Bangladesh v South Africa, (NOT a Dead Rubber!) at Abu Dhabi, 11/2 Tuesday (D), Match # 30, Group 1

[SillyCowCorner1]

It looks more and more like England and South Africa to go through. The Proteas with a better NRR.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Good grab from Shoriful.

 

[wpdavid]

It looks more and more like England and South Africa to go through. The Proteas with a better NRR.

But Aus with plenty of scope to significantly improve theirs in their remaining games.

 

[Aritro]

The difference in fielding standards between the three young lads Shamim, Shorif and Afif and the rest of these hacks is absolutely huge

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

But Aus with plenty of scope to significantly improve theirs in their remaining games.

That will be something to look forward to…

 

[Howe_zat]

But Aus with plenty of scope to significantly improve theirs in their remaining games.

It's in South Africa's hands now at least. If they beat England then I don't think Aus can catch up. If they don't, the Australians will still need to win both their last two.

 

[wpdavid]

That will be something to look forward to…

Yeah, no disrespect intended. Well, not much, anyway.

 

[wpdavid]

It's in South Africa's hands now at least. If they beat England then I don't think Aus can catch up. If they don't, the Australians will still need to win both their last two.

You're probably right, and I won't pretend to understand the mathematical possibilities regarding NRR. But playing the two weakest teams in the group who now have nothing to play for struck me as a pretty good chance to make up ground if SA only narrowly beat England.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Yeah, no disrespect intended. Well, not much, anyway.

I don’t think they will beat us.

 

[Aritro]

I don’t think they will beat us.

Yeah backing WI to win that one

 

[Howe_zat]

You're probably right, and I won't pretend to understand the mathematical possibilities regarding NRR. But playing the two weakest teams in the group who now have nothing to play for struck me as a pretty good chance to make up ground if SA only narrowly beat England.

Windies are still technically in the competition, though working out how much they would need to batter Australia by to get within a shot might reveal it to be impossible.

By the way, the problem with predicting NRR is not your lack of acumen* it's that its calculation uses the number of overs in total rather than normalising each game to have an equal impact on the figures. So a shorter game has less impact than a full size game, even though very short games tend to be seen as bigger wins.

For example, if England bat second against SA, concede 10/over and have to chase 200, then get bowled out for 50, their NRR will drop to 0.614. But if they bat first, get bowled out for 50, and then SA chase it at 10/over to win it in five, the short innings means the game has less weight in the calculation and so England's NRR drops to 1.248. So even though the difference in run rate is the same either way in the game, the two results have a very different impact on NRR.

*I mean that might be a problem too idk

 

[honestbharani]

Windies are still technically in the competition, though working out how much they would need to batter Australia by to get within a shot might reveal it to be impossible.

By the way, the problem with predicting NRR is not your lack of acumen* it's that its calculation uses the number of overs in total rather than normalising each game to have an equal impact on the figures. So a shorter game has less impact than a full size game, even though very short games tend to be seen as bigger wins.

For example, if England bat second against SA, concede 10/over and have to chase 200, then get bowled out for 50, their NRR will drop to 0.614. But if they bat first, get bowled out for 50, and then SA chase it at 10/over to win it in five, the short innings means the game has less weight in the calculation and so England's NRR drops to 1.248. So even though the difference in run rate is the same either way in the game, the two results have a very different impact on NRR.

*I mean that might be a problem too idk

yeah, they need to figure out how to give weightage for big wins when teams chase down targets quickly, the way they do for bowling out sides.

 

[wpdavid]

Windies are still technically in the competition, though working out how much they would need to batter Australia by to get within a shot might reveal it to be impossible.

By the way, the problem with predicting NRR is not your lack of acumen* it's that its calculation uses the number of overs in total rather than normalising each game to have an equal impact on the figures. So a shorter game has less impact than a full size game, even though very short games tend to be seen as bigger wins.

For example, if England bat second against SA, concede 10/over and have to chase 200, then get bowled out for 50, their NRR will drop to 0.614. But if they bat first, get bowled out for 50, and then SA chase it at 10/over to win it in five, the short innings means the game has less weight in the calculation and so England's NRR drops to 1.248. So even though the difference in run rate is the same either way in the game, the two results have a very different impact on NRR.

*I mean that might be a problem too idk

Mrs wp would point out that your use of 'might' in your final sentence is being way too generous. Beyond that, if I understand things correctly, your second scenario may allow SA to overtake our NRR as theirs would improve dramatically. But not necessarily Australia, who would still need to wallop Bang and WI, although those results could very easily happen. It sounds like England's safest bet is to bat first and do a Brian Rose. I know that's about 12 years before you were born, so in case you didn't know, it involved declaring at 1-0 in the first over.

 

[Uppercut]

Windies are still technically in the competition, though working out how much they would need to batter Australia by to get within a shot might reveal it to be impossible.

By the way, the problem with predicting NRR is not your lack of acumen* it's that its calculation uses the number of overs in total rather than normalising each game to have an equal impact on the figures. So a shorter game has less impact than a full size game, even though very short games tend to be seen as bigger wins.

For example, if England bat second against SA, concede 10/over and have to chase 200, then get bowled out for 50, their NRR will drop to 0.614. But if they bat first, get bowled out for 50, and then SA chase it at 10/over to win it in five, the short innings means the game has less weight in the calculation and so England's NRR drops to 1.248. So even though the difference in run rate is the same either way in the game, the two results have a very different impact on NRR.

*I mean that might be a problem too idk

It's a joke of a system. They could just use the result between the teams as a tie-breaker and resort to NRR for tied/abandoned games. Cricket in being badly administered shocker I guess.

 

[wpdavid]

It's a joke of a system. They could just use the result between the teams as a tie-breaker and resort to NRR for tied/abandoned games. Cricket in being badly administered shocker I guess.

Yes, that makes sense. But other than that, the system looks good to me.

 

[cnerd123]

I've seen domestic leagues use number of wins/head to head result as a tiebreaker when points are equal before then resorting to NRR, but not sure why the ICC won't adopt that. Probably something to do with cricket board politics, as most things do.

Nice to take a few wickets but that was, as predicted, a paddlin'. Our T20 setup is a mess.

 

[wpdavid]

I think the main argument for head-to-head is that it should treat both sides equally, whereas NRR can be skewed by flogging a weak side that has already been knocked out of the tournament. And it avoids a situation where the team playing last knows exactly what they have to do in order to progress.

 

[Howe_zat]

The best way to set up cricket's equivalent of goal difference is just to convert each game's result to a difference in runs and then you can just add those up.

DLS isn't perfect but it does provide a pretty effective way of doing that, as it can extrapolate what kind of score you would expect from a side that's chased down a target if they were to complete their overs.

 

[andruid]

I think the main argument for head-to-head is that it should treat both sides equally, whereas NRR can be skewed by flogging a weak side that has already been knocked out of the tournament. And it avoids a situation where the team playing last knows exactly what they have to do in order to progress.

Which is why some sports have that everyone should play their last game at the same time malarkey

 

[Uppercut]

The best way to set up cricket's equivalent of goal difference is just to convert each game's result to a difference in runs and then you can just add those up.

DLS isn't perfect but it does provide a pretty effective way of doing that, as it can extrapolate what kind of score you would expect from a side that's chased down a target if they were to complete their overs.

This would be an improvement, but there are still opportunities for unfairness. You can have a situation where, say, South Africa face the West Indies early, but Australia face a West Indies team that knows it needs to win by a big margin, which is a huge advantage for Australia over South Africa.

There are also major complications around games that are shortened by rain but still completed. You'd need a pretty arcane algorithm to account for those games fairly.