State One Day Cup 24-25 thread.

[NYRB]

god rewatching that darcy short wicket was B grade cricket level .

He has fallen off a cliff since getting selected for the national team. He has never been able to discover that form again.

 

[western royboy]

I wouldn't judge any batsman on this pitch tbh, that being said Turner has lost 3 chases this season that he should have seen through which is very unlike him... makes today's shot even worse with such a tough pitch and almost a virtual knockout for them.

it did look though today Sam Harper was batting on a different wicket to others.

Its a painful loss for WA because Turner was one of the settled batsman. One of those kind of games where the settling batsman had to go on with it, eg like Harper and bat to the end.

Ill cut Victoria some slack for batting slowish in that opening 10 overs. They played the conditions at the MCG as a home side to-a-tee.

I think the best observation is that Harper summed up the best way to score as opposed to anyone else and batted accordingly

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Losing to our shittrucks is hard to accomplish.
Harper and Murphy the only one's to shine for both sides.

 

[nobbyiscool]

I had to step out and missed the last couple of hours.

Did we get an explanation of the target? I cannot for the life of me figure out how they came up with that, and I don't even give a shit.

 

[NYRB]

I had to step out and missed the last couple of hours.

Did we get an explanation of the target? I cannot for the life of me figure out how they came up with that, and I don't even give a shit.

Nup Ive tried to manually calculate and didnt come close. For any math genuises out there, Id love an explanation.

 

[largebus]

Hardly a surprising result given the horrible collapses in the 50 over comp already.

Shows how bad it's been when this is only the 3rd worst run chase choke.

 

[NYRB]

I tried to get an answer on the Whirlpool forum in regards to the reduction in target. Not sure if that helps clarify things............



Fair to say , I wouldnt make a good mathematician.

 

[NYRB]

To go further, the numbers we are looking at are:




The key numbers used in calculating:



From Wikipedia:



Team 1 Resources= 100%-81.8%+48.6%= 66.8% (In Black Arrow)

Team 2 Resources= 62.7% (in Red Arrow)

Teams 2 Par Score= 132 x (62.7/66.8)= 123 (around that mark)

 

[eddiesmith]

To go further, the numbers we are looking at are:

View attachment 2164591


The key numbers used in calculating:

View attachment 2164596

From Wikipedia:

View attachment 2164599

Team 1 Resources= 100%-81.8%+48.6%= 66.8% (In Black Arrow)

Team 2 Resources= 62.7% (in Red Arrow)

Teams 2 Par Score= 132 x (62.7/66.8)= 123 (around that mark)

Great work finding this out, it’s completely ridiculous and lacks any common sense but it’s always been a flawed formula.

What’s really interesting is dumb post earlier seems to imply this was part of the changes they made, i.e in the past it never went down. It’s amazing if when they ‘improved’ it to look at the fact Team B has far more chance to chase 6 an over if only facing 20 overs so less time to lose wickets, they also made it even easier for Team B to chase less than their opponents made.

Really no justification can possibly suggest Team B should be chasing less than Team A who faced half the overs they thought they’d have to build an innings.

 

[Cleavy]

Great work finding this out, it’s completely ridiculous and lacks any common sense but it’s always been a flawed formula.

I blame Stern. he was supposed to fix the flaws in Duckworth-Lewis

 

[NYRB]

Great work finding this out, it’s completely ridiculous and lacks any common sense but it’s always been a flawed formula.

What’s really interesting is @dumb post earlier seems to imply this was part of the changes they made, i.e in the past it never went down. It’s amazing if when they ‘improved’ it to look at the fact Team B has far more chance to chase 6 an over if only facing 20 overs so less time to lose wickets, they also made it even easier for Team B to chase less than their opponents made.

If I stand to be corrected as someone on here mentioned, prior to the rain coming, Victoria were struggling at 16/2 off 4.5 overs. The way the calculator calculates is that it penalises a team if you dont look to come out and attack and lose wickets. I was saying to myself in that game yesterday, given Victoria knew there was a bit of rain around ahead of the game....it would have made sense for them to be a bit more attacking in that front 10, given they knew rain would affect the game at some stage.

Im not a mathematician by any means but if there was a formula devised , Im all ears for. And if you have a recommendation of a formula, Id be interested to hear your point of view.

 

[corbies]

If I stand to be corrected as someone on here mentioned, prior to the rain coming, Victoria were struggling at 16/2 off 4.5 overs. The way the calculator calculates is that it penalises a team if you dont look to come out and attack and lose wickets. I was saying to myself in that game yesterday, given Victoria knew there was a bit of rain around ahead of the game....it would have made sense for them to be a bit more attacking in that front 10, given they knew rain would affect the game at some stage.

Im not a mathematician by any means but if there was a formula devised , Im all ears for. And if you have a recommendation of a formula, Id be interested to hear your point of view.

They'd have been better off trying to conserve wickets than attacking early surely? Given each wicket lost early on hurts your resources remaining a lot more than each over you lose.

As an extreme example had Vics been 0/0 after 4.5 overs rather than 2/16 and then they'd scored 116 after the break (like they actually did) then the target would have been 116 x (62.7/53.6) = 136.

 

[NYRB]

They'd have been better off trying to conserve wickets than attacking early surely? Given each wicket lost early on hurts your resources remaining a lot more than each over you lose.

As an extreme example had Vics been 0/0 after 4.5 overs rather than 2/16 and then they'd scored 116 after the break (like they actually did) then the target would have been 116 x (62.7/53.6) = 136.

One number was incorrect the denominator. So Victoria may have been better to look closer at the weather before the loss of their 2 wickets.

Team 1 Resources= 100%-95.0%+52.2%= 57.2%

Team 2 Resources= 62.7% (in Red Arrow)

Teams 2 Par Score= 116 x (62.7/57.2)= 127

Ive rounded out to the nearest over in my calcs.

 

[corbies]

One number was incorrect the denominator. So Victoria may have been better to look closer at the weather before the loss of their 2 wickets.

Team 1 Resources= 100%-95.0%+52.2%= 57.2%

Team 2 Resources= 62.7% (in Red Arrow)

Teams 2 Par Score= 116 x (62.7/57.2)= 127

Ive rounded out to the nearest over in my calcs.

Why would it be +48.6% in your below calcs but +52.2% in the above? It's measuring the same thing (resources left after resumption).

To go further, the numbers we are looking at are:

View attachment 2164591


The key numbers used in calculating:

View attachment 2164596

From Wikipedia:

View attachment 2164599

Team 1 Resources= 100%-81.8%+48.6%= 66.8% (In Black Arrow)

Team 2 Resources= 62.7% (in Red Arrow)

Teams 2 Par Score= 132 x (62.7/66.8)= 123 (around that mark)

 

[NYRB]

Why would it be +48.6% in your below calcs but +52.2% in the above? It's measuring the same thing (resources left after resumption).

I’m assuming it’s a 23 over match for both teams.