The Independent Voice of West Indies Cricket

Message Board Archives

PREDICTABLE

 
Dukes 2022-08-22 12:28:05 

I did not see a single ball in the 3rd ODI yesterday as I was attending a family reunion and birthday party where 3 generations bonded and celebrated the family matriarch ,my grandmother who lived from 1880 to 1979.
HOWEVER,I first saw the results this morning and after looking at the scoreboard in some depth,I formulated in my mind exactly what the arguments on cc.com would be.When I say cc.com I am referring to Caribbean cricket.com not comedy central dot com which is what you actually get if you type that into your browser and what this board has become.
I must say that what I expected was exactly what took place.I knew it was going to be about Shai Hope.I also knew who would be the protagonists and who would be the antagonists and neither group would give an inch as there would be no room for compromise.
The reality is that where emotion is the over riding sentiment, there is no room for logic and reasoning so there will be a stalemate.
INSANITY is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.So why do we keep doing it.It is like a moth to a flame and that is our reality.
I was pleased that we batted first as I wanted us to put up a 300 plus score.The fact that we lost is clearly disappointing but as Sudden pointed out, tweaking our approach in terms of the mixture of attack and defense and run saving field placements along with some personnel changes could well be enough in the more important games coming up.
We also need to look at the balance of attacking batsmen and defensive batsmen going forward.
We have to put more thought and analysis into our game and my view is we have the players to be competitive and in limited overs cricket once you are competitive you have a chance to win.

SELAH

 
doosra 2022-08-22 12:34:15 

In reply to Dukes

I am reminded by your constant reminder re Sir Gary that scorecard cannot tell you the story or at least the full story

HAHAHAHAHAHA

 
doosra 2022-08-22 12:35:17 

btw, I am curious to know how you define 'defensive batsmen'

 
Dukes 2022-08-22 13:02:02 

In reply to doosra

SCORING RATE IN LIMITED OVERS CRICKET

 
Dukes 2022-08-22 13:03:38 

In reply to doosra

Did you see me weigh in on the debate about Shai Hope IN THIS INNINGS?????

 
Headley 2022-08-22 13:06:06 

In reply to Dukes

I will agree that this is not the place to find analysis of cricket strategy.

The scoreboard will not tell you that our feilding was very ordinary and that we committed the simple mistake of not allowing the incoming boundary fielder to take the catch on 2 occasions.

Brooks was involved as the incoming boundary fielder at long off in one of those incidents just as he was in the previous match. I expect it will happen again.

Captain Pooran waved off the incoming fielder Smith and missed a catch off Cariah when Latham and Mitchel were consolidating the NZ innings.

 
Dukes 2022-08-22 13:08:58 

In reply to Headley

Preach my brother, this member of the choir is hearing you!!!

BTW Check your PM.

 
doosra 2022-08-22 13:11:31 

In reply to Dukes

i did see you refer to Shai Hope in this thread

i do not limit this dot ball issue to Shai Hope tho he is the 'best' at it

this is a dot ball issue

 
doosra 2022-08-22 13:13:16 

In reply to Headley

allyuh continue to make excuses for that block block block blam blam blam cricket

how many times in recent past have we not failed because of it?

last night the fielding was off but generally this team has been good with fielding and this team has been losing with / without Pooran in ODis for a long time now and it is because of several things including our inability to score efficiently

 
doosra 2022-08-22 13:15:26 

In reply to Dukes

Are you saying that 54% DOT balls and a sr of 50 is not a problem?

i don't understand what you are getting at

 
Dukes 2022-08-22 13:18:03 

In reply to doosra

I am not saying anything of the sort.I am saying I did not see the match so I am refraining on weighing in as I just have the raw data but needed to see it to comment on it with any authority.

 
doosra 2022-08-22 13:21:04 

In reply to Dukes

that is not how I read your first post and your response to headley - i stand corrected

without looking at the scorecard do you think 54% dot balls is good enough and a 50+ sr?

 
Dukes 2022-08-22 13:26:47 

In reply to doosra

without looking at the scorecard do you think 54% dot balls is good enough and a 50+ sr?
In a vacuum clearly they are not acceptable.However having not seen the innings I can not adequately rebut counter arguments as put forward by sudden et al.

 
doosra 2022-08-22 13:29:32 

In reply to Dukes

fair enough

 
Headley 2022-08-22 13:32:14 

In reply to doosra

allyuh continue to make excuses for that block block block blam blam blam cricket

how many times in recent past have we not failed because of it?

last night the fielding was off but generally this team has been good with fielding and this team has been losing with / without Pooran in ODis for a long time now and it is because of several things including our inability to score efficiently


Are you sure this is a post in response to my comment about what the scoreboard will not show?

 
doosra 2022-08-22 13:35:19 

In reply to Headley

your silence in that post on the batting approach as a response to the lead post about Shai Hope, SR etc

let me say i stand corrected, again, if i did misinterpret your silence

 
openning 2022-08-22 14:11:53 

In reply to doosra
Apart from Hope SR, are there any other areas that you believe West Indies could had been better?
My two cents
WI 301 runs:
With the number of dot balls and SR that score was short of 30-50 runs.

New Zealand showed professionalism and experience in the match, chasing 300 runs under lights, the first Powerplay was to be on par with the rate, they did not panic.
Pooran needed help from management during the chase, one of my reason in saying Phil should go.
Shai Hope 51 SR 51
Kyle Mayers 105 SR 95.45
Nicholas Pooran 91 SR 165.45
NZ
Martin Guptil 57 SR 89.06
Devon Conway 56 SR 88.88
Tom Latham 69 SR 92
Daryl Mitchell 63 SR 128.57
Michael Bracewell 14* SR 93.33
James Neesham 34 SR 309.09

 
natty_forever 2022-08-22 14:31:42 

In reply to Dukes

Wait til you see the innings. We left 20 to 30 runs out there.
But I also add the brain fart by King, Brooks, Carty and Holder. All was required was to continue to rotate strike and have Pooran face. All got out early trying to force the pace. One step fwd 2 bwds.

 
doosra 2022-08-22 14:32:52 

In reply to openning

fundamentals

 
Cricket_101 2022-08-22 18:05:07 

In reply to openning

Hope chose the secondary role to Mayers... if he'd choose to attack as well, that'd have probably be a disaster. Its simple, one guy attack and the other hold other end... Like Haynes and Gordon - Gordon attack, while Haynes played a supporting role.

 
Dukes 2022-08-22 23:58:15 

In reply to Cricket_101

Hope chose the secondary role to Mayers... if he'd choose to attack as well, that'd have probably be a disaster.


I find the above disingenuous.
I do not see anybody talking about primary or secondary roles but saying that somebody batting 100 balls for 51 runs is not acceptable in ODI cricket Batting at 80 SR does not mean you are in an attacking mode which I would refer to faster than run a ball.Anybody who bats more than 50 balls should have na minimum scoring rate of 85 as far as I am concerned.Definitely when both teams score over 300 runs!!!

 
Courtesy 2022-08-23 01:09:53 

If we cannot highlight and analyse given problems we cannot find solutions...Tres simple.

We need to view the number of balls in LO cricket as a major resource and devise ways to maximise that resource.

You should have noticed that because of our pedestrian start, New Zealand in their response were always ahead from ball one without having to do anything extra. They were on cruise control. It meant that we gave up opportunity with our opening partnership.

Other factors contributed to our demise...but we gave up too much ground very early in the match.

The comparative snapshort, what we call "the worm" is an important analytical tool.

Further, we knew that there was the possibilty of rain interruptions and D/L would come into play yet our approach was normal.

Finally, most of us have lost the ability to think without a box. When New Zealand batted early wickets were important yet we went of the defensive so early in the game.

 
Cricket_101 2022-08-23 01:41:22 

In reply to Dukes

i didn’t think both fellas should have played attacking roles… am sure u remember Haynes and Gordon pairing… Gordon lash ball, while Haynes played a more subdued role in dotted lines…

 
Castled 2022-08-23 03:34:31 

In reply to Cricket_101

Dont see two openers merrily lashing ball v quality of Boult and Southee first 10 overs. NZ isnt the Dutch

 
Brerzerk 2022-08-23 03:47:10 

In reply to Headley
Fielding is where the match was primarily lost, it was woefully sloppy and an inexperienced capt. didn't help.
However, Shai leaving on avg. 30 runs out their for himself also means that the team leaves about 50-60 out their on the whole. Scorebpard pressure in both innings, (King, Brooks,Pooran coming in at 195/1 instead of 173) is much more pressure on Kiwi bowlers. Guptil n Co. starting the chase faceing a 350 scoreboard more pressure too. WI is still contriving to turn possible wins into easy losses.

 
imusic 2022-08-23 04:16:12 

In reply to Cricket_101

Hope chose the secondary role to Mayers... if he'd choose to attack as well, that'd have probably be a disaster

Is “attack” in that context the same as strike rotation?

Nobody suggesting he blast the opposition bowling. But as the alleged “best batsman on the team”, he should be more than capable of rotating the strike regularly.

That was his failing in this match. And Shai Hope hardly, if ever, “attacks the bowling. Not until he reaches a landmark anyway.

His batting in this innings was less than desired. It happens. Hopefully he can learn from it. But he’s by no means the only reason the match was lost yesterday.

 
Dukes 2022-08-23 08:50:51 

In reply to imusic

Time to give up as some people are incapable of meaningful discussion as logic and reasoning are seemingly attributes that escape them.
The concept that one can take up one third of the available resources (balls) and have a scoring rate of 51 in a situation where a par score is 300 is taken as reasonable suggests strongly a fundamental misunderstanding of mathematics and cricket.The inability to look at how the various NZ batsmen utilized the resources(balls) and realize how detrimental to WI cause scoring at 51 is a fault line that precludes debate.

I will make it really simple but I am not holding my breath that any minds will be changed
West Indies
1.Mayers 110 balls @ SR of 95
2.Hope 100 balls @ SR of 51
3.Pooran 55 balls @ SR of 165
4.Others 35 balls @ SR of 154

New Zealand
1.Latham 75 balls @ SR of 92
2.Guptil 64 balls @ SR of 89
3.Conway 63 balls @ SR of 88
4.Mitchell 49 balls @ SR of 128
5.Others 35 balls @ SR of 146

"Others" on both sides includes extras
WI scored 250 runs off 200 balls apart from Hope
NZ scored 251 runs off 237 balls apart from Conway

Those who can not pass this MATH exam please do not join in any discussion of limited overs cricket.

lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

 
sudden 2022-08-23 10:45:51 

In reply to Dukes

so what was the par score for the previous matches? and how is that determined?

 
natty_forever 2022-08-23 10:47:29 

In reply to sudden

You have to pass Math 101 first, then we can talk.

 
sudden 2022-08-23 10:48:28 

In reply to natty_forever

seems so big grin

 
culpepperboy 2022-08-23 10:53:47 

How do misfields,damp outfield, windspeeds, quality of bowling etc. feature in this equation?
Asking for a multivariate calculus friend. cool

 
Courtesy 2022-08-23 11:02:46 

In reply to Dukes

I hope you know that many posters here cannot perform a simple comparative analysis. It is quite evident by the inane comments on maths that I see here with monotonous regularity.

Even with your post above, it will not surprise me if many here will continue to hide their heads in their bottoms.

 
sudden 2022-08-23 11:16:36 

In reply to Courtesy


all that notwithstanding, answer me this from Dukes's post-


so what was the par score for the previous matches? and how is that determined?

 
VoopsandOut 2022-08-23 11:18:06 

In reply to Dukes

With all due respect to the maths, cricket is not a precise science. That is why it is a game of glorious uncertainties. The maths really only provides ex post facto justification for an argument.

 
Courtesy 2022-08-23 11:19:11 

In reply to sudden

Par scores are mainly determined thru historical analysis. Ideally, a par score should be known before the match starts and revised if need be, by another analysis of the playing conditions at hand.

The fact that India recently chased a target of over 300 at this venue should have been instructive to the West Indies brains trust.

 
sudden 2022-08-23 11:22:18 

In reply to Courtesy

only answers the second part of the question. but lets park that WRT historical analysis

how was the part score determined in the series? match per match? and if you can say, what was the par score in each match, if it can be worked out before a ball is bowled?

 
Courtesy 2022-08-23 11:24:38 

In reply to sudden

Par scores are always worked out before a match.

During commentary there was reference to India chasing over 300 during the recent tour at this very ground.

 
sudden 2022-08-23 11:27:40 

In reply to Courtesy

yes i heard that. i will get back to that.

so on the same ground, same conditions of play, same players, the par score moved exponentially from 180 or thereabouts to over 300?

 
Courtesy 2022-08-23 11:28:40 

In reply to sudden

Do you understand the term "outlier" and its relevance in stats?

 
sudden 2022-08-23 11:29:43 

In reply to Courtesy

no i dont. explain please

 
natty_forever 2022-08-23 11:31:52 

In reply to sudden

Regardless of par score, I am sure you would say NZ definitely scored below par in the first 2 matches.

 
Courtesy 2022-08-23 11:32:24 

In reply to sudden

Do some reading on outliers and what is done to them (discounted) in relation to stats and computations. One must always be aware that there could be outliers to any data set. That's why standard deviation is our friend.

I will not waste my time here. Perhaps some other poster should explain this to you.

 
sudden 2022-08-23 11:34:19 

In reply to Courtesy

come on mate, explain it here please. after all you introduced the term.

 
natty_forever 2022-08-23 11:34:37 

If no one can see Hope having a higher SR will always benefit West Indies, then not even math can help you.

Check WI win/loss ratio with Hope with a SR below 70

 
Courtesy 2022-08-23 11:35:05 

In reply to sudden

I am giving you an opportunity to gain some knowledge without spoon feeding you.

Where is Joshua when you need him.

 
sudden 2022-08-23 11:36:35 

at this stage, all i am asking is for someone to explain what outlier means? it cannot be that difficult, or is it?

dukes? anyone?

 
natty_forever 2022-08-23 11:36:41 

In reply to Courtesy

He well and understand. Being a Bajan.

 
Courtesy 2022-08-23 11:38:03 

In reply to sudden

Mate, TYPE "OUTLIER" in GOOGLE search bar and see what you come up with. This is simple terminology in stats.

 
sudden 2022-08-23 11:40:05 

In reply to natty_forever

to put some perspective around it, this is about par score and outliers, bearing in mind Courtesy said India chased 300 on this ground

 
sudden 2022-08-23 11:44:52 

In reply to Courtesy

who asserts should explain. man, you introduced the term so please explain it in relation to par scores for this series. otherwise you are being unresponsive and we can move on

 
Walco 2022-08-23 12:06:37 

In reply to Courtesy

During commentary there was reference to India chasing over 300 during the recent tour at this very ground.

All of the India ODIs during the recent tour were played in Trinidad

 
Courtesy 2022-08-23 12:18:35 

In reply to Walco
Must have been another team but there was reference to chasing 300 plus in the last match.

 
culpepperboy 2022-08-23 12:28:25 

In reply to Courtesy

Was that an outlier or outright liar? cool

 
culpepperboy 2022-08-23 12:36:01 

In reply to natty_forever

Check WI win/loss ratio with Hope with a SR below 70

Source?

cool

 
Dukes 2022-08-23 12:45:45 

In reply to sudden

so what was the par score for the previous matches? and how is that determined?


A devastating case has been presented on behalf of the prosecution and the defense lawyer has not rebutted any of it.Instead choosing to put on his own case and not cross-examine the prosecution witness on his statements before the court.

His client is now threatening to have his lawyer dismissed due to incompetence of the lawyer and for a mistrial to be declared due to said incompetence.

lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

 
sudden 2022-08-23 12:49:57 

In reply to Dukes

i note that is becoming increasingly difficult to get presenters to support their own assertions big grin

 
Dukes 2022-08-23 12:59:10 

In reply to sudden

Show me the assertions that I made in the statements I made. If you think the SR's stated are assertions then like Houston, we have a problem.

 
culpepperboy 2022-08-23 13:02:31 

No one is answering the questions posed. This thread is indeed predictable. cool

 
Cricket_101 2022-08-23 13:03:20 

In reply to Castled

Dont see two openers merrily lashing ball v quality of Boult and Southee first 10 overs. NZ isnt the Dutch

That's what my comment implies... Mayers attacked, while Hope played a supporting role...

 
Walco 2022-08-23 13:07:59 

In reply to Courtesy
The two matches at QPO were high scoring, with both teams scoring over 300 in each match. India chased down a 300+ target in one of those matches.

 
Dukes 2022-08-23 13:15:24 

Maybe we need to get the big brains to enter the debate.How about Nine miles and Halliwell our two learned Brits or Nick 2020 from Little England!!!

We need people with intellectual heft to lift us from this morass of mediocrity. A debate between Dukes and Sudden clearly does not cut it and we need our superstars to weigh in.

Calling Her Majesty's Counsels!!!!!!!!

lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

 
Cricket_101 2022-08-23 13:20:47 

In reply to Dukes

A debate between Dukes and Sudden clearly does not cut it and we need our superstars to weigh in.

Calling Her Majesty's Counsels!!!!!!!!

Sir Lionel Luckoo has moderator... big grin

 
sudden 2022-08-23 13:29:58 

In reply to Dukes

i did say presenters.

be that as it may, my question to you still stands.


try to answer please

 
Dukes 2022-08-23 14:01:26 

In reply to sudden

What was the relevant question you asked pertaining to my post?

 
sudden 2022-08-23 14:08:39 

In reply to Dukes

sudden 8/23/22, 7:45:51 AM

In reply to Dukes

so what was the par score for the previous matches? and how is that determined?

 
Dukes 2022-08-23 14:17:05 

In reply to sudden
The entire thread is about the 3rd ODI between WI and NZ so to ask me a question pertaining to previous matches is IRRELEVANT.If you want to utilize previous matches to deconstruct my numbers on the 3rd ODI, you are free to do so but that was not part of what I posted.Also if you want to show how you determine a par score you are also free to do so.

 
StumpCam 2022-08-23 14:18:56 

In reply to Dukes

Our pardna sudden developing a pattern of answering a question with a question in his defense of indefensible! lol lol

 
sudden 2022-08-23 14:21:09 

In reply to Dukes

let me rephrase then.


so what was the par score for this match? and how was it determined?

 
Dukes 2022-08-23 14:22:54 

I will be off the board until this evening as I am flying back to the Sunshine state today.

 
Dukes 2022-08-23 14:25:03 

In reply to sudden

The par score is over 300 by looking at how fast people from both sides scored at.Exam ple 250 from 200 balls for the WI except Hope and 307 from 283 balls from the Kiwis.

Got to go.

 
bolls 2022-08-23 14:25:53 

In reply to Dukes

SKUNT IT DOESNT MATTER HOW U RELATE IT. WHAT YOUR AVATAR IS, MATH PROFESSOR OR FAKE DOCTOR. IT DOESNT MATTER IDIOT, YUH SKUNTS ARE LOW GRADE IDIOTS WHO ARE GOOD FOR NOTHING.

DEDING WID LAF.

lol lol lol lol lol lol lol razz razz razz razz razz razz razz razz razz razz razz razz razz razz razz razz razz razz lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

 
sudden 2022-08-23 14:37:41 

In reply to Dukes

so the par score is determined by the eventual scores and not at the start of the match, is that what you are saying?

 
sudden 2022-08-23 14:44:58 

In reply to Walco

regarding the 300 odd run chase. the commentators were taking about successful 300 plus run chases in the Caribbean against WI

 
Dukes 2022-08-24 13:03:06 

In reply to sudden

You want to go down the rabbit hole about par score since you refuse to even discuss my post of early yesterday morning which points out the huge disparity between 1 individual and every body else which shows why one team won and the other lost.
The lowest scoring rate was 51 and the next lowest was 88.
The importance of the "others" is that it contextualizes how and why failures which only utilize less than 10 balls are largely irrelevant, unless a team gets bowled out.
The failure of all and sundry to address my post clearly shows that there is no significant rebuttal to thence our foray into par scores.
I think the fundamental problem causing the basic disagreement is two fold.
Firstly people have not clearly understood the dynamics of limited overs cricket.Those who grew up watching test cricket have not re-calibrated the risk-reward ratio in limited overs cricket.They are still mired in batting average and consistency and amount of centuries and half-centuries.The concept that 320 for 4 off 50 overs is nowhere near as good as 341 for 9 off 50 overs is an example of the lack of adjustment.
The second paradigm is because of our recent culture of losing we no longer treasure winning but instead are just interested in bigging up individual players and the result is incidental.

 
sudden 2022-08-24 13:17:18 

In reply to Dukes

my rebuttal involves this par score nonsense. and the epithet "nonsense " underscores how i view the par score reference. in that regard i seek an understanding of what the term means relevant to this discussion.

i sort of got one from my mate Courtesy and he seems to suggest that par scores are determined before the match starts. whilst you suggest it is at the conclusion.

hence the reason i want to confirm from you, when you made reference to par score in your piece, how are you viewing the term? from the outset of the match, or after the match, based on relative team scores?

 
WIfan26 2022-08-24 13:28:31 

Can anyone answer these questions on Shai Hope:

Is he just limited in his strokeplay, which is why he can't find gaps?

Is he just selfish and chooses not to take risks to preserve his average?

Which other International team would give him a passport and put him in their lineup?

Answering these truthfully should end this debate!!!!

 
Dukes 2022-08-24 13:32:58 

In reply to sudden

The so-called par score prior to a match is a prediction.I suggest you consider Yogi Berra's view on predictions, where he says predictions are hard especially about the future.

We have the benefit of hindsight and thus in retrospect we can say what the par score was.
I do not see what is so important about PAR score AFTER a match since we can look at how individuals and teams did and look at hard evidence rather than speculate on what might be.
I think the important point that has been made is that the failures of 7 men who failed to reach double figures for the WI did not have a significant impact on the overall score.

 
Scar 2022-08-24 13:37:52 

In reply to natty_forever Why Carty who tried to play the correct shot at the correct time (2 overs to go) but just did not get enough elevation. Brooks hot was atrocious trying to slog across the for 6 when a drive along the ground or past/ over the bowler would have done the trick. King attempted an attacking shot/drive through covers - not meant to be aerial- to a ball that held up on him and so got it airborne- that happens. On other occasions he got that shot through along the ground to the boundary- he is not known for playing aerial through the offside.

 
Scar 2022-08-24 13:53:29 

Of late ODI scores of 325 plus is what can be considered a 95% certainty of a win. Attaining such scores normally means at least two to three batsmen getting above 80 with supporting double digit scores from 20 up by most of the rest. WI got the 2-3 averaging above 80 but no more support from the rest. Then the field placing was lacking to put it mildly.

 
Dukes 2022-08-24 14:06:39 

In reply to Scar

WI got the 2-3 averaging above 80 but no more support from the rest.


Au Contraire my friend.

Mayers faced 110 balls,Hope faced 100 balls and Pooran faced 55 balls.that is 265 balls which leaves 35 balls.Off that 35 balls thew "others" scored 33 runs PLUS there were 21 extras.
The GLARING PROBLEM as CLEARLY SHOWN by my post early yesterday morning IS.......... A SCORING RATE OF 51!!!!!!!!!
The next slowest scoring rate was 88!!!!!!!

 
Dukes 2022-08-24 14:20:32 

Pooran scored 91 runs off 55 balls which is OUTSTANDING.
However if you combine Pooran and Hope it is 142 runs off 155 balls or LESS THAN RUN A BALLor put another way ends up being less than 300 runs in 50 overs.THINK ABOUT THAT!!!!!

 
Courtesy 2022-08-24 14:48:11 

In reply to sudden

..i sort of got one from my mate Courtesy and he seems to suggest that par scores are determined before the match starts. whilst you suggest it is at the conclusion...


Courtesy's response:
Par scores are mainly determined thru historical analysis. Ideally, a par score should be known before the match starts and revised if need be, by another analysis of the playing conditions at hand.

You may have overlooked the bolded portion of my post.

 
sudden 2022-08-24 15:15:16 

In reply to Dukes

now that is settled and i agree there can be no such animal as par score, in as much as the term is used in golf. and i accept the way you seem to describe it, determined from team scores at the end of the game, as useful as that is, given the actual scores and the breakdown therefrom.

i have no issues with how you framed it mathematically. that is a fact, in so far, as maths goes or can go. by that i mean maths and stats are just one way (the quantitative) of looking at a matter.

there are other ways- the qualitative. this has been discussed before so no need to get into again. suffice it to say it explains the quantitative

we have seen how this match played out. WI was given a platform by Mayers more so than Hope, altho Hope seemed to have played a management suggested role of facing more balls from Boult and Southee than Mayers.

you may want to criticise that or you may want to assert that even so Hope could have picked the gaps and pick up singles. i would have no issue with that except to say that unlike the WI the NZers had at least two players closer to the bat inside the circle to do just that- cut out the quick singles. and Hope has an uncanny ability to find a fielder or defend back to the bowler.

so having been set a platform only Poorman build upon it. it seems to that is what Poorman likes. Runs on the board and a certain amount of balls for him to make merry. i think he gets confused when too many balls are available and he has to build an innings.

of the others only AlJo did anything worthy of note. the least said about JHo the better.

you may want to say that Hope ate up too many balls which can have been better utilized by the batsmen to follow. we have seen how this has played out previously.

i have mentioned that becos i am not sure whether you are criticizing Hope and his perennial dot ball issue or that the middle and lower order batsmen cant bat or that the limited balls left impacted how they responded.

 
Courtesy 2022-08-24 15:20:18 

In reply to sudden

...so having been set a platform only Poorman build upon it.

Sudden the above is irrelevat and very misleading to the discussion.

In Dukes computation you can clearly see theat others batted 35 balls at a SR of 154.

At this stage of the innings wickets and individual scores are not important. What important is SR. How well you use the available resources.

An oversall SR of 154 projected forward in an ODI will fetch a score of 300 x 1.54 = 462.

This is an awesome contribution in an ODI.

I am afraid you don't have a deep understanding of the issues here.

 
sudden 2022-08-24 15:31:58 

In reply to Courtesy

yes i may have.

my apologies, if warranted big grin

 
Courtesy 2022-08-24 15:32:17 

In reply to sudden

big grin

We can now move on to captaincy and overall strategy.
My. conclusion...the worst of the worst.

We can find some commanality here.

big grin

 
sudden 2022-08-24 15:33:46 

In reply to Courtesy

i will allow Dukes to rebut before i answer whether i understand the issue or not

 
Courtesy 2022-08-24 15:35:18 

In reply to sudden

I can predict Dukes' response with 100 percent accuracy.

big grin

 
sudden 2022-08-24 15:53:57 

In reply to Courtesy

Poorman speaks

“We need to stop worrying about strike rate and dot balls and actually think about how we are going to get decent totals to try to defend and give us a chance in the game,” he said.

“We had two (ODI) games before and (the top order batsmen got) out early. I’m not going to question a batsman’s strike rate. They did what they had to do. We spoke about eliminating the threat which was Tim Southee and Trent Boult, and Kyle and Shai did that for the team.

“We know guys want to bat differently but if we do bat differently and we strike at 110 and we do get out, then everyone is criticising us saying that we’re indiscipline and reckless. But today we came out, stuck to our team plan eliminated the threat and again, made 300 plus runs.”

 
Courtesy 2022-08-24 16:02:18 

In reply to sudden

I am not sure if Pooran is intelligent enough to understand the immense contradiction in his statement.

This is exactly what is wrong with West Indies cricket...not many bright persons are at the helm.

If I were in a position of authority I would have stripped him of the cappo position pronto. He clearly does not cut it.

 
doosra 2022-08-24 16:05:20 

In reply to Courtesy

“We need to stop worrying about strike rate and dot balls and actually think about how we are going to get decent totals


lol

 
sudden 2022-08-24 16:06:54 

In reply to Courtesy

that is not nice at all.

of more importance, as i suggested, it is a management decision

 
Courtesy 2022-08-24 16:07:01 

In reply to doosra

You know see why we caanot make progress in our cricket.

I am confident that Pooran is reflecting the sentiments of the brains trust.

 
doosra 2022-08-24 16:07:35 

In reply to sudden

even if it is a management decision

a captain, with some level of command, and some level of common sense, will object to such nonsense

or just resign

 
sudden 2022-08-24 16:07:55 

In reply to Courtesy

you cant get a decent total unless there are batsmen there to do it

 
doosra 2022-08-24 16:08:06 

In reply to Courtesy

the opponents of 'cerebral' soon come fih yuh

lickit cricket has wreaked epistemic havoc on our cricket/ers

 
Courtesy 2022-08-24 16:09:10 

In reply to sudden

This why I firmly believe that Shai Hope is batting to instructions.

 
Courtesy 2022-08-24 16:09:29 

In reply to doosra

lol lol lol

 
Dukes 2022-08-24 16:55:32 

In reply to sudden

WI was given a platform by Mayers more so than Hope, altho Hope seemed to have played a management suggested role of facing more balls from Boult and Southee than Mayers.


Mayers faced 24 balls from Boult and 14 from Southee,while Hope faced 21 balls from Boult and 34 from Southee.
I would have thought that Boult is the more dangerous of the two so I do not know where you are attempting to go with that but to me it is a non-sequitur.
The reason Hope may have faced more balls form 1 or the other is that he was unable to rotate the strike and ended up scoring off only 35 balls out of 100.



there are other ways- the qualitative. this has been discussed before so no need to get into again. suffice it to say it explains the quantitative


I am uncertain what you mean by the "qualitative" when it comes to cricket and more especially limited overs cricket.
Limited overs cricket is simple.Each side has 300 balls to score runs and the team that scores more runs, wins.The qualitative is for those who are discussing esoteric topics like who is better against googlies as opposed to the other guy who plays left arm fast bowlers better.
That must be given its appropriate position which is in the basement and tucked away for the intellectual Mr Baturs or better yet his son.
Limited overs Cricket is a game of runs and thus QUANTITATIVE.

 
Sangfroid 2022-08-24 16:58:15 

In reply to sudden

you cant get a decent total unless there are batsmen there to do it


Not sure what decent means, but it's not unreasonable to ask your team to maximise the resources available. Picking up ones and twos are low-risk, which in no way compromise a batsman's stay at the wicket. In other words, the two things are not mutually exclusive. What we have here is a coaching staff compensating for its incompetence (I assume a low dot-ball % is a desired outcome for all coaching staff) by fashioning a strategy (slowly building an innings) that circumvents the need to rotate the strike, with the hope of somehow getting to a decent score. Hope is not a strategy. lol

 
Dukes 2022-08-24 17:06:41 

I will say this.It is RARE for one batsman to score 91 runs off 55 balls and his team loses when they actually bat out their full 50 overs.It is also rare for a batsman to eat up 100 balls and only score 51 runs.

 
Scar 2022-08-24 17:17:09 

In reply to Dukes Certainly rare indeed! Now I know why Hope fails in the Test arena! If when fielding restrictions make it easier to score runs in various ways he can only get 51 out of 110 plus balls it is no wonder when Test match fielding is set for him he cant get more than 20 or so

lol

Anyway i had this irksome feeling while watching the match that Hope wanted to get his first home 50 strike rate be darned and played overly cautious

 
sudden 2022-08-24 17:17:41 

In reply to Dukes

qualitative analysis is concerned with the reason why things happen, the causes and effects. it deals with the experiences of humans in particular settings, their emotions, actions and reactions

the qualitative examines the wherefores whilst the quantitative looks at mathematical coding. put another way the qualitative voices and interprets the quantitative.

whilst numbers are raw and remote, human emotions, actions and reactions are how we express ourselves. hence why raw numbers cannot alone describe and inform this discussion and why Poorman's explanation is more important than your numbers game

 
sudden 2022-08-24 17:20:15 

In reply to Dukes

nonsense and would make more sense WI was batting second. WI had a chance to win if they defended properly

and even so given the relevant strengths of the teams, if WI batted first and made 350 9 times out of 10 i would back NZ to win

 
Sangfroid 2022-08-24 17:30:25 

In reply to sudden

nonsense and would make more sense WI was batting second. WI had a chance to win if they defended properly

and even so given the relevant strengths of the teams, if WI batted first and made 350 9 times out of 10 i would back NZ to win


You're full of contradictions. On the one hand, you're assigning defeat to not properly defending a score of 301, yet you believe even 350 could not be adequately defended.

lol

On a more positive note, it's good you recognise the value of the quantitative, even though I don't know where you got your ratio (9/10). Not many teams lose after scoring 350.

 
sudden 2022-08-24 17:43:34 

In reply to Sangfroid

you are slipping, John.

i am sure you understand what "WI had a chance to win if they defended properly" means

as i am certain you can interpret what, "even so given the relevant strengths of the teams" conveys.

altho i did mean to write relative instead of relevant

 
Sangfroid 2022-08-24 17:53:50 

In reply to sudden


Your sour relationship with basic maths is telling. The stats will show it's infinitely more difficult to score 350 v. 300.(score-board pressure), even if the bowling opposition is the WI. In fact, it is precisely because of our toothless bowling that we need to aim for massive scores. I further argue that it is much easier to rotate strike than produce wicket-takers in the short-run.

 
Dukes 2022-08-24 17:57:46 

In reply to sudden

Poorman's explanation is more important than your numbers game


It might also explain why Poorman is failing at what he is doing.
I do not think I have failed in too many things by using my approach.

 
Dukes 2022-08-24 18:03:33 

I do not know how many people have studied Brian Lara's batting but he had the uncanny habit of playing the ball in the gaps.that skill might not have been innate because he practiced playing shots between cones/blocks etc so that he did not repeatedly play balls straight to fielders.
It is things like that which cause people to improve.Chanderpaul is nowhere near as gifted as Lara or Hooper but thru sheer grit and determination and hard work(but smart work too) he was wildly successful.
I have found that by thinking deeply and carefully about various problems, one can find solutions and that is what I have done over and over.

 
sudden 2022-08-24 18:31:57 

In reply to Dukes

If that was a rebuttal you will get no pushback from me

 
sudden 2022-08-24 18:35:33 

In reply to Dukes

It might also explain why Poorman is failing at what he is doing.
I do not think I have failed in too many things by using my approach.


Given the strength of our team over the years Poorman isn’t the first nor will he be the last to fail.

Good or bad there is a reason why many medical doctors aren’t politicians.

 
Dukes 2022-08-24 18:51:07 

In reply to sudden

I just saw a video where the speaker talked about the difference between a politician and a leader.Politicians are concerned about the next election.Leaders are concerned about the next generation.