Cricket World Cup 2019

The Game Room
141

In baseball, they do some stats stuff like park adjusted metrics. I would be interested in seeing what could be done with ground adjusted stats in cricket. 380 at Trent Bridge might only be “worth” 350 or so, given how notoriously flat the wicket is and the new stand having created a very short boundary to one side of the square. Trent Bridge has been the venue for the two highest scores ever in ODI cricket - the next biggest was put up against the Netherlands and the two after that were done at altitude in South Africa. It was also the venue for a domestic game of one day cricket in the recent past that saw 430 play 430. Honestly, it’s the type of venue that the purist in me wishes wasn’t being used for international cricket anymore - but people like to see 6s, so that’s not likely to happen any time soon.

Fair play to the Aussies - you’ve still got to put the numbers up (and doing it against Bangladesh is probably “worth” more than the 400 England put up against an Afghanistan who I have been quite disappointed by) but clearing 400, whilst impressive, is still very rare and arguably not necessary. Run chases above 350 are very difficult and this Aussie line up seems more than capable of getting that sort of total in any game. Clearly they cannot be taken lightly.

142

This England collapse is fascinating to watch. Still not over.

143

…and now it is. Wow! Tough road ahead in last 3 games for England, but I think are still favorites to make the final 4.

144

Wow indeed. Great to see Malinga getting wickets still. And the tournament really needed a result like this.

145

Talking of upsets, Afghanistan are 67/2 chasing a mere 224 to beat India. It’s a long way to go (and Afg will need to score quicker than they are to get there), but it would really through the cat into the pigeons.

WI started well against NZ (getting them 7/2 in the first over!) but NZ have recovered and are on their way to a handy total. Still, WI are decent chasers!

146

Man that guy whose name I can’t quite remember ran New Zealand close. I was sure that was going to be yet another six.

147

So both India and NZ pushed all the way by Afghanistan and WI, but in marked contrast to England against SL, got the job done in the end. Which to be honest is probably just as well for England, as they should now be thinking of securing fourth place rather than going for first.

148

One of the problems Australia has if Khawaja. I can’t understand the fascination- his average is rubbish and when he came in the other night the run rate slowed and Warner couldn’t get the strike. Ended up getting 89 but he also ran Maxwell out and Smith had to try and lift the run rate and was also out. In the end Australia had arather easy win but it could have been far better. The team selection mystifies me.

149

Some mad scientist has created a site that calculates all scenarios that can put a given team in the top 4. As of now for instance there are 11 scenarios where the West Indies make the top 4.

Unfortunately it doesn’t include washouts so it’s not perfect but it’s still pretty cool to play around with.

150

That site gave me a toothache. Strange how RSA have fallen apart- my money would be that the obvious 4 will make the finals.

151

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.

152

The standings table looks pretty neat right now, with a single team on each point total from 5 to 11. 13 points guarantees a spot in the last 4, but 11 should be enough in most scenarios. Working from the bottom up:

Afghanistan and South Africa are both eliminated, but can still spoil other team’s chances.

The West Indies currently have 3 points, and could get a maximum of 9. Qualification is still possible if England to lose all their remaining games, and Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Pakistan don’t win too many.

Pakistan currently have 5 points, and could get up to 11. Win all their games (against NZ, Afghanistan and Bangladesh) and have one of the current top 4 lose all theirs and the spirit of '92 will live on.

Sri Lanka are on 6, and could go up to 12. Their remaining games are against South Africa, West Indies and India. win all three and have England lose a couple and they’re in.

Bangladesh are on 7, but only have two matches remaining so can only reach 11 total. India and Pakistan are their last two matches.

England are on 8, but their last three games are against Australia, India and New Zealand, they need to win two of those to be sure.

India on 9 with a game in hand, so could get up to 15. West Indies, Bangladesh, England and Sri Lanka all look winnable enough, winning any two should do it though.

Australia on 10, face England, New Zealand and South Africa. One win is all they need.

New Zealand on 11, with Pakistan, Australia and England to go. Win one and they’re safe, one rain abandonment would probably be enough. Could easily drop all three though.

TL;DR The top 4 are probably through, but I’m suspicious we’ll get a surprise.

153

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.

154

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.

155

Right, but why? Isn’t the objective to win the game? Or is it who can beat up Afghanistan the most?

156

Hell if I know - ask the BCCI.

157

I’m glad they’ve put “number of wins” ahead of nrr anyway. The chances of teams having identical nrr seems slim.

158

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.

159

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.

160

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.