Any cricket lovers on here?
Comments
-
Not a bad idea though for NRR - if they bowl Oman out cheaply within 20 overs, the NRR is still calculated out of the full 20. So if we bowl them out for say 75 like Australia did it will give us a massive NRR boost (assuming we chase it fairly briskly)
0 -
Yeah, Pretty much the thinking I'd guess, and at 25-5 it's looking like a good call :)
0 -
It is going OK at the moment you'd say...
0 -
And getting better
0 -
33-7...
If we bowl them out for say 50 and then chase it in 5 overs our NRR will go up to 2.325 (ie, above Scotland before they've played Australia)
0 -
I don't like to say anything as normally whenever I say England are doing well they lose a wicket straight away afterwards. Or start going for 6s.
Although I'd say with them at 47-9 it is going alright!
0 -
All out for 47.
By my maths, if we chase that in 5.2 overs or less then we will go ahead of Scotland's NRR tonight (2.168 vs 2.164).
0 -
I think if they'd been offered bowling Oman out for 47 at the start of the match, they may of taken it :)
Now I cower behind the sofa for the run chase....
0 -
Those Oman batters are hardly ever going to face 90mph deliveries before, they were understandably all at sea.
0 -
Confirmed by Matt Henry on BBC live text
0 -
I mean they seemed to have just as much difficulty with Rashid. Although he's the number 1 ranked t20 bowler in the world so is fair enough to struggle I think!
0 -
I think this may be considered a bit of a hammering
0 -
That takes our NRR to 3.08 by my maths
0 -
TMS is agreeing with you
0 -
Tidy.
0 -
12 off 3 balls with the third being you getting bowled - normally that wouldn’t look good but was exactly what was needed on this occasion.
0 -
I don't understand why the commentators didn't have this info to hand before the start of England's innings - it's easy maths (although I did have to look it up, especially the bit where if you get bowled out inside 20 it still counts as 20 overs for the NRR calcs). The guys on Sky were talking a load of rubbish about NRRs when they came out to bat, but I knew what our overs target was as soon as the last wicket fell in Oman's innings - they must have had someone with a spreadsheet! Or they could have given the commentators a spreadsheet with an empty box to fill in.
0 -
I'm not sure your analysis is necessarily that helpful though as NRR can drop with a win, and in England's case, it is very likely to do so. The result does essentially mean that a win for England and a loss for Scotland is enough, but if both games were ties with scores of 20 from 20 overs then Scotland would have a better NRR. Clearly, that's not likely though.
To boost NRR, it is better to bat for the full 20 overs and score lots of runs. Chasing a low score from a low number of overs only really helps one side of the NRR.
0 -
Also, a 200 run tie for Scotland and a 95 run tie for England would be enough.
(Assuming Aus and Eng win the super over).
0 -
I think they did. Have a vague recollection that Geoff Lemon (I think that's right, the Aussie commentator) saying if they scored the runs in 5.2 overs they'd overtake Scotland's NRR
0 -
I heard one of the commentators (or presenters) say before England's innings that if England got the runs in 3 overs, it would only put their NRR up to just over 3. Think it was used as an example of something that was unlikely, and made it clear how close it was could be between England and Scotland. But then England did it.
0 -
Yeah, I would not be surprised to see them bat first against Namibia if they win the toss - I was kind of surprised they did not do that yesterday, but I guess they saw the other Oman results and decided this was a better option. But the runs/overs against is still the same whether we bat first or second (i.e., Oman's innings still counts as 47 from 20 either way round)
If they'd batted first and got over 207, which you would think was very likely, and still bowled out Oman for 47 in the same number of overs (no guarantee of this though fielding second), the NRR result would be the same. But they wouldn't necessarily have known what a good score would be when they went out, and they would not have been able to be as aggressive.
Looking at the maths, the worst result that would see Scotland overtake England on NRR is as you say, both games being decided by super over with about 20 runs in 20 overs (although by my maths if that was the case Scotland's would be 0.970 and England's 0.977, so the inflection is about 18.5 runs).
If England were to exactly mirror Scotland's result against Namibia, then no realistic Australia-Scotland result (where Australia win) gives them a better NRR - it would need to go to a super over with 482 runs per side in the regular 20 overs (or if decided in regular time, AUS 489 - SCO 488), which I guess I don't need to point out is mental:
There's not a lot of other permutations that work for Scotland - even if the Scotland game was 200 per side and the England game only 100 per side, England's NRR will still be better. The crossover point there would be about 216-217 runs:
Apart from that, if either game gets rained off then England are out (SCO-AUS rained out would give Scotland 6 points, ENG-NAM would leave England on 4) - which is probably the more likely reason for England to go out at this stage. Which would be a bit of a shame.
0 -
Thisis great work! Outstanding Bob!
Wilier Izoard XP0 -
Can you tell I am at work :D
2 -
How do you do partial quotes on this forum now?
"but I guess they saw the other Oman results and decided this was a better option."
I listened to Buttler's interview - sounds like they thought it was a better batting deck than it turned out to be, they expected Oman to put a bit more on the board, which they would still have chased quickly but would have given them more in the "runs for" column. They weren't expecting the variable bounce or the turn that Rashid got. So potentially bowling first was a good option, as if they'd batted first and lost wickets, they would then have been under a lot of pressure to bowl Oman out very cheaply. But it's all conjecture at this stage.
0 -
So New Zealand are out and it's looking rather iffy for Pakistan. At least if we stuff it up we're in good company :)
0 -
Yes if USA beat Ireland today, or there's no result (that game's delayed due to wet outfield at the moment), then Pakistan are done.
The Ireland - USA game could be interesting, normally Ireland should win easily but they've had a pretty weak tournament, whereas USA have done really well obviously. Pakistan need to beat Ireland on Sunday, and Ireland need to beat USA today for Pakistan to have a chance. If this USA-Ireland game is entirely rained off, then Pakistan are out (because USA will have 5 points and the most Pakistan can get is 4).
To be honest it's only rain that will stop England going through, if either game is rained off then we are out. I don't really believe Australia would throw a game entirely like that, maybe they would have chased more conservatively than necessary but they are not going to lose on purpose.
0 -
Fully agree. It’s the weather I’m more concerned about than the Scots beating Australia or Namibia beating us.
0 -
USA-Ireland abandoned, USA go through, Pakistan and Ireland eliminated. Shame really.
0 -
And the Saffas squeaked past the mighty Nepal by 1 run
0
