Cricket World Cup 2007

**tricky_colour** · 19/03/2007, 7:13 PM

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** · 19/03/2007, 7:19 PM

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** · 19/03/2007, 9:37 PM

Windies won by six wickets off 47.5 overs.

**geysir** · 19/03/2007, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by holidaysong

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** · 19/03/2007, 11:57 PM

Originally Posted by geysir

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

**cavan_fan** · 20/03/2007, 7:48 AM

Originally Posted by geysir

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** · 20/03/2007, 9:27 AM

Originally Posted by cavan_fan

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** · 20/03/2007, 9:50 AM

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** · 20/03/2007, 9:57 AM

Originally Posted by geysir

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 think anyone ever claimed that it was rational though.

**Schumi** · 20/03/2007, 9:57 AM

Originally Posted by geysir

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.

**Dodge** · 20/03/2007, 10:12 AM

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

**Jerry The Saint** · 20/03/2007, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by Dodge

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** · 20/03/2007, 12:08 PM

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** · 20/03/2007, 12:25 PM

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** · 20/03/2007, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by 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?

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** · 20/03/2007, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 20/03/2007, 4:51 PM

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..."

**tricky_colour** · 20/03/2007, 5:12 PM

Originally Posted by 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?

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** · 20/03/2007, 5:20 PM

Originally Posted by 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..."

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

**Sheridan** · 20/03/2007, 5:35 PM

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.