Net run rate : Low scoring matches

[Kalia_Test]

This thought came to me while watching Aus-NZ match ( low scoring thriller ). We all know NZ won match by a whisker. That is just the background. The point I am trying to make is as below ( High scoring vs low scoring)...Low scoring invariably means team batting first gets bowled out for less than 50 overs but still wins ( or manages to make a match out of it while losing). To drive my point, I will take 2 thrillers - One high-scoring and other low-scoring High Scoring thriller --------------------------- Team A makes 350 for 7 in 50 overs Team B makes 351/9 in 50 overs NRR for team A = ( 351/50 - 350/50) = -0.02 NRR for team B = +0.02 Low scoring thriller -------------------------- Team A makes 150 ( bowled out in 40 overs ) Team B makes 151/9 in 30 overs NRR for team A = ( 151/30 - 150/50) = -2.03 NRR for Team B = +2.03 I am sure ICFers are aware that team getting bowled out will have all 50 overs counted when calculating NRR ( or whatever the full match is as per D/L in rain interruptions) -------------------------------------- Do you think it is fair? - Obviously , team winning is getting the points and team losing is getting zero points. It is OK as winning is the goal...however - Team losing in a low-scoring thriller is penalised very very heavily....losing points and also conceding massive NRR What do you guys think on the scenario I mentioned?

[Guldozer]

I think it is fair. The only reason New Zealand lost so many wickets was because they were trying to up their Net Run Rate...otherwise they could have taken more overs and won by 6/7 wickets. But do you have any alternate suggestion? Maybe the number of wickets fallen should be accounted for somehow?

[velu]

dont make cricket more complex game .. kalia :poink:

[HippoSucks]

I think it is fair. The only reason New Zealand lost so many wickets was because they were trying to up their Net Run Rate...otherwise they could have taken more overs and won by 6/7 wickets. But do you have any alternate suggestion? Maybe the number of wickets fallen should be accounted for somehow?

New Zealand didn't lose so many wickets because they were trying to get their net run rate up in either the Australia or the Scotland match. They ended up with a run rate of 5.8 in the Scotland match and against Australia, only McCullum was playing quickly. The losing team is penalized way too much, but I can't think of an alternative.

[Kalia_Test]

I think it is fair. The only reason New Zealand lost so many wickets was because they were trying to up their Net Run Rate...otherwise they could have taken more overs and won by 6/7 wickets. But do you have any alternate suggestion? Maybe the number of wickets fallen should be accounted for somehow?

I gave example of Aus-NZ as it is fresh in our minds....the match actually is not the point... Assume a seaming/swinging pitch or a minefield where batsmen batting first or second are forced to battle the conditions... My point - in case it was not clear in my OP - is :- batting conditions will decide winner on who thrashes well...even if you lose, the NRR impact is less....however in bowling conditions, it is way way skewed in favor of winning team ( especially batting second) I have no alternative at the moment...need to think

[MK55]

This thought came to me while watching Aus-NZ match ( low scoring thriller ). We all know NZ won match by a whisker. That is just the background. The point I am trying to make is as below ( High scoring vs low scoring)...Low scoring invariably means team batting first gets bowled out for less than 50 overs but still wins ( or manages to make a match out of it while losing). To drive my point, I will take 2 thrillers - One high-scoring and other low-scoring High Scoring thriller --------------------------- Team A makes 350 for 7 in 50 overs Team B makes 351/9 in 50 overs NRR for team A = ( 351/50 - 350/50) = -0.02 NRR for team B = +0.02 Low scoring thriller -------------------------- Team A makes 150 ( bowled out in 40 overs ) Team B makes 151/9 in 30 overs NRR for team A = ( 151/30 - 150/50) = -2.03 NRR for Team B = +2.03

The current method for calculating NRR is definitely unfair for teams that end up on losing side in the second case that you have mentioned. The ICC is persisting with this method because they don't want to complicate things by bringing the wickets remaining into the calculation of NRR. For instance, consider this case: Team A gets all out for 150 runs in 30 overs Team B scores 151 for no loss in 30 overs. Obviously Team B has performed much better here. So to quantify that advantage, without complicating things, the ICC has come up with a simple method of penalizing the team getting all out by considering 50 overs in their calculation I would prefer NRR to be a function of both wickets and overs left depending upon the result. For example if the chasing team loses, then only the runs gap should be considered. Also, 50 overs should be taken for both teams in NRR calculation. Basically in this case, NRR should be calculated without considering the overs or by using some standard overs for both teams. This is because the winning team must have either batted out 50 overs or might have got all out. In either case it scored the maximum that was possible. I don't see any reason why the winning team has to be given an advantage if it sets the target by batting say 30 overs and getting all out. Now if the chasing team wins, then we have to come up with a formula that would consider the overs and wickets remaining for the winning team and predict the extra runs that the winning team would have scored over the target. Here basically I'll be transforming this case to the one explained above where the chasing team loses.

[coffee_rules]

I think it is fair. The only reason New Zealand lost so many wickets was because they were trying to up their Net Run Rate...otherwise they could have taken more overs and won by 6/7 wickets. But do you have any alternate suggestion? Maybe the number of wickets fallen should be accounted for somehow?

What would they gain by increasing their NRR? They already on top and there is no other team that can match their points (after the Oz BD washout). They were playing for supremacy (possible mind games if they play in the final against Ozzies).

[veer]

I was thinking the same.. but then inverse is also true that if I am playing against UAE and trying to reach 200 in 20 overs to up my run rate, I should be able to do that by playing fast. Aus Vs NZ game occurs on rare occassions.. and only Aus is capable of pulling something like that. There is no aleternative way unless you take wickets fallen into account some how.

[Marut]

The rule is just fine. Wickets should never matter in ODIs. If first team gets 300/1 and the second team gets 301/9 or 301/1, it is the same. So why complain here.

[Kalia_Test]

The rule is just fine. Wickets should never matter in ODIs. If first team gets 300/1 and the second team gets 301/9 or 301/1' date=' it is the same. So why complain here.[/quote'] Wickets matter in ODIs. Do you know of D/L system? Wickets are most important

[MK55]

The rule is just fine. Wickets should never matter in ODIs. If first team gets 300/1 and the second team gets 301/9 or 301/1' date=' it is the same. So why complain here.[/quote'] In this case, the system would work out to be fine because both teams must have played somewhere close to 50 overs. But if one team gets 120 all out in 20 overs and the other barely manages 121 in 30 overs but loses 9 wickets by playing badly, then it does not deserve a massive run rate boost.

[Kalia_Test]

In this case' date=' the system would work out to be fine because both teams must have played somewhere close to 50 overs. But if one team gets 120 all out in 20 overs and the other barely manages 121 in 30 overs but loses 9 wickets by playing badly, then it does not deserve a massive run rate boost.[/quote'] +1...Exactly the point I was making.... Bloody we have the D/L system...why not extend it to NRR? Initial thoughts only...have not thought deeply... Team A makes 150 all out in 35 overs. Team B makes 151/9 in 30 overs. Team B will take 2 points ( fair enough as it WON the match ) But for NRR, calculate as per D/L how much Team B would have made ( in whatever overs as per whatever calculations/history they have ) and use that data. I fully agree that all out should take 50 overs into account

[Guldozer]

+1...Exactly the point I was making.... Bloody we have the D/L system...why not extend it to NRR? Initial thoughts only...have not thought deeply... Team A makes 150 all out in 35 overs. Team B makes 151/9 in 30 overs. Team B will take 2 points ( fair enough as it WON the match ) But for NRR, calculate as per D/L how much Team B would have made ( in whatever overs as per whatever calculations/history they have ) and use that data. I fully agree that all out should take 50 overs into account

But Team A was given 50 overs to bat and it is the Team A's fault that it can't last 50 overs. Similarly Team B should be given credit for bowling out Team A in only 35 overs.

[zen]

Do you think it is fair? - Obviously , team winning is getting the points and team losing is getting zero points. It is OK as winning is the goal...however - Team losing in a low-scoring thriller is penalised very very heavily....losing points and also conceding massive NRR What do you guys think on the scenario I mentioned?

It is fair. Consider the scenario below: Team "A" need a NRR of say "X" to get to the next stage. The team bats for 1 over. Scores 30 runs and then declares Other team scores those runs. Team A loses but still qualifies The current NRR rule ensures that such^ incidences don't happen. Now if the NRR is calculated based on 50 overs for both the batting first and batting second teams, then the NRR rule will become redundant to some extent However, the bonus points rule that many competitions have could be unnecessary. Since a team performance is already accounted for in the NRR, why complicate things by having bonus points :dontknow: PS D&L is controversial enough and used because there is no better alternative at the moment for rain affected games. That's not the case for NRR, which works fairly more often than not. A few exceptions does not imply that we have to use a system that has the potential to be controversial more often than not As the saying goes - keep it simple! And NRR is simple

[MK55]

It is fair. Consider the scenario below: Team "A" need a NRR of say "X" to get to the next stage. The team bats for 1 over. Scores 30 runs and then declares Other team scores those runs. Team A loses but still qualifies The current NRR rule ensures that such^ incidences don't happen. Now if the NRR is calculated based on 50 overs for both the batting first and batting second teams, then the NRR rule will become redundant to some extent However, the bonus points rule that many competitions have could be unnecessary. Since a team performance is already accounted for in the NRR, why complicate things by having bonus points :dontknow: PS D&L is controversial enough and used because there is no better alternative at the moment for rain affected games. That's not the case for NRR, which works fairly more often than not. A few exceptions does not imply that we have to use a system that has the potential to be controversial more often than not As the saying goes - keep it simple! And NRR is simple

To take care of such cases, I was proposing a system where the adjusted run margin is considered if the chasing team ends up winning. In your example, if the team batting first declares in an over by scoring 30 runs, it can be thought of as if the team is indifferent to playing 50 overs and playing just 1 over. Now if the team batting second plays out 4 overs and gets to 31 by not losing wickets, the adjusted runs beyond the target after taking into account the overs and wickets remaining will be substantial. It will be extremely rare that the team batting first will get any decent run rate from this game. So teams can never play along with the system by declaring early. Also if the chasing team loses, then it is even easier as we can simply consider the margin of defeat for calculating the NRR. We can choose 50 overs or any equal overs for both teams to calculate NRR. The current system does the same but it gives an advantage to the team batting first that ends up winning by only considering the overs it batted. Now if a team bats first and gets all out in 45 overs, I don't see any reason how that is better than playing 50 overs and setting up the same target. And I agree this will complicate the system. But as the OP mentioned, as per the current system, chasing teams in low scoring thrillers get too much of an unfair advantage even if they barely manage to get there. The performance gap between the 2 teams is not commensurate to the NRR gap.

[jalebi_bhai]

A simpler way would be to simply count the runs/actual overs played. That would be more 'objective'. Edit: That wont work. Current NRR calculation is the best option.

[randomGuy]

This thought came to me while watching Aus-NZ match ( low scoring thriller ). We all know NZ won match by a whisker. That is just the background. The point I am trying to make is as below ( High scoring vs low scoring)...Low scoring invariably means team batting first gets bowled out for less than 50 overs but still wins ( or manages to make a match out of it while losing). To drive my point, I will take 2 thrillers - One high-scoring and other low-scoring High Scoring thriller --------------------------- Team A makes 350 for 7 in 50 overs Team B makes 351/9 in 50 overs NRR for team A = ( 351/50 - 350/50) = -0.02 NRR for team B = +0.02 Low scoring thriller -------------------------- Team A makes 150 ( bowled out in 40 overs ) Team B makes 151/9 in 30 overs NRR for team A = ( 151/30 - 150/50) = -2.03 NRR for Team B = +2.03 I am sure ICFers are aware that team getting bowled out will have all 50 overs counted when calculating NRR ( or whatever the full match is as per D/L in rain interruptions) -------------------------------------- Do you think it is fair? - Obviously , team winning is getting the points and team losing is getting zero points. It is OK as winning is the goal...however - Team losing in a low-scoring thriller is penalised very very heavily....losing points and also conceding massive NRR What do you guys think on the scenario I mentioned?

Fair when losing side is the padosis?:dontknow:

[Sidhoni]

In before Maniac :vroam:

[bulbul]

Idea of ODI cricket to is to win matches doesn't matter with 1 wicket or 10 wickets. If teams get bowled out of low scores its their problem. PS : In long tourney like this teams should plan better.

[MK55]

+1...Exactly the point I was making.... Bloody we have the D/L system...why not extend it to NRR? Initial thoughts only...have not thought deeply... Team A makes 150 all out in 35 overs. Team B makes 151/9 in 30 overs. Team B will take 2 points ( fair enough as it WON the match ) But for NRR, calculate as per D/L how much Team B would have made ( in whatever overs as per whatever calculations/history they have ) and use that data. I fully agree that all out should take 50 overs into account

I agree..I was also thinking along similar lines for chasing teams that end up winning. Basically we can think of using a method of predicting the the extra runs that the chasing team would have got over the target and in fact we already have a method method for that viz DWL. For chasing teams losing, there's no need for DWL/prediction. DWL is not perfect but neither is the system that we have in place now for NRR calculation..