cwc19

Cricket World Cup 2019: week 3, update #4—Don’t shoot the DLS

~ Liam Cromar ~ Leave a comment

The fourth of an informal weekly (p)review of the 2019 Cricket World Cup – or, as I like to call it, the #Champ10nsTrophy.

It wouldn’t be a World Cup without some rain-rule controversy. South Africa still haven’t haven’t forgotten their 22-from-0.1 semi-final fiasco in 1992 (although, in truth, they didn’t deserve to win that game, after their excessively slow over rate; they’d had the better of the regulations up to that point).

Some may feel that Pakistan had the rub of the green against them (which will naturally happen, of course, if your ODI kit is that colour) in today’s game, whose Duckworth-Lewis-Stern adjustment left them needing 136 runs in 5 overs rather than 170 in 15. This simply isn’t the case. DLS yielded a sensible target, despite first glances.

It’s crucial to understand that Duckworth/Lewis does not calculate how many further runs the chasing team should have to score; it calculates the target. This may seem like a coat-of-varnish distinction but the difference becomes more understandable when one realises that the target is not affected by the batting team’s current score, only their wickets and overs remaining.

In other words, Pakistan would have had to chase 302 from 40 overs, regardless of whether they were 16-6, 66-6, 266-6, or, as it transpired, 166-6.

The par score—the score at which the two teams could be said to be neck-and-neck—for six wickets down at 35 overs was 252-6. Being 166-6 meant they were 86 runs behind the par score, and naturally enough, on resumption they therefore weren’t in any sort of position to chase 136 in 5. If the game had been abandoned without those 5 overs, they’d have lost by 86 runs.

After playing those 5 overs, Pakistan actually lost by 89 runs. Remember that they were 86 behind the par score. In other words, the target nigh-on perfectly preserved the teams’ relative positions. If they’d been up with the par score, and scored the same runs in those 5 overs (46, for the record) that they ended up scoring, they’d have lost by 3 runs —again demonstrating how well-balanced the DLS target was.

Don’t blame DLS for the faintly absurd conclusion. If you must blame something (and does one really need to do so?) blame:

  • Pakistan’s batsmen for being 86 runs behind the par score at the interruption.
  • The regulations that forced the teams to continue playing five futile overs.
  • Limited-overs cricket, that forces teams to go on playing when the result is a forgone conclusion. Talking of conclusions, this’ll do.

Cricket World Cup 2019: week 2, update #3—The Cup runneth over

~ Liam Cromar ~ Leave a comment

The third of an informal weekly (p)review of the 2019 Cricket World Cup – or, as I like to call it, the #Champ10nsTrophy.

More precisely, the UK runneth over with rainfall. To almost everyone’s (no-one’s) surprise, the World Cup has coincided with unseasonal, protracted deluges. Already we’re into record-breaking territory as regards numbers of abandoned games.

It’s a bitter blow to Gloucestershire, in particular, who are reportedly down around £10,000-20,000, thanks to the two games they were scheduled to host being scuppered. For the first time ever in recorded history, we may be counting on better weather Up North, as the centre of the tournament gyrates towards the northern counties, with Headingley, Old Trafford, and Chester-le-Street all yet to record their first game.

It’s not all bad news, however, as the rain has at least revealed that what we all believed to be a truly awful format, the #Champ10nsTrophy 10-team round robin, to actually be a stroke of genius on the part of the ICC. Why? Because with 9 games per team, losing one or two to weather isn’t necessarily terminal to that team’s chances. In fact, it’s probably done Sri Lanka something of a favour, and allowed South Africa to finally record a point. Pakistan and West Indies may see things somewhat differently, of course.

Never mind that it would have been amusing to see a couple of teams eliminated having only completed one match, as Australia were in the 2017 Champions Trophy. Furthermore, there may be a few naysayers quibbling over the minor inconveniences of the format: the total lack of Associates, the crushing alienation of any developing cricket nation, the bloated 46-day schedule. However, I, for one, now welcome our new ICC overlords.

Some would observe that the World Cup isn’t meant to be a league to determine the best over time: it should primarily be a tournamant to determine the best under pressure. Such ones would doubtless claim that though a balance needs to be struck so that single results (especially at the beginning of the tournament) do not have devastating consequences in and of themselves, the current 10-team league is weighted far too heavily towards the other end of the spectrum.

Presumably they’d also recommend Russell Degnan’s 20-team, 36-day format. (One notes in passing that (coincidentally, presumably) his post ID for that piece is 2007, the year of the 16-team World Cup that put paid to more equitable formats down the line.)

What do they know, however? Fourteen days in, the composition of the top four is just as might have been predicted two weeks (years?) ago: NZ, AUS, ENG, IND. So far, so good for the Indian broadcaster; ergo, so good for the ICC; ergo, so good for cricket.

It’s all going swimmingly, in fact. Which seems appropriate, considering that that sport might have a better chance of play.

Cricket World Cup 2019: Week 1, update #2—Tamper tantrums

~ Liam Cromar ~ Leave a comment

The second of an informal weekly (p)review of the 2019 Cricket World Cup – or, as I like to call it, the #Champ10nsTrophy.

Truth be told, #CWC19 needed the England vs Pakistan result. After a couple of one-sided shellackings (expect me to return to that at a future date as part of yet another criticism of the 10-team format) a high-scoring game that went down to the wire and, most importantly, saw the favourites finish in second place, was needed to kickstart the competition.

England shouldn’t worry too much. Neither of the previous two hosts to win the World Cup managed a clean sweep: India lost to South Africa in 2011, and Australia lost to New Zealand in 2015. Neither had too much trouble in lifting the trophy a few matches later.

What it didn’t need was a ball-tampering controversy. Maybe “ball-tampering” and “controversy” are too strong a pair of terms: a couple of English batsmen were noticeably reticent – albeit also noticeably exercised – when given the opportunity to comment on the subject, thereby damping down the flames.

At Trent Bridge the umpires were quick to jump on the signs of proto-tampering and nip them in the bud. To be specific, both sides were warned against throwing the ball in on more than one bounce to the keeper, a well-worn tactic (geddit?) for roughing up one side. Whether they were consistent or not, or whether both teams complied with the direction equally, is immaterial to this discussion.

It strikes me as excessive to prevent teams from engaging in legitimate activity that has an incidental and beneficial side effect. The key point is that throwing the ball in on the bounce is justifiable for non-tampering reasons: the flatter trajectory is faster. Perhaps two or three bounces – which is what the umpires were taking exception to – is pushing it; is there a valid reason, other than an attempt to change the condition of the ball, for such throwing? Could one not argue that it saves time and reduces the sting on the bowler’s receiving hands?

Obviously this all seems to be overlooked when a run out is on the cards: I’ve yet to hear of umpires pulling up fielders who’ve effected outfield dismissals via a bounced throw. Yet even when not aiming for a run out, the the fielding side has a right, nay, a responsibility to save time where possible – as Bumble would say, to get on with the game. (There’s another #CWC19 disappointment: why’s Bumble missing from the commentary box?)

That’s not to say the umpires acted incorrectly. Law 41.3.2, the Law that prohibits ball-tampering, reveals a double standard: one for batsmen and one for everyone else.

41.3.2 It is an offence for any player to take any action which changes the condition of the ball.
Except in carrying out his/her normal duties, a batsman is not allowed to wilfully damage the ball. […]

https://www.lords.org/mcc/laws/unfair-play

How, pray, can one interact with the ball in any way that does not change its condition? Bowling anything other than full tosses will cause it to land and rough up. Catching it will transfer sweat or other substances onto its surface. Batsmen, however, are given special dispensation to wilfully damage the ball in carrying out their normal duties. Why are bowlers and fielders not similarly allowed to effect damage in the course of their normal duties?

Wasn’t the game so much more interesting when Hassan Ali found a bit of inswing? In fact, forget England losing: so far, the biggest surprise of the World Cup has been the lesser spotted Kookaburra swing. Even up the playing field, I say, and let bowlers damage the ball incidentally, if not accidentally.