creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Moderator: Zulus Thousand of em
- TANGODANCER
- 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
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?
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32273
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Well, who'd have thowt it?
Great win for the team.
Great win for the team.
- TANGODANCER
- 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
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?
- TANGODANCER
- 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
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...
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- Montreal Wanderer
- Immortal
- Posts: 12940
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
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.Worthy4England wrote:I suspect there'll be more schtick heading the way of Mr Duckworth and Mr Lewis.TANGODANCER wrote:Anybody keepeing an eye onthe last O.D.I.? N.Z. 227-7 and we doing well. Come on.
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32273
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
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...
-
- 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
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.
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".
"I understand you are a very good footballer" ... "I try".
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32273
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
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.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.
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.
-
- 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
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".
"I understand you are a very good footballer" ... "I try".
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32273
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
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.
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.
- Montreal Wanderer
- Immortal
- Posts: 12940
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
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)?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...
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32273
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
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.Montreal Wanderer wrote: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)?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 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)...
- Little Green Man
- Icon
- Posts: 4471
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:34 pm
- Location: Justin Edinburgh
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Got to watch the highest ever 7th wicket stand in county cricket today. Very impressive innings from Bresnan and Bairstow jnr.
- Worthy4England
- Immortal
- Posts: 32273
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 6:45 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
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.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.
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
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!
-
- Passionate
- Posts: 2446
- Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:57 pm
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
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;
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.
- TANGODANCER
- 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
Start a new Ashes 2015 thread to keep it seperate.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;
Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos?
- Montreal Wanderer
- Immortal
- Posts: 12940
- Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 12:45 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
At the local level, Lancashire put up a good score in the T20 Roses match.
"If you cannot answer a man's argument, all it not lost; you can still call him vile names. " Elbert Hubbard.
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
It's not been a bad reply from them so far. Let's hope that they can't keep it up after the powerplay.Montreal Wanderer wrote:At the local level, Lancashire put up a good score in the T20 Roses match.
'Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.'
Re: creeeeeeeekeeeeeet
Always great beating them yorkies.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 68 guests