bowl_out Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 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'] One possible alternative is to take the actual number of overs that the team played, instead of penalizing the team that was All Out with 50 overs.... i.e. in Aus vs NZ match, calculate Aus NRR based on the 32.2 overs that they played, and not on 50 overs just because they were All Out.... This could lead to a few other problems though. Winning teams might get a negative NRR from the match. eg. - Had NZ got 151/3 in 35 overs, they would carry a negative NRR from the match (I don't think this is unfair) - If a team scores 300 in 50 overs, and the team chasing is all out for 220 in 35 overs, the losing team gets a +0.28 boost in NRR despite losing by 80 runs. If it is all out for 120 of 25 overs, the winning team gets a much lesser boost of +1.2, as against +3.6 in the current set up
Sachinism Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 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? Aus v NZ and Eng v SL are two perfect examples to highlight the failure of the current system.
Ram Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 NRR is an archaic and frankly mediocre way to judge teams. Cricket should take cue the NBA in terms of revamping its analytics. Previously, most NBA players used to be judged by their box scores (how many points, rebounds, steals, blocks etc). Now they have come up with more sophisticated number like Real Plus minus (PRM), Player Efficiency Rating (PER) etc. This has really transformed the way players - especially those who do a lot of small things that dont show up on scoreboard - are judged. For example - A bowler's average is derived by the sum total of the the runs he conceded divided by the sum total of the wickets he took, which paints an extremely incomplete picture of his contribution. What about the wickets taken by the bowler at the other end, while bowler A is in a spell as well? Some bowlers are really good at applying pressure, which often times are reaped by the bowler from the opposite end. Same with economy rate.. Not weighting the economy rates of bowlers in ODIs based on the phase of the innings they bowl at is meaningless. As an example, in the match b/w West Indies and South Africa, Darren Sammy bowled his entire quota of 10 within the 15-35 overs mark and conceded 50 runs. But South Africa scored at less than 5, 5.5 runs per over in that phase.. Jason Holder bowled the last 5 overs of his spell b/w the 40th and 50th over and conceded close to 90 runs, but South Africa scored to 13, 14 runs per over during that phase. This has to be considered while calculating the true economy rates for the bowlers.
coffee_rules Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 ^ so what's alternative for NRR? Lengthy post about alternates for individual stats, but OP is about NRR. Team1 chasing 120 with 1 wkt to spare and 30 overs to spare ..v/s Team2 which chased 300+ get penalized by NRR. It is fair because NRR is about comparative run rates and not about who had a better victory. If Team2 that chased 300+ were any good, they would restrict the score to lesser target.
Ram Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 ^ so what's alternative for NRR? Lengthy post about alternates for individual stats' date=' but OP is about NRR. Team1 chasing 120 with 1 wkt to spare and 30 overs to spare ..v/s Team2 which chased 300+ get penalized by NRR. It is fair because NRR is about comparative run rates and not about who had a better victory. If Team2 that chased 300+ were any good, they would restrict the score to lesser target.[/quote'] #1 For starters, they should eliminate the rule by which if a batting side is bowled out, it considered that they have batted for 50 overs for NRR purposes (that is beyond stupid). #2 – They can begin rationalizing your ‘For’ and ‘Against’ Run rates by factoring in opposition. For example – If India plays against UAE and chases a target of 150 in 20 overs, their our Absolute ‘For RR’ is 7.5. But what if all other sides in the competition scored at 7 runs per over against UAE Bowlers. So in this case, our Real ‘For RR’ is (7.5/7) =1.07. If South chases the same target in 35 overs, their Real ‘For RR’ is (4.28/7) = 0.71. You can apply the same logic to calculate the Real ‘Against RR’ (conceded your bowlers..). I know the above system is not perfect, but that is simply what I could think of in 30 secs. I am sure the well paid boffins at ICC can come up with a better system with all the time/resources they have at their disposal.
Sidhoni Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 ^ Nice idea, but we would have to wait for all matches to be played to calculate the NRR.
bulbul Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 I guess people are making things more complicated.If we start considering all factors it will become too difficult. 1.Many time teams rest best players,so this will help NRR of some teams. 2.Even between strong teams some teams may have best batting lineup and some ahve bets bowling line up so which one will be given more wieghtage? 3. There are chances of losing wickets because of umpiring mistakes. Thing every one knows how NRR works,teams have to plan better thats all.
Asim Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Somehow wickets fallen should also have some role in NRR... One team chasing 190/1, another chasing 190/9, both ends up with same NRR seems unfair...
bowl_out Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Somehow wickets fallen should also have some role in NRR... One team chasing 190/1, another chasing 190/9, both ends up with same NRR seems unfair... It is Net Run Rate, for God's sake... Has nothing to do with wickets... If anything, they should do away with penalizing teams that lose 10 wickets by taking 50 overs for calculations... It should be the actual number of overs they played
Lord Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 It is Net Run Rate, for God's sake... Has nothing to do with wickets... If anything, they should do away with penalizing teams that lose 10 wickets by taking 50 overs for calculations... It should be the actual number of overs they played That can be abused easily of a team just needs good NRR instead of win to progress
bowl_out Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 That can be abused easily of a team just needs good NRR instead of win to progress So be it... They would be rare scenarios anyway... A team would easily take two points with a win instead of improving their NRR with a loss. Australia abused carry-forward point in the '99 WC... That's part of playing strategy. I wouldn't really call that unfair...
envy99_2000 Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 What's better in improving run rate.? Batting first.. Make 300 plus and cheaply dismissing opposition or chasing a low total with wickets remaining.
zen Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Depends up on a team strength, opposition and playing conditions :dontknow:
zen Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 I mean mathematically... try statsguru to see the NRR of the winning team when a) it has scored > 300 b) it has chased < 200 :dontknow:
Old guy Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 oops sorry for merging this. i am very sleepy and thought topic is same.
Old guy Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Batting first.. Make 300 plus and cheaply dismissing opposition or chasing a low total with wickets remaining. i think most teams prefer to chase as they know exactly how to bat and its easier to chase 320 in 40 overs like we did than to try dismiss team for 120 runs or 150 runs .
envy99_2000 Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 I think whenever teams are playing against minnows and they want to improve run rate to qualify or that sort of scenario. They choose to bowl first.
Old guy Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 I think whenever teams are playing against minnows and they want to improve run rate to qualify or that sort of scenario. They choose to bowl first. yes and not just minnows its just same reasoning why teams prefer to bowl first in rain effected games and prefer to just chase revised target rather than defend .
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now