NZ401-6
Pak 200-1 [25overs]

I dont know how its done but usually tthe team
batting 2nd faces an uphill struggle. Just making
half the total off half the overs seems a relatively
simple calculation.

mike

On 11/4/2023 7:48 AM, mike wrote:
> NZ401-6
> Pak 200-1 [25overs]
>
> I dont know how its done but usually tthe team
> batting 2nd faces an uphill struggle. Just making
> half the total off half the overs seems a relatively
> simple calculation.
>
> mike

Yeah, didn't make sense.

Not an uphill struggle but PROPORTIONALLY they have to SCORE MORE RUNS
in LESS OVERS.

Pakis are always LUCKY in these ICC WC tournaments.

Fakhar Zaman said in the interview at the END that Paki players were
PRAYING for RAIN to wash out the match, obviously because they were
AHEAD in DLS method.

On 04/11/2023 14:59, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 11/4/2023 7:48 AM, mike wrote:
>> NZ401-6
>> Pak 200-1 [25overs]
>>
>> I dont know how its done but usually tthe team
>> batting 2nd faces an uphill struggle. Just making
>> half the total off half the overs seems a relatively
>> simple calculation.

Scoring half the runs off half the overs will sometimes put you ahead on
DLS and sometimes it won't, as it also depends on how many wickets you
have lost. If Pakistan had been, say, 200 for 3 or 4, they would
probably have lost.

> Yeah, didn't make sense.
>
> Not an uphill struggle but PROPORTIONALLY they have to SCORE MORE RUNS
> in LESS OVERS.
>
> Pakis are always LUCKY in these ICC WC tournaments.

It wasn't luck that put them ahead on DLS.

At the first rain break, they were 160-1 off 21.3 overs, whereas NZ were
136-1 at the same stage.

They finished on 200-1 off 25.3 overs; after 25.3 overs, NZ were 170-1.

> Fakhar Zaman said in the interview at the END that Paki players were
> PRAYING for RAIN to wash out the match, obviously because they were
> AHEAD in DLS method.

Looking at it another way, the rain deprived them of the opportunity to
close the net run rate deficit on NZ further. As it is, they are 0.363
behind NZ on NRR. If it hadn't rained and they gone on to just reach the
original target by making the winning run off the last ball, they would
have been only 0.048 behind. If they had reached it with a 6 with the
scores level off the first ball of the last over, they would now be
ahead of NZ on NRR.

--
David North

On 04/11/2023 16:33, David North wrote:
> On 04/11/2023 14:59, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 11/4/2023 7:48 AM, mike wrote:
>>> NZ401-6
>>> Pak 200-1 [25overs]
>>>
>>> I dont know how its done but usually tthe team
>>> batting 2nd faces an uphill struggle. Just making
>>> half the total off half the overs seems a relatively
>>> simple calculation.
>
> Scoring half the runs off half the overs will sometimes put you ahead on
> DLS and sometimes it won't, as it also depends on how many wickets you
> have lost. If Pakistan had been, say, 200 for 3 or 4, they would
> probably have lost.
>
>> Yeah, didn't make sense.
>>
>> Not an uphill struggle but PROPORTIONALLY they have to SCORE MORE RUNS
>> in LESS OVERS.
>>
>> Pakis are always LUCKY in these ICC WC tournaments.
>
> It wasn't luck that put them ahead on DLS.
>
> At the first rain break, they were 160-1 off 21.3 overs, whereas NZ were
> 136-1 at the same stage.
>
> They finished on 200-1 off 25.3 overs; after 25.3 overs, NZ were 170-1.
>
>> Fakhar Zaman said in the interview at the END that Paki players were
>> PRAYING for RAIN to wash out the match, obviously because they were
>> AHEAD in DLS method.
>
> Looking at it another way, the rain deprived them of the opportunity to
> close the net run rate deficit on NZ further. As it is, they are 0.363
> behind NZ on NRR. If it hadn't rained and they gone on to just reach the
> original target by making the winning run off the last ball, they would
> have been only 0.048 behind. If they had reached it with a 6 with the
> scores level off the first ball of the last over, they would now be
> ahead of NZ on NRR.

Anyway, Pakistan's win makes the rest of the league stage much more
interesting than it would have been if they had lost.

--
David North

On 11/4/2023 9:33 AM, David North wrote:
> On 04/11/2023 14:59, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>> On 11/4/2023 7:48 AM, mike wrote:
>>> NZ401-6
>>> Pak 200-1 [25overs]
>>>
>>> I dont know how its done but usually tthe team
>>> batting 2nd faces an uphill struggle. Just making
>>> half the total off half the overs seems a relatively
>>> simple calculation.
>
> Scoring half the runs off half the overs will sometimes put you ahead on
> DLS and sometimes it won't, as it also depends on how many wickets you
> have lost. If Pakistan had been, say, 200 for 3 or 4, they would
> probably have lost.
>
>> Yeah, didn't make sense.
>>
>> Not an uphill struggle but PROPORTIONALLY they have to SCORE MORE RUNS
>> in LESS OVERS.
>>
>> Pakis are always LUCKY in these ICC WC tournaments.
>
> It wasn't luck that put them ahead on DLS.
>

I was talking about the RAIN interruption.

There is NO guarantee that Pak would have won if there was NO rain
interruption.

> At the first rain break, they were 160-1 off 21.3 overs, whereas NZ were
> 136-1 at the same stage.
>
> They finished on 200-1 off 25.3 overs; after 25.3 overs, NZ were 170-1.
>
>> Fakhar Zaman said in the interview at the END that Paki players were
>> PRAYING for RAIN to wash out the match, obviously because they were
>> AHEAD in DLS method.
>
> Looking at it another way, the rain deprived them of the opportunity to
> close the net run rate deficit on NZ further. As it is, they are 0.363
> behind NZ on NRR. If it hadn't rained and they gone on to just reach the
> original target by making the winning run off the last ball, they would
> have been only 0.048 behind. If they had reached it with a 6 with the
> scores level off the first ball of the last over, they would now be
> ahead of NZ on NRR.
>

IF Pakis went for the NRR like you suggested INSTEAD of focusing on WIN,
they might have LOST the game.

Even without trying to overtake NZ NRR, they still have to SCORE 143 in
about 17 overs.

On 11/4/2023 9:36 AM, David North wrote:
> On 04/11/2023 16:33, David North wrote:
>> On 04/11/2023 14:59, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 11/4/2023 7:48 AM, mike wrote:
>>>> NZ401-6
>>>> Pak 200-1 [25overs]
>>>>
>>>> I dont know how its done but usually tthe team
>>>> batting 2nd faces an uphill struggle. Just making
>>>> half the total off half the overs seems a relatively
>>>> simple calculation.
>>
>> Scoring half the runs off half the overs will sometimes put you ahead
>> on DLS and sometimes it won't, as it also depends on how many wickets
>> you have lost. If Pakistan had been, say, 200 for 3 or 4, they would
>> probably have lost.
>>
>>> Yeah, didn't make sense.
>>>
>>> Not an uphill struggle but PROPORTIONALLY they have to SCORE MORE
>>> RUNS in LESS OVERS.
>>>
>>> Pakis are always LUCKY in these ICC WC tournaments.
>>
>> It wasn't luck that put them ahead on DLS.
>>
>> At the first rain break, they were 160-1 off 21.3 overs, whereas NZ
>> were 136-1 at the same stage.
>>
>> They finished on 200-1 off 25.3 overs; after 25.3 overs, NZ were 170-1.
>>
>>> Fakhar Zaman said in the interview at the END that Paki players were
>>> PRAYING for RAIN to wash out the match, obviously because they were
>>> AHEAD in DLS method.
>>
>> Looking at it another way, the rain deprived them of the opportunity
>> to close the net run rate deficit on NZ further. As it is, they are
>> 0.363 behind NZ on NRR. If it hadn't rained and they gone on to just
>> reach the original target by making the winning run off the last ball,
>> they would have been only 0.048 behind. If they had reached it with a
>> 6 with the scores level off the first ball of the last over, they
>> would now be ahead of NZ on NRR.
>
> Anyway, Pakistan's win makes the rest of the league stage much more
> interesting than it would have been if they had lost.
>

What's wrong with England team.

WHY are they NOT IMPROVISING, like replacing Root with Brook, shuffling
the order and sending Moeen at #3 as a pinch hitter etc.

It appeared they DIDN'T TRY ANYTHING to FIX the PROBLEMS.

In message <40fb8e77-2893-41f8-bb1a-ee5773e1a3c1@america.com>,
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com>
writes
>On 11/4/2023 7:48 AM, mike wrote:
>> NZ401-6
>> Pak 200-1 [25overs]
>> I dont know how its done but usually tthe team
>> batting 2nd faces an uphill struggle. Just making
>> half the total off half the overs seems a relatively
>> simple calculation.
>> mike
>
>
>
>Yeah, didn't make sense.
>
>Not an uphill struggle but PROPORTIONALLY they have to SCORE MORE RUNS
>in LESS OVERS.

Only very marginally more runs that in the first half of their innings
and in the same number of overs, and they did still have 9 wickets in
hand, which would have counted heavily in their favour in the DLS
calculation. Still, I noticed that ESPNCricinfo were showing that WinViz
gave NZ about a 75% chance of winning from there and Pakistan only 25%,
which does seem rather more realistic to me.
>
>Pakis are always LUCKY in these ICC WC tournaments.

So I agree with you that they were lucky that the rain came.

>
>Fakhar Zaman said in the interview at the END that Paki players were
>PRAYING for RAIN to wash out the match, obviously because they were
>AHEAD in DLS method.
>
>
Understandable.

I see that if Afghanistan could win their two remaining matches they
would be guaranteed a semi-final spot. Unfortunately for them, those
matches are against South Africa and Australia. Theoretically I suppose
they could get through on NRR with one huge win and one narrow defeat,
but that's vanishingly unlikely given how inferior their NRR currently
is.

NZ's final match is against SL and Pakistan's against England, so you'd
expect both of them to win. However NZ have significantly the better
NRR. So I'd put the chances as NZ 65%, Pakistan 30%, Afghanistan 5%.

I suppose one or more matches could be completely washed out, giving
each side 1 point, which would complicate things even further.

Meanwhile England may need to win both their last two matches to finish
in the top 8 and qualify for the Champion's Trophy
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

In message <34367f8e-84ef-4f1b-adf2-f1e534079939@america.com>,
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com>
writes
>What's wrong with England team.
>
>
>WHY are they NOT IMPROVISING, like replacing Root with Brook, shuffling
>the order and sending Moeen at #3 as a pinch hitter etc.
>
>It appeared they DIDN'T TRY ANYTHING to FIX the PROBLEMS.
>

They do appear to have a very conservative mind-set in their selection
and tactics.
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

In message <bFbs84EvepRlFw1C@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>, John Hall
<john_nospam@jhall.co.uk> writes
>In message <34367f8e-84ef-4f1b-adf2-f1e534079939@america.com>,
>FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com>
>writes
>>What's wrong with England team.
>>
>>
>>WHY are they NOT IMPROVISING, like replacing Root with Brook,
>>shuffling the order and sending Moeen at #3 as a pinch hitter etc.
>>
>>It appeared they DIDN'T TRY ANYTHING to FIX the PROBLEMS.
>>
>
>They do appear to have a very conservative mind-set in their selection
>and tactics.

Talking of Root, Andrew Miller of Cricinfo didn't hold back in his
report on the match: "Joe Root, one of England's indisputable greats
across formats, produced an innings of such awfulness it truly deserves
to be his last in coloured clothing."
--
John Hall
"Acting is merely the art of keeping a large group of people
from coughing."
Sir Ralph Richardson (1902-83)

On Sunday, November 5, 2023 at 1:48:58 AM UTC+11, mike wrote:
> NZ401-6
> Pak 200-1 [25overs]
>
> I dont know how its done but usually tthe team
> batting 2nd faces an uphill struggle. Just making
> half the total off half the overs seems a relatively
> simple calculation.

It takes into account 2 resources, balls faced and wickets lost
Because Pakistan had only lost 1 wicket they got a favorable amount of runs needed to have been scored

On 11/4/2023 12:09 PM, John Hall wrote:
> In message <40fb8e77-2893-41f8-bb1a-ee5773e1a3c1@america.com>,
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer@america.com> writes
>> On 11/4/2023 7:48 AM, mike wrote:
>>> NZ401-6
>>> Pak 200-1 [25overs]
>>>  I dont know how its done but usually tthe team
>>> batting 2nd faces an uphill struggle. Just making
>>> half the total off half the overs seems a relatively
>>> simple calculation.
>>>  mike
>>
>>
>>
>> Yeah, didn't make sense.
>>
>> Not an uphill struggle but PROPORTIONALLY they have to SCORE MORE RUNS
>> in LESS OVERS.
>
> Only very marginally more runs that in the first half of their innings
> and in the same number of overs, and they did still have 9 wickets in
> hand, which would have counted heavily in their favour in the DLS
> calculation. Still, I noticed that ESPNCricinfo were showing that WinViz
> gave NZ about a 75% chance of winning from there and Pakistan only 25%,
> which does seem rather more realistic to me.
>>
>> Pakis are always LUCKY in these ICC WC tournaments.
>
> So I agree with you that they were lucky that the rain came.
>
>>
>> Fakhar Zaman said in the interview at the END that Paki players were
>> PRAYING for RAIN to wash out the match, obviously because they were
>> AHEAD in DLS method.
>>
>>
> Understandable.
>
> I see that if Afghanistan could win their two remaining matches they
> would be guaranteed a semi-final spot. Unfortunately for them, those
> matches are against South Africa and Australia. Theoretically I suppose
> they could get through on NRR with one huge win and one narrow defeat,
> but that's vanishingly unlikely given how inferior their NRR currently is.
>
> NZ's final match is against SL and Pakistan's against England, so you'd
> expect both of them to win. However NZ have significantly the better
> NRR. So I'd put the chances as NZ 65%, Pakistan 30%, Afghanistan 5%.
>
> I suppose one or more matches could be completely washed out, giving
> each side 1 point, which would complicate things even further.
>

> Meanwhile England may need to win both their last two matches to finish
> in the top 8 and qualify for the Champion's Trophy

England can still qualify for Champions trophy by winning ONE GAME but
IMPROVING their NRR better than Netherlands because NED will LOSE both
their remaining games.

On 04/11/2023 16:50, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 11/4/2023 9:33 AM, David North wrote:
>> On 04/11/2023 14:59, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
>>> On 11/4/2023 7:48 AM, mike wrote:
>>>> NZ401-6
>>>> Pak 200-1 [25overs]
>>>>
>>>> I dont know how its done but usually tthe team
>>>> batting 2nd faces an uphill struggle. Just making
>>>> half the total off half the overs seems a relatively
>>>> simple calculation.
>>
>> Scoring half the runs off half the overs will sometimes put you ahead
>> on DLS and sometimes it won't, as it also depends on how many wickets
>> you have lost. If Pakistan had been, say, 200 for 3 or 4, they would
>> probably have lost.
>>
>>> Yeah, didn't make sense.
>>>
>>> Not an uphill struggle but PROPORTIONALLY they have to SCORE MORE
>>> RUNS in LESS OVERS.
>>>
>>> Pakis are always LUCKY in these ICC WC tournaments.
>>
>> It wasn't luck that put them ahead on DLS.
>>
>
>
> I was talking about the RAIN interruption.
>
> There is NO guarantee that Pak would have won if there was NO rain
> interruption.

Of course there isn't; when rain ends a limited-overs match, that is
always true of the winner (if there is one) to some degree.

>> At the first rain break, they were 160-1 off 21.3 overs, whereas NZ
>> were 136-1 at the same stage.
>>
>> They finished on 200-1 off 25.3 overs; after 25.3 overs, NZ were 170-1.
>>
>>> Fakhar Zaman said in the interview at the END that Paki players were
>>> PRAYING for RAIN to wash out the match, obviously because they were
>>> AHEAD in DLS method.
>>
>> Looking at it another way, the rain deprived them of the opportunity
>> to close the net run rate deficit on NZ further. As it is, they are
>> 0.363 behind NZ on NRR. If it hadn't rained and they gone on to just
>> reach the original target by making the winning run off the last ball,
>> they would have been only 0.048 behind. If they had reached it with a
>> 6 with the scores level off the first ball of the last over, they
>> would now be ahead of NZ on NRR.
>>
>
>
> IF Pakis went for the NRR like you suggested INSTEAD of focusing on WIN,
> they might have LOST the game.

I am not suggesting that they should have gone for the NRR. As I said
above, if they had successfully gone for the win, even by the narrowest
possible margin, their NRR would have improved a lot anyway. If they had
got to the last few overs with a lot of wickets still in hand, _then_
then might have been able to go for the NRR fairly safely.

--
David North

On Saturday, 4 November 2023 at 19:12:09 UTC, John Hall wrote:
> In message <40fb8e77-2893-41f8...@america.com>,
> FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com>
> writes
> >On 11/4/2023 7:48 AM, mike wrote:
> >> NZ401-6
> >> Pak 200-1 [25overs]
> >> I dont know how its done but usually tthe team
> >> batting 2nd faces an uphill struggle. Just making
> >> half the total off half the overs seems a relatively
> >> simple calculation.
> >> mike
> >
> >
> >
> >Yeah, didn't make sense.
> >
> >Not an uphill struggle but PROPORTIONALLY they have to SCORE MORE RUNS
> >in LESS OVERS.
> Only very marginally more runs that in the first half of their innings
> and in the same number of overs, and they did still have 9 wickets in
> hand, which would have counted heavily in their favour in the DLS
> calculation. Still, I noticed that ESPNCricinfo were showing that WinViz
> gave NZ about a 75% chance of winning from there and Pakistan only 25%,
> which does seem rather more realistic to me.

I noticed that, according to WinViz, NZ's chance of winning increased sharply when they resumed after the first rain break.

> >Pakis are always LUCKY in these ICC WC tournaments.
> So I agree with you that they were lucky that the rain came.

Maybe they had seen a forecast saying that it was likely to rain, and that is why they chose to bowl first. Of course they were lucky to win the toss, but it was their 4th toss win in 8 WC matches, so it only evened out their luck in that regard.

> >Fakhar Zaman said in the interview at the END that Paki players were
> >PRAYING for RAIN to wash out the match, obviously because they were
> >AHEAD in DLS method.
> >
> >
> Understandable.
>
> I see that if Afghanistan could win their two remaining matches they
> would be guaranteed a semi-final spot. Unfortunately for them, those
> matches are against South Africa and Australia. Theoretically I suppose
> they could get through on NRR with one huge win and one narrow defeat,
> but that's vanishingly unlikely given how inferior their NRR currently
> is.
>
> NZ's final match is against SL and Pakistan's against England, so you'd
> expect both of them to win. However NZ have significantly the better
> NRR. So I'd put the chances as NZ 65%, Pakistan 30%, Afghanistan 5%.

So you're ruling out Sri Lanka and Netherlands? ;)

SL would need to bowl out Bangladesh cheaply and beat NZ heavily and hope that Pakistan and Afghanistan lose their remaining matches - very unlikely, but not totally unthinkable.

NL's chances are much lower even than that.

On Sunday, 5 November 2023 at 12:58:20 UTC, FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer wrote:
> On 11/4/2023 12:09 PM, John Hall wrote:
> > In message <40fb8e77-2893-41f8...@america.com>,
> > FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATe...@america.com> writes
> >> On 11/4/2023 7:48 AM, mike wrote:
> >>> NZ401-6
> >>> Pak 200-1 [25overs]
> >>> I dont know how its done but usually tthe team
> >>> batting 2nd faces an uphill struggle. Just making
> >>> half the total off half the overs seems a relatively
> >>> simple calculation.
> >>> mike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yeah, didn't make sense.
> >>
> >> Not an uphill struggle but PROPORTIONALLY they have to SCORE MORE RUNS
> >> in LESS OVERS.
> >
> > Only very marginally more runs that in the first half of their innings
> > and in the same number of overs, and they did still have 9 wickets in
> > hand, which would have counted heavily in their favour in the DLS
> > calculation. Still, I noticed that ESPNCricinfo were showing that WinViz
> > gave NZ about a 75% chance of winning from there and Pakistan only 25%,
> > which does seem rather more realistic to me.
> >>
> >> Pakis are always LUCKY in these ICC WC tournaments.
> >
> > So I agree with you that they were lucky that the rain came.
> >
> >>
> >> Fakhar Zaman said in the interview at the END that Paki players were
> >> PRAYING for RAIN to wash out the match, obviously because they were
> >> AHEAD in DLS method.
> >>
> >>
> > Understandable.
> >
> > I see that if Afghanistan could win their two remaining matches they
> > would be guaranteed a semi-final spot. Unfortunately for them, those
> > matches are against South Africa and Australia. Theoretically I suppose
> > they could get through on NRR with one huge win and one narrow defeat,
> > but that's vanishingly unlikely given how inferior their NRR currently is.
> >
> > NZ's final match is against SL and Pakistan's against England, so you'd
> > expect both of them to win. However NZ have significantly the better
> > NRR. So I'd put the chances as NZ 65%, Pakistan 30%, Afghanistan 5%.
> >
> > I suppose one or more matches could be completely washed out, giving
> > each side 1 point, which would complicate things even further.
> >
>
> > Meanwhile England may need to win both their last two matches to finish
> > in the top 8 and qualify for the Champion's Trophy
> England can still qualify for Champions trophy by winning ONE GAME but
> IMPROVING their NRR better than Netherlands because NED will LOSE both
> their remaining games.

It also depends on what SL and Bangladesh do.