 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,410
I think it might have been Penultima Thule on the Rolling Cricket Thread (which could probably do with resurrection post World Cup) that said that there was some method in play in junior cricket in Australia that works out how heavy a defeat is. Something like saying: there's 100 overs and 20 wickets material in the game, a win by 4 wickets using less material is "better" than a win by 4 wickets using more material - and this then allows you to use the "material used" to try and compare wins by runs versus wins by wickets. But I can't find the relevant post at the minute and am doubtless garbling this horrendously. Maybe they'll enlighten us. Still, there's potentially something there - though it might be a bit more complicated than the NRR calculation.
  #269  
Old 07-04-2019, 12:22 PM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
Back in the actual cricket, good on Windies and Afghanistan for putting on a good show in their dead rubber, seems it's been quite and exciting and fairly close game. Hope Afghanistan are not too despondent at not picking up a win, they came close a few times, all credit to them.
  #270  
Old 07-04-2019, 08:35 PM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,447
I would have liked to see Afghanistan get at least one win but I think in the end they ended up with the result that was deserved. There was some pretty bad fielding from them last night- really patchy- but overall there has been enough encouragement from their performances to enable them to look forward to 2023.
  #271  
Old 07-04-2019, 09:15 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,013
Regarding the use of NRR, there were lots of calculations as to what score PAK needed to post vs BAN and then dismiss them to improve their NRR sufficiently.
But even had the task been realistic, if BAN won the toss and batted the question was moot.
If the tiebreaker result is actually determined by the toss you might as well just use a coin toss as the tiebreaker or scissors, paper, rock in the case of a three way tie.

In Sydney grade cricket the tiebreaker after competition points is called the Quotient

Quote:
A team’s quotient shall be its batting average divided by its bowling average.
The batting average for a team shall be obtained by dividing the total number of runs scored by it, by the total number of wickets lost.
The bowling average for a team shall be obtained by dividing the total runs scored against it, by the total number of wickets taken.
It’s sufficiently complicated so that to play strategically to increase it isn’t really practical.
The only time it swings dramatically after the opening few games of a season is if a team has conceded (or taken) very few wickets to date and then in a single game gets say bowled out twice.

For one day matches there is also a bonus point system that teams are awarded an additional point if the win is achieved within 80% of the available overs i.e. 40/50 overs or 32/40.
A double bonus point win if achieved within 60% pf the available overs i.e. 30/50 overs or 24/40.
It doesn’t matter whether the win is achieved with plenty of wickets in hand or 9 down.

There may be merit in the idea of using the Duckworth-Lewis algorithm to predict the team batting second’s 50 over score and compare total runs for against total runs against but that metric favours the strong batting sides vs strong bowling sides.
I'd be more comfortable with a metric based on actual performance rather than potential performance.

Last edited by penultima thule; 07-04-2019 at 09:16 PM.
  #272  
Old 07-04-2019, 09:27 PM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,726
At least the Quotient takes into account wickets taken/lost. NRR only measures half of the game.
  #273  
Old 07-05-2019, 02:49 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,705
A look through the tournament shows that Pakistan have a Quotient of 1.03, and NZ 1.18, thanks to a killer bowling average from the first few games where they bowled their first three opponents out for less than 250.

This isn't a insurmountable a difference as the nrr gap, and I think Pak could have some hope of overtaking them - although they would have to hammer Ban. For instance, if they score 300/5 and bowl Bangladesh out for 200,they would sneak in front. 300/6 wouldn't be enough.

I'm liking this Quotient though. It's not heavily weighed in favour of batting first, for a start (NZ bowled SL out for 136 and in by 10 wickets, resulting in an effectively infinite Quotient).
  #274  
Old 07-05-2019, 04:59 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,447
Do Pakistan really deserve to get through though? The washed out games may have altered things but it seems that the final standings (as they are at present) are a pretty fair equation of performances.

Just for something totally different, I was trying to remember the first First Club game I went to. I think it was in 1964 when our school teacher took the class to the Gabba to watch Qld play Pakistan (I'm not sure how he got away with that). Anyone else care to share their experiences?
  #275  
Old 07-05-2019, 05:23 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,013
Courtesy of Cricinfo's StatsGuru

Bat Ave
Afghanistan 21.0
Australia 38.7
Bangladesh 38.1
England 41.2
India 47.2
New Zealand 32.8
Pakistan 32.9
South Africa 35.0
Sri Lanka 24.7
West Indies 30.3
Grand Total 33.3

Bowl Ave
Afghanistan 41.9
Australia 28.6
Bangladesh 40.0
England 29.9
India 28.0
New Zealand 27.9
Pakistan 35.5
South Africa 34.4
Sri Lanka 36.6
West Indies 36.9
Grand Total 33.3

Quotient
Afghanistan 0.502
Australia 1.357
Bangladesh 0.953
England 1.376
India 1.688
New Zealand 1.177
Pakistan 0.928
South Africa 1.018
Sri Lanka 0.673
West Indies 0.820
Grand Total 1.000
  #276  
Old 07-05-2019, 08:44 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,410
To qualify, Pakistan need to bowl Bangladesh out for 7.

Those quotients are interesting - for instance, SA have been terrible but their quotient is alright. Obviously they'd have been knocked out on the basis of points from wins, but it's interesting to me at least to wonder what it actually means for their level of performance. Overall the quotient seems to do a reasonable job - or at least it has in this case.

They've been batting about the NRR conundrum on The Guardian's Over by Over coverage today. A solution brought up there was a) for sides winning by runs, to give them the runs they won by, b) for sides winning by wickets, give them the runs by which they're ahead of the DLS par score when they win, c) provide minus runs on the same basis for the losing side. In this particular situation, Pakistan would have needed to beat Bangladesh by 130 runs, which would have at least been more exciting than trying to equalise the NRR. I am sure that there is something wrong with it but it seems as good a suggestion as any - though relies on what, for most people, is the black box of DLS.

Re: Cicero's post. Being from Cumbria, I didn't see any decent standard county cricket until I moved to London in 2003 and, after I moved closer to the ground, started going to The Oval regularly in 2014. Saw some local club cricket when I was a kid. The first match of substance I saw was a school trip - we all went to Old Trafford to watch England v New Zealand in 1994. It was 199/4 at the close of the day - Atherton was on 99 not out and was stuck there for about 3 or 4 overs before close of play. He got his ton off the first ball the following day, when we weren't there, the bastard. It was the only time I got to see Graham Gooch bat in the flesh - he got out for a golden duck.

Last edited by Cumbrian; 07-05-2019 at 08:44 AM.
  #277  
Old 07-05-2019, 09:05 AM
Teuton's Avatar
Teuton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 1,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
Pakistan 0.928
I obviously typed the numbers into the calculator wrong.

The difference in Quotient is even more stark then, and I suspect that Pak would have had to win similarly hugely to overcome the Quotient difference than the NRR difference.

The idea isn't particularly to give Pak a chance in this particular instance, but to show that NRR is unfairly balanced towards teams who bat first and win - with NRR, Pak had no chance to overtake NZ if they'd bowled first. Under a Quotient system, they would have a (however unlikely) chance.

Anyway, Ban are 9/0, so Pak are out of the world cup from here, but I'd suggest the game is theirs - 315 is a hell of a lot to chase down.
  #278  
Old 07-05-2019, 09:19 AM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,908
[QUOTE=Teuton;21733702.... 315 is a hell of a lot to chase down.[/QUOTE]

Unless I missed something, Bangladesh has been the only team to chase down a 300+ score this whole tournament (against SA). No other team has even successfully chased a 250+ score (although there have been 2nd innings higher than that).
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10
  #279  
Old 07-05-2019, 05:32 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cumbrian View Post
SA have been terrible but their quotient is alright. Obviously they'd have been knocked out on the basis of points from wins, but it's interesting to me at least to wonder what it actually means for their level of performance.
SAF Quotient calculated progressively
Score Result Opponent Oscore Quotient
207/10 L England 311/8 0.532
309/8 L Bangladesh 330/6 0.626
227/9 L India 230/4 0.569
29/2 N West Indies DNB 0.550
131/1 W Afghanistan 125/10 0.846
241/6 L New Zealand 245/6 0.871
259/9 L Pakistan 308/7 0.825
206/1 W Sri Lanka 203/10 1.018

SAF's quotient is 1.018 because they belted AFG and SL, bowling them out for low totals and passing them 1 down.
  #280  
Old 07-06-2019, 04:27 AM
Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Lenni Lenape Land
Posts: 5,908

Scheduling of London Games


I noticed that during the first half of the tournament, the games played in London were all at the Oval. During the second half, the London venue is Lordís. Any reason for this? I thought perhaps itís due to over-use, but then saw that there are Old Trafford games throughout the tournament from start to finish.
__________________
"That's right. Even my feet have balls." Stephen Colbert 9/28/10
  #281  
Old 07-06-2019, 06:24 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,447
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cumbrian View Post
Re: Cicero's post. Being from Cumbria, I didn't see any decent standard county cricket until I moved to London in 2003 and, after I moved closer to the ground, started going to The Oval regularly in 2014. Saw some local club cricket when I was a kid. The first match of substance I saw was a school trip - we all went to Old Trafford to watch England v New Zealand in 1994. It was 199/4 at the close of the day - Atherton was on 99 not out and was stuck there for about 3 or 4 overs before close of play. He got his ton off the first ball the following day, when we weren't there, the bastard. It was the only time I got to see Graham Gooch bat in the flesh - he got out for a golden duck.
Thank you. I know I was at the WACA when Alderman injured his shoulder but I am sure I must have been to a Test prior to that. I saw John Benaud play and my grandfather told me he saw Lindsay Hassett score a double century in a Test match.

I have probably mentioned it before but in the 1970's I shared accommodation with one of Keith Miller's sons.
  #282  
Old 07-06-2019, 07:30 PM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,726
Well that was a surprise. I'd give New Zealand a 20 percent chance to beat India with England Australia being a coin flip.
  #283  
Old 07-06-2019, 07:41 PM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,447
I watched the first 10 overs and thought Australia were gone. Not a total surprise - it will certainly be interesting finals.
  #284  
Old 07-06-2019, 09:28 PM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,013
I thought they were shot ducks several times, and still ran SAF close.

Interesting context for AUS v ENG.
The hosts haven’t lost at Egbaston for a decade, AUS have never lost a semifinal.

Going to be some major changes to the lineup. Khawaja is out for the tournament and his cover (Shaun Marsh) has a broken arm so they have brought in Handscombe. Think Wade the better option or Travis Head and they’ll go with the extra batsman

Stoines is hurt and out of form. His cover is Mitch Marsh (oh no!)
  #285  
Old 07-06-2019, 09:38 PM
don't ask is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,271
Wow, I hadn't thought about Wade when they brought Handscomb in for Marsh. He has just scored the fastest list A century by any Australian. Hopefully, he will be called in as the replacement for Khawaja.
  #286  
Old 07-06-2019, 09:49 PM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,447
Travis Head- oh no! Mitchell Marsh- oh no. Agree that Wade would be a better choice and also a back up keeper. Maxwell has done precious little although there seems no one to replace him. The signs are not good for Australia.
  #287  
Old 07-07-2019, 07:00 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,013
MarshM is the only “like for like” replacement for Stoines.

Finch
Warner
Smith
Wade
Maxwell
Head
Carey
Cummins
Starc
Lyons
Hazelwood

But they’ll stick with Berendorf, include MarshM for Wade and Handscombe at the #3 as best replacement for Khawaja
  #288  
Old 07-08-2019, 12:02 AM
Wallaby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Melbourne, Far South
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisiate View Post
At least the Quotient takes into account wickets taken/lost. NRR only measures half of the game.
No - not quite. I have a problem with that argument.

The winner of the game is the team who scores the most runs. Taking wickets is a defensive measure whereby you can help prevent the opposition from scoring as many runs as they want - but it doesn't matter how many wickets you take. There have been many games in all forms of cricket where a side has won a game and still lost more wickets than the opposition. You can win a game by having a poor bowling attack and great fielding - but we don't propose to decide games by number of 'diving stops in the outfield' or 'slips catches'.

It's a bit like deciding tied matches in soccer by how many corners a team received in a match, or how many fouls they conceded etc. Those are just means to an end - scoring (or defending) goals. That game is about goals. Similarly cricket is about runs.
  #289  
Old 07-08-2019, 04:52 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,410
I think I, in turn, have a problem with this as an analogy.

The comparison isn't about who does or doesn't win a match, it's about who does or does not get ranked higher in a group/table/league - and football does use a measure that is dependent on both sides of the equation for doing this (at least in season long leagues); goal difference. Of course, you could have a high goal difference by scoring lots of goals. But you can get an equally high goal difference as a team scoring lots and conceding lots, by not letting in as many, so the system is set up to reward defending (the best of all scenarios of course being good at defending and scoring a lot of goals).

I think that there is something attractive about factoring in the other half of the game when deciding these things. Then again, I'm not convinced that NRR doesn't already do that. Quoting from the ICC Playing Regulations:

Quote:
“A team’s net run rate is calculated by deducting from the average runs per over scored by that team throughout the competition, the average runs per over scored against that team throughout the competition.
So if you go for fewer average runs per over, you do better. How is this not factoring in bowling/fielding performance? I guess we can argue a fair amount about whether it does this adequately or not - it doesn't factor in wickets (except inasmuch as taking a significant number of wickets will bring worse batsmen to the crease and presumably depress the average runs per over that your opponents score) - but NRR does factor in the defensive side of the game, arguably in a similar way that goal difference does in football.

All this said, I also don't think that there is a perfect solution to this. All the methods are going to have drawbacks one way or the other and when a team gets dumped out as a result of them, they will doubtless seek an alternative system. I think I err on the side of wanting to find something better than NRR though.
  #290  
Old 07-08-2019, 04:54 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
MarshM is the only ďlike for likeĒ replacement for Stoines.

Finch
Warner
Smith
Wade
Maxwell
Head
Carey
Cummins
Starc
Lyons
Hazelwood

But theyíll stick with Berendorf, include MarshM for Wade and Handscombe at the #3 as best replacement for Khawaja
For me, Carey is too low in this side. I have been very impressed by him, am very worried about what he might do to England in the semi and, whilst I accept that Paine is your captain, if I were Australian, I would want to be looking at him for an Ashes spot. After all, England play as many wicketkeeper bats as possible, so his position shouldn't be a bar if he's one of your best batsmen - which, in honesty, I think he is.

He should come in ahead of Maxwell in the rest of this tournament, unless the wicket falls within the last 10 overs, giving Maxwell licence to not think and just biff. Any longer and Carey is definitely the superior bat.
  #291  
Old 07-08-2019, 05:48 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 122
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48881926

If England make the Final it will be aired on free-to-air TV

This is a no-brainer move. The momentum of the 2005 Ashes which completely swept the nation into cricket mania was wasted as Sky monopolised the game. Sad really.
  #292  
Old 07-08-2019, 07:54 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,013
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cumbrian View Post
For me, Carey is too low in this side.
Fair point.
Iíd view the list as flexible 4-7 depending on match circumstances.
Itís proving hard to balance the side when Finch/Warner have been so solid taking up over 50% of the innings.

Carey has certainly been in the top couple of Aussies at the WC with Finch, Warner and Starc. A revelation even, he was behind Wade as keeper batsmen when the squad was selected.

Carey has an ODI average of about 40, mainly due to a high number of not outs.
His T20 average is about 30. His first class average is 25. Heís firming as a heir-presumptive. But at this stage, Paine is a better bat and a much better keeper.
  #293  
Old 07-08-2019, 09:09 AM
Cumbrian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by penultima thule View Post
Carey has an ODI average of about 40, mainly due to a high number of not outs.
His T20 average is about 30. His first class average is 25. He’s firming as a heir-presumptive. But at this stage, Paine is a better bat and a much better keeper.
Well, you know far more about his red ball record than I do. I will say that I think he's been very impressive over the course of this tournament and you could do worse than play him and not give him the gloves, if you think he can stand up to red ball batting. That average needs a few ticks on it though, to warrant a place in the side without the gloves. Still, on this evidence, he's got guts, places with his brain and stands up in pressure occasions; not qualities that can be discounted if production and technique are in place. I can see him being someone causing England problems for the next decade.

As for the one day stuff/the semi - I think you're right that they should look to be flexible. I trust him to play a longer innings more than Maxwell, so having him come in at 5 if you're 20-3 could be the way to go and then moving people around dependent on match situation to get the best out of them and what you want them to do.

Last edited by Cumbrian; 07-08-2019 at 09:10 AM.
  #294  
Old 07-09-2019, 04:41 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,447
And this is the way my World Cup is going. I got dinner prepared early- well except I forgot to turn the heat on for the potatoes. No matter, plenty of time.

Cold beer in fridge ready for England to unluckily lose to Australia. Well, except they aren't playing. It's NZ and India. I need to see how many Indian cricket fans are in England again?
  #295  
Old 07-09-2019, 05:02 AM
Dead Cat is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 4,154
From the sounds of it on the radio, quite a lot of them are at the ground today! India seem to have completely strangled NZ in the first few overs - 10/1 off 7.
  #296  
Old 07-09-2019, 05:12 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,013
Not unusual in world sport but Australian cricket has many arcane, byzantine and non-quantitative rituals about selections.

Once a player is established in first class cricket for three seasons it’s generally considered they are technically good enough for a baggy green cap. Then it’s a matter of having good form coincide with an opportunity.

Batsmen need to have at least two shots, any more is an indulgence. Alan Border scored the majority of his runs with cuts and on drives. They need to be able to hit boundaries. An average of 50 and a strike rate of 140 but get ‘em by nudging and noodling simply doesn’t cut the mustard. Batsmen are allowed one weakness. Ponting was Harbijan Singh’s personal bunny, but vulnerability to the short ball is more lethal to career aspirations.

From that point, mental capability is generally what separates Test from the First Class. Batsmen need to been seen as “working hard”. You hear the chant/mantra all the way down to the lowest grades. (No batsman has ever been told to “work smart”). The absolute cream, those languidly gifted and elegant few who make batting look so dammed simple (Mark Waugh, Damian Martin, David Gower, Kumar Sangakkara etc) but look like they aren’t trying when they nick off to a delivery the merely world class would miss by a bat width are regarded with suspicion.

Bowlers need to take wickets with their stock ball. Preferably they either bowl at 140k plus or turn it square. The success of offspinning Gary Lyon as #GOAT is an aberration not understood most of the cricket community, and I include myself.

Then at the final hurdle they need to add an personal edge to the team.
The Powers That Be will usually allow one of the top six to have an unconventional technique. The ODI side has three (Smith, Handscombe and Maxwell) which is a source of considerable angst.
Most often the delta is graceless, boorish, antisocial sledging and abuse. Wade was selected as keeper over a technically better keeper in Neville specifically because he was more verbally aggressive.
Coulter-Nile is probably in the squad because he’s hirsute or colloquially has “great salad”. MarshM and Stoines have great pipes and rig. Carey is possibly the first teeth based Australian selection.

Leading into the WC2019 a semi-final spot for AUS would have been considered a very good result.
If Starc had bowled a tidy first over rather than conceding 15 they might have pinched the win vs SAF, finished top and demonstrably overachieved pre-tournament expectations.
For the conditions at Edgebaston the injuries might actually see a better team fielded than we have all tournament. The game vs the Poms is six to five and pick 'em. [evil]Though the potential for two days of rain would add a certain fraissonse. [/evil]

Whoever gets through to the final only need two good deliveries (one to Rohit Sharma, the other to Virat Kohli) and they’ll take the title.

Still ENG’s tournament to take the chocolates, imho.
  #297  
Old 07-09-2019, 05:12 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,447
Yes, the cameras always pan to them. They are certainly colourdul with their dress and the antics. BTW - does The Barmy Army turn up at these England Games?
  #298  
Old 07-09-2019, 05:30 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,447
Penultimate Thule, whilst overall I agree with your comments re team selection I think there will always be a capability to profuce counter arguments (depending on how far you want to go back of course).

I agree Nevill (no last "E") was a better keeper than Wade and I couldn't see why he went the way they did. Then again I could never understand how Taber was dropped for Marsh so long ago. (A taxi driver told me that Taber smacked Lawry in the mouth in South Africa- you know that taxi drivers are always in the know). It was like Bird being told he couldn't be in the team because he didn't score enough runs at eleven.

What concerns me is that players aren't really having decent seasons in first class cricket- Head averages 38 as a batter which really shouldn't guarantee a place in a State Team.

Damian Martin was undoubtedly one of the most gifted batsman from WA- as was Kim Hughes.

As for Alan Border he was what Australia needed. I'd like to see the percentage of the teams runs he scored for Australia.
  #299  
Old 07-09-2019, 06:20 AM
Cicero is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,447
That game is terrible. The Kiwis seem lost.
  #300  
Old 07-09-2019, 07:07 AM
penultima thule is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,013
Might need more than just God to defend New Zealand with Williamson now gone.
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 09:47 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