Page 290 of 290 FirstFirst ... 190240280288289290
Results 4,336 to 4,345 of 4345

Thread: Cricket

  1. #4336
    CC Rookie
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    24
    Freakish game- very surreal to watch at 4.30am. whats wrong with sharing the title after a tied game? i know it sounds a bit socialist but seems fairer. Winning the cup without winning the final makes no sense

  2. #4337
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,641
    Quote Originally Posted by guruduff View Post
    Freakish game- very surreal to watch at 4.30am. whats wrong with sharing the title after a tied game? i know it sounds a bit socialist but seems fairer. Winning the cup without winning the final makes no sense
    I thought it should have been a tie after the tied Super Over - the final tiebreak used makes no real sense in determining the best team.

  3. #4338
    CC Grandmaster Basil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Subtropical Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    11,232
    I’d accept the shared gong. With the Kiwis, anyway. Very rough end of the pineapple. Especially for such champion blokes.
    There is no cure for leftism. Its infestation of the host mostly diminishes with age except in the most rabid of specimens.

  4. #4339
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,660
    Heartbreaking for us Kiwis. If the final tie-break had been wickets based rather than boundaries based we would have won. As Dan Vettori said, all the little things (and some big) wenta gainst us. Chief of these, incorrect assigning of 6 runs when ball deflected off Stokes' bat rather than 5.
    And would you believe Stokes was born in Christchurch. NZ.
    A shared title would have been fair.
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  5. #4340
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,660
    At least Kane was man of the tournament - but as he said he would swap that for a world cup in a moment!
    That NZ Herald article linked above is fascinating and true.
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  6. #4341
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,488
    Had the number of boundaries been tied (both in regular play and in the Super Overs) then the next tiebreak was:

    4. A count-back from the final ball of the Super Over shall be conducted. The team with the higher scoring delivery is the winner. Runs scored from illegal deliveries count towards the total for the following legal delivery.

    If I've read it correctly England would have won that too as they hit the last ball of their super over for four.

    Given media scheduling etc I can understand the desire to have a system that - weather permitting - is finite; if you had more Super Overs they might be tied as well, and alternating Super Balls is probably a bit much in terms of teams coming on and off the field all the time. But one avenue that might be worth looking at is whether there is any sound empirical reason to believe any tiebreak method (whether wicket-based or run-based) is predictive. We looked at that here for chess and found that some well known tiebreaks predict future results well but others are useless or worse. The problem with cricket is the lack of data because ties are so rare.

    Maybe just leaving it tied is the better solution especially if they were open to that in the case of rain anyway.
    Last edited by Kevin Bonham; 17-07-2019 at 01:25 AM.

  7. #4342
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,324
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    I thought it should have been a tie after the tied Super Over - the final tiebreak used makes no real sense in determining the best team.
    Why not take a leaf out of AFL's book - come back and play the game again tomorrow!

    Seriosuly though, it should be simple enough to use NRR from the tournament as a tiebreaker.
    meep meep

  8. #4343
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wynyard,Tas
    Posts
    2,175
    Quote Originally Posted by Adamski View Post
    If the final tie-break had been wickets based rather than boundaries based we would have won.
    This was how it often worked in the early days of one-day cricket. I suppose it was abandoned as one of the revolutionary principles of the game was that you had to score against the over limit and be prepared to wantonly lose wickets (unless you lost all of them). In particular there wouldn't be much drama in the side batting second trying to block the last bowl to win on wickets, rather than frantically going for a near-suicidal bye.

    Ex poste discussions of tie-breaks inevitably are tendentious. Two other common methods, ranking in the round-robin or head-to-head in the round-robin, would be less kind to NZ. I imagine the same would be true of Sonnenborn-Berger, though I've never heard of that used in cricket.

  9. #4344
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,641
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Rout View Post
    Ex poste discussions of tie-breaks inevitably are tendentious. Two other common methods, ranking in the round-robin or head-to-head in the round-robin, would be less kind to NZ. I imagine the same would be true of Sonnenborn-Berger, though I've never heard of that used in cricket.
    If the format continues as a round-robin, then ranking or head-to-head would be better as the tie-break after the Super Over (if a further tie-break is needed). In both those cases, it can be argued that the better team won.

  10. #4345
    CC Rookie
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    6
    There is a change petition to declare NZ as joint wiinners

    http://chng.it/kVSVcXwd
    Last edited by Unrated; 18-07-2019 at 06:53 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. so do you play cricket?
    By ER in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 30-11-2009, 02:00 AM
  2. removed from Cricket
    By Duff McKagan in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-08-2009, 12:05 PM
  3. Cricket: AUS vs SL, 2nd Test
    By Spiny Norman in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 16-11-2007, 11:44 AM
  4. Cricket: AUS vs SL, 1st Test
    By Spiny Norman in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 13-11-2007, 12:18 PM
  5. what cricket needs
    By Davidflude in forum Non-Chess
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 13-07-2005, 04:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •