Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
NZ vs SA - When to declare?
57 views
Skip to first unread message
david.b...@gmail.com
Mar 26, 2012, 12:48:20 PM3/26/12
to
Tough decision. The lost sessions of play were very unfortunate.
When to declare?
Well not too early.
If SA was 2-0 up they would have a double reason to take a chance. Firstly the series would be won and secondly they would be no 1 if they won.
But we are 1-0 up and a loss means a drawn series.
Reckon we should bat for 10 overs at full pace and then declare
When to declare?
Well not too early.
If SA was 2-0 up they would have a double reason to take a chance. Firstly the series would be won and secondly they would be no 1 if they won.
But we are 1-0 up and a loss means a drawn series.
Reckon we should bat for 10 overs at full pace and then declare
Andrew Dunford
Mar 26, 2012, 6:04:11 PM3/26/12
to
<david.b...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:19177629.140.1332780500594.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbgx21...
gives the impression a Taylor-less could chase a target above about 250?
Andrew
jzfredricks
Mar 26, 2012, 7:13:00 PM3/26/12
to
Once they have a lead of 750. That should do it.
Howzzat
Mar 26, 2012, 7:26:58 PM3/26/12
to
On Mar 26, 3:04 pm, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
> <david.baker...@gmail.com> wrote in message
There haven't been too many practical declarations in recent times.
South Africa should have given themselves enough overs with the second
new ball but the way things are going it doesn't look like they'll
need it.
> <david.baker...@gmail.com> wrote in message
South Africa should have given themselves enough overs with the second
new ball but the way things are going it doesn't look like they'll
need it.
Andrew Dunford
Mar 26, 2012, 7:40:26 PM3/26/12
to
"Howzzat" <shgu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:847d0c46-fde3-4557...@px4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
hadn't considered. The difference between 81 and say 86 overs could
theoretically be very significant at the end of today, although based on
yesterday's over rate they'd still be unlikely to reach 80 by closing time.
Lead of 388? Significantly more than necessary.
Andrew
tendulkar.com
Mar 27, 2012, 1:14:16 AM3/27/12
to
On Monday, March 26, 2012 7:13:00 PM UTC-4, jzfredricks wrote:
> Once they have a lead of 750. That should do it.
Just like an idiot student, you have only copied the answer without getting the concept.
> Once they have a lead of 750. That should do it.
The correct answer is Total Runs = Total Expected overs * 5 / 3;
Note: Score all your runs in your first innings.
In this case RSA should have declared when their total score reached 583 or Second innings score of 108.
They batted an extra 8 overs which may or may not have made the difference
Andrew Dunford
Mar 27, 2012, 1:51:34 AM3/27/12
to
"tendulkar.com" <tendul...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:28775021.901.1332825256203.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@vbbdy9...
the second innings without considering the size of the lead. The fact that
108 would probably have been a good time at which to declare today is to
some extent a coincidence.
If NZ had scored 400 in its first innings your declaration would have set
them 183 to win in about 90 overs.
Andrew
Bharat Rao
Mar 27, 2012, 7:22:47 AM3/27/12
to
On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 1:51:34 AM UTC-4, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> If this formula makes sense in the first innings, it certainly doesn't in
> the second innings without considering the size of the lead. The fact that
> 108 would probably have been a good time at which to declare today is to
> some extent a coincidence.
>
> If NZ had scored 400 in its first innings your declaration would have set
> them 183 to win in about 90 overs.
There you go again, Andrew. Injecting "facts" into a religious discussion.
> If this formula makes sense in the first innings, it certainly doesn't in
> the second innings without considering the size of the lead. The fact that
> 108 would probably have been a good time at which to declare today is to
> some extent a coincidence.
>
> If NZ had scored 400 in its first innings your declaration would have set
> them 183 to win in about 90 overs.
Bharat
PS: If you haven't seen it, do check out the White House press dinner with Steven Colbert & George W...
Biju
Mar 27, 2012, 10:06:34 AM3/27/12
to
On Mar 27, 10:51 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
> "tendulkar.com" <tendulkar....@gmail.com> wrote in message
Assuming 90 overs were lost to weather D1 and 2,
If NZ scored 400 at same RR as their score of 274, they would have
taken 140 overs (unlikely but extreme example).
That would have taken 290 overs off the test after I1 and 2 - leaving
around 70 overs and SA with a lead of 74.
At 70 overs, you are talking roughly 120 runs by the above formula
(just taking a 1 inns match). Around 20 overs going by SA's second
inns RR. Leaving NZ to get 194 in 50.
Don't screw up on basic add/subtract/multiply/divide maths dude.
> "tendulkar.com" <tendulkar....@gmail.com> wrote in message
If NZ scored 400 at same RR as their score of 274, they would have
taken 140 overs (unlikely but extreme example).
That would have taken 290 overs off the test after I1 and 2 - leaving
around 70 overs and SA with a lead of 74.
At 70 overs, you are talking roughly 120 runs by the above formula
(just taking a 1 inns match). Around 20 overs going by SA's second
inns RR. Leaving NZ to get 194 in 50.
Don't screw up on basic add/subtract/multiply/divide maths dude.
tendulkar.com
Mar 27, 2012, 12:10:59 PM3/27/12
to
But the sad part is, as a Ph.D, you never even analysed the
model(especially the simplicity and elegance of it), but have
dismissed it because of the source
BTW, if you had done basic math, you would have realised that Andrew
erred in his calculation.
If NZ had scored 400 (say in 130 overs), they would have had to score
183 in about 45 overs (+/- a few overs based on your risk profile)
Again, models are approximations, nobody has to get religion about it.
(If you adjust a few overs based on your risk profile, RSA came very
close to the model which in itself validates the model).
Also, I don't need validation from people, just the data.
Andrew Dunford
Mar 27, 2012, 8:06:35 PM3/27/12
to
"Biju" <blrgr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f2072d93-4b0a-40ae...@sv8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
1. I didn't say anything about NZ batting for 130-140 overs in its first
innings. The assumption was that they scored 400 in the same length of time
it actually took them to reach 274 i.e. 96 overs. You could have inferred
that from my calculation.
2. Roshan's formula doesn't make adjustments as the match develops - it uses
'total expected overs' rather than 'total overs remaining'. That was my
whole point, which you've missed completely by making a new calculation
based on the 70 overs remaining after the two teams have finished their
first innings. Do try to keep up.
And anyway, what captain is going to set 194 in 50 overs?
Andrew
Andrew Dunford
Mar 27, 2012, 8:48:30 PM3/27/12
to
"tendulkar.com" <qro...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2d611387-270b-4a21...@ur9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> Again, models are approximations, nobody has to get religion about it.
> (If you adjust a few overs based on your risk profile, RSA came very
> close to the model which in itself validates the model).
> Also, I don't need validation from people, just the data.
at which South Africa had scored 580-590 runs in the match would have been
much more timely than the declaration Smith made. Whether that's more than
a coincidence is another matter.
Andrew
Uday Rajan
Mar 27, 2012, 11:14:42 PM3/27/12
to
On Monday, March 26, 2012 7:26:58 PM UTC-4, Howzzat wrote:
> There haven't been too many practical declarations in recent times.
> South Africa should have given themselves enough overs with the second
> new ball but the way things are going it doesn't look like they'll
> need it.
I thought this was a very practical declaration. RSA were 1-0 up in the series, and didn't really care whether they won or drew the second Test. They would have been happy to take the win if NZ had folded, but batted long enough to ensure at least a draw. And a little while longer, to doubly ensure it.
> There haven't been too many practical declarations in recent times.
> South Africa should have given themselves enough overs with the second
> new ball but the way things are going it doesn't look like they'll
> need it.
As a fan, I would like teams to try and win every match they play, but often enough teams don't feel like making the additional effort. Perhaps there's just not enough of an incentive.
jzfredricks
Mar 28, 2012, 12:52:48 AM3/28/12
to
On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 10:48:30 AM UTC+10, Andrew Dunford wrote:
> On this occasion the model was indeed validated - a declaration at the point
> at which South Africa had scored 580-590 runs in the match would have been
> much more timely than the declaration Smith made. Whether that's more than
> a coincidence is another matter.
In 9 Tests a team has scored 750+ runs (both innings combined). That team has won on 4 occasions and drawn 5 times. A win % of 44%.
> On this occasion the model was indeed validated - a declaration at the point
> at which South Africa had scored 580-590 runs in the match would have been
> much more timely than the declaration Smith made. Whether that's more than
> a coincidence is another matter.
Between 500 and 700 seems a lot sweeter - 439 matches for 240 wins. A win % of 54%.
If you want to win, don't aim for 750.
David Baker
Mar 28, 2012, 1:43:27 AM3/28/12
to
On Mar 27, 12:04 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
> <david.baker...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well I don't think thats an entirely fair representation of my
opinion.
"Not too early" meant not immediately or after 2 or so overs. NZ could
have knocked off those runs
I suggested 10 overs. Smith batted them for about 16. Those extra 6
overs would have helped as they would have all been with the new
ball,.
I made that statement before the day's play.
Whilst watching I was urging a declaration after 8 overs.
Merely mentioning protecting a 1-0 lead will be something that goes
through every captain's mind.
Generally speaking you are correct that SA captains have been too
conservative although Smith has been bold often and has even lost the
odd game by being bold on declaration (won some as well)
Having said all that, a couple more held catches from normally
reliable catchers....
Ahh well. Roll on England. Lets see how Philander does on England
pitches. They should suit him.
> <david.baker...@gmail.com> wrote in message
opinion.
"Not too early" meant not immediately or after 2 or so overs. NZ could
have knocked off those runs
I suggested 10 overs. Smith batted them for about 16. Those extra 6
overs would have helped as they would have all been with the new
ball,.
I made that statement before the day's play.
Whilst watching I was urging a declaration after 8 overs.
Merely mentioning protecting a 1-0 lead will be something that goes
through every captain's mind.
Generally speaking you are correct that SA captains have been too
conservative although Smith has been bold often and has even lost the
odd game by being bold on declaration (won some as well)
Having said all that, a couple more held catches from normally
reliable catchers....
Ahh well. Roll on England. Lets see how Philander does on England
pitches. They should suit him.
jzfredricks
Mar 28, 2012, 1:48:15 AM3/28/12
to
On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 3:43:27 PM UTC+10, David Baker wrote:
> Ahh well. Roll on England. Lets see how Philander does on England
> pitches. They should suit him.
Bring it!
> Ahh well. Roll on England. Lets see how Philander does on England
> pitches. They should suit him.
When's that series? Hopefully by then England can remember which way the bat faces.
Biju
Mar 28, 2012, 4:32:36 AM3/28/12
to
On Mar 28, 5:06 am, "Andrew Dunford" <adunf...@artifax.net> wrote:
> "Biju" <blrgroup...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Right.
>
> 2. Roshan's formula doesn't make adjustments as the match develops - it uses
> 'total expected overs' rather than 'total overs remaining'.
I do not advocate Roshan's formula or theory, it is just a math
discussion for me. It does not make any difference whether you make
adjustments as the match develops or use the base calculation (Roshan
had 180 odd in 45 overs vs 194 in 50 overs for me). Given that both
were "roughly about" calculations, they ended up with the same result.
It doesn't matter if you use adjustments as the match progresses or
use what is at the start. You made a basic math error which is all is
being pointed out.
> That was my
> whole point, which you've missed completely by making a new calculation
> based on the 70 overs remaining after the two teams have finished their
> first innings.
Nope. You screwed up your math which gave you a 180 in 90 overs
scenario.
> Do try to keep up.
Keep trying harder defending basic math errors.
>
> And anyway, what captain is going to set 194 in 50 overs?
>
Who scores only 120 in 20 overs when they know they will declare? And
how many teams have scored 194 in 50 overs in the last inns of a test
match? It was just to point out the fallacy of 180 in 90 overs which
you came up with by goofing up on basic math. I never said I advocate
the theory or the results it comes up with. Again if SA were to bat
only 20 overs, they would have a faster scoring rate, so you may have
had 220 in 50 overs. I used their RR from their 30 overs Inns.
Again, taking your example of convenience of 400 in 96 overs -
Roshan's theory assumes a certain scoring rate for his 750 number -
you are left with 40 additional overs. About 110 overs. SA would then
have an indicative number of around 275 in 70 odd overs. Assuming they
scored 200 in 40.
Please don't argue for arguments sake. You can do better irrespective
of your math ability.
> "Biju" <blrgroup...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> 2. Roshan's formula doesn't make adjustments as the match develops - it uses
> 'total expected overs' rather than 'total overs remaining'.
discussion for me. It does not make any difference whether you make
adjustments as the match develops or use the base calculation (Roshan
had 180 odd in 45 overs vs 194 in 50 overs for me). Given that both
were "roughly about" calculations, they ended up with the same result.
It doesn't matter if you use adjustments as the match progresses or
use what is at the start. You made a basic math error which is all is
being pointed out.
> That was my
> whole point, which you've missed completely by making a new calculation
> based on the 70 overs remaining after the two teams have finished their
> first innings.
scenario.
> Do try to keep up.
>
> And anyway, what captain is going to set 194 in 50 overs?
>
how many teams have scored 194 in 50 overs in the last inns of a test
match? It was just to point out the fallacy of 180 in 90 overs which
you came up with by goofing up on basic math. I never said I advocate
the theory or the results it comes up with. Again if SA were to bat
only 20 overs, they would have a faster scoring rate, so you may have
had 220 in 50 overs. I used their RR from their 30 overs Inns.
Again, taking your example of convenience of 400 in 96 overs -
Roshan's theory assumes a certain scoring rate for his 750 number -
you are left with 40 additional overs. About 110 overs. SA would then
have an indicative number of around 275 in 70 odd overs. Assuming they
scored 200 in 40.
Please don't argue for arguments sake. You can do better irrespective
of your math ability.
David Baker
Mar 29, 2012, 2:46:45 AM3/29/12
to
1st Test 19th July at the Oval
Only 3 tests, Oval, Lords and Headingly.
Last time SA went to England it was announced that they wanted to
upgrade the tour from 4 to 5 tests.
Now its 3 and the excuse will be the T20 WC or the like
England vs SA have been excellent series since SA's readmission.
Usually quite even.
SA vs Aus has been one sided in Aus's favour with the exception of the
1st 2 series and the last 2
SA seems to like touring England. Is it the seamer friendly ptches?
Having said that our cricket side tours well and has done
comparatively well on the sub continent.
Our rugby team on the other hand dont tour well, get all homesick and
want to go home.
Our cricketers seem to get closer to the country they tour and make
the best of it.
Katipo
Mar 30, 2012, 5:25:20 PM3/30/12
to
> Tough decision. The lost sessions of play were very unfortunate.
> When to declare?
> Well not too early.
> If SA was 2-0 up they would have a double reason to take a chance. Firstly
> the series would be won and secondly they would be no > 1 if they won.
I was surprised the South Africans waited as long as they did before
> When to declare?
> Well not too early.
> If SA was 2-0 up they would have a double reason to take a chance. Firstly
> the series would be won and secondly they would be no > 1 if they won.
declaring.
By the start of the 5th day New Zealand had no hope of winning and were
always going to try to bat out for a draw no matter what target they had
been set.
Did South Africa inadvertently make winning the game themselves harder than
they needed to?
Mike Holmans
Apr 2, 2012, 8:19:53 PM4/2/12
to
On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:46:45 -0700 (PDT), David Baker
<da...@parvana.co.uk> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Mar 28, 7:48 am, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 3:43:27 PM UTC+10, David Baker wrote:
>> > Ahh well. Roll on England. Lets see how Philander does on England
>> > pitches. They should suit him.
>>
>> Bring it!
>> When's that series? Hopefully by then England can remember which way the bat faces.
>
>1st game 9th July
>1st Test 19th July at the Oval
>
>Only 3 tests, Oval, Lords and Headingly.
>
>Last time SA went to England it was announced that they wanted to
>upgrade the tour from 4 to 5 tests.
>Now its 3 and the excuse will be the T20 WC or the like
The excuse is the Olympics.
Cheers,
Mike
--
<da...@parvana.co.uk> tapped the keyboard and brought forth:
>On Mar 28, 7:48 am, jzfredricks <jzfredri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 28, 2012 3:43:27 PM UTC+10, David Baker wrote:
>> > Ahh well. Roll on England. Lets see how Philander does on England
>> > pitches. They should suit him.
>>
>> Bring it!
>> When's that series? Hopefully by then England can remember which way the bat faces.
>
>1st game 9th July
>1st Test 19th July at the Oval
>
>Only 3 tests, Oval, Lords and Headingly.
>
>Last time SA went to England it was announced that they wanted to
>upgrade the tour from 4 to 5 tests.
>Now its 3 and the excuse will be the T20 WC or the like
Cheers,
Mike
--
0 new messages