June 10, 2013
It is the same for all sides in a multi-team tournament, and has worked well over a period of time.
New Zealand didn't deserve a NRR boost of +1.04 after scrambling to a one-wicket win.
© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.
June 18, 2013, 14:03 GMT
Yes BUT...There is a simple solution to this. NRR should just take into account whether the team was on course to bat 50 overs. If a team is bowled out then divide the runs by 50. That's fair and no need to change.
However if a team is losing wickets at a rate of more than 1 wicket per every 5 overs, then it should be calculated they will fall short of the full 50 overs. (As a total of 10 wickets can fall in 50 overs)
For example if SL bat first and post 240 and NZ chase it down in 40 overs and lose 8 wickets in doing so: NRR should assume that they would bat 50 overs and hence assume they were going to get 300.
But if NZ were 9 down when they won NRR should assume NZ would have been bowled out after 44.3 overs due to the rate of which they were losing wickets. ((40/9 wickets) * 10) and not assume that they bat 50. Therefore their RR would be calculated based on the total they would have reached in this amount of overs at the same RR. (Around 267 runs)
June 10, 2013, 23:26 GMT
NRR is a fair measure.
There has been numerous instances when the team batting first scores 250 + for the loss of 2 or 3 wickets in the stipulated 50 overs; then the team chasing, manages to achieve the target losing 9 wickets. Nobody questions the fairness then.
ODI doesn't give importance to wickets for a completed match. As long as you achieve the target within 50 overs, you are good. (even if there is a tie in scores, nobody compares the wickets lost)
There are going to be exceptions to every model; no model can cover all anomalies.
June 10, 2013, 16:58 GMT
calculating NRR is fair because ,it comes in to play only at the end of the league when all the teams in the group has played against each other in the group. That means it defenitely gives fair playing field in all parameters. That is all teams has opportunity to bowl full quota of overs and take all wickets ,similarly score as many runs as possible or achieve target as quickly as possible against all the teams.
Here,the example given that NZ has +1.04NRR against SL cannot be compared to England's comprehensive win against different opponents(Aus). we will come to know the exact performances(regards to NRR) only after eng played SL. (or even Aus can score 221 against eng , they could well score more than that against NZ)
so it is fair to consider NRR at the end of the league when points are equal between two or more sides. That could be the reason it has worked well over the period.
June 15, 2013, 9:38 GMT
yes, there is no better way.the nrr will evn out over the matches and the best team almost always has the largest nrr.
June 14, 2013, 13:04 GMT
NOT AT ALLLLL. Why is it that we r looking @ only the runs column and not the wickets column.If we have a mechanism which will look at the wickets column as well ,then the batsmen will look to conserve their wicket a little bit more and they will look to play proper cricketing shots, whreas the bowlers will also look to attack and take wickets a little bit more.
June 14, 2013, 9:29 GMT
yes, there is no better way. a wicket difference simply never works. a team might score 275/5 off 50.which their opposition might chase down 276/8 off 49 will then they recieve the disadvantage in a system weighting wickets were with the difference being -3. not to mention a system weighting both wickets and run rate would be too complicated and u would need to sit down with a whole table of scores after each over which to see the equation and that would be just too much. plus the net run rate after 1 match looks unfair but it is the best measure of the better team over the whole grp stage.the nrr will evn out over the matches and the best team almost always has the largest nrr.
June 11, 2013, 4:36 GMT
Well let me give an example and explain. Say ENG vs AUS and NZ vs SL. Suppose Australia batting first scores 279/5 in 50 overs. England chasing that finishes with 200/9 in their 50 overs. So whats the nRR according to current format? 1.58 for Australia. Now say SL scores 50 all out in 15 overs. NZ chases that 50/9 in 10 overs. For me both teams played badly no matter the pitch. Infact gauging a performance based on pitch is really next to impossible as pitches may suit different teams differently. Now taking NRR, NZ will get an NRR of 4. Now that would be ridiculous for me. If we add the wickets column to the denominator while calculating RR for teams then Australia has .6715 as the NRR. NZ will have .4555 as the NRR. I am not saying this a foolproof solution. None of them ever would be. Thats why this game is a game of glorious uncertainties. But we should try to make the current system better which is always a part of human evolution. Else simply stick to wins and not have NRR at all
June 11, 2013, 4:25 GMT
NRR may have been relatively successful throughout many years BUT as we are seeing first hand in this tournament It doesn't fairly reflect the success of a team.
The reason is Overs are not the only resource a batting team has.
The wickets have been completely ignored. Ideally in a deadlock situation where teams are tied the first clause should be how they fared against each other. If it is a 3 way tile , where for example three teams have 4 points each Then a resource-based calculation on the lines of D/L should be applied.
England will feel really hard done if by some way NZ edge them out on NRR this tournament wouldn't they? After walloping Australia they are still behind NZ who got in by the skin of their teeth.
June 10, 2013, 20:00 GMT
S Rajesh nailed it nearly 100%.
1.NRR is unfair: it doesn't take resources expended properly, to reflect "margin of victory".
2.Direct use of Duckworth-Lewis is fairER: as Rajesh suggested, pretend the match is rain-washed at the moment of victory, and compute the expected margin in RUNS based on remaining resources. Doing this largely eliminates unfairness, other than one factor, which is:
3.Pitches/playing conditions: One team may win by 20 runs on a flat batting track: another team may win by 20 runs on a devilish pitch. The two aren't equal (that's what the runs conversion misses). This could be rectified, since D/L DOES account for par for A ground. The runs may be converted into a "% margin compared to PAR for the ground", and those stats may be aggregated over matches (rather than adding up runs across different pitches, as Rajesh suggested).
Essentially, it boils down to: each game, a team won by X % of margin...compared to par. Which improves substantially on the NRR metho
June 18, 2013, 9:14 GMT
I think this whole net run rate system should be eliminated from the tournaments, in case two teams are tied on same points they should compete and the winner should advance, because this will be clear and fair to all, the game will be simple there would be no complications.
Because all these indicators for net run rate are not logical, and they could not show how much good or poor a team's performance is,but still it still it has huge impact on the tournament and has very important role in deciding semi finalist which is unfair, the only team that has been truly consistent is India, apart from India, all teams have had ups and downs thefrefoe to seperate these teams it must necesry that that play each other till the winner is confirmed, and what is the need for these formulas which sometimes even have bad impact on the game, for example game between Aus and Srlanka, Aus had to reach the garget in 29.1 overs, which actually made them lose the game, they cud h easily won the game n 50
Do you agree with the decision to move IPL matches out of Maharashtra?
Should Voges have been given time to reach his 300?
Should Ben Stokes have been given out obstructing the field?