[MATCH THREAD] ZIM v UAE WCQ

[TapsC]

I honestly think it balances out because you have 10 wickets in hand. Or at least it's supposed to. I wonder what would have happened if we had bowled all 50. Did that affect the calculations?

[Kriterion_BD]

I honestly think it balances out because you have 10 wickets in hand. Or at least it's supposed to. I wonder what would have happened if we had bowled all 50. Did that affect the calculations?

I'm not sure. If it did affect, it probably wouldn't affect it too much for two reasons. UAE only had 13 balls left, and they only had 3 wickets left. Those are the only resources. If the rain had come an hour earlier when UAE were 170-3 in the 35th over, ZIM would have been chasing 270 from 40 overs.

Had the full 50 been bowled UAE probably would have had a total around 250-255 all depending on how many more big hits Naveed would have mustered.

[foreignfield]

No I don't think it works like that. D/L is not trying to replicate the situation for the team batting second (loss of overs) for the side batting first and construct something like that. It looks at the resources not used (3 wickets and 11 balls) and extrapolates an average score if they had batted the full fifty, say 254. And then they use their data to come up with a target which reflects that achievement over 40 overs under the correct assumption that you can go harder for less overs if you have the full ten wickets in hand.

The problem is that to us fans despite all their data and maths a target of 230 in 40 overs looks more difficult than 255 in 50. It would be interesting to ask ten captains which target they would like to chase: I'm pretty certain that you would not get the fifty-fity decision that the data apparantely warrants.

Its not a perfect system because you are trying to predict the unpredictable which is human action/ability. Naveed could have smoked another 30 off 10 balls, setting a total of around 270. Or UAE could have been all out for 240. 255 is in between those two extremes and seems the most probable outcome.

But when you look at how the innings for both teams progressed, we can see UAE were solidly placed relative to ZIM at most of the 10 over increments (ie after 10 overs, 20 overs, 30 overs, etc) despite ZIM having the advantage of knowing the innings was only 40 overs.

DLS has always been like this. If the UAE scored at 4.91 over 50 overs, giving ZIM a target at 5 or 5.20 in 40 overs is too easy. ZIM nearly chased 5.75 despite the top order contributing very little.

You're absolutely right. It's something we have to live with and it wasn't the reason why Zim lost.

[eugene]

D/L is not why we lost. There are many reasons why we lost but D/L is not one of them.

[Kriterion_BD]

Also probably a bit harsh to blame it on Ervine as he was striking at 123. Yes he was batting out of position, but really one of Raza or Williams should have seen the chase through. Raza can't do it every game. The real issue was up front Mire, Hamilton, and Taylor didn't score enough runs fast enough. Taylor though had scored throughout the tourney.

[eugene]

Ervine's problem was he was stuck with Jarvis at the other end. A SR of 123 would have been enough to get us home if Williams or Raza were still at the other end.

[Kriterion_BD]

Ervine's problem was he was stuck with Jarvis at the other end. A SR of 123 would have been enough to get us home if Williams or Raza were still at the other end.

Exactly.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Regarding the DL method, of course one can't selectively outrage against its shortcomings only when your team suffers, but my gripe is more towards the lack of public interfaces about the method itself. Yes, the method is described in detail in theory, but I'm sure the ICC is using a software coded up to perform these calculations for all possible conditions? Isn't it their responsibility to make this available in public domain? That way, fans can keep track of it and calculate it for themselves in situations like these. Plus it helps local leagues around the world to employ DLS method if they wish to, in shortened games, by using the public calculating interface. It can also be used to raise a red flag if the officials, being humans, err in providing the right inputs for the calculation. The way it is done currently, there is no way to cross verify. We need to take the targets as gospel and get on with it.

[Conant]

Why was he batting at six, seven? The moment that they realised they didn't have a finisher if Raza goes they should have realised Moor is vital in that position. But they sent Moor at three, why? Because they didn't have confidence that Craig can bat three, he's vulnerable starter. Yet at seven, he's almost guaranteed to fail unless we need 30 off 33 balls. In other words, when the match is won. So what is the point?

Taylor batted at his natural position of 3/4. Williams was in at 5 which is around his natural position. Raza is 6 which is his ideal spot. Now you have Masakadza who opened, and Moor was at 3 with Ervine in at 7. Valid question.

The rule, and there almost no exceptions to this rule is that you bat your best players at their natural spots, and two your best batsman should be batting at 3/4. Its now obvious that ZIM's best batsman are Taylor and Raza. Ideally they should be batting at 3/4 and no lower than 5 (in the case of Raza since he's one of the few who handle pressure well and is a good finisher). Ervine, whatever he may be, is still ZIM's third best batsman at his point in time. So he should have batted at 4, which is also a position that suits him since he needs some time to get going. Williams, didn't convince me with the [solid, I must admit] knock that he played for the following reasons. Most importantly, he didn't finish the job or at least ZIM through to the point of compete safety. Granted 24 off 18 is as easy an ODI chase there, so its not very fair to blame him for guys bottling the chase after he got out. But he shouldn't have gotten out. When he got out, 11 runs had already been taken off the over and the required rate was under 8, no need to play a risky (remember my spiel on sweeping) shot, either block or just bunt the ball to long on for a easy single and retain strike. Second reason, after so many games, this was the first time Williams played a solid knock in a meaningful situation. All his other big scores have come when the game or series is decided already. I doubt its the beginning of a new and better trend. Having said that, I said before the tournament that Williams still has a place in the best XI and this game shows why. He can contribute with bat and ball, although he is at least a level below the quality of a Raza.

So the lineup should or could have been Taylor at 3, Ervine at 4, Raza at 5, Williams at 6. Or perhaps even Taylor-Ervine-Williams-Raza. Moor could have batted down the order where he either wouldn't be needed, or could have just lofted some big hits when they were needed. If Mire played down the order, Moor could have perhaps opened with Hamilton. So yes a few issues could have got ZIM the win in a close 3 run game. But that also goes back to the poor cricket ZIM have played in recent times. They don't have a consistent batting order, because none of the batsman are ever consistent (except Raza, and even he might go off form for an entire season).

Another question is should Cephas have played? My answer is probably not. Averaged 20 or less this whole tournament and we noticed that against the decent sides (Afghanistan and Ireland) Cephas really struggled. Naveed would have eaten him up very early much as he did to Mire.

Williams operates on adrenalin. That's why he couldn't do the sensible thing of re-asesing after easing the pressure of himself with a boundary, and takes us beyond the line. How many times have we seen him play good innings from behind but still come out with a few runs still needed to win. Still he played a brilliant innings all things considered.

For the rest, we are still trying to defend the indefensible. To assert that Cephas would have heard a poor outing anyway with only very scant data (and even fewer visuals) to support this is very unfortunate, ad only adds to your bias against certain players.

Cephas didn't eat up any balls (played only two balls in one game I think) so you can't assert that he struggled. He simply played his natural game and it didn't come off.

And no, Eugene, Craig Ervine was never capable for a six on that last ball.

Only two players in that team could have done it -- Taylor and Raza and perhaps Waller- and even then you should know this is not guaranteed. The muscular Masakadza couldn't have done it either because he lacks the timing. This is just an example.

We know this because we have watched these players countless of times over the last few years.

These are the things that should inform our thinking when we make such decisions, instead we play Chakabva in an ODI just because he has come off a Test century the previous week.

[Kriterion_BD]

For the rest, we are still trying to defend the indefensible. To assert that Cephas would have heard a poor outing anyway with only very scant data (and even fewer visuals) to support this is very unfortunate, ad only adds to your bias against certain players.

Cephas didn't eat up any balls (played only two balls in one game I think) so you can't assert that he struggled. He simply played his natural game and it didn't come off.

The numbers speak for themselves regarding Cephas. He lasted an average of 13 balls per match or something very close to that. Thats just 2 overs essentially. Even at a strike rate of 150, thats 20 runs in 2 overs. Cephas played almost all the matches and ZIM only scored more than 265 one time, against one the weakest sides/bowling attacks in the competition. Against an attack with Naveed bowling at his very best, Cephas would not have lasted much longer than Masakadza nor scored many more than Taylor. He played and missed 50% of the deliveries he faced against teams like Hong Kong and Scotland. Against the top sides (WI, AFG, IRE) I think he scored 20 odd runs at an average of about 7. These aren't even Malcolm, Vusi, or Elton numbers. Moor was the right call and he anchored the chase. Mire, Masakadza, and Taylor failed and Williams and Raza got out at crucial times.