Jump to content

Cricket 35: Bat first, bat often


Jeor

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Jeor said:

This might even have me rooting for the Aussies in the Ashes (though I'll probably suffer heartbreak there too! We've not played well in England since 2005). Although the English crowd will no doubt keep on chanting that they are the world champions, it is somewhat hollow to me.

They'll be World Champions with an asterisk. Sure, they've got the trophy, but morally it's a shared win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ljkeane said:

I agree boundaries isn’t a particularly good tie breaker, they should have just had another super over or left it as a tie, but I do think it’s a better one than wickets in limited overs cricket. Take yesterday the difference in wickets was Archer having a swipe at the ball because losing his wicket didn’t matter and Rashid getting run out because losing his wicket didn’t matter. In fact Santner really should have risked the same last ball for the Kiwis.

The DL method takes account of both runs and wickets. The tie breaker should have followed the same model. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Paxter said:

The DL method takes account of both runs and wickets. The tie breaker should have followed the same model. 

But isn't D/L a formula for working out fairness when time has been lost in a game?

I think the Laws will be changed after this.  And I'm all for as many superovers as it takes to get a winner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mosi Mynn said:

But isn't D/L a formula for working out fairness when time has been lost in a game?

I think the Laws will be changed after this.  And I'm all for as many superovers as it takes to get a winner.

The point is that we are using different standards to separate teams when normal play yields no result for no good reason.

I think the Cup should have been shared. Bloody hell!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Paxter said:

The point is that we are using different standards to separate teams when normal play yields no result for no good reason.

I think the Cup should have been shared. Bloody hell!

I guess the ICC thought it was a good way to separate sides in this very unlikely event! :dunno:  All sides knew that going in to the World Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, none of this sharing the trophy nonsense. There's only room for one winner in my book. Just do super overs until you have a winner. Those who batted in the 1st super over shouldn't be allowed to bat in the second and so on and it should apply to bowlers as well - teams then can't keep sending out their best batters and bowler to contest the super over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Paxter said:

The point is that we are using different standards to separate teams when normal play yields no result for no good reason.

DL isn’t a tiebreaker though, it’s a score prediction. We already know they got the same score with a tiebreaker we’re saying one team has done better than the other for some reason while getting the same score.

 I agree boundaries isn’t a particularly good tiebreaker but at least at all stages one team is try to score boundaries and the other is trying to stop them. The same isn’t true of wickets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

They'll be World Champions with an asterisk. Sure, they've got the trophy, but morally it's a shared win.

Unfortunately on that basis New Zealand were morally knocked out by Pakistan in the group stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Philokles said:

Unfortunately on that basis New Zealand were morally knocked out by Pakistan in the group stages.

Not all wins are the same, in terms of margin (expressed via run rate), but all runs ought to be the same. There is no particular reason an all-run four is a lesser form of run than a boundary, or why four singles and two dot balls is worse than a boundary and five dot balls.

I'd have been much happier with England getting the trophy on the basis of a superior run-rate in the group stages. Giving it to them on boundaries is just as arbitrary as giving it to us on wickets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard a few people in the media use the old faithful tried and true line "Cricket was the winner on the day." But was it? With the Wolrd Cup being decided based on most boundaries scored, was Cricket really the winner on the day?

Oh and I heard one interesting arguable scoring error. Some guy on Cricinfo reckons the Stokes deflection for a net of 6 runs should have only been 5. Apparently one reading of the rule on overthrows when a boundary is scored is that the number of runs = runs completed in full + a run if the batsmen have crossed at the time the fielder throws the ball + the boundary. If you watch the replay of the incident the camera starts to zoom out just after the fielder releases the ball in his throw, and as the camera zooms out you just see the batsmen crossing, so the ball was released before the batsmen crossed. The scorer should have entered 5 into the scoring book. Which means on the last ball of the innings 2 runs would have been needed to be scored for a tie instead of 1. The guy who noted this rule acknowledged that the wording of the calculation of the number of runs to award the overthrow is debatable. But still, imagine if it does turn out that on close analysis the scorer entered 1 too many runs into the book. I assume it's the official scorer's responsibility to enter the correct number of runs into the book and not the umpire's call as to how many runs were scored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I've heard a few people in the media use the old faithful tried and true line "Cricket was the winner on the day." But was it? With the Wolrd Cup being decided based on most boundaries scored, was Cricket really the winner on the day?

I don't actually blame the ICC here. This tie-breaking system has hitherto only ever been a theoretical possibility. Now that we've actually seen the thing in action (via a game that almost makes you wonder whether God Himself just wants to screw with cricket), it's going to get far more scrutiny. I think this is the last time boundaries will be used to determine the winner of the Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Oh and I heard one interesting arguable scoring error. Some guy on Cricinfo reckons the Stokes deflection for a net of 6 runs should have only been 5. Apparently one reading of the rule on overthrows when a boundary is scored is that the number of runs = runs completed in full + a run if the batsmen have crossed at the time the fielder throws the ball + the boundary. If you watch the replay of the incident the camera starts to zoom out just after the fielder releases the ball in his throw, and as the camera zooms out you just see the batsmen crossing, so the ball was released before the batsmen crossed. The scorer should have entered 5 into the scoring book. Which means on the last ball of the innings 2 runs would have been needed to be scored for a tie instead of 1. The guy who noted this rule acknowledged that the wording of the calculation of the number of runs to award the overthrow is debatable. But still, imagine if it does turn out that on close analysis the scorer entered 1 too many runs into the book. I assume it's the official scorer's responsibility to enter the correct number of runs into the book and not the umpire's call as to how many runs were scored.

I think Simon Taufel pointed that out.  Tricky one for the umpires.

Some others have said that Archer's first superover delivery should not have been called a wide.  So, swings and roundabouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ljkeane said:

DL isn’t a tiebreaker though, it’s a score prediction. We already know they got the same score with a tiebreaker we’re saying one team has done better than the other for some reason while getting the same score.

 I agree boundaries isn’t a particularly good tiebreaker but at least at all stages one team is try to score boundaries and the other is trying to stop them. The same isn’t true of wickets.

I don't agree with the above. The bowling side is always trying to get wickets. And the batting side is always trying to stop that from happening too. Otherwise you can't score boundaries and make a decent total (and hence why wickets are included in the DL method). Witness MS Dhoni leaving the ball in the dying overs of a semi-final to avoid getting out.

Personally I think this debacle stains England's win. Not that it's their fault - just that the match was a tie, pure and simple. 

ETA: The thing that annoys me now is that I will shortly be rooting for England in the Ashes. Not sure how I am going to do those mental acrobatics, but there is no way I want to see Smith and Warner with the urn. Sorry Jeor. Justice. Vengeance. Fire and Blood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Paxter said:

I don't agree with the above. The bowling side is always trying to get wickets. And the batting side is always trying to stop that from happening too. Witness MS Dhoni leaving the ball in the dying overs of a semi-final to not get out.

That was not true of England at the end of the Final, though.  Plunkett, and especially Wood and Rashid, threw their wickets away in pursuit of runs.  As did the last Kiwi in the superover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mosi Mynn said:

That was not true of England at the end of the Final, though.  Plunkett, and especially Wood and Rashid, threw their wickets away in pursuit of runs.  As did the last Kiwi in the superover.

Yes and NZ should be rewarded for taking those wickets. It's an important part of keeping the score down.

The batting side faces a calculus between getting out and scoring runs. Getting on the wrong side of that calculus should be detrimental. There is nothing magical about scoring a boundary. To me the game is runs and wickets, not boundaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But England would have played their innings differently had the goal been to preserve wickets in the event of a tie.  Bringing the number of wickets lost into a win equation leads to move conservative cricket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Mosi Mynn said:

But England would have played their innings differently had the goal been to preserve wickets in the event of a tie.  Bringing the number of wickets lost into a win equation leads to move conservative cricket.

That's exactly what happens with the DL method. You don't want to lose wickets when there is rain around. Why do you think Mark Boucher blocked the ball in that famous World Cup game in 2003?

Why should a tie be any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look to be honest, I would have preferred a tie or a second super over. I just think a boundary countback is indefensible as a rule. Again, that isn't any team's fault - it's on the the ICC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it would change the way limited overs cricket is played.  It would no longer be just about number of runs scored.  Maybe the PtBS want to go that way, but it would alter teams' approaches to ODIs in particular, and some Twenty20 games too.

You can see the approach and tactics change when the DL method is in effect.  The loss of wickets is taken into account, which leads to different field settings, different mindsets of the batters, everyone watching the scoreboard etc.

I'm not saying you couldn't do this, but it would change the nature of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Paxter said:

 And the batting side is always trying to stop that from happening too.

That's not really true though. Like I said before England lost their last two wickets because losing a wicket didn't matter. Santner should have played a shot the last ball of New Zealand's innings because losing a wicket wouldn't have mattered.

5 minutes ago, Paxter said:

That's exactly what happens with the DL method. You don't want to lose wickets when there is rain around. Why do you think Mark Boucher blocked the ball in that famous World Cup game in 2003?

Why should a tie be any different?

Because DL is a method of predicting a score, we already know the scores are level. Why should a tiebreaker depend on the same method as a score prediction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...