With Champions Trophy 2013 in progress and given the impression that NRR will come into action selecting 2nd team of the group. This method used over the years and I have my personal doubts about whether this method given 100% accuracy in finding a team to progress knock-out level. Since wicket consumed did not consider in this methodology it is lacking in providing correct picture.
What we actually need here is include no of wicket fallen in achieving above figures. But how ? In a discussion we had few minutes back we discussed methods suggested by S.Rajesh - Stat Editor of CricInfo and Michael Wagner of http://www.cricket.geek.nz/ were based on D/L method.
But my suggestion in that discussion was "Net Run Rate per Wicket" that is further to net run rate, we should divide Net Run Rate by no. of Wickets fallen in the course. But meantime what came onto my mind was "what happen if no wicket fallen in an extra ordinary case?" That means one team had scored all of their runs without losing a wicket. Since it is theoretically possible. Let me further modify this into NRR per Partnership. That means in each match no. of partnerships they consumed in generating that Run Rate.
I worked out both of these two method for on going CT 2013. Let's compare these methods and find out whether my proposed system will work.
 |
| Updated : 14.06.2013 1:55 AM |
Look at the above table, which have been compiled considering 1st six matches of the Champions Trophy 2013. This table have been listed according to the points(not mentioned here) and Net Run Rate. But considering the wins recorded by New Zealand and England in Group A, it is convinced that England won their match comfortably than New Zealand. These two teams listed in above table in accordance of NRR. New Zealand top the table due to fact that they consumed lesser overs. But New Zealand's win against Sri Lanka was most tentative. They would have ended in losing side if last wicket fallen.
By looking at Group B it needs no evidence to say India won both of their matches very comfortably. Again this shows Pakistan who competed hard in their match had better NRRPP value.
Let's consider this method after league level come to an end.
It's too early to decide this is working or not. We need at least finish of group stage to see a different.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting suggestion, but there's a major flaw. Who has used their resources better? A team that is all out for 270 in 49.5 overs, or a team that is 269/2 in 50 overs.
ReplyDeleteClearly the first team has a better score, so they should be given credit for that. However your system would reward the second team more in most situations, regardless of if they won or lost. I'm not sure that's fair.
Well Winning along will give them points. Right. That's the advantage they have. But look at the skills team scoring 270 only manage to spare 1 ball and 1 run. Skills wise both team are at same level. Having won one team get 2 points but other get nothing.
DeleteAnother thing. Please don't take single match alone and compre. That will definitely give wrong picture. This method is useful in league systems where 2-3 teams getting same point. Therefore, they definitely have played more matches.