- Joined
- Oct 2, 2004
- Runs
- 217,958
As comprehensive as it gets! A thought provoking proposal to solve a problem that has caught the attention of many in this World Cup
Congratulations [MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION] for this week's POTW winner
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...-in-future-World-Cups&p=10412550#post10412550
Congratulations [MENTION=143530]Swashbuckler[/MENTION] for this week's POTW winner
http://www.pakpassion.net/ppforum/s...-in-future-World-Cups&p=10412550#post10412550
Now that the group stage is over I think it will be a good idea to focus on the most contentious issue which will have a direct bearing on who lifts the coveted trophy next Sunday.
India and Australia dominated this part of the tournament and earned their qualification quite early, no frills. Hosts were in a precarious situation but sneaked into the third spot by winning their last two matches against good teams. The 4th spot was sealed by New Zealand who finished on the same points as Pakistan but with a far better net run rate.
I won't berate NZ for their luck, nor do I have sympathy for Pakistan. The qualification rules were pre-decided and in this system Black Caps were more deserving to edge ahead of Pakistan. NZ played by the rules and smartly, Pakistan didn't give NRR much thought until late in the tournament and they have only themselves to blame. Now I will proceed to give my point of view about the tie break rule and attempt to put forth a better alternative.
The present rule when two teams are equal on points is to compare the NRR and the team with better NRR automatically advances. But is NRR really the most ideal way to decide such an important question?
This particular rule has a few flaws:
1. NRR doesn't take into account the wickets that fell. If there is a target of 250 in 50 overs and two teams go about the chase in different ways. Team A chases it down in 46 overs with the loss of two wickets while B finishes at 251/9 in 25 overs. Which team had a more dominating win? NRR rule says team B will score higher but anyone with common sense will choose team A. Team B was one wicket away from losing the match, maybe a close shave or umpiring error helped them cross the line. But A always had it under control, 8 wickets and 24 balls to spare. However as per rule book, A's NRR is +0.46 while for B it is a stupendous +5.04. Is this a fair representation? Wickets in ODIs hold less value than tests but should their importance be completely cast away?
2. NRR doesn't take into account the nature of pitches, ground dimensions, toss result, weather, scheduling etc. Conditions vary and it is impossible to assure standardized pitches and ground dimensions for all encounters throughout the world cup. In a tennis tournament, all players play on the same type (speed, bounce, friction) of court with same dimensions. Can we say the same about cricket? It will always be easier to gain NRR on one ground after a particular toss result. A match played on a flat, true wicket that stays same for the entire 100 overs duration, sunny day, 60 m boundaries vs a match where pitch drastically turns rogue after 40 overs, overcast conditions, 90 m boundaries: is it fair for the chasing team in second case? Do these things even out in such a short sample size (9 matches)? Likewise scheduling plays a role, NZ had an easy start and they boosted their NRR column, later against the tougher teams even though they lost they could play to limit damage to NRR. Pakistan had a tough start where the NRR suffered and later when the relatively easier fixtures came, it became more about winning than correcting the NRR.
3. Continuing from the previous point, NRR encourages negative cricket towards the end. Teams that have a headstart often tend to play safe to manage their NRR better. NZ had that advantage, they didn't even have to try and win against Australia and England. This is perfectly understandable from team's point of view but can make for boring cricket. By going hard for a victory there is the possibility of getting a whooping. But by waving the white flag at the beginning it is possible to have a loss with narrower margin. In such cases even the opponent team may relax, experiment because victory is more or less secured.
The popular suggestion is to decide qualification on the basis of head to head result. IMO it is unfair to make such an important decision based on just one match. When there are 9 matches in this stage why should everything hinge on that one particular encounter (Pak vs NZ in this edition) when most probably those two teams wouldn't have known about the importance of that clash. Of course all matches in this format are important but H2H makes it virtually a knockout match, making it more important than other matches. And teams wouldn't know because who can predict which teams will end up in such a scenario. Another problem here is what if there are 3 teams that end up equal and have a rock-paper-scissors kind of result in the group encounter (for instance WI joining Pak, NZ on 11 points)?
So I will try to present an idea to resolve the situation. There is something called Sonneborn–Berger score which is used to break ties in chess tournaments. It is computed by summing the score of each defeated opponent, and half the score of each drawn opponent and more the score better the tie break.The main point is to give more value for a win/draw against a player ranked high, than for a win/draw against a player ranked low in the tournament. Draws are common in chess just like test cricket (this system will work very well in future world test championships) but in ODIs replace the draw with tie/NR. That due to adverse weather/ground conditions, final points table and tiebreak system get messed up is another topic of discussion, hopefully with reserve days for all matches in March 2023 WC in India (when weather is absolutely fine) we don't have a single NR then. By smarter scheduling and reserve days ICC can set right this problem. The SB score is easy to calculate, even laymen will have no problem and more importantly it is a fair reflection of the performance of teams. Wins against top teams should get more value and that is taken care of in this system.
As an illustration, let me present the SB scores of NZ and Pakistan in this WC.
NZ defeated SL, Ban, Afg, WI, SA and the match against Ind was washed out. Only these 6 results will figure in calculation of SB tie-break score: full points of the defeated opponents and half of India because there the points were shared. For NZ it will be 8 (SL)+7 (SA)+7 (Ban)+5 (WI) +0 (Afg) +7.5 (Ind)=34.5
Pak defeated Eng, NZ, SA, Ban, Afg while the match against SL was NR. Pak's SB score will be: 12 (Eng)+11 (NZ)+7 (SA)+7 (Ban)+0 (Afg) +4 (SL)=41
As we can see Pak's SB score is comfortably higher, this despite NZ benefiting from that NR against Ind. NZ got 7.5 against Ind while Pak got 4 against SL. No system is perfect, as I wrote in a previous para it is incumbent on the ICC (and host country/board) to ensure NRs are eliminated in ICC tournaments. We won't have this problem in India 4 years from now so the SB scores will be perfect. No tie break points from beating Afg who finished on zero points, makes sense right? NZ getting punished for failing to win a single match against the top half, Pak getting rewarded for beating Eng and NZ.
These are the SB scores of all teams, conventional points in brackets:
Ind (15) 57.5 Q
Aus (14) 54 Q
Eng (12) 45 Q
NZ (11) 34.5 Q
Pak (11) 41
SL (8) 26
SA (7) 24.5
Ban (7) 16
WI (5) 14.5
Afg (0) 0
As we can see the SB scores correspond with final table standing except in case of Pak/NZ. I will reiterate that NZ deserved to qualify because they came out on top under present system of rules. But if you account for quality over quantity Pak was 4th best.
SB solves most of the problems we have under the present system:
1. Rewards quality of wins more than the net run rate. I will prefer a 4th team that defeated 2 of the semi-finalists in group stage over one that was more ruthless against the laggards but failed to open account against any of the potential SF/F opponents.
2. Wins take precedence over everything else. The teams just have to focus on winning. External factors like nature of pitch, toss result, ground dimensions, scheduling etc are less important. This system demands that you win, not by what margin. Teams instead of playing out of character (keeping NRR in mind) can play their best or most effective cricket to simply get over the line. No worries on the back of minds of chasing batsmen that they have to get the runs in XXX number of overs, none of that clutter.
3. No negative cricket. A team with headstart can't afford to play a tame ending in later stage, they have to go for it in all matches because losses don't count. Crowd will get its share of entertainment, as will viewers.
4. Intrigue right till the end and spectacle for neutrals, broadcasters, media etc. Teams' chances of qualification hinge on the performances of other teams and no side can afford to tank. For instance if applied in this tournament Pak fans would be invested in the success of Eng whom they beat, keeping in mind that NZ has nothing to gain if Eng wins. If the defeated opponents get higher score Pak's SB gets pushed up. Likewise NZ would be cheering WI on right till the end because that was an opponent they beat but whom Pak lost to. In this system of TB there won't be a dull moment, every match assumes importance. It isn't that simple because the final spots get confirmed only at the fag end and there are plenty of permutations and combinations. Nevertheless it will be more fun to follow, since the SB concept is so simple even casual fans can understand it in a jiffy.
What I have noticed in chess tournaments, the SB score is almost always good enough to break ties. But it is always advisable to have other TBs in case the tie can't be broken via this system. If two teams have the same points and also the same SB, it means they have defeated identical quality of opponents. Then we can use NRR, if it is still tied (highly unlikely) individual H2H and if the teams are still equal (0.000000000001% chance) the team that is rated higher (up to decimals) in ICC rankings.
