Champions Trophy 2013

Why net run rate doesn't work

The method of ranking teams which are level on points through NRR was designed to reward comprehensive wins, but it surely isn't working at the Champions Trophy

S Rajesh

June 10, 2013

Comments: 97 | Text size: A | A

Lasith Malinga is ecstatic after dismissing Brendon McCullum, New Zealand v Sri Lanka, Champions Trophy, Group A, Cardiff, June 9, 2013
Scrambled victory or big win, which would you reward more? © Getty Images

Over the last few of days, there have been a couple of close, low-scoring games in the Champions Trophy. Both have been won by the team chasing with plenty of overs to spare, but they've been nail-biters because in both instances the winning teams had to rely on their last couple of wickets to do the job. West Indies squeezed past Pakistan's 170 with 56 balls to spare but only two wickets in hand, while New Zealand were very nearly unsuccessful in their quest for 139 against Sri Lanka, winning only by one wicket even though they had 13.3 overs in hand. The other two results in each of the two groups - India beating South Africa in group B and England trouncing Australia in A - were clearly more convincing wins.

However, you wouldn't know that if you looked at the points table, for New Zealand are on top in group A and West Indies in B. That's because of the net run rates, which is the method used to break the deadlock if teams are level on points in multi-team tournaments. The NRR takes into account only the run rates of teams, and is calculated as the difference between the batting run rate of a team and the bowling economy rate over the entire tournament. A team which is all out is considered to have faced the full quota overs. However, in non-all-out situations, wickets lost isn't factored in at all. Thus, New Zealand benefit because the method considers the fact that they won with 81 balls to spare, but ignores the fact that they were nine down when they did so. Hence, their NRR of 1.048 is superior to England's 0.960. Even their most ardent supporter would admit, though, that England's win was far more convincing. Group B's scenario with West Indies and India is exactly the same. This method of ranking teams which are level on points was designed to reward comprehensive wins, but that surely isn't working here.

Limited-overs cricket is clearly a game where teams need to juggle with two sets of resources - overs and wickets in hand. Depletion of either of those resources, with respect to the target before the team, is a sign that the team's in trouble. Any method which is used to differentiate between teams on equal points should therefore consider both these factors when judging how comprehensive the victory was. The NRR method fails to do that. There have been other debates and arguments on the shortcomings of the NRR, but this is clearly the greatest one.

A possible solution here is to use the rain rule to decide the margin. In the case of the New Zealand-Sri Lanka match, the par score for New Zealand when nine down in 36.3 overs is 132. Since they won the match at this stage, they were seven runs ahead of the par score, which thus becomes the margin of victory. Since England's margin of victory over Australia was 48 runs, they would clearly be the group leaders. However, if New Zealand had won in the same number of overs for the loss of four wickets, then the margin by the D-L method would have been 52 runs.

Similarly, the margin of victory for West Indies over Pakistan would have been 20 runs by this method. Since India beat South Africa by 28, they'd have been the group B table-toppers at this stage. The victory margins in games which are won by the team batting first are anyway in terms of runs, so this option allows all match results to be expressed in terms of runs. It can be further argued that these margins should further take into account the target, so that a ten-run margin in a low-scoring game counts for more than the same margin in a high-scoring one.

As things stand in this tournament, there could be a scenario - however unlikely it seems at the moment - in which New Zealand and England finish with the same number of points, and are fighting for second place in the group. If New Zealand stay ahead of England on NRR based on their one-wicket victory in Cardiff, it'll surely be a travesty.

S Rajesh is stats editor of ESPNcricinfo. Follow him on Twitter

RSS Feeds: S Rajesh

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by   on (June 17, 2013, 14:15 GMT)

Remove NRR, get head to head match ups to break deadlocks. Using DL to solve this is just more reason to get confused...

Posted by sreejith0712 on (June 11, 2013, 15:49 GMT)

Calculate each team's Effective Run Rate (ERR) as Number of runs scored/Number of overs played (50 if all wickets lost)/Number of wickets lost. In NZ vs SL game, NZ's ERR (for) = 139/36.5/9 = 0.4231 (SL's ERR against) and SL's ERR (for) = 138/50/10 = 0.276 (NZ's ERR against). Now NZ's NRR = 0.4231 - 0.276 = 0.1471 and SL's NRR = -0.1471. Likewise, in the Eng vs Aus game, Eng's ERR (for) = 269/50/6 = 0.8967 (Aus's against) and Aus's ERR (for) = 221/50/9 = 0.4911 (Eng's against). So Eng's NRR = 0.8967 - 0.4911 = 0.4056 and Aus's NRR = -0.4056. Lets say in the next match (NZ vs Eng), NZ score 250/5 in 50 overs and Eng score 252/4 in 43.3 overs. Then NZ's new ERR for = 389/86.5/14 = 0.3212 and ERR against = 390/93.5/14 = 0.2979. So NZ's NRR = 0.0233, whereas Eng's ERR for = 521/93.5/10 = 0.5572 and ERR against = 471/100/14 = 0.3364. So Eng's NRR = 0.2208.

This way, teams value their wickets and overs while both chasing or setting a total. NRR's also fair taking both wickets and overs lost

Posted by SLSup on (June 11, 2013, 14:04 GMT)

My response to @Bishop and other comments here that continue to engage in a meaningless effort to outsmart each other with rhetoric:

Firstly, if it is called a Net Run Rate (NRR) - what is that? It is the RATE at which the batting side scored their runs off of a specific number of overs. Period! Forget about the REST! : )

@Bishop: Yes, it IS POSSIBLE for a team to have a Plus NRR to the side it lost to - here in the case of SL losing to NZ. YES, if in the course of a tournament it so happens that a team only needs to focus on the NRR (the whole point of it being CONSIDERED A FACTOR in a tournament such as this Champions Trophy) then that is what they should do! This Trophy from the beginning had EVERYONE focusing on the NRR! - Why? As I said before, Go figure! And I say it with respect to you and others cos if there is one things humans are pretty good at it is COMPLICATING things for themselves and others!

ICC is conducting a Trophy that defies logic. Not smart.

Posted by Thommo44 on (June 11, 2013, 10:52 GMT)

The Goal Difference method used in football leagues around the globe is based on two important tenets that cricket has long overlooked. Firstly, it rewards teams that ENTERTAIN by scoring lots of goals. Secondly, its SIMPLISTIC enough for even a young fan to work out what his/her team needs to accomplish on the field. This makes for a gripping viewing experience for the entire duration of the game. I was entertained a lot more watching the NZ/SL & WI/PK clashes than the other so called 'comprehensive' wins by IN & AU. Today, the excitement of watching 4's & 6's has been significantly devalued, while the value in taking wickets remains least hit by the scourge of T20 cricket. So I would leave it to Ramesh and you whizzes to determine whether a system based on wickets taken and wickets conceded is feasible. The way limited overs cricket is headed, bowlers would soon prefer safer defensive non-wicket taking tactics like targeting the tram-lines than attempting yorkers. My 2cents

Posted by   on (June 11, 2013, 10:11 GMT)

I think every wicket should be valued as 5 overs in a run chase. When a team chases the total, the overs played should be num_wickets_lost*5 or actual overs played whichever is higher. So in the nz-sl case, nz would have got a nrr of 0.33 as follows 1. sl run rate: 138/50 = 2.76 2. nz run rate : 139/45 (9*5) = 3.03 3. nz net run rate: 3.03 - 2.76 = 0.33

This way teams will value their wickets and run rate both.The wickets lost factor needs to changed based on number of overs played in a rain affected match. For ex, if the match is of 35 overs, the factor should be 3.5 (35/10).

Also, this should not be called as net-run-rate. It can be called as net-average, as average is runs scored per wicket lost.

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
S RajeshClose
S Rajesh Stats editor Every week the Numbers Game takes a look at the story behind the stats, with an original slant on facts and figures. The column is edited by S Rajesh, ESPNcricinfo's stats editor in Bangalore. He did an MBA in marketing, and then worked for a year in advertising, before deciding to chuck it in favour of a job which would combine the pleasures of watching cricket and writing about it. The intense office cricket matches were an added bonus.
Tournament Results
England v India at Birmingham - Jun 23, 2013
India won by 5 runs
India v Sri Lanka at Cardiff - Jun 20, 2013
India won by 8 wickets (with 90 balls remaining)
England v South Africa at The Oval - Jun 19, 2013
England won by 7 wickets (with 75 balls remaining)
Australia v Sri Lanka at The Oval - Jun 17, 2013
Sri Lanka won by 20 runs
England v New Zealand at Cardiff - Jun 16, 2013
England won by 10 runs
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days