Netherlands vs South Africa WC 2023

Big Upset after Afghanistan beat defending Champion England a couple of
days ago.

Did South Africa make a mistake by choosing to bowl first after winning
the toss OR they just became complacent and lost.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-cricket-world-cup-2023-24-1367856/netherlands-vs-south-africa-15th-match-1384406/full-scorecard

In message <ugmfdo$3350l$1@dont-email.me>, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
<FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com> writes
>
>
>Netherlands vs South Africa WC 2023
>
>Big Upset after Afghanistan beat defending Champion England a couple of
>days ago.

Yes, an even bigger upset when you compare the relative strength of the
Afghanistan and Dutch sides. Well done the men in orange! It's going to
make the match on Saturday between England and South Africa even more of
a crunch game, with both sides coming off shock defeats and both needing
to win if their chance of making the semis isn't to become close to
zero. (I know that if SA lose to England it will only be their second
defeat, but they still have India, NZ and Pakistan to play.)

>
>Did South Africa make a mistake by choosing to bowl first after winning
>the toss OR they just became complacent and lost.

Given that Netherlands fell to 140-7 off 33.5 overs in a match reduced
to 43 overs a side, it looks like bowling first was in theory the right
decision. There was no way that the Dutch should have scored another 105
runs off the last 9 overs and one ball while only losing one more
wicket, but the bowling fell apart.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On 10/17/2023 11:14 AM, John Hall wrote:
> In message <ugmfdo$3350l$1@dont-email.me>, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com> writes
>>
>>
>> Netherlands vs South Africa WC 2023
>>
>> Big Upset after Afghanistan beat defending Champion England a couple
>> of days ago.
>
> Yes, an even bigger upset when you compare the relative strength of the
> Afghanistan and Dutch sides. Well done the men in orange! It's going to
> make the match on Saturday between England and South Africa even more of
> a crunch game, with both sides coming off shock defeats and both needing
> to win if their chance of making the semis isn't to become close to
> zero. (I know that if SA lose to England it will only be their second
> defeat, but they still have India, NZ and Pakistan to play.)
>
>>
>> Did South Africa make a mistake by choosing to bowl first after
>> winning the toss OR they just became complacent and lost.
>
> Given that Netherlands fell to 140-7 off 33.5 overs in a match reduced
> to 43 overs a side, it looks like bowling first was in theory the right
> decision. There was no way that the Dutch should have scored another 105
> runs off the last 9 overs and one ball while only losing one more
> wicket, but the bowling fell apart.

But South Africa batting is so strong, shouldn't they have applied
themselves better and overhauled Netherlands 245?

South Africa scored 428 vs SL and 311 vs Australia which are much better
teams than Netherlands.

Bangladesh Chased down Afg with 158/4 in 30 overs and won on the same pitch.

England scored 364 on the same pitch vs Bangladesh

Dutch dudes played well though with more intensity than SA, it appeared.

In message <ugnr81$3fpvn$1@dont-email.me>, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
<FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com> writes
>On 10/17/2023 11:14 AM, John Hall wrote:
<snip>
>> Given that Netherlands fell to 140-7 off 33.5 overs in a match
>>reduced to 43 overs a side, it looks like bowling first was in theory
>>the right decision. There was no way that the Dutch should have
>>scored another 105 runs off the last 9 overs and one ball while only
>>losing one more wicket, but the bowling fell apart.
>
>
>
>But South Africa batting is so strong, shouldn't they have applied
>themselves better and overhauled Netherlands 245?

Yes, they probably should have done. There was an interesting stat on
ESPN showing that in recent years SA have had a very poor record when
chasing in ODIs, only winning a third of those mmatches, so perhaps that
ought to have influenced them to bat first.

>
>
>South Africa scored 428 vs SL and 311 vs Australia which are much
>better teams than Netherlands.
>
>
>Bangladesh Chased down Afg with 158/4 in 30 overs and won on the same pitch.
>
>
>England scored 364 on the same pitch vs Bangladesh
>
>
>Dutch dudes played well though with more intensity than SA, it appeared.
>

Yep.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 09:05:57 UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> In message <ugnr81$3fpvn$1...@dont-email.me>, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> <FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com> writes
> >On 10/17/2023 11:14 AM, John Hall wrote:
> <snip>
> >> Given that Netherlands fell to 140-7 off 33.5 overs in a match
> >>reduced to 43 overs a side, it looks like bowling first was in theory
> >>the right decision. There was no way that the Dutch should have
> >>scored another 105 runs off the last 9 overs and one ball while only
> >>losing one more wicket, but the bowling fell apart.
> >
> >
> >
> >But South Africa batting is so strong, shouldn't they have applied
> >themselves better and overhauled Netherlands 245?
> Yes, they probably should have done. There was an interesting stat on
> ESPN showing that in recent years SA have had a very poor record when
> chasing in ODIs, only winning a third of those mmatches, so perhaps that
> ought to have influenced them to bat first.

I'm guessing that was the last 3 years (won 5 lost 10), but that is due largely to having lost all four completed matches in 2021. W5 L6 since then doesn't look quite so bad, although it's still much worse than W11 L4 batting first.

On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 13:25:22 UTC+1, David North wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 09:05:57 UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <ugnr81$3fpvn$1...@dont-email.me>, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
> > <FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com> writes
> > >On 10/17/2023 11:14 AM, John Hall wrote:
> > <snip>
> > >> Given that Netherlands fell to 140-7 off 33.5 overs in a match
> > >>reduced to 43 overs a side, it looks like bowling first was in theory
> > >>the right decision. There was no way that the Dutch should have
> > >>scored another 105 runs off the last 9 overs and one ball while only
> > >>losing one more wicket, but the bowling fell apart.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >But South Africa batting is so strong, shouldn't they have applied
> > >themselves better and overhauled Netherlands 245?
> > Yes, they probably should have done. There was an interesting stat on
> > ESPN showing that in recent years SA have had a very poor record when
> > chasing in ODIs, only winning a third of those mmatches, so perhaps that
> > ought to have influenced them to bat first.
> I'm guessing that was the last 3 years (won 5 lost 10), but that is due largely to having lost all four completed matches in 2021. W5 L6 since then doesn't look quite so bad, although it's still much worse than W11 L4 batting first.

I also noticed that they, of those 11 matches since the start of 2022 batting 2nd, they won the toss 8 times, and they won 2 of the 3 matches when they lost the toss.

Meanwhile, of the 15 matches batting first, they only won 5 tosses, and they lost 2 of those matches.

In all their record when winning the toss is W6 L7, but when losing the toss, it's W10 L3.

On 10/18/2023 5:41 AM, David North wrote:
> On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 13:25:22 UTC+1, David North wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 09:05:57 UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>>> In message <ugnr81$3fpvn$1...@dont-email.me>, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
>>> <FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com> writes
>>>> On 10/17/2023 11:14 AM, John Hall wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>>> Given that Netherlands fell to 140-7 off 33.5 overs in a match
>>>>> reduced to 43 overs a side, it looks like bowling first was in theory
>>>>> the right decision. There was no way that the Dutch should have
>>>>> scored another 105 runs off the last 9 overs and one ball while only
>>>>> losing one more wicket, but the bowling fell apart.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But South Africa batting is so strong, shouldn't they have applied
>>>> themselves better and overhauled Netherlands 245?
>>> Yes, they probably should have done. There was an interesting stat on
>>> ESPN showing that in recent years SA have had a very poor record when
>>> chasing in ODIs, only winning a third of those mmatches, so perhaps that
>>> ought to have influenced them to bat first.
>> I'm guessing that was the last 3 years (won 5 lost 10), but that is due largely to having lost all four completed matches in 2021. W5 L6 since then doesn't look quite so bad, although it's still much worse than W11 L4 batting first.
>
> I also noticed that they, of those 11 matches since the start of 2022 batting 2nd, they won the toss 8 times, and they won 2 of the 3 matches when they lost the toss.
>
> Meanwhile, of the 15 matches batting first, they only won 5 tosses, and they lost 2 of those matches.
>
> In all their record when winning the toss is W6 L7, but when losing the toss, it's W10 L3.

Can we INFER from those stats that SA is making the wrong decision after
winning the toss OR is there something else to it.

So SA should hope to lose the toss more often than not. :-))

In message <1caa79d6-0869-4695-92f3-a39f5a103cc5n@googlegroups.com>,
David North <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 13:25:22 UTC+1, David North wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 09:05:57 UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>> > In message <ugnr81$3fpvn$1...@dont-email.me>, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
>> > <FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com> writes
>> > >On 10/17/2023 11:14 AM, John Hall wrote:
>> > <snip>
>> > >> Given that Netherlands fell to 140-7 off 33.5 overs in a match
>> > >>reduced to 43 overs a side, it looks like bowling first was in theory
>> > >>the right decision. There was no way that the Dutch should have
>> > >>scored another 105 runs off the last 9 overs and one ball while only
>> > >>losing one more wicket, but the bowling fell apart.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >But South Africa batting is so strong, shouldn't they have applied
>> > >themselves better and overhauled Netherlands 245?
>> > Yes, they probably should have done. There was an interesting stat on
>> > ESPN showing that in recent years SA have had a very poor record when
>> > chasing in ODIs, only winning a third of those mmatches, so perhaps that
>> > ought to have influenced them to bat first.
>> I'm guessing that was the last 3 years (won 5 lost 10),

Yep.

>> but that is due largely to having lost all four completed matches in
>>2021. W5 L6 since then doesn't look quite so bad, although it's still
>>much worse than W11 L4 batting first.
>
>I also noticed that they, of those 11 matches since the start of 2022
>batting 2nd, they won the toss 8 times, and they won 2 of the 3 matches
>when they lost the toss.
>
>Meanwhile, of the 15 matches batting first, they only won 5 tosses, and
>they lost 2 of those matches.
>
>In all their record when winning the toss is W6 L7, but when losing the
>toss, it's W10 L3.

Perhaps next time SA win the toss, their captain should say to his
opposite number "you choose"!
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On 18/10/2023 18:46, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 10/18/2023 5:41 AM, David North wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 13:25:22 UTC+1, David North wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 09:05:57 UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>>>> In message <ugnr81$3fpvn$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
>>>> <FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com> writes
>>>>> On 10/17/2023 11:14 AM, John Hall wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> Given that Netherlands fell to 140-7 off 33.5 overs in a match
>>>>>> reduced to 43 overs a side, it looks like bowling first was in theory
>>>>>> the right decision. There was no way that the Dutch should have
>>>>>> scored another 105 runs off the last 9 overs and one ball while only
>>>>>> losing one more wicket, but the bowling fell apart.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But South Africa batting is so strong, shouldn't they have applied
>>>>> themselves better and overhauled Netherlands 245?
>>>> Yes, they probably should have done. There was an interesting stat on
>>>> ESPN showing that in recent years SA have had a very poor record when
>>>> chasing in ODIs, only winning a third of those mmatches, so perhaps
>>>> that
>>>> ought to have influenced them to bat first.
>>> I'm guessing that was the last 3 years (won 5 lost 10), but that is
>>> due largely to having lost all four completed matches in 2021. W5 L6
>>> since then doesn't look quite so bad, although it's still much worse
>>> than W11 L4 batting first.
>>
>> I also noticed that they, of those 11 matches since the start of 2022
>> batting 2nd, they won the toss 8 times, and they won 2 of the 3
>> matches when they lost the toss.
>>
>> Meanwhile, of the 15 matches batting first, they only won 5 tosses,
>> and they lost 2 of those matches.
>>
>> In all their record when winning the toss is W6 L7, but when losing
>> the toss, it's W10 L3.
>
> Can we INFER from those stats that SA is making the wrong decision after
> winning the toss OR is there something else to it.

It seems like both they and their opponents tend to choose to bowl first
when they would be better off batting. Either that or they are not very
good at handling the extra weight of expectation when they win the toss.

--
David North

On 10/18/2023 11:37 PM, David North wrote:
> On 18/10/2023 18:46, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 10/18/2023 5:41 AM, David North wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 13:25:22 UTC+1, David North wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 09:05:57 UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>>>>> In message <ugnr81$3fpvn$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
>>>>> <FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com> writes
>>>>>> On 10/17/2023 11:14 AM, John Hall wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> Given that Netherlands fell to 140-7 off 33.5 overs in a match
>>>>>>> reduced to 43 overs a side, it looks like bowling first was in
>>>>>>> theory
>>>>>>> the right decision. There was no way that the Dutch should have
>>>>>>> scored another 105 runs off the last 9 overs and one ball while only
>>>>>>> losing one more wicket, but the bowling fell apart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But South Africa batting is so strong, shouldn't they have applied
>>>>>> themselves better and overhauled Netherlands 245?
>>>>> Yes, they probably should have done. There was an interesting stat on
>>>>> ESPN showing that in recent years SA have had a very poor record when
>>>>> chasing in ODIs, only winning a third of those mmatches, so perhaps
>>>>> that
>>>>> ought to have influenced them to bat first.
>>>> I'm guessing that was the last 3 years (won 5 lost 10), but that is
>>>> due largely to having lost all four completed matches in 2021. W5 L6
>>>> since then doesn't look quite so bad, although it's still much worse
>>>> than W11 L4 batting first.
>>>
>>> I also noticed that they, of those 11 matches since the start of 2022
>>> batting 2nd, they won the toss 8 times, and they won 2 of the 3
>>> matches when they lost the toss.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, of the 15 matches batting first, they only won 5 tosses,
>>> and they lost 2 of those matches.
>>>
>>> In all their record when winning the toss is W6 L7, but when losing
>>> the toss, it's W10 L3.
>>
>> Can we INFER from those stats that SA is making the wrong decision
>> after winning the toss OR is there something else to it.
>
> It seems like both they and their opponents tend to choose to bowl first
> when they would be better off batting. Either that or they are not very
> good at handling the extra weight of expectation when they win the toss.
>

Interesting stat.

Each of the last six ODI World Cup matches between Pakistan and
Australia have been won by the side that lost the toss.

On 10/18/2023 11:37 PM, David North wrote:
> On 18/10/2023 18:46, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 10/18/2023 5:41 AM, David North wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 13:25:22 UTC+1, David North wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 18 October 2023 at 09:05:57 UTC+1, John Hall wrote:
>>>>> In message <ugnr81$3fpvn$1...@dont-email.me>,
>>>>> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer
>>>>> <FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com> writes
>>>>>> On 10/17/2023 11:14 AM, John Hall wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> Given that Netherlands fell to 140-7 off 33.5 overs in a match
>>>>>>> reduced to 43 overs a side, it looks like bowling first was in
>>>>>>> theory
>>>>>>> the right decision. There was no way that the Dutch should have
>>>>>>> scored another 105 runs off the last 9 overs and one ball while only
>>>>>>> losing one more wicket, but the bowling fell apart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But South Africa batting is so strong, shouldn't they have applied
>>>>>> themselves better and overhauled Netherlands 245?
>>>>> Yes, they probably should have done. There was an interesting stat on
>>>>> ESPN showing that in recent years SA have had a very poor record when
>>>>> chasing in ODIs, only winning a third of those mmatches, so perhaps
>>>>> that
>>>>> ought to have influenced them to bat first.
>>>> I'm guessing that was the last 3 years (won 5 lost 10), but that is
>>>> due largely to having lost all four completed matches in 2021. W5 L6
>>>> since then doesn't look quite so bad, although it's still much worse
>>>> than W11 L4 batting first.
>>>
>>> I also noticed that they, of those 11 matches since the start of 2022
>>> batting 2nd, they won the toss 8 times, and they won 2 of the 3
>>> matches when they lost the toss.
>>>
>>> Meanwhile, of the 15 matches batting first, they only won 5 tosses,
>>> and they lost 2 of those matches.
>>>
>>> In all their record when winning the toss is W6 L7, but when losing
>>> the toss, it's W10 L3.
>>
>> Can we INFER from those stats that SA is making the wrong decision
>> after winning the toss OR is there something else to it.
>
> It seems like both they and their opponents tend to choose to bowl first
> when they would be better off batting. Either that or they are not very
> good at handling the extra weight of expectation when they win the toss.
>

Interesting stat.

Each of the last six ODI World Cup matches between Pakistan and
Australia have been won by the side that lost the toss.

On 19/10/2023 17:56, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> Interesting stat.
> Each of the last six ODI World Cup matches between Pakistan and
> Australia have been won by the side that lost the toss.

I've several times in recent months mentioned the "Hitting Against
The Spin" statistic that it seems to be a significant advantage to lose
the toss, so the PvA case simply exemplifies that. I think we have to
conclude that captains are not yet good enough at judging whether to bat
or bowl in limited-overs cricket. Perhaps they should toss to decide,
rather than using their skill [:-), for non-UK readers only].

Somewhat OTOH, six consecutive particular results in cases where
the odds are not far off evens should occur roughly once in 32 trials,
and there are a lot more than 32 "similar" cases to consider, so it's
not really a surprising result.

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

On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 22:00:37 UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 19/10/2023 17:56, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> > Interesting stat.
> > Each of the last six ODI World Cup matches between Pakistan and
> > Australia have been won by the side that lost the toss.

As things stand, the sequence looks likely to continue.

> I've several times in recent months mentioned the "Hitting Against
> The Spin" statistic that it seems to be a significant advantage to lose
> the toss, so the PvA case simply exemplifies that. I think we have to
> conclude that captains are not yet good enough at judging whether to bat
> or bowl in limited-overs cricket. Perhaps they should toss to decide,
> rather than using their skill [:-), for non-UK readers only].

Just to break it down a bit, in all Men's World Cup matches (going right back to 1975):
Teams electing to bat first have won 109 matches and lost 103.
Teams electing to bowl first have won 104 matches and lost 133.

In all Men's ODIs:
Teams electing to bat first have won 1111 matches and lost 1157.
Teams electing to bowl first have won 1136 matches and lost 1063.

So it seems that the tendencies in World Cups are contrary to those in ODIs generally, which is difficult to explain, unless it's just random.

I can see a possible reason why ODIs generally slightly favour the teams winning the toss, whereas World Cup matches don't: in a large proportion of World Cup matches, neither side is playing at home, so the side winning the toss is less likely to be familiar with local conditions that in ODIs generally.

On 10/20/2023 5:52 AM, David North wrote:
> On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 22:00:37 UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
>> On 19/10/2023 17:56, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> Interesting stat.
>>> Each of the last six ODI World Cup matches between Pakistan and
>>> Australia have been won by the side that lost the toss.
>
> As things stand, the sequence looks likely to continue.
>
>> I've several times in recent months mentioned the "Hitting Against
>> The Spin" statistic that it seems to be a significant advantage to lose
>> the toss, so the PvA case simply exemplifies that. I think we have to
>> conclude that captains are not yet good enough at judging whether to bat
>> or bowl in limited-overs cricket. Perhaps they should toss to decide,
>> rather than using their skill [:-), for non-UK readers only].
>
> Just to break it down a bit, in all Men's World Cup matches (going right back to 1975):
> Teams electing to bat first have won 109 matches and lost 103.
> Teams electing to bowl first have won 104 matches and lost 133.
>
> In all Men's ODIs:
> Teams electing to bat first have won 1111 matches and lost 1157.
> Teams electing to bowl first have won 1136 matches and lost 1063.
>
> So it seems that the tendencies in World Cups are contrary to those in ODIs generally, which is difficult to explain, unless it's just random.
>
> I can see a possible reason why ODIs generally slightly favour the teams winning the toss, whereas World Cup matches don't: in a large proportion of World Cup matches, neither side is playing at home, so the side winning the toss is less likely to be familiar with local conditions that in ODIs generally.

Another reason is in World Cup, teams only play the TOP 10 teams where
as in bilaterals/tri-laterals teams play weaker teams like zimbabwe,
bangladesh, sri lanka, afghanistan, ireland, kenya in their earlier
stages of development and hence stronger teams win against those weaker
teams regardless of whether they chose to bat or bowl first.

On 10/19/2023 2:00 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 19/10/2023 17:56, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> Interesting stat.
>> Each of the last six ODI World Cup matches between Pakistan and
>> Australia have been won by the side that lost the toss.
>
>     I've several times in recent months mentioned the "Hitting Against
> The Spin" statistic that it seems to be a significant advantage to lose
> the toss, so the PvA case simply exemplifies that.  I think we have to
> conclude that captains are not yet good enough at judging whether to bat
> or bowl in limited-overs cricket.  Perhaps they should toss to decide,
> rather than using their skill [:-), for non-UK readers only].
>
>     Somewhat OTOH, six consecutive particular results in cases where
> the odds are not far off evens should occur roughly once in 32 trials,
> and there are a lot more than 32 "similar" cases to consider, so it's
> not really a surprising result.
>

Are you talking about "mathematical probability" of tossing a coin OR
there are actually 32 occurrences in the past of six ODI matches
consecutively being won by the team which LOST the toss?

In message <d47d1b6a-99f6-4bee-a482-e3d1905f0aacn@googlegroups.com>,
David North <nospam@lane-farm.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>Just to break it down a bit, in all Men's World Cup matches (going
>right back to 1975): Teams electing to bat first have won 109 matches
>and lost 103. Teams electing to bowl first have won 104 matches and
>lost 133.

So in all, teams winning the toss have won 213 matches and lost 237,
from which it follows that teams losing the toss have won 237 and won
213.

>
>In all Men's ODIs:
>Teams electing to bat first have won 1111 matches and lost 1157. Teams
>electing to bowl first have won 1136 matches and lost 1063.
<snip>
>

So when winning the toss it's won 2247 and lost 2220.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On 20/10/2023 16:24, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
[I wrote:]
>>      Somewhat OTOH, six consecutive particular results in cases where
>> the odds are not far off evens should occur roughly once in 32 trials,
>> and there are a lot more than 32 "similar" cases to consider, so it's
>> not really a surprising result.
> Are you talking about "mathematical probability" of tossing a coin OR
> there are actually 32 occurrences in the past of six ODI matches
> consecutively being won by the team which LOST the toss?

Actually the former, together with the observation that there are
more than 32 possible head-to-head pairings, and further that other similar
statistics would be just as surprising [or not]. You can see patterns all
over the place if you look for them. But also, [as David points out] there
have been several thousand ODIs, so you would expect some one-in-a-thousand
coincidences; 32 instances of a 1/32 chance should not be a surprise.

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

On 20/10/2023 15:05, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 10/20/2023 5:52 AM, David North wrote:
>> On Thursday, 19 October 2023 at 22:00:37 UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
>>> On 19/10/2023 17:56, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>>> Interesting stat.
>>>> Each of the last six ODI World Cup matches between Pakistan and
>>>> Australia have been won by the side that lost the toss.
>>
>> As things stand, the sequence looks likely to continue.
>>
>>> I've several times in recent months mentioned the "Hitting Against
>>> The Spin" statistic that it seems to be a significant advantage to lose
>>> the toss, so the PvA case simply exemplifies that. I think we have to
>>> conclude that captains are not yet good enough at judging whether to bat
>>> or bowl in limited-overs cricket. Perhaps they should toss to decide,
>>> rather than using their skill [:-), for non-UK readers only].
>>
>> Just to break it down a bit, in all Men's World Cup matches (going
>> right back to 1975):
>> Teams electing to bat first have won 109 matches and lost 103.
>> Teams electing to bowl first have won 104 matches and lost 133.
>>
>> In all Men's ODIs:
>> Teams electing to bat first have won 1111 matches and lost 1157.
>> Teams electing to bowl first have won 1136 matches and lost 1063.
>>
>> So it seems that the tendencies in World Cups are contrary to those in
>> ODIs generally, which is difficult to explain, unless it's just random.
>>
>> I can see a possible reason why ODIs generally slightly favour the
>> teams winning the toss, whereas World Cup matches don't: in a large
>> proportion of World Cup matches, neither side is playing at home, so
>> the side winning the toss is less likely to be familiar with local
>> conditions that in ODIs generally.
>
>
>
> Another reason is in World Cup, teams only play the TOP 10 teams where
> as in bilaterals/tri-laterals teams play weaker teams like zimbabwe,
> bangladesh, sri lanka, afghanistan, ireland, kenya in their earlier
> stages of development and hence stronger teams win against those weaker
> teams regardless of whether they chose to bat or bowl first.

The figures I gave included all the weak teams as well as the strongs
ones. The weak teams are just as likely to win the toss as the strong
ones, so it should balance out.

In any case, the top teams have been more likely to play the weak teams
in the World Cup than in other matches, not less. E.g. India have played
ODIs against 20 different teams. Of those, there are 4 (Netherlands,
East Africa, Namibia and Bermuda) that they have only played in World
Cups, and 2 of their 3 matches against Ireland, 2 out of 4 against
Afghanistan, 1 out of 3 against UAE and 4 out of 13 against Kenya have
been in World Cups.

13.6% of their ODIs against Zimbabwe and 12.2% of their ODIs v
Bangladesh have been in World Cups, well above the 8.4% of all their
ODIs that have been in World Cups. For all of the other major teams, the
proportion of India's ODIs in World Cups is below 8%, except Australia
(8.7%). The only teams that India have played ODIs against, but never in
World Cups, are Hong Kong (2 matches), Nepal (1) and Scotland (1).

It's only in this World Cup and the last one where the number of teams
playing has been fewer than the number of Test teams, and this time it
wasn't the top 10, because Netherlands (currently ranked 14th) qualified
and West Indies (10th) didn't.

--
David North

On 21/10/2023 10:48, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 20/10/2023 16:24, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> [I wrote:]
>>>      Somewhat OTOH, six consecutive particular results in cases where
>>> the odds are not far off evens should occur roughly once in 32 trials,
>>> and there are a lot more than 32 "similar" cases to consider, so it's
>>> not really a surprising result.
>> Are you talking about "mathematical probability" of tossing a coin OR
>> there are actually 32 occurrences in the past of six ODI matches
>> consecutively being won by the team which LOST the toss?
>
>     Actually the former, together with the observation that there are
> more than 32 possible head-to-head pairings,

In ODIs, yes. In World Cups, there have actually been exactly 32
pairings where at least 6 matches have been played, and in two of those
(Zim v NZ and Pak), only 5 matches have been completed.

Of course, where more than 6 matches have been played (up to 13 in the
case of Aus v Ind), there have been multiple opportunities for a
sequence of 6.

--
David North

On 21/10/2023 13:12, David North wrote:
> On 21/10/2023 10:48, Andy Walker wrote:
>> On 20/10/2023 16:24, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> [I wrote:]
>>>>      Somewhat OTOH, six consecutive particular results in cases where
>>>> the odds are not far off evens should occur roughly once in 32 trials,
>>>> and there are a lot more than 32 "similar" cases to consider, so it's
>>>> not really a surprising result.
>>> Are you talking about "mathematical probability" of tossing a coin OR
>>> there are actually 32 occurrences in the past of six ODI matches
>>> consecutively being won by the team which LOST the toss?
>>
>>      Actually the former, together with the observation that there are
>> more than 32 possible head-to-head pairings,
>
> In ODIs, yes. In World Cups, there have actually been exactly 32
> pairings where at least 6 matches have been played, and in two of those
> (Zim v NZ and Pak), only 5 matches have been completed.
>
> Of course, where more than 6 matches have been played (up to 13 in the
> case of Aus v Ind), there have been multiple opportunities for a
> sequence of 6.

The last 6 WC matches between England and Australia have also been won
by the side losing the toss, as have the last 6 between India and Sri Lanka.

AFAICS, there have been no sequences of 6 won by the team winning the toss.

--
David North

Perception is a funny thing.

Swap South Africa for Pakistan and the world and his wife are screaming "match fix" (a bit like that fielder who dropped Warner today on 10).

Worst attempt at a catch ever......and I've watched blind cricket.