Domestic Cricket 17/18
-
-
@gunner said in Domestic Cricket 17/18:
Stags limped to 99/8.
It’s a tough pitch to bat on but all the Knights need is one batsmen to come off and she’s game over.
Limited overs cricket's biggest issue is that it's basically impossible to win the game batting first. No matter how well a team does, the chasing team always has a chance to win (see Australia scoring 434 vs South Africa), and I think this is particularly the case for T20 cricket. Martin Crowe used to say you should never bat first in T20 for that reason.
It makes me wonder about the old Crowe idea of two innings. To prevent it being too much of a hit and giggle you could make it one innings split into two (i.e. the batsmen in resume in the first over of the second innings). Also means that the team batting second has some more interesting decisions to make in their first innings - if the team batting first has got off to a flier do you try and match them, not knowing if they might collapse in the second innings? Likewise if you've bowled well in their first innings do you take it easy and risk having them finish fast and leave yourselves too much to do in the final few overs?
-
Well done boys!
Hopkins has made an impact in his first year as the ND 20/20 coach.
BTW, I read that CD batted first in every game bar one before the final, and lost the only game they fielded first. They obviously preferred to set a target and defend it.
-
@cyclops said in Domestic Cricket 17/18:
@gunner said in Domestic Cricket 17/18:
Stags limped to 99/8.
It’s a tough pitch to bat on but all the Knights need is one batsmen to come off and she’s game over.
Limited overs cricket's biggest issue is that it's basically impossible to win the game batting first. No matter how well a team does, the chasing team always has a chance to win (see Australia scoring 434 vs South Africa), and I think this is particularly the case for T20 cricket. Martin Crowe used to say you should never bat first in T20 for that reason.
It makes me wonder about the old Crowe idea of two innings. To prevent it being too much of a hit and giggle you could make it one innings split into two (i.e. the batsmen in resume in the first over of the second innings). Also means that the team batting second has some more interesting decisions to make in their first innings - if the team batting first has got off to a flier do you try and match them, not knowing if they might collapse in the second innings? Likewise if you've bowled well in their first innings do you take it easy and risk having them finish fast and leave yourselves too much to do in the final few overs?
Bollox. That claim just fails the eye test. Would love to see the stats.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in Domestic Cricket 17/18:
Would love to see the stats.
Whomever this is gets their data from cricinfo apparently.
https://truii.com/data-curio/sports-statistics/t20-cricket-should-you-bat-first/
Not a lot in it, certainly not "basically impossible to win the game batting first". In a day / night match should definitely bat first.
A bigger difference in ODIs and a bigger statistical sample.
https://truii.com/data-curio/sports-statistics/odi-cricket-should-you-bat-or-field-first/
-
@snowy said in Domestic Cricket 17/18:
@baron-silas-greenback said in Domestic Cricket 17/18:
Would love to see the stats.
Whomever this is gets their data from cricinfo apparently.
https://truii.com/data-curio/sports-statistics/t20-cricket-should-you-bat-first/
Not a lot in it, certainly not "basically impossible to win the game batting first". In a day / night match should definitely bat first.
A bigger difference in ODIs and a bigger statistical sample.
https://truii.com/data-curio/sports-statistics/odi-cricket-should-you-bat-or-field-first/
It's not impossible to win batting first. My point was that if you bat first and bat poorly then the contest is over, whereas bowling first even if you bowl poorly you're still in the game.
-
Isn't that just like saying you can't win a game of rugby in the first half? You can go a long way towards winning but the other team always has a chance of coming back.
Ive played in plenty of cricket games, particularly finals, where we have batted first and got what appeared to be a shit total. Only for us to roll the other team for much less.
What it proves is batsmen are just flakey pricks who can't handle pressure. -
A bit of hyperbole involved but I take @Cyclops point. It's the same in tests too, batting first and poorly can end the contest in the first session.
That is offset by other factors though, like scoreboard pressure and (in tests) batting 4th.
The stats make for interesting reading but at the end of the day if you play well enough batting first or second shouldn't decide the result. There are also other variables that also affect the result - toss, conditions etc.
-
@cyclops said in Domestic Cricket 17/18:
It's not impossible to win batting first. My point was that if you bat first and bat poorly then the contest is over, whereas bowling first even if you bowl poorly you're still in the game.
Actually if you bat poorly in either innings you won't win (unless the other team bat more poorly). Obviously.
It certainly appears that the contest is over if you don't post what looks like a good score batting first, and fans think it is over. The stats suggest that it might be (almost) as hard to get that score batting second (assuming no variables like day / night moisture, etc).
I get what you are saying as it easier to regulate a run chase when you know what the target is but there actually isn't much in it statistically. Interesting that the figures are more skewed in ODI than T20.
-
Yeah rereading my first post I made my point very poorly. Its the killing of a game after a poor first innings that I was trying to work around, although as he been noted often a poor first innings can just mean that the pitch has more life in it than expected.
