World Cup 2019

[arjun2761]

Yes, Pak is facing an impossible task. Not only must they score 500 in their 50 overs but they must also bowl out Bangladesh for around 170 in 50 overs. So, they are done...

[indiansportsfan]

I didn't understand why chasing would not work. If they bowl Bangladesh out for 170 and chase the target in 16 overs (which should be doable), that should suffice, shouldn't it? 170 in 16 overs ~ 520 in 50; hence a difference of 350.

[arjun2761]

I didn't understand why chasing would not work. If they bowl Bangladesh out for 170 and chase the target in 16 overs (which should be doable), that should suffice, shouldn't it? 170 in 16 overs ~ 520 in 50; hence a difference of 350.

Not sure I understand your math. I believe they use the NRR (Net Run Rate) to differentiate teams which have the same points and same wins. If Bangladesh is bowled out for 170 (in 50 overs which is maximum allowed and lowers Pakistan's "against" RR the most), Pakistan will need to make the runs in -7 overs (i.e., impossible) to have a NRR which is equal to NZ.

[prasen9]

The issue with NRR has been discussed here several world cups ago or in some other tournament. Maybe if you calculate the NRR per match and then add them up, then this could be mitigated somewhat. But perhaps it will give rise to other issues? I have not worked it out.

If Bangladesh wins the toss, then they can pretty much decide whether they will give Pak even a theoretical chance or not by batting first or second. They should not decide on this. But any system that allows this is not a good system.

[Sin Hombre]

Pakistan should not have lost so many matches to begin with.

The only real argument they have is they got unlucky with the washouts; them "losing" a point against SL and NZ gaining a "point" against India.

But if we get into hypotheticals. they were extremely fortunate to beat Afghanistan with multiple umpiring blunders in their favor.

NRR is as good a tiebreaker as cricket allows for.

[srini]

NRR is as good a tiebreaker as cricket allows for.

I won’t agree especially when a match happened between the two nations in round robin then that should be tie breaker first , if that match is washed out then there should be tie breaker with NRR, Pak has every right to feel the rules weren’t mature enough.

[rajitghosh]

https://www.indiatoday.in/sports/cricke ... 2019-07-03

High time Manjrekar is thrown out of the commentary box. He has passed negative comments about all be it Tendulkar, Ganguly or now Jadeja. He was another useless cricketer of his generation.

[prasen9]

What do they do with the runs in incomplete matches? I would argue against including them.

I am not saying that Pakistan somehow is more deserving that NZ if they win big against Bangladesh. I am saying that the NRR formula can be improved on the margins by calculating it slightly differently.

[prasen9]

I do not like this world cup format although I love leagues. First, after a few games, maybe 3 games each, it was clear that the top four teams are AINE (after the Irish goddess of summer). We have 45 league matches and 3 more playoff matches. The other problem is that Zimbabwe is missing. And, it would be nice to encourage them and another small team. So, 12 teams. Two groups. Six each. Each one plays the other. We have 30 matches. Now, let four qualify and have a league without playing the team from your group again. So, four more matches. Then, two qualify for a WSC-style best of 3 final. 37 matches and a team who wins can say that they are pretty much the best team and not had one good day or one bad day.

[Atithee]

Before all that, we need roofs over stadia. All these shared points, D/L calculations, etc. needs to be buried in history. We also need standard size grounds. The ridiculousness of lop sided field dimensions is crazy. While we are at it, get rid of power plays etc. too. Let both the ball and bat have a reasonable chance. Then we have the temerity to compare players across generations with great zeal and myriad of statistics. Sometimes even within the current one! Some comparison that is!

[prasen9]

Generally agree. But, without the powerplays, the first half of the innings will be even slower and pretty much a test cricket followed by a 20-25 over T20. And, if I send 6 players to the boundary, you pretty much are going to get a single every ball. So, some powerplay rules are needed. I would do 3 fielders in the first 10 overs, 4 fielders in the next 10 overs, and 6 fielders in the last 10 overs allowed. I am allowing one more fielder in the last 10 overs to make it more even in the last 10. Similarly, in the first 10, you allow 3 outside, or keep it at 2. If you allow 3 outside, maybe the batting side will start even more slowly. No no-ball freehit stupidity. If you do not have 4 fielder restriction in the middle overs, then you will have some pie-chuckers like Yuvraj bowling and the batsmen just taking singles at will. There is actually no contest and it becomes boring.

Here is an article talking about the issues with the NRR: NRR. Do not agree fully and with 10 team league it takes care of somethings, but I do want the first tie-breaker to be head-to-head in a two way tie.

[Atithee]

Most tests produce result now. Baseball doesn’t have any such rules and it works. Good hitters will have to find gaps. With only a total on nine resources to manage a 360 coverage, there is enough space to place your shots. ODIs were created with every match to have a result. What difference does it make how many runs are scored?

Have no comment on NRR yet but agree that H2H should come first or at least for all common opponents.

[prasen9]

Baseball does not have runs 360 degrees. It is a much smaller field with eight fielders. And, in baseball, the pitcher can throw the ball at much higher speeds, the bat is much thinner and you are out after either you are striken out or after you have scored a run. Not the same. In baseball, a base and a run is a lot. That is why the fielders need to be up front in order to prevent that. In cricket, a run is not that much. So, the incentives in ODIs would be to put a lot of fielders on the boundary.

Yes, most tests produce results now. However, if you want people to watch the whole time, which is what they want due to advertising money, you would need some incentives for the batsmen to take more chances at the beginning of the innings. There is not much attendance in tests and not much money.

[prasen9]

One correction. I checked the average number of runs in the first 10 overs. It is 47. The average in overs 11-40 is 49. I think increasing the fielders in the first 10 overs outside the circle from 2 to 3 will result in fewer runs in the first 10 overs and make it boring. I would rather allow six fielders in the outfield in the last 10 overs to force teams to take more risk earlier and thereby the game will be more interesting in the earlier overs.

[Sin Hombre]

Roofs at stadiums is a complete no-go. Exorbitantly expensive and a waste of money. The issue at this WC is the lack of reserve days, which is partly an artifact of playing a single match every day. This also made the tournament very long.