Bat first or chase

[stephen]

In the build up to the world cup we saw a ton of huge chases. So far in this world cup the highest successful chase was 248, made by New Zealand against Bangladesh.

In that time we've had 11 scores of over 300, including a couple in unsuccessful chases.

So it turns out that Burgey was right. In the world cup you bat first or you dismiss your opposition cheaply. It's obviously a lot harder to chase 300+ scores than it is in meaningless bilateral series.

 

[silentstriker]

Burgey is always right. Except when it comes to the Indian cricket team.

 

[morgieb]

Yeah this World Cup the way to win is typically "bat first and put a big score on the board". I'd only recommend otherwise if the batting was weak but the bowling wasn't (see WI, Afghanistan to some extent)

So a lot closer to Tests in this regard than T20's (where the tactic is typically "know what you're chasing and work with that")

 

[stephen]

Yeah this World Cup the way to win is typically "bat first and put a big score on the board". I'd only recommend otherwise if the batting was weak but the bowling wasn't (see WI, Afghanistan to some extent)

So a lot closer to Tests in this regard than T20's (where the tactic is typically "know what you're chasing and work with that")

The real question is, why is this so? Why is chasing 300+ so much more difficult in this world cup than it was beforehand?

Basically I get to watch half the game when it's a day game. By the end of that half it's almost certain who will win. We haven't really had any thrilling chases and the ones that have been relatively close at the end were not actually as close as close as they might appear.

 

[Prince EWS]

The real question is, why is this so? Why is chasing 300+ so much more difficult in this world cup than it was beforehand?.

I think there are two main factors here.

The first is that teams rarely play full strength teams in JAMODIs, and bowlers are much more likely to be rested than batsmen. Full strength bowling attacks obviously make run scoring a bit harder in general, meaning big chases are rarer.

I also think there's more pressure involved than chasing than setting a target, and pressure in amplified in World Cup games because the stakes are so much higher.

I think it's more the former than the latter but it's definitely some combination of the two.

 

[mr_mister]

Surprisingly teams still seem to prefer to send teams in and chase. Hadn't worked out well for most

 

[morgieb]

The real question is, why is this so? Why is chasing 300+ so much more difficult in this world cup than it was beforehand?

Basically I get to watch half the game when it's a day game. By the end of that half it's almost certain who will win. We haven't really had any thrilling chases and the ones that have been relatively close at the end were not actually as close as close as they might appear.

Yeah it feels like the bowling standards are higher than we expect. I think it's also a factor that England is only one team in this case, in the rest of the world 300+ is genuinely not an easy chase.

 

[TheJediBrah]

I think there are two main factors here.

The first is that teams rarely play full strength teams in JAMODIs, and bowlers are much more likely to be rested than batsmen. Full strength bowling attacks obviously make run scoring a bit harder in general, meaning big chases are rarer.

I also think there's more pressure involved than chasing than setting a target, and pressure in amplified in World Cup games because the stakes are so much higher.

I think it's more the former than the latter but it's definitely some combination of the two.

I never would have thought of that. What an excellent point.

 

[Starfighter]

Well Australia isn't carrying a full strength attack and we've defended a few totals. I do think that a few of the elections to chase have been based on silly or wishful thinking, like England's against Pakistan, Sri Lanka's against Australia and (perhaps to a lesser extent) Pakistan's last night.

 

[Prince EWS]

Well Australia isn't carrying a full strength attack and we've defended a few totals.

Closer than usual though. In the two years leading up to the World Cup, Starc and Cummins (ie. Australia's best and most threatening bowlers) were both playing together in just 5 out of 31 ODIs, but they've played all the World Cup games.

 

[mr_mister]

It's nearly full strength, maybe we have the wrong Richardson playing, but we're simply no longer that good at full strength anymore

 

[Prince EWS]

It's nearly full strength, maybe we have the wrong Richardson playing, but we're simply no longer that good at full strength anymore

Yeah Haze or Jhye would be in as the third seamer at truly full strength, but it's a better bowling attack by a fair way than the standard of the average attack Australia fielded in JAMODIs in the lead up. This is true for a few of the teams. Even England whose Test quicks don't play ODIs have been improved by Archer.

 

[StephenZA]

I think batting first is the way to go, but I would like to point out that a number of the 300+ run scores in first innings where well above 330+ and the chasing team has still tended to get to 300+ themselves. And both chasing and batting first are about equal in terms of wins. So for me what seems apparent is that it is the quality of the bowling and fielding that becomes the defining factor for most of these games. And that has been fantastic because it has been clear that there is something for the bowlers in the games so far, which was the biggest concern going into this WC.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Closer than usual though. In the two years leading up to the World Cup, Starc and Cummins (ie. Australia's best and most threatening bowlers) were both playing together in just 5 out of 31 ODIs, but they've played all the World Cup games.

Yeah Haze or Jhye would be in as the third seamer at truly full strength, but it's a better bowling attack by a fair way than the standard of the average attack Australia fielded in JAMODIs in the lead up. This is true for a few of the teams. Even England whose Test quicks don't play ODIs have been improved by Archer.

Yeah the teams Australia have been serving up in bilateral ODIs over the last few years have been pretty terrible. They would randomly go into series with spearheads like Tremain, Worrall, Boland etc. There's always been at least 1 (usually 2 or even all 3) of the main 3 quicks rested/injured.

 

[harsh.ag]

Is KRichardson really better than Tye?

 

[Prince EWS]

Is KRichardson really better than Tye?

Everyone is better than Tye.

 

[Uppercut]

And both chasing and batting first are about equal in terms of wins.

Yeah this is what I thought, so I found the thread's existence kind of confusing. You have hundreds of games where chasing teams win quite a lot more often, then you have 20 or so games in a different context where it's about even. Surely you need a better reason than that not to chase.

 

[marc71178]

Everyone is better than Tye.

andyc to confirm:

I daresay that even with Lewis in the team, this total is safe.

 

[Spark]

Courtesy of a cricinfo comment: the number of successful 250+ chases so far this WC is 0

 

[cnerd123]

Courtesy of a cricinfo comment: the number of successful 250+ chases so far this WC is 0

Ahem