At the start of today's game, I'm sure England's nrr was 1.57

They won and now it's 1.00

Looks like I'm going to have to study how exactly it's calculated, but on the face of it, that's bloody strange.

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

At the start of today's game, I'm sure England's nrr was 1.57

They won and now it's 1.00

Looks like I'm going to have to study how exactly it's calculated, but on the face of it, that's bloody strange.

It’s to do with how fast the players run in the nets whilst practicing.

With us having a couple of injured players, they’ve not been able to run too fast, so the rate is down.

 

HTH mate

 

Its run rate/opponents run rate (in simple terms).

So if it goes down it means that your run rate vs opponents ratio was lower than previously...

For example you win match A with a net run rate of 2

Match B you win with a net run rate of 1...

Your tournament run rate decreases despite winning both matches...at least that's my very rudimentary understanding. 

12 hours ago, miamiwhite said:

It’s to do with how fast the players run in the nets whilst practicing.

With us having a couple of injured players, they’ve not been able to run too fast, so the rate is down.

 

HTH mate

 

Argh. That explains it all then. Keep fit lads!

After listening to some of the pundits yesterday and today, it's clear that nrr isn't really fit for purpose.

Teams batting out time rather than hitting the fucking ball.

Getting penalised for scoring quicker but losing wickets.

Pakistan, if they don't bat first tomorrow, can't qualify because they can't get it high enough. It's virtually impossible to qualify if they do bat first, but that's not the point.

Bag of wank.

2 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

After listening to some of the pundits yesterday and today, it's clear that nrr isn't really fit for purpose.

Teams batting out time rather than hitting the fucking ball.

Getting penalised for scoring quicker but losing wickets.

Pakistan, if they don't bat first tomorrow, can't qualify because they can't get it high enough. It's virtually impossible to qualify if they do bat first, but that's not the point.

Bag of wank.

It seems to me that it's the pundits who aren't fit for purpose.

The system seems both fair and good to me.

Teams do not get penalised for losing some wickets, only for being all out within their allotted overs.

If you are, say 280 for 6 after 40 overs, there is every incentive to squeeze all the runs you can. In fact, even at 280 for 9 after 40 overs, getting as many runs as you can is still the best option.

The reason Pakistan were in a hopeless position with regard to NRR is because of their pathetic opening defeat to Windies. All out for 105 in the 22nd of their 50 overs gave them a run rate calculated at 105/50 = 2.1. WI reached 108 for 3 in the 14th over, so their run rate was 108x6/(13x6)+2, giving a run rate of 8.1, so the NRR for that match was +/-6, giving them a mountain to climb.

Rather like the Thai girls losing 13-0 to USA and then finding that a win in their final game will not be enough to proceed unless they get, erm, a cricket score.

I know all that malc.

You therefore understand that getting 240 in 40 overs and being all out punishes the team.

Getting 240 all out in 50 overs doesn't.

So a team at least going for it somewhat and taking a risk is hard done by in comparison to one that isn't.

Not conducive to the entertaining cricket we want to see.

Cricket in the main has magnificent commentators and intelligent, considered punditry; far better than football, and I think you're way off the mark in your judgement.

Much rather listen to almost any of them talking the game than Glenn Hoddle, Roy Keane et al.

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

I know all that malc.

You therefore understand that getting 240 in 40 overs and being all out punishes the team.

Getting 240 all out in 50 overs doesn't.

So a team at least going for it somewhat and taking a risk is hard done by in comparison to one that isn't.

Not conducive to the entertaining cricket we want to see.

Cricket in the main has magnificent commentators and intelligent, considered punditry; far better than football, and I think you're way off the mark in your judgement.

Much rather listen to almost any of them talking the game than Glenn Hoddle, Roy Keane et al.

240 all out from an allowance of 50 overs gives a run rate of 4.8. It doesn't matter whether you do it in 10 overs or 50 overs, so you are not hard done by. All out is all out.

Batting second against a perceived easy target can be approached cautiously or aggressively. Aggression is rewarded as in WI v Pakistan. 106 needed off 50 overs could have led a team to score at 3 per over and feel comfortable. WI just went for it at just over 8 an over and were rewarded.

If you want something to get het up about, look at Afghanistan v South Africa.

Your first sentence proves my point.

A team taking a risk is penalised because their run rate is reduced because it takes in the full 50 over allocation, not those actually used. Therefore, a team taking its time and getting there more slowly doesn't score as fast but still has the same nrr.

Hence the questions over new Zealand and India raised this morning.

 

 

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Your first sentence proves my point.

A team taking a risk is penalised because their run rate is reduced because it takes in the full 50 over allocation, not those actually used. Therefore, a team taking its time and getting there more slowly doesn't score as fast but still has the same nrr.

Hence the questions over new Zealand and India raised this morning.

 

 

They are not penalised - it is a 50 over game and if you are out before that you get the same run rate for the same runs. What were the questions?

I think the point is that NRR does not take into account teams that bowl sides out and take lots of wickets necessarily. It prioritises how many runs you score vs how many opposition scores. So you might have a brilliant bowling attack but only make 250 but win every game but NRR will be low.

It also is too heavily influenced by one heavy defeat. 

Using DLS for example would take into account more the runs vs wickets balance. But of course it wouldn't eradicate teams playing a certain way trying to improve their DLS score to progress. You could still end up in a situation where a team needs to bat ten overs without losing a wicket to go through. 

The other big argument against NRR is that some sides might play more games on slower, sticker and lower wickets that necessarily produce lower scoring matches. Therefore your NRR is likely to be lower than teams who win but play on better batting wickets...simply because a 350 game has more scope for a wider NRR margin than does a 220 game....