Cricket match prediction discussions

[eaLiTy]

Zimbabwe are no more strong team like before so i think we can see some upset in today match as both team are low level teams so any thing can happen on their matches, today i think UAE will come favourite in odds and then can loose it.

It would have being an upset because the match was reduced to 35 overs due to bad light and the great Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method to calculate the projected score is still confusing for me and when the match was stopped at 32 overs because of bad light Zimbabwe was ahead in the DLS and declared the winner, but if you look at the score card you will get confused  .

[Sithara007]

Zimbabwe are no more strong team like before so i think we can see some upset in today match as both team are low level teams so any thing can happen on their matches, today i think UAE will come favourite in odds and then can loose it.

It would have being an upset because the match was reduced to 35 overs due to bad light and the great Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method to calculate the projected score is still confusing for me and when the match was stopped at 32 overs because of bad light Zimbabwe was ahead in the DLS and declared the winner, but if you look at the score card you will get confused  .

Duckworth Lewis method was invented after carefully analyzing the outcomes of thousands of matches. So I wouldn't say that the method was wrong. And I don't understand why you think that the UAE was ahead. Two set batsmen were playing when bad light stopped play (PJ Moor at 45, and Chakabva at 78), and at that point they needed 25 runs to win from 3 overs (with 6 wickets in hand).

[AB de Royse777]

~snip~

Duckworth Lewis method was invented after carefully analyzing the outcomes of thousands of matches. So I wouldn't say that the method was wrong. And I don't understand why you think that the UAE was ahead. Two set batsmen were playing when bad light stopped play (PJ Moor at 45, and Chakabva at 78), and at that point they needed 25 runs to win from 3 overs (with 6 wickets in hand).

Man! I also don't understand how does this D/L method works. I feel like they do a lot of unrealistic calculation. I can not give you specific examples but in lot of occasions I have seen the unfairness. It just do not add up with the real situation.

My thinking is that why do we need a method to find a winner. Just leave it and declare abundant or an unfinished match. If you do not know what will be the outcome of the next ball (out or dot, single, double, two, three, four or six or possibly anything) then how do you calculate based on mathematics.  

[Haunebu]

~snip~

Duckworth Lewis method was invented after carefully analyzing the outcomes of thousands of matches. So I wouldn't say that the method was wrong. And I don't understand why you think that the UAE was ahead. Two set batsmen were playing when bad light stopped play (PJ Moor at 45, and Chakabva at 78), and at that point they needed 25 runs to win from 3 overs (with 6 wickets in hand).

Man! I also don't understand how does this D/L method works. I feel like they do a lot of unrealistic calculation. I can not give you specific examples but in lot of occasions I have seen the unfairness. It just do not add up with the real situation.

My thinking is that why do we need a method to find a winner. Just leave it and declare abundant or an unfinished match. If you do not know what will be the outcome of the next ball (out or dot, single, double, two, three, four or six or possibly anything) then how do you calculate based on mathematics.  

The managements would face a ton of problems if the games were left abandoned or cancelled like money issues, fans getting disappointed etc which is why they rarely ever cancel matches unless absolutely necessary.

D/L method is no way perfect as you mentioned, but it does the job majority of the time which it is a useful system overall.

[Vishnu.Reang]

~snip~

Duckworth Lewis method was invented after carefully analyzing the outcomes of thousands of matches. So I wouldn't say that the method was wrong. And I don't understand why you think that the UAE was ahead. Two set batsmen were playing when bad light stopped play (PJ Moor at 45, and Chakabva at 78), and at that point they needed 25 runs to win from 3 overs (with 6 wickets in hand).

Man! I also don't understand how does this D/L method works. I feel like they do a lot of unrealistic calculation. I can not give you specific examples but in lot of occasions I have seen the unfairness. It just do not add up with the real situation.

My thinking is that why do we need a method to find a winner. Just leave it and declare abundant or an unfinished match. If you do not know what will be the outcome of the next ball (out or dot, single, double, two, three, four or six or possibly anything) then how do you calculate based on mathematics.  

The managements would face a ton of problems if the games were left abandoned or cancelled like money issues, fans getting disappointed etc which is why they rarely ever cancel matches unless absolutely necessary.

D/L method is no way perfect as you mentioned, but it does the job majority of the time which it is a useful system overall.

The method which we had earlier was even worse. I still remember the infamous match between South Africa and England during the 1992 world cup. South Africa was cruising to victory, and needed 22 off 13 balls. After 12 minutes of play was lost to rain, the target was revised as 21 runs off 1 ball.

[eaLiTy]

Duckworth Lewis method was invented after carefully analyzing the outcomes of thousands of matches. So I wouldn't say that the method was wrong. And I don't understand why you think that the UAE was ahead. Two set batsmen were playing when bad light stopped play (PJ Moor at 45, and Chakabva at 78), and at that point they needed 25 runs to win from 3 overs (with 6 wickets in hand).

I can very well tell that the method is not perfect, i will give you a perfect example about a match between South Africa and England in 1992 world cup, South Africa needed 22 runs to win from 13 balls and when the rain interrupted and the score was adjusted using Duckworth Lewis method and so South Africa needed to win the same runs in 1 ball, how can you claim that as a fair calculation and not a wrong method.
I never said UAE was ahead, i just said they had the opportunity to upset them simply because of DLS method.

[AB de Royse777]

~snip~
I can very well tell that the method is not perfect, i will give you a perfect example about a match between South Africa and England in 1992 world cup, South Africa needed 22 runs to win from 13 balls and when the rain interrupted and the score was adjusted using Duckworth Lewis method and so South Africa needed to win the same runs in 1 ball, how can you claim that as a fair calculation and not a wrong method.
~snip~

Yeh I learnt about this match from history. I was too young to understand cricket then.

I feel without this Duckworth Lewis method cricket will be well off. I understand that they created it to eliminate the hassle of abandoning a match which may need another day but may not even get a result. Behind a cricket match there are money involves. Sponsors, audiences, events, tv channels, news channel I mean there are money and money everywhere. So they need a result in order to ensure everything. So, they are defining an undefined future.

Can you define a football match result or tennis or any other sports? Then why cricket came with this weird calculation?

There are matches where we see team scored 200+ runs (hypothetically giving a scenario) without losing any wicket but in the next few overs they lost all wickets.  There are matches where team lost 5 wickets in 20 runs but before the end of their innings they scored 250+ runs.

How are you going to know these futures that in the next few overs a team is going to lose all wickets or after losing some quick wickets a team still scored good runs and won a match. Duckworth Lewis is not gonna give the correct result.

[susila_bai]

~snip~
I can very well tell that the method is not perfect, i will give you a perfect example about a match between South Africa and England in 1992 world cup, South Africa needed 22 runs to win from 13 balls and when the rain interrupted and the score was adjusted using Duckworth Lewis method and so South Africa needed to win the same runs in 1 ball, how can you claim that as a fair calculation and not a wrong method.
~snip~

Yeh I learnt about this match from history. I was too young to understand cricket then.

I feel without this Duckworth Lewis method cricket will be well off. I understand that they created it to eliminate the hassle of abandoning a match which may need another day but may not even get a result. Behind a cricket match there are money involves. Sponsors, audiences, events, tv channels, news channel I mean there are money and money everywhere. So they need a result in order to ensure everything. So, they are defining an undefined future.

Can you define a football match result or tennis or any other sports? Then why cricket came with this weird calculation?

There are matches where we see team scored 200+ runs (hypothetically giving a scenario) without losing any wicket but in the next few overs they lost all wickets.  There are matches where team lost 5 wickets in 20 runs but before the end of their innings they scored 250+ runs.

How are you going to know these futures that in the next few overs a team is going to lose all wickets or after losing some quick wickets a team still scored good runs and won a match. Duckworth Lewis is not gonna give the correct result.

Duckworth Lewis method is good or bad on the situation of the game, like what above said in some matches where the chasing team is very close to wining the match but due to some techinical or rain reason the match is halted and then for the result of the match duckworth lewis method is used and they are loosing it but in some situation it favours the team and they are also winning it.

Today almost all team knows that their is always result of match so they play according to the duckworth lewis method and score according to it so that they can win in any situation.

[eaLiTy]

Can you define a football match result or tennis or any other sports? Then why cricket came with this weird calculation?

Even in the match i mentioned earlier, there was a reserve day and yet the Television channel was adamant to finish the game on that day itself if my memory serves right, during those times chasing run a ball is also a huge thing.

There are matches where we see team scored 200+ runs (hypothetically giving a scenario) without losing any wicket but in the next few overs they lost all wickets.  There are matches where team lost 5 wickets in 20 runs but before the end of their innings they scored 250+ runs.

This is exactly the reason, you cannot assume how things will be through calculations, when it comes to a sporting event anything can happen in a short period of time and we have seen many matches with unexpected twist from a strong position many times.

Today almost all team knows that their is always result of match so they play according to the duckworth lewis method and score according to it so that they can win in any situation.

This is true, if there is a rain forecast, the teams will play accordingly to favor when DLS is factored into and i have seen those kind of matches in New Zealand and England where there will be unexpected shower during the course of a match.

[JSRAW]

Can you define a football match result or tennis or any other sports? Then why cricket came with this weird calculation?

Because Shortest format of cricket which is 20-20 lasts a minimum of 4 hours, 8-10 hours for ODI, that's not the case with other sports and Rain doesn't stop other sport's gameplay much.

I will leave a wise man quote here regarding the D/L method.

You cannot have a tournament though where instead of assessing team strengths, you are assessing the role of the weather

https://twitter.com/bhogleharsha/status/872575606604562433


And by the way how many here know that Duckworth Lewis does not have any role in Red Ball cricket. Raise a hand quickly ladies

Well before that can you please explain the difference of red ball and white ball. The only thing I know is that for a D/N match or N match we use white ball.

There is a very interesting story and logical reason behind all this white-red ball saga, we need to go back to 70-80s for this. will update in a new post soon. or read about "Kerry packer" he was the main reason who changed everything in cricket from the ball, D/N, Dress code etc etc.

After reading about him and his work you will see how hypocritic our cricket world is ( foreign cricketers legends who hates the IPL)

And Bhai I know hahaha ..... I try to read carefully as much as possible before replying hehe

[AB de Royse777]

And by the way how many here know that Duckworth Lewis does not have any role in Red Ball cricket. Raise a hand quickly ladies

Well before that can you please explain the difference of red ball and white ball. The only thing I know is that for a D/N match or N match we use white ball.

By the way, I not a lady LOL

Side note: I have never seen/known in a test match to use Duckworth Lewis because they have a draw result :-P

[Sithara007]

Duckworth Lewis method was invented after carefully analyzing the outcomes of thousands of matches. So I wouldn't say that the method was wrong. And I don't understand why you think that the UAE was ahead. Two set batsmen were playing when bad light stopped play (PJ Moor at 45, and Chakabva at 78), and at that point they needed 25 runs to win from 3 overs (with 6 wickets in hand).

I can very well tell that the method is not perfect, i will give you a perfect example about a match between South Africa and England in 1992 world cup, South Africa needed 22 runs to win from 13 balls and when the rain interrupted and the score was adjusted using Duckworth Lewis method and so South Africa needed to win the same runs in 1 ball, how can you claim that as a fair calculation and not a wrong method.
I never said UAE was ahead, i just said they had the opportunity to upset them simply because of DLS method.

You are wrong on multiple fronts. Back in 1992, Duckworth Lewis was not the method used for determining the outcome of the rain affected matches. Back then there was a different method being used by the ICC, and the D/L method was first used by the ICC in 1999. As a matter of fact, Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis came up with the new method inspired by the outcome of the 1992 match.

[Haunebu]

Honestly, why are everyone in this thread concerned about the D/L system all of a sudden? This system has existed for ages and it has its share of advantages and disadvantages(Advantages outweigh the disadvantages) and it won't be abolished anytime soon.

However, I would love to see an improvement(D/L 2.0) or a completely new system since the ICC have the budget to do so.

[vella85]

The Australia team has been named for the World Cup and guess what? Smith and Warner have been named in the team which is great to see. On paper Australia have a strong line up that will be tough to beat. They would have to be favourite or second favourite to win the World Cup after Smith and Warner being named. As we know they haven't had much match practice so I'm expecting both players to play in all of Australia's warm up matches.

[JSRAW]

The Australia team has been named for the World Cup and guess what? Smith and Warner have been named in the team which is great to see. On paper Australia have a strong line up that will be tough to beat. They would have to be favourite or second favourite to win the World Cup after Smith and Warner being named. As we know they haven't had much match practice so I'm expecting both players to play in all of Australia's warm up matches.

Vella you might wanna join world cup discussion in another thread, which is dedicated for world cup 2019.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5084515.0

There are already discussions going on regarding world cup (sometimes heated arguments and accusations) it's fun tho..  lol , so far Indian squad related discussions taking over the thread. You are most welcome to join the discussion and can post your analysis for Oz team.

[Juggy777]

The Australia team has been named for the World Cup and guess what? Smith and Warner have been named in the team which is great to see. On paper Australia have a strong line up that will be tough to beat. They would have to be favourite or second favourite to win the World Cup after Smith and Warner being named. As we know they haven't had much match practice so I'm expecting both players to play in all of Australia's warm up matches.

Hey there’s nothing surprising about those two being included for the World Cup, they were called to Dubai earlier in the year to gel with the team. I’ll second that Australia have a very strong team, and both of them are getting match practice in IPL too. Also I feel Australia and England are the team to beat in the World Cup, so it’ll be interesting if these two make it to the finals.

[Haunebu]

The Australia team has been named for the World Cup and guess what? Smith and Warner have been named in the team which is great to see. On paper Australia have a strong line up that will be tough to beat. They would have to be favourite or second favourite to win the World Cup after Smith and Warner being named. As we know they haven't had much match practice so I'm expecting both players to play in all of Australia's warm up matches.

I disagree. I strongly feel that England and India are the teams to beat this time around. The current Australian lineup is not as strong as previous lineups even with the inclusion of Warner and Smith in my opinion.

[vella85]

The Australia team has been named for the World Cup and guess what? Smith and Warner have been named in the team which is great to see. On paper Australia have a strong line up that will be tough to beat. They would have to be favourite or second favourite to win the World Cup after Smith and Warner being named. As we know they haven't had much match practice so I'm expecting both players to play in all of Australia's warm up matches.

I disagree. I strongly feel that England and India are the teams to beat this time around. The current Australian lineup is not as strong as previous lineups even with the inclusion of Warner and Smith in my opinion.

Are you sure? Australia just beat India coming from 2-0 down playing in India and you feel that the current Australian team isn't as strong. Also let me remind you that the Australian team that did beat India on home soil didn't have Warner or Smith playing so I'm not sure what you are saying about not being as strong as previous teams. From the last World Cup, Australia don't have Clarke, Haddin, Johnson, Watson and Faulkner. Apart from that its basically the same team and Australia have replace these players with good players that have shown that they can perform on the world stage. No team is ever the same as it goes for India, England and all the other teams playing so that is why I never compare the teams to previous teams as the Australia has shown that they can match it with the best and beat the best.

[Haunebu]

Are you sure? Australia just beat India coming from 2-0 down playing in India and you feel that the current Australian team isn't as strong. Also let me remind you that the Australian team that did beat India on home soil didn't have Warner or Smith playing so I'm not sure what you are saying about not being as strong as previous teams. From the last World Cup, Australia don't have Clarke, Haddin, Johnson, Watson and Faulkner. Apart from that its basically the same team and Australia have replace these players with good players that have shown that they can perform on the world stage. No team is ever the same as it goes for India, England and all the other teams playing so that is why I never compare the teams to previous teams as the Australia has shown that they can match it with the best and beat the best.

You do realize that India was also experimenting with its players during the 3-2 series just like Australia, don't you? That was obviously not the best version of the Indian team and the same applied to Australia as well.

I feel like they might reach the semis and get knocked out while India or England or both will make it to the finals. Guess we just need to agree to disagree.

[RamBahadur.Gurung]

The Australia team has been named for the World Cup and guess what? Smith and Warner have been named in the team which is great to see. On paper Australia have a strong line up that will be tough to beat. They would have to be favourite or second favourite to win the World Cup after Smith and Warner being named. As we know they haven't had much match practice so I'm expecting both players to play in all of Australia's warm up matches.

I disagree. I strongly feel that England and India are the teams to beat this time around. The current Australian lineup is not as strong as previous lineups even with the inclusion of Warner and Smith in my opinion.

The inclusion of Warner and Smith will strengthen the Aussies. Warner has been in top form during this IPL season. One advantage for Australia is that their bowlers are perfectly suited for the English conditions. Mark my words, I think that an Aussie bowler will be the top wicket taker during this world cup. Can be Pat Cummins, or it can be Mitchell Starc.