Doesnt make sence

[bugssy]

not having a go at anyone but lanc v nsw was an action packed game

lanc nrr prior to the game was 0.19

nsw nrr prior to the game was 0.10

nsw hit 3/305

lanc hit 6/305

nsw win

the table seen both teams on 8 points
net run rate was to work out who goes and who stays

lans net run rate went to 0.21 after the loss

nsw net run rate stayed at 0.10 after the win


can not see how this is correct. nsw win by 3 wickets and 2 runs but nrr doesnt move, lancs loose and theres goes up

by nsw winning i thought for that 0.09 difference nsw would have jumped ahead.



anyone care to elaberate alittle more

look nsw in div 2 for the one day comp but i dont think the nrr was done fairly or makes sence. u can loose and still gain in the ner run rate

 

[marc71178]

Actually Bugs that is possible, and happened in the VWC as well.

It's because it's based over the whole Tournament, and isn't just added on or taken away.

If someone would care to send me the entire set of scorecards, I'll run them through my spreadsheet and calculate the rates agin if it'd help?

 

[Rich2001]

Ok guys

It appears that the error is with VC4.. it has mucked up the calulations.

As a result GB re-worked out the NRR and it appears it now seems as NSW would have ended on 0.15 and Lancs 0.15..... Typical hey!

We haven't anything planned for this so I can only think of 3 options....

1/ I'll like Marc to confirm we are correct in the 0.15/0.15

If we are correct it would then mean that both teams would be excatly the same, if we go on countback then Lancs would now suddenly find themslves going down.....

The only far option to both managers that I can think is that Myself and Kent are willing to refuse promotion and allow both NSW and Lancs to stay in Div 1... I feel that it would be fair on both teams and a sorry form the board for the programe we picked not being up to standards......

The only other real option is to have a three way comp between Kent, NSW and Lancs to see who goes and stays etc.

Any ideas?

 

[nibbs]

You can't go soft just because its a tie. Count back and see what the result was from their match. Lancs lost and should be relegated. Someone has too go down and sadly it has to be Lancshire.

 

[Rich2001]

You can't go soft just because its a tie. Count back and see what the result was from their match. Lancs lost and should be relegated. Someone has too go down and sadly it has to be Lancshire.

It's not going soft Muzza, it's just we can't ever find a solution if GB was right in his NRR calulations, due to the fact we never put a resoultion into place, both managers have a case...

Bug's - Shouldn't have gone down due to stats being wrong....

Graham - Why use countback, it was never there before surley must be another way etc etc....

Hopefully Marc can prove VC4 and GB wrong and get a different run rate, but if he indeed comes up with 0.15/0.15

I supose we could just do a stright forward knockout match between those two and winner takes all etc that would leave me out of it (which was a major no in our convo on MSN)

Infact I now have all the scorecards from those two teams, so I will work it out as well, now I've found out the true method of doing it.

Any ideas?

 

[Graham]

In international cricket, wouldn't this result count as a tie? (305/3 v 305/6) I can't see anything in the WCC rules that gives a side a win on less wickets lost if scores are tied.
I think it would be highly unfair for Lancashire to go down considering they were two points ahead of NSW before the match.

 

[Rich2001]

In international cricket, wouldn't this result count as a tie? (305/3 v 305/6) I can't see anything in the WCC rules that gives a side a win on less wickets lost if scores are tied.
I think it would be highly unfair for Lancashire to go down considering they were two points ahead of NSW before the match.

Graham, Bug's got that wrong you actually lost the game by 3 runs... which means your on the same points, same wins, same loses, etc

But what we are saying is that VC4 has made a error and where we went of your run rate, it appears after re-doing this you also have the same RR's, which leaves us very little to decide who goes up who goes down etc

 

[Graham]

Thanks for the clarification Rich.
My suggestion would be for a sudden death decider at a neutral venue. Winner stays up, loser goes down.
If Bugssy agrees, let's get the pitch conditions, select our sides and go for it!

 

[Rich2001]

Ok I'll work out the NRR again tommorow and Marc said he will double check... As that might decide the winners anyway.

But if the NRR is even then if Bug's is happy then I happy for a sudden death match (or best of 3 etc)

 

[The Argonaut]

The net run rate won't be identical for both teams. Just go an extra decimal place. That will decide the unfortunate fate of one of the teams.

 

[aditya]

I think if the NRR is same then the winner of the game between the 2 should be in Div 1 and the loser in Div 2.This is the only solution as this is only done in the triangular or any other tournament.So i think NSW should be in Div 1 and Lanc in Div 2.

 

[bugssy]

i am happy to resolve it either way, i think that the net run rates will not be the same but if they are count back isnt really fair (on graham)however if to play a sudden death it couldnt be 1 it would have to be best out of 3 i feel but hey what ever is easiest.

 

[Graham]

As WCC doesn't have any stated rules covering the eventuality of tied points and run rates, I think it would be unfair to make one up for this situation at this point.
If the run rates are still equal after everything has been rechecked, a playoff is the only way to go.

 

[age_master]

it should be on countback, thats the standard thing after NRR in all cricket comps

 

[Graham]

I sincerely hope that the whole thing gets sorted one way or the other by differing run rates once they've been accurately recalculated. Then I could have no complaints. Wouldn't it be controversial if WA or Mumbai turned out to have a worse NRR than both NSW and Lancashire!

 

[aditya]

This is the reason why bonus points should be included in od.No calculations of NRR.

 

[Graham]

Can anybody please tell me how NRR is calculated as I have kept all the game files and would like to check them myself.

 

[Graham]

I've found the full explanation of NRR calculations in Cricinfo.

Lancashire - 1240 runs in 288 overs = 4.306 (for)
1404 runs in 343 overs = 4.093 (against)
Lancashires NRR = 0.213

Now calculating NSW, Mumbai and WA.

 

[Graham]

Bad news for NSW!
Sorry Bugssy - doesn't look like we'll need a playoff after all!

NSW - 1569 runs in 315 overs = 4.981 (for)
1571 runs in 322 overs = 4.879 (against)
NSW's NRR = 0.102 compared to Lancashire's 0.213

Now calculating WA's.

 

[aditya]

Ya i also read the rules.There isnt much change in the NRR of NSW and Lanc after the 6th round.This is due to the fact that NSW and Lanc both played 50 overs and made almost equal runs.If Lancs had been bowled out for a small total by NSW then only NSW could have bettered their NRR than Lanc.

Here is the link for the NRR Calculation.
http://www.cricket.org/link_to_database/ABOUT_CRICKET/EXPLANATION/NETRR.html