creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

If you have a life outside of BWFC, then this is the place to tell us all about your toilet habits, and those bizarre fetishes.......

Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em

Post Reply
User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 43133
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by TANGODANCER » Sat Jun 20, 2015 6:04 pm

I'm just following the written commentary till 7-o'clock. Might not bother watching if we throw it away.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Sat Jun 20, 2015 7:36 pm

Well, who'd have thowt it?

Great win for the team.

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 43133
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by TANGODANCER » Sat Jun 20, 2015 7:40 pm

Knew the result but am watching it finish on Channel 5. Couple of cracking catches by the Kiwis, Taylor's especially.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 43133
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by TANGODANCER » Sat Jun 20, 2015 7:54 pm

Was actually a great win in the end. If you want the runs in this game you have to go after the daft balls, wides, bumpers, body shots...... We did and came good in the end. Rain spell apart, it must have been cracking to watch live. Well done Bairstowe and Rashid... :oyea:
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

User avatar
Montreal Wanderer
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12940
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Montreal Wanderer » Sun Jun 21, 2015 3:37 am

Worthy4England wrote:
TANGODANCER wrote:Anybody keepeing an eye onthe last O.D.I.? N.Z. 227-7 and we doing well. Come on. :oyea:
I suspect there'll be more schtick heading the way of Mr Duckworth and Mr Lewis.
Not from me since I find it incomprehensible. As Bob Dylan sang: "Don't criticize what you cain't understand", although I doubt he had D/L in mind.
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:33 am

The factor I think you're probably missing is the rate at which you can lose wickets and the pace of Team 1s innings. In an uninterrupted innings, team 1 accelerates in the latter overs. The formula spreads that acceleration over the allocated overs for Team 2, to compensate for team 2 knowing they have a shorter number of overs...

bobo the clown
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 19597
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:49 am
Location: N Wales, but close enough to Chester I can pretend I'm in England
Contact:

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by bobo the clown » Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:48 am

There must be 50 years of stats now from which they could devise various scenarios and so set targets which relate to real cases.

The DL always favours the chasing team.
Not advocating mass-murder as an entirely positive experience, of course, but it had its moments.
"I understand you are a very good footballer" ... "I try".

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:14 am

bobo the clown wrote:There must be 50 years of stats now from which they could devise various scenarios and so set targets which relate to real cases.

The DL always favours the chasing team.
No, it doesn't. It didn't favour England in game 2. In the final game it set the run-rate higher the NZ had achieved at any point in their innings. You have to bear in mind, that the factors need to be simple enough to apply at a Club Cricket ground that doesn't have the benefit of a Cray supercomputer, to crunch all the possible factors and scenarios. It's objective was to be able to be undertaken using a single table of percentages and a calculator.

Thinking through some of the really difficult factors, there's elements such as

Weather (It's not always weather that causes the delay)
Size of ground - At a Club level there can be some very small grounds...
Strength of the two teams' players (batting and bowling) + whether player X has already batted/bowled

They did review 1000's of scorecards when they built the method, but "G" the average score was set at 235. It probably just needs an overhaul but still needs the broad brush approach.

bobo the clown
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 19597
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:49 am
Location: N Wales, but close enough to Chester I can pretend I'm in England
Contact:

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by bobo the clown » Sun Jun 21, 2015 10:46 am

I was thinking it could set a new ratio. Not a new one for every match. The current one does weigh towards the chasing team ... if only because they KNOW what to xhase.
Not advocating mass-murder as an entirely positive experience, of course, but it had its moments.
"I understand you are a very good footballer" ... "I try".

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Sun Jun 21, 2015 11:14 am

Not sure knowing what to chase, helps, when the second innings is interrupted. (Helps when you get a full innings in) You set off at one pace then have to try and adapt, at a point in time the team batting first theoretically accelerated. That's how we went from 54 off 37 balls to 34 off 13, in game 2. Went from 9 per over to 15.

I think there will always be outliers, but some of the targets it's now setting when teams are scoring 350-400 (rather than 235, which is what "G" was based on) seem to weigh against the team batting second when the second team's inn7ngs is interrupted.

User avatar
Montreal Wanderer
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12940
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Montreal Wanderer » Sun Jun 21, 2015 12:49 pm

Worthy4England wrote:The factor I think you're probably missing is the rate at which you can lose wickets and the pace of Team 1s innings. In an uninterrupted innings, team 1 accelerates in the latter overs. The formula spreads that acceleration over the allocated overs for Team 2, to compensate for team 2 knowing they have a shorter number of overs...
I'm missing that and more. It seems to me the average fan must take on faith that the system is fair as most cannot understand the algorithms and other factors behind the calculation. It appears it can set extremely high targets. Are these different if the time lost is due to rain, to injury or to temporary bad light? What if rain washes out the last 20 innings of the chasing team completely. Do they simply go back to compare scores after 30 innings, or do they do a D/L calculation and award the match to a team (which usually batted first)?
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Sun Jun 21, 2015 1:21 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:
Worthy4England wrote:The factor I think you're probably missing is the rate at which you can lose wickets and the pace of Team 1s innings. In an uninterrupted innings, team 1 accelerates in the latter overs. The formula spreads that acceleration over the allocated overs for Team 2, to compensate for team 2 knowing they have a shorter number of overs...
I'm missing that and more. It seems to me the average fan must take on faith that the system is fair as most cannot understand the algorithms and other factors behind the calculation. It appears it can set extremely high targets. Are these different if the time lost is due to rain, to injury or to temporary bad light? What if rain washes out the last 20 innings of the chasing team completely. Do they simply go back to compare scores after 30 innings, or do they do a D/L calculation and award the match to a team (which usually batted first)?
The targets are no different based on the type of stoppage - whilst this seems sort of innocuous, what if the stoppage losing a number of overs was down to injury to the team's leading bowler half way through their spell. Then it's imbalancing and no account is taken for this.

I do think the "average" fan would know the difference between "innings and "overs", Monty. :-) If the last 20 overs get washed out, a calculation is made on the 30 overs faced. This is probably ok for weather - Side batting 2nd should be able to see the whether closing in and be able to calculate "par" and try and attain it - wouldn't work for unforeseen interruptions - significant injury, pitch invasion etc.

It's statistically ok at 30 overs (allegedly) but starts to have problems around 20 over mark, and is fairly unreliable at 10 overs. It tries to strike a balance between statistically ok and fairly useable by a scorer in a score hut with just a calculator and the % tables. In that sense, it's probably about ok. They could make it much more statistically complex, but then it wouldn't be generally accessible by anyone (Computer says answer is "X") or they make it easier, in which case we'd be back to the flawed logic that it replaced (that progression is linear)...

User avatar
Little Green Man
Icon
Icon
Posts: 4471
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:34 pm
Location: Justin Edinburgh

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Little Green Man » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:03 pm

Got to watch the highest ever 7th wicket stand in county cricket today. Very impressive innings from Bresnan and Bairstow jnr.

User avatar
Worthy4England
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 32273
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Worthy4England » Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:13 pm

Little Green Man wrote:Got to watch the highest ever 7th wicket stand in county cricket today. Very impressive innings from Bresnan and Bairstow jnr.
Yes - easy just to have Bresnan down as a bowler, but his batting average isn't too shoddy @28 in First Class - In fact, it's not far short of his bowling average :-) Scorecard from Sussex quite interesting too, with 4 centurions in one innings.

thebish
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 37589
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:01 am
Location: In my armchair

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by thebish » Tue Jun 30, 2015 9:58 am

gentle overtures from England about playing the Ashes in the right spirit (OK - coming from Jimmy Anderson, probably not the best move!) appear to have been slogged over long-off for six!

KeyserSoze
Passionate
Passionate
Posts: 2446
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:57 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by KeyserSoze » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:29 pm

Is it worth starting an ashes thread or shall we continue with thisun?

either way, squad announced for next week's first test

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cricket/33346761" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Nero fiddles while Gordon Burns.

User avatar
TANGODANCER
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 43133
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Between the Regency and the Rubaiyat and forever trying to light penny candles from stars.

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by TANGODANCER » Wed Jul 01, 2015 2:45 pm

KeyserSoze wrote:Is it worth starting an ashes thread or shall we continue with thisun?

either way, squad announced for next week's first test

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/cricket/33346761" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Start a new Ashes 2015 thread to keep it seperate.
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?

User avatar
Montreal Wanderer
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 12940
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
Location: Montreal, Canada

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Montreal Wanderer » Fri Jul 03, 2015 8:00 pm

At the local level, Lancashire put up a good score in the T20 Roses match. :oyea:
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.

Nicko58
Dedicated
Dedicated
Posts: 1011
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 7:32 pm

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by Nicko58 » Fri Jul 03, 2015 8:25 pm

Montreal Wanderer wrote:At the local level, Lancashire put up a good score in the T20 Roses match. :oyea:
It's not been a bad reply from them so far. Let's hope that they can't keep it up after the powerplay.
'Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.'

jaffka
Legend
Legend
Posts: 8439
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2006 1:36 pm
Location: uk

Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet

Post by jaffka » Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:43 pm

Always great beating them yorkies.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 68 guests