The Cricket Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
tomw24 said:
Could be less in the unlikely event Sussex get hammered by Kent as well as Gloucs losing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if anything that is a marginally more likely route of success (but both very unlikely). I calculate that if Sussex lose by more than 11 runs, they'll drop below Surrey. And every extra run which they lose thereafter reduces the size of the win we need.
 
Pride restored if nothing else and the younger players are maturing now and there isn't a better or more classy white ball player than Vincey around. Sussex are a very good T20 unit and we picked them off. Shame it took us so long to get going but the signs are good for the future.
 
Saints_Alive said:
Pride restored if nothing else and the younger players are maturing now and there isn't a better or more classy white ball player than Vincey around. Sussex are a very good T20 unit and we picked them off. Shame it took us so long to get going but the signs are good for the future.
Click to expand...

It's like the opposite of Saints. We can hopefully take this t20 momentum into next season. It's been years since we had any.

(You could make the case for taking this momentum into the 50 overs next week. But when you remove Vince, Short, CDG, Dawson, Crane and Wood, that becomes very difficult!)
 
Disappointing England didn't win with the Livingstone innings. At least it wasn't the first team, not quite anyway. I still think we probably should chase that score with Livingstone's innings in the side. Shame no one was able to support him with something substantial. Morgan's innings was too slow in the match situation, as was Gregory's, that sort of pinned us into a position that was almost impossible NRR wise. We did concede a lot of runs, but the pitch was flat and lightning outfield. Disappointing basically.
 
I see that we've confirmed the expected, but nevertheless sad, news that Donald will miss the rest of the season. Fingers are crossed that he can finally return next season.

I did see him at the ground earlier this month. Seemed to be walking fine, but was heavily strapped up.
 
st_brendy said:
I see that we've confirmed the expected, but nevertheless sad, news that Donald will miss the rest of the season. Fingers are crossed that he can finally return next season.
Click to expand...
I'm actually relieved that we're not trying to rush him back.
 
In order for us to overtake Sussex I reckon we need approx. a 45 run swing, e.g. we win by 25 runs and they lose to Kent by 20 runs. However, very open to being proved wrong in my maths. That's assuming that Hants bat first and Sussex chase in their game.
 
Oscar Cricket said:
In order for us to overtake Sussex I reckon we need approx. a 45 run swing, e.g. we win by 25 runs and they lose to Kent by 20 runs. However, very open to being proved wrong in my maths. That's assuming that Hants bat first and Sussex chase in their game.
Click to expand...
And also Sussex lose. :)
 
So Yorkshire sportingly choose to not run out Croft...and are punished by being made to re-bowl the ball?!

Joke of a decision.
 
The problem with focusing on Sussex's NRR rather than Surrey's is the point I mentioned the other day: different KO times. We play at 2.30, Sussex play at 6.30.

If we find ourselves batting second, we'll have no real option but to aim to chase it down in whatever time would be necessary to overtake Surrey. If that ends up blowing up in our faces (eg we get bowled out), with it ultimately transpiring that we didn't need to chase it down quite so quickly, well so be it.

(Although to be honest, even if the KO times were aligned, it would still be very difficult for us to act in real time in order to align our run chase with what Sussex are doing.)
 
st_brendy said:
If we bat first vs Glamorgan, then by my maths we would need to beat them by 63 runs. (But don't quote me on that.)
Click to expand...

Having done the maths in greater detail whilst I watch the F1 build-up, I more accurately calculate us as needing our RR to be 2.55 better than Glamorgan's. Which equates to a 51 run win if batting first.

(I had hoped that one of Sky's stats men would have confirmed it for us by now.)
 
Batting first is almost essential in order to achieve a big win.

If Glamorgan lose early wickets when batting first, they could choose to shut-up-shop somewhat and stumble their way to, say, 120 in the hope that their bowlers might save. Whereas that wouldn't be an option for them batting second - they'd have to keep on hitting out, even if it meant being bowled out for 90.
 
st_brendy said:
Having done the maths in greater detail whilst I watch the F1 build-up, I more accurately calculate us as needing our RR to be 2.55 better than Glamorgan's. Which equates to a 51 run win if batting first.

(I had hoped that one of Sky's stats men would have confirmed it for us by now.)
Click to expand...

How do they work out the RR when a team bats second? is it down to how many wickets lost or how quickly a team chases a target?
 
Saints_Alive said:
How do they work out the RR when a team bats second? is it down to how many wickets lost or how quickly a team chases a target?
Click to expand...

The latter. Overs. Your RR at the point you win the game is treated as your RR for your innings.

Wickets has nothing to do with NRR (except obviously when you're all out!)

It lead to a farcical situation between SL and NZ a few years back (I think in a Champions Trophy match at Cardiff - not sure). The wicket was appalling, and SL got bowled out for something stupid like 110 after about half of their 50 overs. NZ proceeded to just get home, about 9 wickets down. Again with about half their overs left. But despite how close the result was, NZ ending up thrashing SL specifically on NRR - because SL had their score divided by 50 overs, whereas NZ only had their divided by the half overs they batted.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Saints_Alive
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back