I know a lot of that is odds on betting but it’s still huge sums of money bet on the match and that’s just betfair .
The MS Dhoni and Kedar Jadhav partnership:
31 balls
39 runs
7 dots
20 singles
3 fours
1 six
Shameful attempt .
That Betfair caption doesn't show anything. Those figures show amounts available to be matched, not actually matched. It wouldn't surprise me, however if there were plenty of dodgy dealings going on.
It could be a betting coup, or Dhoni just taking care of his reputation or it could be a case of the Indians maintaining their best possible net run rate .. the real question is, why try to achieve an impossible target ?
It's not a great advert for the format of the competition where teams would rather settle for losing by a smallish margin than going for the win and risking losing more heavily.
Off topic but I've always thought that there was a curio in limited overs cricket describing results. It seems odd that the following situation Team A 303-4 after 50 overs Team B 304-7 after 48.2 overs Is officially described as Team B winning by 3 wickets which makes sense in Test/First Class cricket but not here as it's not the number of wickets that matters! Team B winning by 1.4 overs is the real result.
It's not a great advert for the format of the competition where teams would rather settle for losing by a smallish margin than going for the win and risking losing more heavily.
Off topic but I've always thought that there was a curio in limited overs cricket describing results. It seems odd that the following situation Team A 303-4 after 50 overs Team B 304-7 after 48.2 overs Is officially described as Team B winning by 3 wickets which makes sense in Test/First Class cricket but not here as it's not the number of wickets that matters! Team B winning by 1.4 overs is the real result.
that is a VERY good point and, as you say, a better indication of the closeness or otherwise of the outcome
superclive98 it shows £97.4m was matched on betfair
True, but it doesn't show where and on which team that money was gambled. Having said that, £97.4m does seem incredibly high. It would interesting to see
It could be a betting coup, or Dhoni just taking care of his reputation or it could be a case of the Indians maintaining their best possible net run rate .. the real question is, why try to achieve an impossible target ?
I think it was the run rate. England scored too many on that pitch and the Indians realised that.
I dont think the 1 point for a no result is fair either. I could be that England go out because NZ or Pakistan didn't play a match. Imagine the scenario where NZ & Pakistan's 1 point each came about because they didn't play each other due to weather. So they both end up on 11 points & England 10. So they both qualify & England dont. But if they had played the game it is 99.9% likely that one would have won & one would have lost......so one would have 12 & the other 10. Assuming England's nrr was better,.then the one with 10 would go out & England would go through.
I wonder if it would be fairer all round that there was no "no result" games and if a match was called off due to bad weather then they do the old fashioned indoor bowling at the stumps way of determining a result.
Which in itself could be deemed unfair. Ideally you would have replays, but logistically, it is probably impossible. You have to accept this happens and win enough games for it not to matter. It can work both ways and you get rain when you are playing the Afghans!
At 39 overs they were only 6 runs behind England's score ! Yet they threw the towel in with 42 balls to go with plenty of wickets left.
If that was Horse racing there would be a Stewards if a horse comes alongside with 2 furlongs to go and then the Jockey doesn't use the whip once and just drops his hands.
It could be a betting coup, or Dhoni just taking care of his reputation or it could be a case of the Indians maintaining their best possible net run rate .. the real question is, why try to achieve an impossible target ?
That was not an impossible target , improbable yes , impossible no
superclive98 it shows £97.4m was matched on betfair
True, but it doesn't show where and on which team that money was gambled. Having said that, £97.4m does seem incredibly high. It would interesting to see
The last US Presidential race market on Betfair had over 200m matched.
They lost the player who could enable them to reach it - Dhoni is not the same player of his younger days. What was telling was they only scored 1 six to England's 13.
I dont think the 1 point for a no result is fair either. I could be that England go out because NZ or Pakistan didn't play a match. Imagine the scenario where NZ & Pakistan's 1 point each came about because they didn't play each other due to weather. So they both end up on 11 points & England 10. So they both qualify & England dont. But if they had played the game it is 99.9% likely that one would have won & one would have lost......so one would have 12 & the other 10. Assuming England's nrr was better,.then the one with 10 would go out & England would go through.
I wonder if it would be fairer all round that there was no "no result" games and if a match was called off due to bad weather then they do the old fashioned indoor bowling at the stumps way of determining a result.
If teams end up on the same number of points the next thing that is looked at is GAMES WON and not NRR. Sri Lanka for example can still get to 10 points which is what England could end up on but we would be ahead of them as we have won 5 games and Sri Lanka can only win a maximum of 4. So although you get a point for a NR wins are important.
Can't work out what the worst example of fixing is: Gulbadin bringing himself on vs Pakistan, Dhoni and Jadhav yesterday or the WI picking Shannon Gabriel in any ODI ever?
Net run rate (which too few people understand) should be scrapped as the means of breaking a points tie in favour of a count of the number of sixes (then fours) a team hits in the qualifying games.
In one stroke, you would eliminate the tawdry and dull sight of West Indies limping towards the line. And, even if a team is a long way short of the target required, the crowd are likely to be treated to a few overs of licentious batting.
I know the WI are out the tournament but their fielding today is very poor. Very few willing to make a real effort. Mind you captain Jason Holder set the tone, leaving the field of play to clip his toe and then finger nails by the boundary. Truly bizarre.
On the other hand if they had shown a bit more ambition, instead of finishing on 306-5 they might have reached say 320-7, it's not as if they were 8 down when Dhoni "gave up"
Comments
it stinks again
I know a lot of that is odds on betting but it’s still huge sums of money bet on the match and that’s just betfair .
Shameful attempt .
It wouldn't surprise me, however if there were plenty of dodgy dealings going on.
Off topic but I've always thought that there was a curio in limited overs cricket describing results. It seems odd that the following situation
Team A 303-4 after 50 overs
Team B 304-7 after 48.2 overs
Is officially described as Team B winning by 3 wickets which makes sense in Test/First Class cricket but not here as it's not the number of wickets that matters! Team B winning by 1.4 overs is the real result.
Having said that, £97.4m does seem incredibly high. It would interesting to see
I dont think the 1 point for a no result is fair either. I could be that England go out because NZ or Pakistan didn't play a match. Imagine the scenario where NZ & Pakistan's 1 point each came about because they didn't play each other due to weather. So they both end up on 11 points & England 10. So they both qualify & England dont. But if they had played the game it is 99.9% likely that one would have won & one would have lost......so one would have 12 & the other 10. Assuming England's nrr was better,.then the one with 10 would go out & England would go through.
I wonder if it would be fairer all round that there was no "no result" games and if a match was called off due to bad weather then they do the old fashioned indoor bowling at the stumps way of determining a result.
If that was Horse racing there would be a Stewards if a horse comes alongside with 2 furlongs to go and then the Jockey doesn't use the whip once and just drops his hands.
In one stroke, you would eliminate the tawdry and dull sight of West Indies limping towards the line. And, even if a team is a long way short of the target required, the crowd are likely to be treated to a few overs of licentious batting.
Mind you captain Jason Holder set the tone, leaving the field of play to clip his toe and then finger nails by the boundary.
Truly bizarre.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48737257
http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/page/429305.html