[Cricket] T20 World Cup

[Jeremiah]

The 5 (or 4) day game is proper cricket whereas the T20 is just a slog designed for TV and those that can’t concentrate for more than a few hours.

I agree. But I do like it

 

[DJ NOBO]

Cj has done well to get as many global contracts as he’s had.
He’s mediocre at international level.
I know he does the dirty overs, but even so.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Disagree - they were never well ahead. NZ kept it within 2-3 big hits all the way through. Sure they lost a couple wickets when the time came, but they had plenty in hand and were well within range to snatch the win.

Sorry, 57 off 24 balls is not 2 or 3 big hits, it's 5 or 6. Had Jordan been expensive even to the tune of say 12 runs, they'd have needed 45 off 18 balls. Doable, but generally unlikely. It took that over to bring it in reach, even then it needed 34 off 18. So we'll have to disagree on that one, I doubt many games are won by the side needing 2.4 runs a ball with 4 overs left.

 

[knocky1]

Come on Australia.

 

[essbee1]

Sorry, 57 off 24 balls is not 2 or 3 big hits, it's 5 or 6. Had Jordan been expensive even to the tune of say 12 runs, they'd have needed 45 off 18 balls. Doable, but generally unlikely. It took that over to bring it in reach, even then it needed 34 off 18. So we'll have to disagree on that one, I doubt many games are won by the side needing 2.4 runs a ball with 4 overs left.

True. A monumental cock-up took place.

 

[Audax]

Sorry, 57 off 24 balls is not 2 or 3 big hits, it's 5 or 6. Had Jordan been expensive even to the tune of say 12 runs, they'd have needed 45 off 18 balls. Doable, but generally unlikely. It took that over to bring it in reach, even then it needed 34 off 18. So we'll have to disagree on that one, I doubt many games are won by the side needing 2.4 runs a ball with 4 overs left.

Sorry, but that clearly misunderstands T20 cricket and the way that teams manage a chase and the sort of acceleration that is possible for a team that has wickets in hand at the death. If you look at the Run Rate and Worm charts here NZ were always within 10 runs of what England had scored at the same point. The one over where England looked like they might be in with a chance of winning was the 16th, when Livingston bowled a fantastic 4th over and had Phillips out. But then the very next over (17th) was Jordan's shocker, which hinged on guess what ... two big hits that took them ahead of what England had scored at that point.

NZ were always within range, as long as they could execute. And they did execute, very well, ultimately winning with a full over to spare.

Edit: or looked at another way: anything less than 2 per ball across the final 4 overs, with wickets in hand, is normally achievable in T20. 57 off 24 is outside that, but only by 9 runs. So NZ only needed to make their 2-per-ball + two additional big hits to reach that target. Which they pretty much did in the 17th - they made their 2 per ball plus additional and put themselves back under the 2-per-ball target.

 

[amexer]

For you stats people am I right to say far more sides win batting second

 

[Pevenseagull]

For you stats people am I right to say far more sides win batting second

Yep. The change in the odds when Australia won the toss was about same swing as you get when a team loses two wickets in the first over.

 

[Audax]

For you stats people am I right to say far more sides win batting second

Yep. It's easier if you know what your target is and have information on how well the pitch is playing based on what the other team managed. It was pretty obvious in yesterday's match that NZ never had any concerns about where they were - they were always within 10 runs of what England had set at the same point, and they knew that England had found it easier to score big towards the end - so as long as they executed as well as England had, they were always within range.

On the other hand, if the team that bats first sets a big target (that looks to be more than "par" for the conditions) that can then pile on the pressure for the chasing side from ball 1 and create scenarios where the chasing side never gets close as they lose wickets early trying to force the chase.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Sorry, but that clearly misunderstands T20 cricket and the way that teams manage a chase and the sort of acceleration that is possible for a team that has wickets in hand at the death. If you look at the Run Rate and Worm charts here NZ were always within 10 runs of what England had scored at the same point. The one over where England looked like they might be in with a chance of winning was the 16th, when Livingston bowled a fantastic 4th over and had Phillips out. But then the very next over (17th) was Jordan's shocker, which hinged on guess what ... two big hits that took them ahead of what England had scored at that point.

NZ were always within range, as long as they could execute. And they did execute, very well, ultimately winning with a full over to spare.

Edit: or looked at another way: anything less than 2 per ball across the final 4 overs, with wickets in hand, is normally achievable in T20. 57 off 24 is outside that, but only by 9 runs. So NZ only needed to make their 2-per-ball + two additional big hits to reach that target. Which they pretty much did in the 17th - they made their 2 per ball plus additional and put themselves back under the 2-per-ball target.

You lost me at 'clearly misunderstands T20 cricket'. I'm quite happy to disagree about sport, there are always different ways of looking at things, stats, graphs, totals, but if you're coming from an ivory tower of superior understanding, it's not a discussion, it's a waste of time.

 

[bhafc99]

Aussies starting to strangle Pakistan a bit here, crowd a lot quieter than they were at the start…

 

[Pevenseagull]

Time to start swinging. Plenty of wickets left.

Surely 170+ is gettable?

 

[Is it PotG?]

Yesterday morning had 50p on a New Zealand v Pakistan final, seen nothing to change my mind of a bumper payday.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Hazelwood 0 - 49 from 4.

 

[bhafc99]

Yesterday morning had 50p on a New Zealand v Pakistan final, seen nothing to change my mind of a bumper payday.

Who needs cryptocurrency, eh!

 

[Simster]

Pakistan favourites for sure, but this doesn't look like a difficult pitch to bat on so Australia are very much still in this.

 

[Audax]

You lost me at 'clearly misunderstands T20 cricket'. I'm quite happy to disagree about sport, there are always different ways of looking at things, stats, graphs, totals, but if you're coming from an ivory tower of superior understanding, it's not a discussion, it's a waste of time.

OK - so if you ignore my first sentence, what do you think of the rest of what I had to say? I don't think anyone's done the numbers on it, but having followed T20's for quite a while my general feeling is that teams are quite happy to chase 12-per-over from the last 4-5 overs as long as they have wickets in hand (as NZ did yesterday). So using 12-per-over as a benchmark, while NZ were behind that mark after Livingston's over they weren't that far behind - they were literally 2 big shots behind it.

Apart from anything else, the fewer overs there are left the bigger the impact on the RRR that a couple of sixes have. As amply highlighted yesterday: from needing 57 off 4 (RRR: 14.25) to 34 off 3 (RRR: 11.33). NZ took 21 off the legal deliveries in that over - 9 more than the 2/over benchmark, which is 2 big shots. The 2 wides helped, but NZ still had the advantage even if we ignore those.

12 an over only needs 2 boundaries and scoring off the remaining deliveries. In T20, that's pretty much expected at the death unless the bowlers are bowling really well.

 

[Official Old Man]

FAKHAR
I've 5Live Sports Extra cricket on in the background. Suddenly Jonathan Agnew & Phil Tufnell started to get excited and shouting Fakhar at the top of their voices.
WHAT?

 

[erkan]

Steve Smith LOLS

 

[Pevenseagull]

Cracking over that.

Git.