[MATCH THREAD] ZIM v UAE WCQ

[foreignfield]

Sean Williams looked sensational today until he cramped up. Why can't he play like that more often? He honestly looks like the most talented guy in the team and makes batting look so easy.

Yeah. It was vintage Sean Williams.

Shame that it was in vain.

I like your new avatar Crimson, beauty amidst all the gloom.

[CrimsonAvenger]

I like your new avatar Crimson, beauty amidst all the gloom.

Thanks . I had kept that ready to celebrate our entry into the World Cup. After the exit, I thought, might as well use it anyway...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Folks, is there any official / unofficial online DLS calculator that we can use? I have tried looking for some, but they are either incorrect or incomplete. They don't seem to have support to decide targets when the innings of team batting first itself is interrupted.

ICC must be using something that must already be available online (ideally put online officially by ICC) so that fans can always cross check, like the Ranking predictor? If not, why don't they have it up there for so many years of using this method?

I just can't come to terms with how Zim was made to chase 230 in 40 overs given the UAE were still at 235/7 with a handful of balls to go. I can understand if they had many wickets in hand and their innings was cut short much earlier, say over no. 33 or something, but how on earth was that a meaningful target?

[eugene]

Whoever is talking about getting rid of people and mass resignations and another rebuilding phase doesn’t understand. These chaps are the best we’ve got and they’re not bad, it’s a game of millimeters.
If we want to tear anything down and toss anyone out let’s only focus on the c^*ts that run the charade that has been our cricket for 20 years.
We need these players to stay put and bring on a couple of decent youngsters, if we can find any. This is a different level of cricket and you need to be damned good to make the step up from U19 and our FC.

Exactly. If Ervine has clubbed a six of the last ball we would all be celebrating and everything would have never looked better. If we had lost every game in the tournament and been thoroughly hammered perhaps then we could talk about rebuilding. This is the best team we have fielded in a long time and to be honest a majority of forumites didn't think we would qualify any way. If we had been presented with victories over Ireland and Afghanistan at the beginning of the tournament I think we would have all taken that scenario.

Well, he didn't and he couldn't and he cant, can he? He doesn't have the ability so why are we forcing the issues?

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?

Ervine of course has the ability to hit a six off the last ball of the match, he can score quite quickly when set. Sending him in at seven was wrong although the gamble was that Raza and Williams would guide us home and nobody below them would be needed.

[Kriterion_BD]

I just can't come to terms with how Zim was made to chase 230 in 40 overs given the UAE were still at 235/7 with a handful of balls to go. I can understand if they had many wickets in hand and their innings was cut short much earlier, say over no. 33 or something, but how on earth was that a meaningful target?

Any formula will have its flaws. Its a mathematical model to try and predict the outcome or at least the actions of humans. We know how unpredictable people are. No one knows your wife or GF better than you do, but can you predict even 10% of they will do today with any reliable degree of certainty?

That being said the DL system, is pretty decent for ODIs. And I think its accuracy is highest when fewer overs are reduced. In this match only 12-13 overs were lost, so the formula should be pretty good.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8038 ... r-1996-97/

As an example, I'm going to use the 1997 WCQ Final between Bangladesh and Kenya (scorecard above) which had a reserve day but still used DL. Kenya batted their full 50 overs and scored 241. Their run rate was 4.82. Bangladesh's innings was reduced to 25 overs and we were required to chase 166, at a RRR of 6.64. Our asking rate was nearly 2 runs higher than that Kenya had gotten, but because the innings was much shorter. But that is still actually quite fair, as the T20 era will show us.

241 was an average 50 over score in those days. What is an average 20 over score? According to statsguru, the average run rate in T20Is is 7.66 which yields a total of 153. So far BD to chase at 6.64 was actually a bit harsh on Kenya.

In DL, the premise is that teams have two resources to score runs, balls remaining, and wickets. ZIM was required to chase 230 in 40 overs at 5.75 an over. Right off the top of my head that sounds very fair, and ZIM actually almost did it despite only really having one batsman fire. That shows how chaseable the score actually was.

Now UAE what was UAE's score after 40 overs to get an idea of the DL's accuracy for this particular match? UAE were at 188/4, going at 4.70 an over. They had plenty of wickets in hand, which DL assumes could be converted to some extra runs if the UAE knew they were only batting 40 overs instead of 50. 5.75/4.70 = is a 122% increase which is roughly equal to the 50/40 = 125% increase in overs played. So everything is roughly equal.

At 30 overs the scores for both teams was (UAE 125-3, and ZIM 140-4), ZIM had used 1 more wicket to score a slight 15 run advantage, which is offset by the fact they knew ahead of time the innings had 20% fewer balls. After 20 overs (UAE 89-1, ZIM 82-3), after 10 overs (UAE 50-1, ZIM 34-2).

Main thing is at 40 overs the UAE had a score of 188-4, which under DL with 6 wickets in hand a revised target of 230 is pretty fair because it assigns a value of 7 runs per each of those remaining 6 wickets.

[ilovearsenal04]

I just can't come to terms with how Zim was made to chase 230 in 40 overs given the UAE were still at 235/7 with a handful of balls to go. I can understand if they had many wickets in hand and their innings was cut short much earlier, say over no. 33 or something, but how on earth was that a meaningful target?

Any formula will have its flaws. Its a mathematical model to try and predict the outcome or at least the actions of humans. We know how unpredictable people are. No one knows your wife or GF better than you do, but can you predict even 10% of they will do today with any reliable degree of certainty?

That being said the DL system, is pretty decent for ODIs. And I think its accuracy is highest when fewer overs are reduced. In this match only 12-13 overs were lost, so the formula should be pretty good.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/8038 ... r-1996-97/

As an example, I'm going to use the 1997 WCQ Final between Bangladesh and Kenya (scorecard above) which had a reserve day but still used DL. Kenya batted their full 50 overs and scored 241. Their run rate was 4.82. Bangladesh's innings was reduced to 25 overs and we were required to chase 166, at a RRR of 6.64. Our asking rate was nearly 2 runs higher than that Kenya had gotten, but because the innings was much shorter. But that is still actually quite fair, as the T20 era will show us.

241 was an average 50 over score in those days. What is an average 20 over score? According to statsguru, the average run rate in T20Is is 7.66 which yields a total of 153. So far BD to chase at 6.64 was actually a bit harsh on Kenya.

In DL, the premise is that teams have two resources to score runs, balls remaining, and wickets. ZIM was required to chase 230 in 40 overs at 5.75 an over. Right off the top of my head that sounds very fair, and ZIM actually almost did it despite only really having one batsman fire. That shows how chaseable the score actually was.

Now UAE what was UAE's score after 40 overs to get an idea of the DL's accuracy for this particular match? UAE were at 188/4, going at 4.70 an over. They had plenty of wickets in hand, which DL assumes could be converted to some extra runs if the UAE knew they were only batting 40 overs instead of 50. 5.75/4.70 = is a 122% increase which is roughly equal to the 50/40 = 125% increase in overs played. So everything is roughly equal.

At 30 overs the scores for both teams was (UAE 125-3, and ZIM 140-4), ZIM had used 1 more wicket to score a slight 15 run advantage, which is offset by the fact they knew ahead of time the innings had 20% fewer balls. After 20 overs (UAE 89-1, ZIM 82-3), after 10 overs (UAE 50-1, ZIM 34-2).

Main thing is that at 40 overs the UAE had a score of 188-4, which under DL with 6 wickets in hand a revised target of 230 is pretty fair because it assigns a value of 7 runs per each of those remaining 6 wickets.

Ahhhh i was really trying to calculate the whole thing but thanks for the explanation, so we where fuccd because after 40overs they where only 4 down and the D/L calculation did not take into consideration that they actually had to bat up
until the 47th over?

[Kriterion_BD]

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.

[Kriterion_BD]

Ahhhh i was really trying to calculate the whole thing but thanks for the explanation, so we where fuccd because after 40overs they where only 4 down and the D/L calculation did not take into consideration that they actually had to bat up
until the 47th over?

I'm not totally sure. But at 48 overs and 7 wickets down, UAE's remaining resources are so minimal that that wouldn't affect their score much. Or shouldn't at least. Realistically UAE would have gotten anywhere from 245-260 had they batted the full 50 overs.

But its clear that if they had scored 188 in 40 overs, with 6 wickets in hand, they could have presumably scored 229 if they knew they only had 40 overs from the start. Thats what the DL attempts to estimate. I think thats fair. Its just one extra run per over.

[foreignfield]

Ahhhh i was really trying to calculate the whole thing but thanks for the explanation, so we where fuccd because after 40overs they where only 4 down and the D/L calculation did not take into consideration that they actually had to bat up
until the 47th over?

I'm not totally sure. But at 48 overs and 7 wickets down, UAE's remaining resources are so minimal that that wouldn't affect their score much. Or shouldn't at least. Realistically UAE would have gotten anywhere from 245-260 had they batted the full 50 overs.

But its clear that if they had scored 188 in 40 overs, with 6 wickets in hand, they could have presumably scored 229 if they knew they only had 40 overs from the start. Thats what the DL attempts to estimate. I think thats fair. Its just one extra run per over.

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.

[Kriterion_BD]

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.