Content deleted Content added
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Undid revision 1248576766 by 103.131.215.211 (talk) |
||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Tie-breaking formula in limited overs Cricket}}
{{EngvarB|date=
{{Use dmy dates|date=July 2016}}
Line 11:
NRR has been criticised as hard to understand. Also, while it measures how quickly teams score and concede runs, this is not at all the same as how big the teams' margins of victory or defeat are (as it ignores [[Dismissal (cricket)|wickets lost]]), and so ranking sides by NRR does not rank them by size of victory. This means a team which progresses in a tournament at the expense of another team, due to a higher NRR, may not have truly performed better than their opponents.<ref>{{cite web |title=How is Net Run Rate (NRR) Calculated? |url=https://www.sportskeeda.com/amp/cricket/how-is-net-run-rate-nrr-calculate-in-cricket |website=www.sportskeeda.com |access-date=22 June 2019 |language=en |date=22 March 2016}}</ref>
In the [[Cricket World Cup]], the first use of NRR was in the [[1992 Cricket World Cup|1992
==Step by step explanation==
Line 34:
*If a match is '''abandoned but a result decided''' by retrospectively applying Duckworth-Lewis, the number of overs assigned to each team for this calculation is the number of overs actually faced by Team 2. Team 1 is credited with Team 2's Par Score (the number of runs they would need to have reached from this number of overs and wickets lost if they were going to match Team 1's score), and the actual runs scored are used by Team 2 for Team 2's innings.<ref name="ICCPH"/>
==
All scenarios assume [[One Day International]] rules with 50 overs per side.
Line 49:
===3. Side that bats first is bowled out, side batting second wins===
* Team A bat first and are bowled out for
* Team B reach the target off
* Team A's NRR for this game is <math>\frac{127}{50}-\frac{128}{30\frac{5}{6}} = -1.61</math>.
* Team B's NRR for this game is <math>\frac{128}{30\frac{5}{6}}-\frac{127}{50} = +1.61</math>.
Line 60:
===5. Both sides are bowled out, side batting first therefore wins===
* Team A bat first, and manage
* In this case, both teams get 50 overs both faced and bowled in the overs column for the season, just as in example 1.
Line 159:
===NRR may be manipulated===
A team may choose to artificially reduce their margin of victory, as measured by NRR, to gain an additional advantage by not disadvantaging their opponent too much. For example, in the final round of matches in the [[1999 Cricket World Cup#Group
However, this is also likely to be a possibility with alternatives to NRR.
Line 166:
==Alternatives to NRR==
A number of alternatives or modifications done to NRR
===Duckworth–Lewis–Stern===
Therefore, alternatively, use Duckworth–Lewis–Stern to predict the 50-over total for ''every'' innings less than this,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sporttaco.com/rec.sport.cricket/Net_Run_Rate_alternative_3979.html|title=Net Run Rate alternative|website=Sporttaco.com|access-date=30 April 2019}}</ref> even, for example, if a match is reduced to 40 overs each, and a side completes their 40 overs. This would make every innings in the tournament the same length, so would remove all the criticisms above. However, a side will bat differently (less conservatively) in a 40-over innings compared to a 50-over innings, and so it is quite unfair to use their 40-over total to predict how many runs they could have scored in 50 overs.
Line 176 ⟶ 175:
Calculate tournament NRR as the total or average of the individual match NRRs. This would mean all matches have equal weighting, no matter how long they were, (rather than all batted overs across the tournament having equal weighting, and all bowled overs across the tournament having equal weighting). This would remove the criticisms under the 'Tournament NRR calculation' subheading above. For example, the different teams' tournament NRRs would always sum to zero if the total of the individual match NRRs were used, or if the average of the individual match NRRs were used and all teams had played the same number of games.
An example of when using this would have made a difference was the [[1999 Cricket World Cup#Group
===Head-to-head record or stage a play-off match===
Split teams level on points using the results from the matches between them. However, this unfairly increases the importance of that one match and reduces the importance of other matches in the league, when all matches in a league should be of equal value − the team with the better head-to-head record will have a worse record against other teams. Also, the head-to-head record will not decide it if the game between them was a No result, or if they played each other twice, and won one game each.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Madhavan |first1=M. J. |title=How Net Run Rate is calculated in IPL |url=https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/sports/how-net-run-rate-is-calculated-in-ipl/article23941359.ece/amp/ |website=businessline |date=20 May 2018 |access-date=22 June 2019 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=IPL 2019: How Net Run Rate (NRR) is calculated |url=https://cricket.yahoo.net/news/ipl-2019-net-run-rate-104520452 |website=Yahoo Cricket |access-date=22 June 2019 |date=26 March 2019}}</ref>
An example of where a team progressed further because of a head-to-head result taken into account, was in the 1999 World Cup semi-finals when South Africa vs Australia played to a
Alternatively, stage a play-off match between the teams level on points. However, organising this at very short notice may be difficult, or the teams may be in the middle of a league table with no promotion or relegation or progression at stake, so there may be no appetite for a play-off match.
| |||