|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jul 9, 2015 11:22:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 9, 2015 11:47:59 GMT
I'm surprised. I thought he'd say 'we got it wrong - we should be more ambitious, just like New England'  |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 9, 2015 12:53:34 GMT
I'm surprised. I thought he'd say 'we got it wrong - we should be more ambitious, just like New England' When Machan was out the lead was 374, and something like 75 overs could have been bowled. In other words, the opposition could have been tempted by attacking to try and maintain 5 an over. That is a better rate than has been shown in the fourth innings at Taunton to win this season. Sussex could have lost, and been 5 points further adrift, or the ngame might still have been drawn, or they could have got 16 points which would have put them above Somerset.
I've emphasised that point because in the hurly-burly of the next two months it isn't going to be sufficient for any county, or their Manager/Coach/whatever to say "We got a few points from that game". What matters is to deny the opposition any and every chance to gain points which could be place them above your own at the end of the season. This ceratainly applied to Somerset, and will apply to Notts in the next game. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 9, 2015 13:15:24 GMT
I'm surprised. I thought he'd say 'we got it wrong - we should be more ambitious, just like New England' When Machan was out the lead was 374, and something like 75 overs could have been bowled. In other words, the opposition could have been tempted by attacking to try and maintain 5 an over. That is a better rate than has been shown in the fourth innings at Taunton to win this season. Sussex could have lost, and been 5 points further adrift, or the ngame might still have been drawn, or they could have got 16 points which would have put them above Somerset. I've emphasised that point because in the hurly-burly of the next two months it isn't going to be sufficient for any county, or their Manager/Coach/whatever to say "We got a few points from that game". What matters is to deny the opposition any and every chance to gain points which could be place them above your own at the end of the season. This ceratainly applied to Somerset, and will apply to Notts in the next game. But Somerset had lost one of their seamers (Overton) early in our 2nd innings, and we took advantage of some very average bowling after that. At times, it looked as if Somerset were feeding us runs in order to hasten a declaration! At the time, I thought a 400 target would have been sufficient. Anyway, we shall never know what might have happened. Let's hope we don't get overtaken by teams who actually have the courage to win matches. |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 9, 2015 13:31:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 9, 2015 13:41:44 GMT
I'd abolish those wretched bonus points! Why should the first innings performance be rewarded disproportionately? |
|
|
|
Post by hhsussex on Jul 9, 2015 14:12:52 GMT
I'd abolish those wretched bonus points! Why should the first innings performance be rewarded disproportionately? It's the perennial checks and balances problem. If you just make it X points for win and Y for a draw, the first thing you have to is to ensure that there is a sufficient differential between X and Y that drawing all games is not more attractive than going for a win and risking losing everything. Secondly, how do you reward positive play in seasons of prolonged bad weather, where side A has clearly been in the ascendancy in most of their games but because of persistent precipitation poised above their pitches they have suffered abandonments and draws? The first innings has traditionally been rewarded in this way, right from the dim distant days of first innings lead in matches lost or drawn, arguably because the play in the second innings has often been the subject of some artifice aimed either at getting a result or staving off an otherwise inevitable conclusion. Any change to this would have to be applied very subjectively to rule out the reward to sides for fast scoring against declaration bowling, and for the converse, gifting sides points for wickets that have effectively been traded away for a few more runs. It seems that either rough justice is applied, eg 10 for a win, 3 for a draw and if you had them 35-9 in the second innings chasing 500 when the weather set in for good at 3.30 on the 3rd afternoon, then tough luck, or some further set of variations designed to reward bowling proportionately higher than batting, but based still on first innings. If the points available for accrual in this way were greater than those available for a draw, then there might be some sense in this approach. |
|
|
|
Post by philh on Jul 9, 2015 15:05:46 GMT
I'd abolish those wretched bonus points! Why should the first innings performance be rewarded disproportionately? It's the perennial checks and balances problem. If you just make it X points for win and Y for a draw, the first thing you have to is to ensure that there is a sufficient differential between X and Y that drawing all games is not more attractive than going for a win and risking losing everything. Secondly, how do you reward positive play in seasons of prolonged bad weather, where side A has clearly been in the ascendancy in most of their games but because of persistent precipitation poised above their pitches they have suffered abandonments and draws? The first innings has traditionally been rewarded in this way, right from the dim distant days of first innings lead in matches lost or drawn, arguably because the play in the second innings has often been the subject of some artifice aimed either at getting a result or staving off an otherwise inevitable conclusion. Any change to this would have to be applied very subjectively to rule out the reward to sides for fast scoring against declaration bowling, and for the converse, gifting sides points for wickets that have effectively been traded away for a few more runs. It seems that either rough justice is applied, eg 10 for a win, 3 for a draw and if you had them 35-9 in the second innings chasing 500 when the weather set in for good at 3.30 on the 3rd afternoon, then tough luck, or some further set of variations designed to reward bowling proportionately higher than batting, but based still on first innings. If the points available for accrual in this way were greater than those available for a draw, then there might be some sense in this approach. The danger is we end up with another Duckworth Lewis. You feed the scores into a spreadsheet and out pops some bonus points. The formula would have to be more complex than that used in one day games, which would undoubtedly spark more arguments and complainants when they are relegated by one point. |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jul 9, 2015 15:51:33 GMT
OK - what's wrong with: 2 points for a win, 1 point for a draw - no bonus points? This works in all limited overs games. Seems to me that those who support bonus points do so mainly so that a dominant team in a drawn match gets some reward. But it's only 1st innings performance that gets rewarded under the current system. And you get the bonus points whether you win or draw.  Bonus points can encourage a team to bat for too long in a rain affected match - they take the comfort blanket of the bonus points, rather than hurry the game along in pursuit of a result. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jul 9, 2015 19:27:41 GMT
"...the fact we scored our runs at five an over in the second innings shows what was possible." When Machan was out the lead was 374, and something like 75 overs could have been bowled. In other words, the opposition could have been tempted by attacking to try and maintain 5 an over. That is a better rate than has been shown in the fourth innings at Taunton to win this season. Sussex could have lost, and been 5 points further adrift, or the ngame might still have been drawn, or they could have got 16 points which would have put them above Somerset. I've emphasised that point because in the hurly-burly of the next two months it isn't going to be sufficient for any county, or their Manager/Coach/whatever to say "We got a few points from that game". What matters is to deny the opposition any and every chance to gain points which could be place them above your own at the end of the season. This ceratainly applied to Somerset, and will apply to Notts in the next game. I know at the time I thought we needed 400 but on reflection we should have declared when Machan was out with 375 lead. Why did we bat 9 balls after lunch? This took away four overs for no good reason. Two overs were lost because they came off at 12:38 but didn't take the lunch break until 12:45. This happened on another day where they took lunch at 12:45 instead of 12:30 as it would have been at Hove. On another day we came out to bat for three overs with a deduction of 2/3 overs and had lunch three overs later. Not to mention 52 overs lost on the first two days. 42.4 overs to take the last five wickets should have been enough. We need to be ruthless and clinical. |
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Jul 9, 2015 23:21:24 GMT
How often did we look like taking a wicket in those last three hours, would an extra hour have made the slightest difference?
|
|
|
|
Post by joe on Jul 10, 2015 6:01:35 GMT
How often did we look like taking a wicket in those last three hours, would an extra hour have made the slightest difference? That's not the point. If both teams have a chance to win then both teams will try to win! If the total is impossible to get in the overs remaining then they'll block out! If we'd given Somerset more overs they would have played more shots and given us more chances to take wickets. |
|
|
|
Post by jonboy on Jul 10, 2015 6:28:22 GMT
How often did we look like taking a wicket in those last three hours, would an extra hour have made the slightest difference? That's not the point. If both teams have a chance to win then both teams will try to win! If the total is impossible to get in the overs remaining then they'll block out! If we'd given Somerset more overs they would have played more shots and given us more chances to take wickets. In theory Joe, but Somerset are a little like us in that respect, they are better when they bat in a more bullish fashion. Like us, they seem more vulnerable when they just try to block it out. Personally, I really don't think that 50 less runs and an extra hour would have made any difference to our wicket taking capabilities. I guess we'll never know for sure though |
|
