Is the Net Run rate calculation method flawed

[lameduck]

Today we have seen yet another low scoring thriller after the pak vs WI match. but looking at the net run rate it seems. they have been beaten by a land slide. Why doesn't the net run rate start taking into account the number of wickets lost?

[Clarke]

:fail:

[vvvslaxman]

It is NRR not NWR.

[Jersey #10]

Lameduck - in your defense, please stop using charming women's pictures in your AVI. I almost took you as vvvslaxman. Then I read your laughable post and convinced myself that you were vvvslaxman. Then I scrolled down to see why you had contradicted yourself and then realized my mistake :facepalm:

[G_B_]

Lameduck - in your defense' date=' please stop using charming women's pictures in your AVI. [b']I almost took you as vvvslaxman. Then I read your laughable post and convinced myself that you were vvvslaxman. Then I scrolled down to see why you had contradicted yourself and then realized my mistake :facepalm:

you sure it was not the content of the message :winky:

[lameduck]

It is NRR not NWR.

It's Rate of runs scored per balls. the wickets ratio isnt even considered in the calculation. the run rate for the team that were all out is calculated as if they had played out all the 50 balls. for todays match between SL v NZ. the run rate FOR SL is 138/50 = 2.76 the run rate AGINST SL is 139/36.5 = 3.8082 so the run rate of SL = 2.76 - 3.8 = - 1.048 Now that i have a problem with here is that SL being judged on the full quota of 50 overs and NZ on just 36.5. if someone is to device a graph for change in net run rate to how close the match was. the high scoring thrillers it will be much lower then that for low scorers. this just isn't compatible with common sense. the suggestion I have it why not use Duckworth-Lewis to work out what score the second team will be at in 50 overs time. and then judge both teams respect to the 50 overs quota. So run rate FOR SL will still be 2.76 assuming Duckworth-Lewis says NZ would hv score 145. the run rate AGINST SL would be 145/50 = 2.9 so the run rate change for SL is = 2.76 - 2.9 = - 0.14 - 0.14 NRR looks a more accurate description of the match than - 1.048 The current method is only sensible in high scorers when the team batting first faced close to 50 overs.

[cowboysfan]

It's Rate of runs scored per balls. the wickets ratio isnt even considered in the calculation. the run rate for the team that were all out is calculated as if they had played out all the 50 balls. for todays match between SL v NZ. the run rate FOR SL is 138/50 = 2.76 the run rate AGINST SL is 139/36.5 = 3.8082 so the run rate of SL = 2.76 - 3.8 = - 1.048 Now that i have a problem with here is that SL being judged on the full quota of 50 overs and NZ on just 36.5. if someone is to device a graph for change in net run rate to how close the match was. the high scoring thrillers it will be much lower then that for low scorers. this just isn't compatible with common sense. the suggestion I have it why not use Duckworth-Lewis to work out what score the second team will be at in 50 overs time. and then judge both teams respect to the 50 overs quota. So run rate FOR SL will still be 2.76 assuming Duckworth-Lewis says NZ would hv score 145. the run rate AGINST SL would be 145/50 = 2.9 so the run rate change for SL is = 2.76 - 2.9 = - 0.14 - 0.14 NRR looks a more accurate description of the match than - 1.048 The current method is only sensible in high scorers when the team batting first faced close to 50 overs.

this idea is not a crazy one but but will never be adapted.ICC wants teams to finish their 50 overs and SL have no one to blame but themselves for getting out too early.the chance of 2 teams finishing on same NRR is almost nil and thats all there is to it.

[Zap_Brannigan]

You are not off. They are flawed esp. in a short tournament. In cases like today, they could have taken the average runs per wicket for NZ and calculated that for 10 wickets (or lameducks suggestion of using duckworth method)and used than for NRR calculation. But then this is ICC. They spend years hearing complaints on cricket becoming a batsmens game and then go on to make them more batsmen positive with new rule changes.

[goose]

The assumption in cricket that a 10th wicket partnership might go on to score masses of runs but for the contest ending is not an alien one. It's why test matches can be 'drawn' despite one team being way behind the other.

[Crookbond]

Why net run rate doesn't work West Indies and New Zealand are head of India and England on the points table despite managing marginal wins against their oppositions. http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-champions-trophy-2013/content/story/640383.html

Limited-overs cricket is clearly a game where teams need to juggle with two sets of resources - overs and wickets in hand. Depletion of either of those resources, with respect to the target before the team, is a sign that the team's in trouble. Any method which is used to differentiate between teams on equal points should therefore consider both these factors when judging how comprehensive the victory was. The NRR method fails to do that. There have been other debates and arguments on the shortcomings of the NRR, but this is clearly the greatest one. A possible solution here is to use the rain rule to decide the margin. In the case of the New Zealand-Sri Lanka match, the par score for New Zealand when nine down in 36.3 overs is 132. Since they won the match at this stage, they were seven runs ahead of the par score, which thus becomes the margin of victory. Since England's margin of victory over Australia was 48 runs, they would clearly be the group leaders. However, if New Zealand had won in the same number of overs for the loss of four wickets, then the margin by the D-L method would have been 52 runs. Similarly, the margin of victory for West Indies over Pakistan would have been 20 runs by this method. Since India beat South Africa by 28, they'd have been the group B table-toppers at this stage. The victory margins in games which are won by the team batting first are anyway in terms of runs, so this option allows all match results to be expressed in terms of runs. It can be further argued that these margins should further take into account the target, so that a ten-run margin in a low-scoring game counts for more than the same margin in a high-scoring one

[lameduck]

You are not off. They are flawed esp. in a short tournament. In cases like today, they could have taken the average runs per wicket for NZ and calculated that for 10 wickets (or lameducks suggestion of using duckworth method)and used than for NRR calculation. But then this is ICC. They spend years hearing complaints on cricket becoming a batsmens game and then go on to make them more batsmen positive with new rule changes.

for a case like today. certainly. The average wickets wouldn't work if the team chasing wins with more wickets lost than team batting first. but yeah. but they will need to device a matching formula for the other cases. Could be difficult since. the values for nrr would not be in the decimal range less than 1. haha yep. wouldn't put my faith in the ICC think tank.

The assumption in cricket that a 10th wicket partnership might go on to score masses of runs but for the contest ending is not an alien one. It's why test matches can be 'drawn' despite one team being way behind the other.

Good point there

Why net run rate doesn't work West Indies and New Zealand are head of India and England on the points table despite managing marginal wins against their oppositions. http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-champions-trophy-2013/content/story/640383.html

Nice to see the problem being unearthed. As some people have pointed out even the D/L system isn't universally accepted quite. but surely more fairer than the current way to calculation.

[someone]

If I correct, NRR basically is about how many spare overs. So my question is suppose Team A makes 300 runs at 50 overs, while Team B makes 100 at 10 overs all out. What will the NRR in that situation?

[bulbul]

If I correct' date=' NRR basically is about how many spare overs. So my question is suppose Team A makes 300 runs at 50 overs, while Team B makes 100 at 10 overs all out. What will the NRR in that situation?[/quote'] +4 for Team 4 -4 for Team B

[arun81]

I think the way that article is written, the guy was reading ICF and stole the idea from here