Australia now in the tricky position of needing to not only smash Afghanistan by about 60 runs but also hope Sri Lanka win but not by too many... or just hope its a wash out
If Australia win they'll be on 7 points so it doesn't matter to them how many SL win by. SL can only get to 6 points.
Australia now in the tricky position of needing to not only smash Afghanistan by about 60 runs but also hope Sri Lanka win but not by too many... or just hope its a wash out
If Australia win they'll be on 7 points so it doesn't matter to them how many SL win by. SL can only get to 6 points.
Oh yeah you're right, I made the mistake of reading twitter rather than looking at the table myself..
With Australia playing first, that is a big plus for us knowing what we have to do in our game. It really is in our hands.
Especially with the NRR margin being quite large. The Aussies will have to be really aggressive to close that, leaving them at more risk of losing the game.
So, assuming that NZ beat Ireland, we can now afford to defeat Sri Lanka by marginally less than Australia beat Afghanistan by
It's a bigger margin than you make it sound. 0.85 ish in England's favour
I really don't understand NRR. Before this game NZ were on 3.85 I believe. We beat them by 20 runs, which I would have assumed was -1 (20 over 20) giving 2.85. However it is now 2.23. Can someone explain. I'm not sure what we were before the game but now .547. didn't think we were that low before to make it balance with NZ drop
So, assuming that NZ beat Ireland, we can now afford to defeat Sri Lanka by marginally less than Australia beat Afghanistan by
It's a bigger margin than you make it sound. 0.85 ish in England's favour
I really don't understand NRR. Before this game NZ were on 3.85 I believe. We beat them by 20 runs, which I would have assumed was -1 (20 over 20) giving 2.85. However it is now 2.23. Can someone explain. I'm not sure what we were before the game but now .547. didn't think we were that low before to make it balance with NZ drop
I think that's because you are taking the margin of victory in this game in isolation as opposed to the overall NRR
NZ were 367/40 v opposition 213/40 NZ now 526/60 v opposition 392/60
So, assuming that NZ beat Ireland, we can now afford to defeat Sri Lanka by marginally less than Australia beat Afghanistan by
It's a bigger margin than you make it sound. 0.85 ish in England's favour
I really don't understand NRR. Before this game NZ were on 3.85 I believe. We beat them by 20 runs, which I would have assumed was -1 (20 over 20) giving 2.85. However it is now 2.23. Can someone explain. I'm not sure what we were before the game but now .547. didn't think we were that low before to make it balance with NZ drop
It's perfectly simple.
A team's net run rate is calculated by deducting from the average runs per over scored by that team throughout the competition, the average runs per over scored against that team throughout the competition. In the event of a team being all out in less than its full quota of overs, the calculation of its net run rate shall be based on the full quota of overs to which it would have been entitled and not on the number of overs in which the team was dismissed. Only those matches where results are achieved will count for the purpose of net run rate calculations. Where a match is abandoned, but a result is achieved under Duckworth/Lewis, for net run rate purposes Team 1 will be accredited with Team 2's Par Score on abandonment off the same number of overs faced by Team 2. Where a match is concluded but with Duckworth/Lewis having been applied at an earlier point in the match, Team 1 will be accredited with 1 run less than the final Target Score for Team 2 off the total number of overs allocated to Team 2 to reach the target.
I mean, honestly, what could be easier to understand than that?
So, assuming that NZ beat Ireland, we can now afford to defeat Sri Lanka by marginally less than Australia beat Afghanistan by
It's a bigger margin than you make it sound. 0.85 ish in England's favour
I really don't understand NRR. Before this game NZ were on 3.85 I believe. We beat them by 20 runs, which I would have assumed was -1 (20 over 20) giving 2.85. However it is now 2.23. Can someone explain. I'm not sure what we were before the game but now .547. didn't think we were that low before to make it balance with NZ drop
It's perfectly simple.
A team's net run rate is calculated by deducting from the average runs per over scored by that team throughout the competition, the average runs per over scored against that team throughout the competition. In the event of a team being all out in less than its full quota of overs, the calculation of its net run rate shall be based on the full quota of overs to which it would have been entitled and not on the number of overs in which the team was dismissed. Only those matches where results are achieved will count for the purpose of net run rate calculations. Where a match is abandoned, but a result is achieved under Duckworth/Lewis, for net run rate purposes Team 1 will be accredited with Team 2's Par Score on abandonment off the same number of overs faced by Team 2. Where a match is concluded but with Duckworth/Lewis having been applied at an earlier point in the match, Team 1 will be accredited with 1 run less than the final Target Score for Team 2 off the total number of overs allocated to Team 2 to reach the target.
I mean, honestly, what could be easier to understand than that?
Is that partly why teams like to bat second as you are more likely to get bowled out batting first. Like NZ today they decided that they couldnt reach the target so packed up & saw out the overs. If you bat first you might go hell for leather going for a figure you think you'll need & then get bowled out with a few overs to go.
So, assuming that NZ beat Ireland, we can now afford to defeat Sri Lanka by marginally less than Australia beat Afghanistan by
It's a bigger margin than you make it sound. 0.85 ish in England's favour
I really don't understand NRR. Before this game NZ were on 3.85 I believe. We beat them by 20 runs, which I would have assumed was -1 (20 over 20) giving 2.85. However it is now 2.23. Can someone explain. I'm not sure what we were before the game but now .547. didn't think we were that low before to make it balance with NZ drop
It's perfectly simple.
A team's net run rate is calculated by deducting from the average runs per over scored by that team throughout the competition, the average runs per over scored against that team throughout the competition. In the event of a team being all out in less than its full quota of overs, the calculation of its net run rate shall be based on the full quota of overs to which it would have been entitled and not on the number of overs in which the team was dismissed. Only those matches where results are achieved will count for the purpose of net run rate calculations. Where a match is abandoned, but a result is achieved under Duckworth/Lewis, for net run rate purposes Team 1 will be accredited with Team 2's Par Score on abandonment off the same number of overs faced by Team 2. Where a match is concluded but with Duckworth/Lewis having been applied at an earlier point in the match, Team 1 will be accredited with 1 run less than the final Target Score for Team 2 off the total number of overs allocated to Team 2 to reach the target.
I mean, honestly, what could be easier to understand than that?
Is that partly why teams like to bat second as you are more likely to get bowled out batting first. Like NZ today they decided that they couldnt reach the target so packed up & saw out the overs. If you bat first you might go hell for leather going for a figure you think you'll need & then get bowled out with a few overs to go.
I think that choosing when to bat simply based on your NRR requirements is a recipe for disaster. If you go into a match needing to win and to improve the NRR, the most important thing is that you win. So choosing whether to bat or bowl should be influenced first and foremost by whatever it takes to ensure you win.
Not only does it allow us to understand what's needed in terms of NRR, but ALSO if both the Aussies and NZ were to dispatch Ireland and Afghanistan, it makes qualification impossible for our opponents Sri Lanka as well.
So, assuming that NZ beat Ireland, we can now afford to defeat Sri Lanka by marginally less than Australia beat Afghanistan by
It's a bigger margin than you make it sound. 0.85 ish in England's favour
I really don't understand NRR. Before this game NZ were on 3.85 I believe. We beat them by 20 runs, which I would have assumed was -1 (20 over 20) giving 2.85. However it is now 2.23. Can someone explain. I'm not sure what we were before the game but now .547. didn't think we were that low before to make it balance with NZ drop
I think that's because you are taking the margin of victory in this game in isolation as opposed to the overall NRR
NZ were 367/40 v opposition 213/40 NZ now 526/60 v opposition 392/60
That's an interesting calculation and not how I had assumed NRR was obtained.
I'm sure there's some clever-cloggs out there that's already figured out already what England would need based on other results. If not, sounds like a fun challenge... :-)
Reading on Twitter that if England beat Sri Lanka by 1 run, Australia would need to beat Afghanistan by around 50 runs to jump above. And if England won by 50 runs, Australia would need to win by around 100 runs.
I was very critical of Jos Buttler's captaincy in the Ireland game, but I thought he captained really well today. He was flexible with the batting order & mixed the bowlers up well too.
So, assuming that NZ beat Ireland, we can now afford to defeat Sri Lanka by marginally less than Australia beat Afghanistan by
It's a bigger margin than you make it sound. 0.85 ish in England's favour
I really don't understand NRR. Before this game NZ were on 3.85 I believe. We beat them by 20 runs, which I would have assumed was -1 (20 over 20) giving 2.85. However it is now 2.23. Can someone explain. I'm not sure what we were before the game but now .547. didn't think we were that low before to make it balance with NZ drop
I think that's because you are taking the margin of victory in this game in isolation as opposed to the overall NRR
NZ were 367/40 v opposition 213/40 NZ now 526/60 v opposition 392/60
Thanks. Yes I had got it wrong. I had wrongly assumed it was the sum of individual games. In football based on goal difference it doesn't make any difference but in the old days of goal average it would alos be different.
So, assuming that NZ beat Ireland, we can now afford to defeat Sri Lanka by marginally less than Australia beat Afghanistan by
It's a bigger margin than you make it sound. 0.85 ish in England's favour
I really don't understand NRR. Before this game NZ were on 3.85 I believe. We beat them by 20 runs, which I would have assumed was -1 (20 over 20) giving 2.85. However it is now 2.23. Can someone explain. I'm not sure what we were before the game but now .547. didn't think we were that low before to make it balance with NZ drop
It's perfectly simple.
A team's net run rate is calculated by deducting from the average runs per over scored by that team throughout the competition, the average runs per over scored against that team throughout the competition. In the event of a team being all out in less than its full quota of overs, the calculation of its net run rate shall be based on the full quota of overs to which it would have been entitled and not on the number of overs in which the team was dismissed. Only those matches where results are achieved will count for the purpose of net run rate calculations. Where a match is abandoned, but a result is achieved under Duckworth/Lewis, for net run rate purposes Team 1 will be accredited with Team 2's Par Score on abandonment off the same number of overs faced by Team 2. Where a match is concluded but with Duckworth/Lewis having been applied at an earlier point in the match, Team 1 will be accredited with 1 run less than the final Target Score for Team 2 off the total number of overs allocated to Team 2 to reach the target.
I mean, honestly, what could be easier to understand than that?
Is that partly why teams like to bat second as you are more likely to get bowled out batting first. Like NZ today they decided that they couldnt reach the target so packed up & saw out the overs. If you bat first you might go hell for leather going for a figure you think you'll need & then get bowled out with a few overs to go.
I think that choosing when to bat simply based on your NRR requirements is a recipe for disaster. If you go into a match needing to win and to improve the NRR, the most important thing is that you win. So choosing whether to bat or bowl should be influenced first and foremost by whatever it takes to ensure you win.
Normally true. But for Australia v Afganistan it probably does. If Afganistan batted first and and were all out quickly I don't think it lets Australia improve their NRR as much as if they bat first.
So, assuming that NZ beat Ireland, we can now afford to defeat Sri Lanka by marginally less than Australia beat Afghanistan by
It's a bigger margin than you make it sound. 0.85 ish in England's favour
I really don't understand NRR. Before this game NZ were on 3.85 I believe. We beat them by 20 runs, which I would have assumed was -1 (20 over 20) giving 2.85. However it is now 2.23. Can someone explain. I'm not sure what we were before the game but now .547. didn't think we were that low before to make it balance with NZ drop
It's perfectly simple.
A team's net run rate is calculated by deducting from the average runs per over scored by that team throughout the competition, the average runs per over scored against that team throughout the competition. In the event of a team being all out in less than its full quota of overs, the calculation of its net run rate shall be based on the full quota of overs to which it would have been entitled and not on the number of overs in which the team was dismissed. Only those matches where results are achieved will count for the purpose of net run rate calculations. Where a match is abandoned, but a result is achieved under Duckworth/Lewis, for net run rate purposes Team 1 will be accredited with Team 2's Par Score on abandonment off the same number of overs faced by Team 2. Where a match is concluded but with Duckworth/Lewis having been applied at an earlier point in the match, Team 1 will be accredited with 1 run less than the final Target Score for Team 2 off the total number of overs allocated to Team 2 to reach the target.
I mean, honestly, what could be easier to understand than that?
Is that partly why teams like to bat second as you are more likely to get bowled out batting first. Like NZ today they decided that they couldnt reach the target so packed up & saw out the overs. If you bat first you might go hell for leather going for a figure you think you'll need & then get bowled out with a few overs to go.
I think that choosing when to bat simply based on your NRR requirements is a recipe for disaster. If you go into a match needing to win and to improve the NRR, the most important thing is that you win. So choosing whether to bat or bowl should be influenced first and foremost by whatever it takes to ensure you win.
Normally true. But for Australia v Afganistan it probably does. If Afganistan batted first and and were all out quickly I don't think it lets Australia improve their NRR as much as if they bat first.
Your best way of improving your NRR is to give yourself the best chance of winning. Full stop.
So, assuming that NZ beat Ireland, we can now afford to defeat Sri Lanka by marginally less than Australia beat Afghanistan by
It's a bigger margin than you make it sound. 0.85 ish in England's favour
I really don't understand NRR. Before this game NZ were on 3.85 I believe. We beat them by 20 runs, which I would have assumed was -1 (20 over 20) giving 2.85. However it is now 2.23. Can someone explain. I'm not sure what we were before the game but now .547. didn't think we were that low before to make it balance with NZ drop
It's perfectly simple.
A team's net run rate is calculated by deducting from the average runs per over scored by that team throughout the competition, the average runs per over scored against that team throughout the competition. In the event of a team being all out in less than its full quota of overs, the calculation of its net run rate shall be based on the full quota of overs to which it would have been entitled and not on the number of overs in which the team was dismissed. Only those matches where results are achieved will count for the purpose of net run rate calculations. Where a match is abandoned, but a result is achieved under Duckworth/Lewis, for net run rate purposes Team 1 will be accredited with Team 2's Par Score on abandonment off the same number of overs faced by Team 2. Where a match is concluded but with Duckworth/Lewis having been applied at an earlier point in the match, Team 1 will be accredited with 1 run less than the final Target Score for Team 2 off the total number of overs allocated to Team 2 to reach the target.
I mean, honestly, what could be easier to understand than that?
Is that partly why teams like to bat second as you are more likely to get bowled out batting first. Like NZ today they decided that they couldnt reach the target so packed up & saw out the overs. If you bat first you might go hell for leather going for a figure you think you'll need & then get bowled out with a few overs to go.
I think that choosing when to bat simply based on your NRR requirements is a recipe for disaster. If you go into a match needing to win and to improve the NRR, the most important thing is that you win. So choosing whether to bat or bowl should be influenced first and foremost by whatever it takes to ensure you win.
Normally true. But for Australia v Afganistan it probably does. If Afganistan batted first and and were all out quickly I don't think it lets Australia improve their NRR as much as if they bat first.
Your best way of improving your NRR is to give yourself the best chance of winning. Full stop.
Yes, but if Afghanistan bat first and limp along to 100 all out after 18 overs then for Australia to seriously increase their NNR they would have to get those runs in double double quick time as they cant get more than 100 runs
However, if Australia batted first & got 200+ & then bowled Afghanistan out for 100 inside 20 overs then that would increase their NNR a lot more.
Both my sons are there watching and they're not sure but it's not looking promising!
It's getting heavier now. The Betfair market says it all and there will be some serious punters who may have done their money. India were backed as low as 1.03 and are now 3.50
You just know that if they get back on, Bangladesh will blow it. Absolutely guaranteed
They will start to lose time which will then shorten the game and make the task of Bangladesh that much easier. If Das stays in and with Shakib Al Hasan to come they must have a great chance
Comments
Enland +0.547
Australia -0.304
Putting aside the fact we play last, if we were to beat SL in a close game, how many would Australia have to smash Afghanistan by?
I'm not sure what we were before the game but now .547. didn't think we were that low before to make it balance with NZ drop
I think that's because you are taking the margin of victory in this game in isolation as opposed to the overall NRR
NZ were 367/40 v opposition 213/40
NZ now 526/60 v opposition 392/60
A team's net run rate is calculated by deducting from the average runs per over scored by that team throughout the competition, the average runs per over scored against that team throughout the competition. In the event of a team being all out in less than its full quota of overs, the calculation of its net run rate shall be based on the full quota of overs to which it would have been entitled and not on the number of overs in which the team was dismissed. Only those matches where results are achieved will count for the purpose of net run rate calculations. Where a match is abandoned, but a result is achieved under Duckworth/Lewis, for net run rate purposes Team 1 will be accredited with Team 2's Par Score on abandonment off the same number of overs faced by Team 2. Where a match is concluded but with Duckworth/Lewis having been applied at an earlier point in the match, Team 1 will be accredited with 1 run less than the final Target Score for Team 2 off the total number of overs allocated to Team 2 to reach the target.
I mean, honestly, what could be easier to understand than that?
Not only does it allow us to understand what's needed in terms of NRR, but ALSO if both the Aussies and NZ were to dispatch Ireland and Afghanistan, it makes qualification impossible for our opponents Sri Lanka as well.
I'm sure there's some clever-cloggs out there that's already figured out already what England would need based on other results. If not, sounds like a fun challenge... :-)
Much better
In football based on goal difference it doesn't make any difference but in the old days of goal average it would alos be different.
However, if Australia batted first & got 200+ & then bowled Afghanistan out for 100 inside 20 overs then that would increase their NNR a lot more.
Yes ???
Which goes against my assumption earlier...😄
It's just started to chuck it down with Bangladesh 17 runs ahead on DLS. Let's hope that they don't get back on!
Shanto - strike rate 43.75
They will start to lose time which will then shorten the game and make the task of Bangladesh that much easier. If Das stays in and with Shakib Al Hasan to come they must have a great chance