Discussing really important issues

[Grunt]

In one day cricket when a team who bats first wins, they win by a number of runs. Teams batting second win by a number of wickets. Like last night the Aussies won by 56 runs. When England won the other day they batted second and won by 3 wickets.

I don't find that saying a team has won by a number of wickets gives a picture of how close the result was. I think we should use the number of deliveries/overs remaining.

In the match where England won, they won by 15 balls. An indication that they won quite easily.

Really close matches where the team batting first gets 9/250 in their 50 overs and the team batting second get 6/251 in 49.4 overs would win by 2 deliveries instead of by 4 wickets.

Winning by 5 overs is a thrashing.

I thought it was about time we discussed the really important issues confronting the world.

[namtrak]

A very valid point, why not send you proposal off to Jim Maxwell on the ABC cricket website? Or maybe Cricket Australia or the ICC? This is a critical issue which should be addressed sooner than later!!!!

[bitingmidge]

So what we really need here is the Gruntworth Lewis formula for winning margins.

I think the formula should take into account the percentage of the crowd that went home early once the outcome became obvious too.

In some matches, the winning team could be 30 runs behind with two overs to go and one wicket in hand.

If they lost the wicket on the first ball of the second last over it would look as though they were slaughtered statistically, but if they scored the winning run off the second last ball, it would look like a close match. Neither would adequately describe the feeling of the crowd.

Perhaps the snickometer could be used to gauge crowd interest, and that could be computed across a standard curve of beer sales plotted against overs to determine the entertainment value. After all that's what the game is about - entertainment.

I'm not trying to change the scoring, just the method of calculating the winning margin, or "contest value".

Cheers,

P

[Daddles]

Really, you are making it too complicated. We only need two statements
- after a valiant and skillful effort, the Australians narrowly succumbed
and
- WE KILLED 'EM

Richard

[namtrak]

Really, you are making it too complicated. We only need two statements
- after a valiant and skillful effort, the Australians narrowly succumbed
and
- WE KILLED 'EM

Richard

I prefer the less dignified:

On an Aussie loss - We was robbed!!!!!
On an Victory - We killed 'em!!!!

[Daddles]

How dare you accuse me of being dignified

Richard

[Ashore]

But midge what about the obvious poor decisions by the umpires in the games we loose compared to the better decisions when we win
So if we gave the umpires a rating for the game on the number of finger up to head shake ratio divided by the number of appeals we could then get a multiplying factor for the final wicket to run average to adjust your crowd meter




I smile because I don't know what the hell is going on.

[Daddles]

And Midge, you made allowance for the beach ball factor :confused:

Richard
the rotten things never come near me, it's NOT fair

[Daddles]

My lad suffered quite a culture shock at his first one day international. He had this weird idea that it was all about cricket

Richard