The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 103

Reviewing the opening games at #CWC22:

  • South Africa & India survive scares
  • Dottin causes havoc v New Zealand
  • England come close v Australia

Plus, how many games can a team afford to lose and still qualify?

6 thoughts on “The CRICKETher Weekly – Episode 103

  1. Nice going, guys! You had to go and mention the “R” word. After watching the vodcast (and thoroughly enjoying it), I tuned in to watch NZ v BD, and…(wait for it) the match is delayed by RAIN! This is not what the Kiwis wanted, or anybody wanted; and it’s all down to you, Syd and Raf. O, curséd commentators! 😜 Just kidding, of course. Rain is the bane of cricket lovers the world over. I say we build a gigantic umbrella over all the cricket grounds. Hopefully the rain will cease and we can still get a game in. Be seeing you next week. Ciao. John.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Looking at the Dunedin rain radar, it’s going to be nip and tuck whether today’s game is played – and if not, that’s another blow for the White Ferns that they can ill afford. A combination of dubious selection decisions (Jonas ahead of Kasperek?!), bad luck -especially in losing Lauren Down prior to the tournament – and a poor performance against the Windies mean the Ferns’ chances of qualification are hanging by a thread right now.

    On the other hand, what a performance by the Windies! World cricket needed that, even if the Ferns didn’t.

    As for England, I think Danni Wyatt either opens, or doesn’t play.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I have to disagree with the proposition that “the odds are against you” if you lose 3 matches.

    I don’t have any software to prove this but intuitively that can’t be correct. The simplest way to show this is to imagine an idealised scenario (effectively the normal distribution) in which every team beats all the teams below them. This leaves a table with a points distribution of 14,12,10,8,6,4,2 and 0 and, hey presto, that 4th places is a team with 8 points (ie lost 3 matches).

    This demonstrates that the odds are in your favour if you lose only 3 matches. Yes it is possible to not qualify but you are more likely to qualify than not on 8 pts.

    I haven’t done the maths but I’d guess that on 8pts you’ld have about a 5% chance of not qualifying, a 35% chance of qualifying outright and a 60% chance of relying on one’s NRR to get through. Assuming a 50/50 NNR chance you end up with up with 30% + 35% = 65% chance of qualifying.

    I do agree with the “squeaky bum time” comment because, say, a 35% chance of not qualifying still leaves room for many bitten finger nails and a sleepless night or two (unless you are an England supporter in which most nights are sleepless at the moment given the time difference).

    Needless to say that a team that loses only 2 matches would be incredibly unlucky not to qualify.


    • Finger trouble : “effectively the normal distribution” should read “effectively the ‘normal’ distribution” – in quotes because I don’t mean the formal statistic known as the Normal Distribution.


    • Yes – you are right. If you lose 3 and win 4, you finish clear 4th in 59% of scenarios.

      (Earlier comment deleted, because I’d misunderstood the proposition.)


Comments are closed.