well the women do, will the men do the same? the weather
at OT looks rather uncertain and they only need a draw.

mike

In message <5be37ea9-93c4-4fab-b4bf-03de3c939b77n@googlegroups.com>,
mike <dmike204@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>well the women do, will the men do the same? the weather
>at OT looks rather uncertain and they only need a draw.
>
>mike

Yes, I'm concerned about the weather too. Nowadays England's Tests only
seem to need the equivalent of four days' play to get a result, but if
there's only the equivalent of three then it will be difficult. Am I
right in thinking that, if it's a draw, it will be the first since
Stokes and McCullum took over?
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 10:14:49 AM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <5be37ea9-93c4-4fab...@googlegroups.com>,
> mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >well the women do, will the men do the same? the weather
> >at OT looks rather uncertain and they only need a draw.
> >
> >mike
> Yes, I'm concerned about the weather too. Nowadays England's Tests only
> seem to need the equivalent of four days' play to get a result, but if
> there's only the equivalent of three then it will be difficult. Am I
> right in thinking that, if it's a draw, it will be the first since
> Stokes and McCullum took over?

yes P15 W11 L4 D0, but lost 3 out of last 5.

i dont think england have beaten oz at OT since 1981 and that other 100
by lord brexit. usually oz win or have the better of a draw. i dont think
our recent record against other teams there is anywhere near as bad.

I think they said on the tms preview that the side batting 1st wins double
the sides batting 2nd. of course that might be heavily weighted by
matches played in the uncovered pitch era, and if the forcast is correct
the last 2 days might be a washout. either way i'd wanna bat first.

mike

On 17/07/2023 22:16, mike wrote:
> On Monday, July 17, 2023 at 10:14:49 AM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>> In message <5be37ea9-93c4-4fab...@googlegroups.com>,
>> mike <dmik...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> well the women do, will the men do the same? the weather
>>> at OT looks rather uncertain and they only need a draw.
>>>
>>> mike
>> Yes, I'm concerned about the weather too. Nowadays England's Tests only
>> seem to need the equivalent of four days' play to get a result, but if
>> there's only the equivalent of three then it will be difficult. Am I
>> right in thinking that, if it's a draw, it will be the first since
>> Stokes and McCullum took over?
>
> yes P15 W11 L4 D0, but lost 3 out of last 5.

You're missing a win there - it's 12-4.

17 results out of 17 under Stokes, including the defeat by WI in the 1st
Test of 2020, and 17 in a row in all including Grenada, which is their
longest sequence without a draw since the 19th Century, when they had
sequences of 22 and 18 either side of two draws and a win in 1893.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/most-consecutive-matches-without-a-draw-284046

It was rain at Lord's 130 years ago today, preventing play after lunch
on the 3rd day, that ensured the end of the first sequence ...

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/australia-tour-of-england-1893-61341/england-vs-australia-1st-test-62434/full-scorecard

.... although there was also an abandoned Test at (you guessed it) Old
Trafford in 1890, between the 18th and 19th matches of that sequence.

>
> i dont think england have beaten oz at OT since 1981 and that other 100
> by lord brexit. usually oz win or have the better of a draw.

They have won 4 since then, but England had the better of 2 of the 3
draws (1985 and 2005).

> i dont think
> our recent record against other teams there is anywhere near as bad.

W14 D8 L3 against everyone else in that period

Actually, the 2019 Ashes Test was their only defeat there since 2001
(Pakistan) - W13 D2

>
> I think they said on the tms preview that the side batting 1st wins double
> the sides batting 2nd.

Yes the team batting first at OT has won 32, lost 16 and 35 have been draws.

> of course that might be heavily weighted by
> matches played in the uncovered pitch era,

Well it has certainly been more even in recent decades. Up to 1987,
there were 3 times as many wins batting 1st (21) as 2nd (7). Since then
the record has been 11-9 in favour of batting 1st.

> and if the forcast is correct
> the last 2 days might be a washout. either way i'd wanna bat first.

I would have thought the best chance of taking 20 wickets in 3 days
would be to bowl first.

--
David North

On 19/07/2023 08:27, David North wrote:
> On 17/07/2023 22:16, mike wrote:
>> i dont think england have beaten oz at OT since 1981 and that other 100
>> by lord brexit. usually oz win or have the better of a draw.
>
> They have won 4 since then, but England had the better of 2 of the 3
> draws (1985 and 2005).
>
>> i dont think
>> our recent record against other teams there is anywhere near as bad.
>
> W14 D8 L3 against everyone else in that period
>
> Actually, the 2019 Ashes Test was their only defeat there since 2001
> (Pakistan) - W13 D2
>
>>
>> I think they said on the tms preview that the side batting 1st wins
>> double
>> the sides batting 2nd.
>
> Yes the team batting first at OT has won 32, lost 16 and 35 have been
> draws.
>
>> of course that might be heavily weighted by
>> matches played in the uncovered pitch era,
>
> Well it has certainly been more even in recent decades. Up to 1987,
> there were 3 times as many wins batting 1st (21) as 2nd (7). Since then
> the record has been 11-9 in favour of batting 1st.
I missed the stat that Andy Zaltzman just mentioned on TMS, which is
no-one has ever won a Test at OT after putting their opponents in to
bat. There have been 10 previous attempts - the first 7 were drawn and
the last 3 were lost.

https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_fielding_first=2;class=1;filter=advanced;ground=75;orderby=start;template=results;toss=1;type=team;view=results

--
David North

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 11:51:58 AM UTC+1, David North wrote:
> On 19/07/2023 08:27, David North wrote:
> I missed the stat that Andy Zaltzman just mentioned on TMS, which is
> no-one has ever won a Test at OT after putting their opponents in to
> bat. There have been 10 previous attempts - the first 7 were drawn and
> the last 3 were lost.

i would def have batted cos oz only need a draw. all they need is to bat as long
and carefully as they can, and theyve retained the ashes. but i think englands
tactics have been odd since the declaration on day 1. i was expecting something
similar if england won the toss. i'm amazed he decided to field. hopefully stokes
and co can prove otherwise but the pitch looks another good'n.

mike

In message <khptibFs9hqU1@mid.individual.net>, David North
<nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>I missed the stat that Andy Zaltzman just mentioned on TMS, which is
>no-one has ever won a Test at OT after putting their opponents in to
>bat. There have been 10 previous attempts - the first 7 were drawn and
>the last 3 were lost.
>
>https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_fieldi
>ng_first=2;class=1;filter=advanced;ground=75;orderby=start;template=resu
>lts;toss=1;type=team;view=results

One can see why Stokes did it, though. If the weather restricts the
match to not much more than three days, then bowling first was likely to
give England the best chance of forcing a win. And IIRC it was still
cloudy at the time of the toss, though the clouds broke almost
immediately afterwards.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Wednesday, July 19, 2023 at 7:22:30 PM UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <khptib...@mid.individual.net>, David North
> <nos...@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
> >I missed the stat that Andy Zaltzman just mentioned on TMS, which is
> >no-one has ever won a Test at OT after putting their opponents in to
> >bat. There have been 10 previous attempts - the first 7 were drawn and
> >the last 3 were lost.
> >
> >https://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?batting_fieldi
> >ng_first=2;class=1;filter=advanced;ground=75;orderby=start;template=resu
> >lts;toss=1;type=team;view=results
> One can see why Stokes did it, though. If the weather restricts the
> match to not much more than three days, then bowling first was likely to
> give England the best chance of forcing a win. And IIRC it was still
> cloudy at the time of the toss, though the clouds broke almost
> immediately afterwards.
> --

only bowler not to take a wkt was anderson, although he was the most economical,
and didnt bowl badly, but could it be his last test? wish theyd chosen tongue now, they
surely will for the oval i'd think, although the ashes will be decided by then if
oz bat much longer and the forcast is correct. i can see why wood has had so many
ankle probs, it almost rotates as he follows through and then drags along the ground.

mike

On 19/07/2023 14:18, mike wrote:
> i would def have batted cos oz only need a draw. all they need is to bat as long
> and carefully as they can, and theyve retained the ashes. but i think englands
> tactics have been odd since the declaration on day 1. i was expecting something
> similar if england won the toss. i'm amazed he decided to field. hopefully stokes
> and co can prove otherwise but the pitch looks another good'n.

There's a degree of illogicality in your claims. If the pitch /is/
good and /remains/ good, then in a timeless Test it doesn't matter who bats
first; but in a limited Test [whether by overs or by time and weather], the
most efficient way to win is normally to bowl first. That saves wasting runs
in the third innings, and so leaving too little time to bowl the other side
out in the fourth innings. If Oz /can/ bat long enough to prevent us from
winning, it doesn't matter whether they do that on the first day or later in
the match. Bowling first is a bad idea /only/ if the pitch deteriorates to
the extent that batting is hazardous on the last day; that rarely seems to
happen these days. Well, not quite "only" as there may also be a "when do
we declare" problem if the match is so one-sided that the team bowling first
is winning by an innings; unlikely in this series.

As for the "day 1" declaration -- that was a calculated risk. Stokes
took the view that an extra 20-odd runs was less valuable than the chance of
an evening wicket. That didn't work out, but the real problem was not that,
but the fact that no-one put together a long innings in our second innings.
That and some sloppy no-balls and dropped catches. More generally, you win
some and lose some; against a strong side [such as Oz], close matches are
won and lost by tiny margins. It's annoying if you lose by a tiny margin,
but that doesn't mean the approach is wrong.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Mayer

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 8:11:31 AM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
> There's a degree of illogicality in your claims. If the pitch /is/
> good and /remains/ good, then in a timeless Test it doesn't matter who bats
> first;

Unless endurance/tiredness has a bigger detrimental effect on batting.
No idea how this could ever be proven, though.

> but in a limited Test [whether by overs or by time and weather], the
> most efficient way to win is normally to bowl first.

I'm assuming the key word in there is "efficient", which seems a bit incalculable.

As for raw winning;
batting first 902 Test wins
bowling first 820 Test wins

Old Trafford seems to be an outlier in favour of batting first.

> That saves wasting runs
> in the third innings, and so leaving too little time to bowl the other side
> out in the fourth innings. If Oz /can/ bat long enough to prevent us from
> winning, it doesn't matter whether they do that on the first day or later in
> the match. Bowling first is a bad idea /only/ if the pitch deteriorates to
> the extent that batting is hazardous on the last day; that rarely seems to
> happen these days. Well, not quite "only" as there may also be a "when do
> we declare" problem if the match is so one-sided that the team bowling first
> is winning by an innings; unlikely in this series.

Yeah, I think knowing when to declare (3rd innings) is the hardest thing to get right.
Especially if pitches are playing nicer on Day 5.

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 9:41:07 AM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> As for raw winning;
> batting first 902 Test wins
> bowling first 820 Test wins

How does that change since, say, 2000?
I wonder how much of it comes back to early matches in much different conditions and stickies

On 20/07/2023 00:41, jack fredricks wrote:
[I wrote:]
>> but in a limited Test [whether by overs or by time and weather], the
>> most efficient way to win is normally to bowl first.
> I'm assuming the key word in there is "efficient", which seems a bit
> incalculable.

Contrariwise, it's easily "calculable" [after the event]. If you
win by N runs and N > 1, then, other things being unchanged, you could
have declared N-1 runs earlier and won more quickly. Further, if you bat
first and draw, then you might [again, assuming no other change] have
declared and had a better chance of bowling the other side out. OTOH, if
you bowl first then the only wasted time is if you win by an innings and
[therefore] could have declared your first innings earlier. Of course,
that's all "broad sweep", and subject to all sorts of special cases, eg
changes in weather [inc light], pitch condition, injuries, .... The
"biggie" there is pitch condition, which historically was expected to
deteriorate on day 4 or 5 [or earlier in ancient times]; but that has
been less relevant recently. Add salt to taste.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Bucalossi

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 9:56:01 AM UTC+10, Hamish Laws wrote:
> I wonder how much of it comes back to early matches in much different conditions and stickies

Since Jan 01 2000;

bat first and won; 420
bowled first and won; 391

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 10:27:08 AM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
> Of course,
> that's all "broad sweep", and subject to all sorts of special cases, eg
> changes in weather [inc light], pitch condition, injuries,

One issue we can't calculate is the attitude with which the 4th innings is conducted.

I believe teams can "bat out a day". ie focus more on not getting out whilst not trying to score runs.

A "too conservative" declaration means the team batting last can't realistically score the runs, so they just play for the draw.
A "too bold" declaration means the team batting last "goes for it".
That is to say they bat differently based on the target.

There are so many complex factors, which is why I'm happy to just look at the overall stats, and I believe they still show it's better to bat first.
NB: that's not implying anything about the TOSS, mind you. You might lose the toss and get put in.. you're still batting first.

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:24:27 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> There are so many complex factors, which is why I'm happy to just look at the overall stats, and I believe they still show it's better to bat first.

Although I will again say that when I'm captaining a must-win game I tend to bowl first if I win the toss.
I'm not 100% sure why. It's a gut feeling thing.
It might be giving ourselves time to take 20 wickets.

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:29:34 AM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:24:27 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
> > There are so many complex factors, which is why I'm happy to just look at the overall stats, and I believe they still show it's better to bat first.
> Although I will again say that when I'm captaining a must-win game I tend to bowl first if I win the toss.
> I'm not 100% sure why. It's a gut feeling thing.
> It might be giving ourselves time to take 20 wickets.

David has already posted the relevant stats for OT, although he also agrees with you, but
no ones ever won at OT after putting the opp in, batting first wins 32 L16 D35.

So this time i would rather england had batted first and made about 300 and declared .
If oz manage to get anywhere near 350 it should be enough to win or draw as I think
england will probably lose wkts going for runs and it will be oz with the advantage.
Englands batting hasnt fired that often since the first day of the 1st test, certainly nowhere
as proficient as last year or last winter.

mike

On 20/07/2023 03:16, jack fredricks wrote:
> Since Jan 01 2000;
> bat first and won; 420
> bowled first and won; 391

Note that this is not interestingly different from a coin toss
[variance over 811 trials of 811/4 ~ 200, standard deviation therefore
~ 14, actual deviation 420 - 811/2 ~ 14]; IOW, you /expect/ roughly
this difference from equality. [The total figure you quoted earlier
of 902:820 is just about edging towards verging on significant ....]
Perhaps worth adding that many matches are sufficiently one-sided that
it really didn't matter who batted first; but getting a numerical
handle on that is a whole new tin of worms.

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Bucalossi

On Thu, 20 Jul 2023 11:04:08 +0100, Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 20/07/2023 03:16, jack fredricks wrote:
>> Since Jan 01 2000;
>> bat first and won; 420
>> bowled first and won; 391
>
> Note that this is not interestingly different from a coin toss
>[variance over 811 trials of 811/4 ~ 200, standard deviation therefore
>~ 14, actual deviation 420 - 811/2 ~ 14]; IOW, you /expect/ roughly
>this difference from equality. [The total figure you quoted earlier
>of 902:820 is just about edging towards verging on significant ....]
>Perhaps worth adding that many matches are sufficiently one-sided that
>it really didn't matter who batted first; but getting a numerical
>handle on that is a whole new tin of worms.

Did you agree or disagree with Marilyn Voss Savant?

max.it

On 20/07/2023 10:21, mike wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 3:29:34 AM UTC+1, jack fredricks wrote:
>> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:24:27 PM UTC+10, jack fredricks wrote:
>>> There are so many complex factors, which is why I'm happy to just look at the overall stats, and I believe they still show it's better to bat first.
>> Although I will again say that when I'm captaining a must-win game I tend to bowl first if I win the toss.
>> I'm not 100% sure why. It's a gut feeling thing.
>> It might be giving ourselves time to take 20 wickets.
>
> David has already posted the relevant stats for OT, although he also agrees with you, but
> no ones ever won at OT after putting the opp in, batting first wins 32 L16 D35.

In matches that lasted 270 overs or less (not that they were ever likely
to get 270 overs in the first 3 days), the record is W5 L5 D12.

4 of the last 5 such matches have been won batting second (England
beating SA in 2022, India in 2014 and Pakistan in 2006, and WI beating
England in 1988). The exception was England beating Bangladesh in 2010;
apart from that, the last time anyone batted first at OT and won within
270 overs was when England beat India in 1952.

--
David North