Cricket World Cup 2007

[dancinpants]

West Indies and Zimbabwe are currently playing in our group. West Indies but Zimbabwe in to bat first. They are currently on 49-3 (13.5 overs).

202 for 5 after the 50. Decent enough tally!!!

[cavan_fan]

202 for 5 after the 50. Decent enough tally!!!

Windies will get that easy enough

[Risteard]

Any chance of us being gazumped by the Windies and Zimbabwe?

[cullenswood]

Nah, Windies are at home and wont do that in front of their own crowd

[OneRedArmy]

Nah, Windies are at home and wont do that in front of their own crowdI think he's referring to Zimbabwe skittling a Pakistan team that has nothing to play for apart from pride and the memory of their coach and us not scoring well against the Windies, which would send Zimbabwe through ahead of us.

Zimbabwe were 9-2 at one stage today, I really thought the Windies would put them out very quickly after that. :(

[Risteard]

Correct OneRedArmy.
Seems to me that its far from cut and dry.
Pakistanis hardly gonna be fully prepared and focussed.

[pineapple stu]

Zimbabwe were 9-2 at one stage today, I really thought the Windies would put them out very quickly after that. :(
Windies still 1/66 to win at least, now on 37/0.

Don't know how this affects the run rate, though, as the Windies, if they win, are only going to do so by a run or two.

[dancinpants]

Don't know how this affects the run rate, though, as the Windies, if they win, are only going to do so by a run or two.

If they reach the total with as little balls as possible its good for Ireland....as it'll be bad for Zimbabwes run rate. I think :confused:

[holidaysong]

If they win it in 40 overs though just say, then their run rate is for example the difference between 205/40 and 202/50. As Zimbabwe completed all their overs their score is divided by 50.

[holidaysong]

If they reach the total with as little balls as possible its good for Ireland....as it'll be bad for Zimbabwes run rate. I think :confused:

Yeah the less amount of overs it takes, the worse Zimbabwe's run rate will be.

[tricky_colour]

Windies are 73-1, their run rate is 4.17 against a required rate of 3.98 so it's
quite close but the difference is 0.19.
It all depends on how the wickets fall as to how the run rate changes.
Zimbabwe lost 4 wickets before they got to this stage. Windies just lost another wicket as I type. Anything could happen now!!!
Windies are 25-1 on now and Zimbabwe 9-1 which looks a good price to me at the moment.

[tricky_colour]

Actually now the required rate is 4.15 agains a current rate of 3.85 so the rate is 0.3 in Zimbabwes favour. That 9-1 on Zimbabwe looks a good price.
I just put a very small bet on it - I hope I lose!!

[pineapple stu]

Windies won by six wickets off 47.5 overs.

[geysir]

Yeah the less amount of overs it takes, the worse Zimbabwe's run rate will be.
So when it's reported that the West Indies win by 6 wickets, its irrelevant?
What matters is how many overs are left.

[tricky_colour]

So when it's reported that the West Indies win by 6 wickets, its irrelevant?
What matters is how many overs are left.

What matters is the run rate, or rather the difference in run rates between the two teams, this is usually related to the overs left as the higher the run rate the more overs will be left.

The difference in Irelands and Zimbabwes run rates is about 0.39 in irelands favour. This would correspond to 20 runs in 50 overs. 20 runs would equate to
about 5 overs (assuming 4 runs an over is average). So Ireland have about a 5 over advantage in the event of level points.
So if we lose by more than 5 overs to Windies then Zimbabwe just need to win to put us out. Less than 5 overs and they need to win by ( 5 - the number of overs we lose by. ) eg if we lose by 2, they woud need to win by three or more.
It couldn't be more simple than that :) :confused: :D

[cavan_fan]

So when it's reported that the West Indies win by 6 wickets, its irrelevant?
What matters is how many overs are left.

Correct, this has always annoyed me as it seems the only sport where the 'score' reported gives no real idea about the balance of the game. As you say it is much more relevant when the chasing team wins to say how many overs/balls were left.

[Schumi]

Correct, this has always annoyed me as it seems the only sport where the 'score' reported gives no real idea about the balance of the game. As you say it is much more relevant when the chasing team wins to say how many overs/balls were left.It tells you about the balance of the game in test cricket where you have loads more overs and wickets are much more important. Overs probably should be included in one day games though.

[geysir]

That's how I understood it. In one day cricket, in the scheme of things, it doesn't matter how many wickets are left.
In the game against Pakistan, what rational calculation was used to reduce the overs to 48.5 but only reduce the runs needed by 3 (Figures are AFAIR)
when the average run/over rate being achieved by Ireland was higher?

[Jerry The Saint]

what rational calculation was used to reduce the overs to 48.5 but only reduce the runs needed by 3 (Figures are AFAIR)
when the average run/over rate being achieved by Ireland was higher?

Duckworth-Lewis Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duckworth_Lewis).:eek:

Don't think anyone ever claimed that it was rational though. :D

[Schumi]

In the game against Pakistan, what rational calculation was used to reduce the overs to 48.5 but only reduce the runs needed by 3 (Figures are AFAIR)
when the average run/over rate being achieved by Ireland was higher?Duckworth/Lewis Method. Don't ask. :D

[Dodge]

Funny looking at Ireland reaching the original target but the scoreboard still saying we won by D/L

[Jerry The Saint]

Funny looking at Ireland reaching the original target but the scoreboard still saying we won by D/L

That was great - commentator was getting all flustered after the rain delay. Amazing how clueless the so-called experts are about these things.



I just don't think it's right that a team wins a game by scoring fewer runs.

Fair enough so. :)

Officially counts as a D/L win as far as I can see though - once the overs were curtailed the original figure became meaningless.

[OneRedArmy]

Is it now fair to say that, in terms of run rate, if Zimbabwe beat Pakistan (which I would say is well within the bounds of possibilty), we need to put a really decent innings in against the Windies (something over 4 runs per over)?

It seems to me much of the media are making huge assumptions that we are already in the Super 8's. Maybe its the pessimist in me but I'm not convinced.

[geysir]

So the D/L is used to revise the target as well when play has resumed after a delay and daylight is an issue. The target is recalculated based on "resource percentage remaining".
I'll just trust that it was rational when applied to Ireland's target. :)
Fascinating game.

[cavan_fan]

That's how I understood it. In one day cricket, in the scheme of things, it doesn't matter how many wickets are left.
In the game against Pakistan, what rational calculation was used to reduce the overs to 48.5 but only reduce the runs needed by 3 (Figures are AFAIR)
when the average run/over rate being achieved by Ireland was higher?

It's not that odd. The idea is that the fewer overs you have left the higher runs per over you would expect. For instance if you have 1 over left it's not unreasonable to expect you could score 12 (if you have e.g. 6 wickets left). If there are 10 overs left, its not realistic you would score 120. The reason is that in the one over left example you could afford to lose 2-3 wickets by hitting hard. You cant do this over 10 overs.

So if you need 100 from 10 overs and it rains leaving 5 overs it would be unufair on the bowling team to equate this to 50 from 5 overs, the target should beabout 70 runs.

The best analogy is that running 1500 metres is 210 seconds is a good target, but running 100 metres in 16 seconds is not (except for me!)

[noby]

Is it now fair to say that, in terms of run rate, if Zimbabwe beat Pakistan (which I would say is well within the bounds of possibilty), we need to put a really decent innings in against the Windies (something over 4 runs per over)?

It seems to me much of the media are making huge assumptions that we are already in the Super 8's. Maybe its the pessimist in me but I'm not convinced.
Hard to know how Pakistan will react tomorrow. OF course it would suit Ireland if they played with a bit of pride, and in honour of their coach.

[pete]

I am no expert but its funny to hear the media reporting cricket updates now. On the radio yesterday they giving WI v Zimbabwe updates as e.g. "WI 117 for 4" which means absolutely nothing for ODI when they don't give the remaining overs...

Its also funny to hear peoples comments such as "I don't think we had a cricket team until a few months ago..."

:rolleyes:

[tricky_colour]

That's how I understood it. In one day cricket, in the scheme of things, it doesn't matter how many wickets are left.
In the game against Pakistan, what rational calculation was used to reduce the overs to 48.5 but only reduce the runs needed by 3 (Figures are AFAIR)
when the average run/over rate being achieved by Ireland was higher?

Not too sure but I think in that match Ireland had plenty of overs to play
with so the reduction in overs was fairly irrelevant to Ireland so they effectively got 3 runs knocked off the total for nothing. As the last ball was hit for six Ireland would have won even if no runs were knocked off. If anything I would say the calcualtion favoured Ireland.

[tricky_colour]

I am no expert but its funny to hear the media reporting cricket updates now. On the radio yesterday they giving WI v Zimbabwe updates as e.g. "WI 117 for 4" which means absolutely nothing for ODI when they don't give the remaining overs...

Its also funny to hear peoples comments such as "I don't think we had a cricket team until a few months ago..."

:rolleyes:

I was quite ammused to find an Irish man playing for the English team.

And of course in an interview an English interviewer made some comment to an Irish player(?) anout Ireland being the Austrailian (S African?) B team, it was rather amusing when he pointed out that there were more Irish players playing in the tournament than English ones :D

[Sheridan]

Might be no bad thing if Ireland fail to qualify now. The point has been made and a few trouncings in the Super Eights could undermine their progress.

The Scots (who harboured pretensions of being the top Associate team before the tournament) are getting absolutely caned by South Africa. Scotland batted first and cravenly blocked out the first 45 overs before reaching 186/8. At least Bermuda had a bit of a go. SA are treating them with the contempt they deserve, 86 without loss off 10.4 overs.

[geysir]

Might be no bad thing if Ireland fail to qualify now. The point has been made and a few trouncings in the Super Eights could undermine their progress.
Not according to Rankin
Rankin dares to dream.
“It will be an unbelievable experience playing against all the top sides. I’m just looking forward to it. Hopefully everything goes to plan.”

[Sheridan]

Police have officially declared Woolmer's death suspicious and launched a full investigation. A Pakistani TV channel has explicitly used the word murder. One strand of the grapevine is hinting that motivation for his supposed murder dates back to the Hansie Cronje match fixing scandal and has nothing whatever to do with the World Cup results.

Nonetheless, I'm still highly sceptical that anything untoward occurred. Either way, it seems the possibility of Pakistan fielding against Zimbabwe today is receding by the minute. A forfeiture would leave Zimbabwe favourites to qualify.

[Noelys Guitar]

The Pakistan game is definetely going ahead. But the more worrying news is that Trent Johnston is unlikely to play. He has been the genius out on the field with his bowling and fieldding changes. But I still believe Ireland will get into the super 8's. And possibly beat England.

[DaveyCakes]

Might be no bad thing if Ireland fail to qualify now. The point has been made and a few trouncings in the Super Eights could undermine their progress.

The Scots (who harboured pretensions of being the top Associate team before the tournament) are getting absolutely caned by South Africa. Scotland batted first and cravenly blocked out the first 45 overs before reaching 186/8. At least Bermuda had a bit of a go. SA are treating them with the contempt they deserve, 86 without loss off 10.4 overs.

If you followed that logic, then you'd have been saying that Ireland shouldn't have gone to the tournament in the first place. The likelihood is that they'll get a few spankings in the Super 8 if they qualify, but so what? It'll be great experience for the players and it'll give more exposure for the game.

[razor]

Pakistan were put in to bat by Zimbabwe.
Currently 31/1 after 6.3 overs

[bigmac]

Pakistan on 34/1 off 10 overs

Zimbabwe restricting them to very slow run rate at the moment :mad:

[bigmac]

Getting a bit better now, 59-1 off 13.2

I just did a quick calculation that's a bit worrying. The rain delay in the Pakistan game has cost us a bit on our net run rate as the Pakistan total is calculated over 47 overs instead of 50. Only moves us to .27 instead of .33 but it could have an effect if Zimbabwe win this match.
We should have a rough idea what sort of performance is needed after this game either way.

[Dodge]

67/1 off 14 overs

TBH lads I wouldn't be thinking of NRR. If Zimbabwe win they're through is the way I'm looking at it. We'll see where Pakistan are after 30 overs before making any predictions

[bigmac]

134-2 off 24 now.

Malik gone but as it took him over 11 balls to score, that might not be a bad thing. Inzaman has hit 28 off 22 balls so far. A run rate over 5 would be a decent target to set Zimbabwe I think.

[Jerry The Saint]

Inzaman has hit 28 off 22 balls so far.

Out for 37 off 35 balls in his last ODI ever. Of all people, he wouldn't want the team to bow out on a bad performance, especially given the circumstances.

Nazir up to 75. 162/3 after 29 overs.

[Jerry The Saint]

From the Guardian updates:


Wonderful scenes in Jamaica: Inzamam Ul-Haq has just been given out in his final one-day international. As he left the pitch, every Zimbabwe player went up to the Pakistan captain to shake his hand, before the Pakistan team gave him a guard of honour.

[OneRedArmy]

Another wicket gone, but 162-3 after 29 overs looks good.

I don't want to tempt fate but a big knock from Pakistan (over 280) should make Ireland breathe a bit easier.

[bigmac]

cricinfo updates pretty good for my money - more frequent and detailed than most.

168/3 off 30 overs - another 100 or so would put up a decent total. Hopefully Pakistan can knock a few over early on as well.

[geysir]

With Inzamam gone I'd Pakistan to score more singles. :)
and maybe 2 runs instead of the one

[bigmac]

181/4 off 32

Yousuf c&b one ball after Nazir was dropped on the boundary. No more wickets soon please - just the one batsman left :mad:

[bigmac]

223/4 off 38

18 runs off that last over - without tempting fate, I think it's starting to look good for Ireland

[Jerry The Saint]

Pak doing themselves proud - 251/4 off 40 overs. They went from 200 to 250 in 23 balls.

Bring on England! Or Kenya. :)

[OneRedArmy]

I reckon the champagne is on ice at this stage. Pakistan running riot. 278-5, 42 overs.

[TheBoss]

Pakistans bowlers should stop Zimbabwe anyway, I always had fate they would win ;)

[Jerry The Saint]

300 up in just over 45 overs.

Impressive innings from Imran Nazir did some real damage:


Imran Nazir c Matsikenyeri b Mpofu 160 (121b 14x4 8x6) SR: 132.23

As Brian Lara said, looks like Ireland vs. West Indies in the (unofficial) first game of the Super 8 on Friday. :)