- Video
-
Club Roar
Captured a great grassroots sporting moment? We want to see it!Content Collections
The Roar Community
- Join
- Login
Roar Rookie
Joined July 2021
0
Views
0
Published
8
Comments
Published
Comments
Apologies, for some reason the Roar isn’t allowing me to put spaces between paragraphs.
COMMENT: It's great for the World Cup - but Pakistan's DLS-assisted win over NZ proves the system needs a rethink
He’s not getting the drift because you’re speaking speculative nonsense. And you’re using obviously flawed, overly simplistic piece of mathematics utterly divorced from empirical reality.
We’ve had multiple games at the Chinaswamy THIS tournament. No one has gotten close to chasing a 400 score. In fact, the only team to bat second and get over 350 is NZ despite plenty of 350+ scores being set, despite great batting tracks and small grounds, modern players and modern tactics.
The various win predictors take into account contextual factors, those based on reality (i.e. history) not speculative nonsense. When the game was called off NZ were still an 80% chance to win according to the ones I know about. That’s because history is littered with chasing sides attempting large totals being well ahead of the rate at the halfway mark, the 30th over the 40th over and still losing. Because it’s hard to maintain throughout an innings because it generally requires set batsmen to keep scoring at a rate that requires risk. And it doesn’t require many, if any, wickets to fall to stall when the rate is that high.
NZ WERE aware of the rain. I’ve never seen Williamson try to pull so many balls that weren’t quite there, particularly that early on. He knew that the match could well be shortened due to rain. They did accelerate through their overs barring the last 10 where Wasim bowled with great control of reverse swing. The batsmen’s intent was to score big, that they didn’t quite manage it was due to falling wickets and Wasim’s bowling, not muddled tactics and a lack of intent. They probably fell 8-15 runs short of where they were aiming at the 40th over mark. But to say that there score wasn’t par is ridiculous. No one has come close to chasing these totals at this world cup, on these grounds, with these wickets.
Here’s some pertinent contextual factors you don’t seem to be mentioning. All teams chasing records in world cups are worse. All sides. Obviously some worse than others (SA), but this is true of all teams. Score board pressure is bigger in world cups. Most sides other than SA and to a lesser extent NZ have found it hard to accelerate a lot in the final ten, Indian pitches soften the ball. This is brought out in the numbers, making it more difficult to accelerate. Pakistan is more reliant on the top 4 scoring the runs than any other team at this world cup over the last 3-4 years. This team, these players. Making them much more susceptible to a collapse or failing to maintain momentum with a wicket or two. Their best finishers are either out of the side or in bad form. Exacerbating this problem. Outside of Fakhar they are NOT fast scorers by nature either, that includes the top 4 and the middle to lower order. Once again making them more susceptible to failing to cash in regardless of their start. They don’t have the pedigree of SA in the middle and lower order for SR, they don’t bat as deep as England, Aus or NZ currently. Basically, it’s Fakhar or bust. He’d have to do all the heavy lifting right to or just before the end.
It’s a shame the rain came. Maybe Fakhar would have knocked up the greatest world cup innings of all time to get them over the line. But to act like that was likely, and that NZ were UNDER par, especially by 50-70 runs is nonsense. Just as it’s nonsense to judge tactics and intent by outcome. They were trying to hit the ball out of the park in the last 20 overs. It’s the type of comment an alien mathematician might make without ever knowing a single thing about how cricket actually works, what actually happens in real games. The win predictors do, your math does not. It’s as flawed as your reasoning, with your fallacy of appeal to authority with citing what Babar said as if it proves anything being yet another great example. So don’t get upset when people don’t follow your reasoning. It’s bad.
COMMENT: It's great for the World Cup - but Pakistan's DLS-assisted win over NZ proves the system needs a rethink
From a graph I saw on Kimber’s youtube channel Aus powerplay was about 5th in the tournament (dead middle of the road) and far from NZ and India’s. Though I suspect that was based on both economy and average (wickets).
Dipak Maxwell: Bold tactical switch worth a spin to get Aussies firing on all cylinders at World Cup
You got me for a typo. Well done.
But you do now understand how your claim the opposition would score 210 against Starc is false right?
I haven’t made any real extrapolations other than selection decisions should be based on actual performances, particularly recent performances. That’s how most people select sporting teams. If anything another key thing to factor in is pedigree. At one time Starc was arguably the best new ball, white ball bowler in the world. He has shown an improvement after a period of two poor seasons. You thinking Starc had bad numbers recently is why I gave you a few comparisons. Your reaction clearly shows you don’t know what good numbers look like in this format.
Starc has performed better than every bowler bar Hazlewood in the team since the last world cup. The only way you’d get rid of him is if there was a clearly better player waiting in the wings who performs his role. Not having Ellis in the squad could look like a mistake in hindsight, but it hasn’t been Starc whose place is most under threat, it’s Cummins, and Ellis doesn’t perform that role. Even tonight, where some are calling for his head, he had the lowest economy rate and almost snuck a few yorkers through. he looked the most likely once Finn Allen, the guy with the quickest strike rate in T20I history was gone.
As for your idea that you can’t compare a player unless they’ve had the same amount of continuous games is crazy. If a player comes in and is given enough games and performs poorly throughout, it’s clear that they are very unlikely to do better. Not impossible, but very unlikely. Jhye Richardson has had enough games to make a call. Unless there’s been a signifcant change in how he operates, you are likely to get more of the same.
Cummins is underperforming, Zampa is underperforming, the 5th bowling options typically underperform. A large chunk of the batsmen are underperforming. Starc has been good if not spectatcular. It doesn’t make sense that his head would be one of the first if you were basing things on ‘underperforming’.
FLEM'S VERDICT: 'Write it off as a shocker' - No need for panic stations despite Aussies' World Cup nightmare
You’re a little confused, or arithematic isn’t your strong suit. In test cricket if you ave 21 a wicket the opposition scores 210. But as T20 has a limited amount of balls it’s about economy. Starc’s means the opposition scores 162. They’ll run out of balls to reach 210. You may notice that sides rarely get bowled out in this format.
I also have a feeling you don’t really know what good stats look like for T20, so here’s Bumrah’s, the player who has been considered the premier pacer in the format over the last 4-5 years._____
In: 5 – Econ: 7.88 – Av: 31.5 – SR: 24.____
5 games is a small sample size so here’s what his numbers look like across his whole career.
In: 59 – Econ: 6.62 – Av: 20.2 – SR: 18.3.____
So average marginally better than Starc’s, SR considerably worse, but an amazing economy. So averaging far less wicket than Starc a game. That’s the bvest pacer in the format over the last 4-5 years.____
Like I said above Hazlewood has arguably been the best T20 pacer in the world for the last two years or so, just becasue Starc hasn’t been as good as him doesn’t mean he’s awful. Jhye Richardson’s record is palpably worse than Starc’s, even accoutning for his form now. In fact it’s remakably similar to Cummins since the last world cup.____
In: 18– Econ: 8.42 – Av: 29.3 – SR: 20.8____
In this game, after that first over, Starc nailed his yorkers, managing to drag his economy rate back to be the miserliest of all the bowlers. He’s been slowly improving since the last world cup.____
The recent non performance of Zampa and Cummins and poor 5th bowling options are a much bigger concern, as well as the one dimensional nature of the Australian batsmen who can smash certain types of bowlers, but all have considerable weaknesses against other types (with the exception fo Warner and an out of from Maxwell). The Aussie middle order is particualry poor against spin that leaves righthanders, which is why NZ went with the bowling make up for this game. They won’t against England with their many left handers.
FLEM'S VERDICT: 'Write it off as a shocker' - No need for panic stations despite Aussies' World Cup nightmare
The idea that Starc hasn’t been good recently is a myth. He had a poor world cup in 2021 and a poor few seasons before that. But since the world cup, he along with Hazelwood have been Australia’s best T20 bowlers.
Hazlewood – In: 13 – Econ: 7.29 – Av: 16.7 – SR: 13.7
Starc – In: 7 – Econ: 8.08 – Av: 21.0 – SR: 15.6
Zampa – In: 13 – Econ: 7.58 – Av: 27.2 – SR: 21.5
Cummins – In: 9 – Econ: 8.42 – Av: 27.8 – SR: 19.8
He does however have an average record in T20s against England and a poor record against NZ (unlike ODIs).
FLEM'S VERDICT: 'Write it off as a shocker' - No need for panic stations despite Aussies' World Cup nightmare
Considering they were a Neesham putting a rank full toss to the rope from beating Australia after they racked up close to 400 facing the aussie attack, that attack can hardly be great shakes. Pakistan’s bowling has been atrocious and Afghanistan are very reliant on their three spinners and SA have had mountains of scoreboard pressure to back up their bowlers. India first daylight second. The stats certainly say otherwise too and that’s depsite having mutiple bowlers go down in multiple games and tto playing at the grounds that had the most swing and seam movement (which would aid their bowling attack). They bowled better against India than most other sides which si probably more pertinent given who they’re facing. They have a very weak 5th bowling gap currently being filled by a combination of 6th level bowling options. It’s their big weakness but the rest of the attack has been good to fine by and large.
Cricket World Cup Power Rankings: Forget Dutch destruction, 'spineless' Poms still deserve last spot