Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

Good stuff. It does seem that the batting this time rebuilt in a way that wasn't previouslyusual. Even in 50 over cricket, it got to be that England at least, kept attacking when losing wickets. Apart from the spinners not stifling the scoring rate like they typically would in Asia, this rebuilding strategy felt like a theme of this WC.

I presume in the early games the toss isn't going be effected by conditions because there's no dew. As someone suggested above, the semis/final could have been played earlier.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:Good stuff. It does seem that the batting this time rebuilt in a way that wasn't previouslyusual. Even in 50 over cricket, it got to be that England at least, kept attacking when losing wickets. Apart from the spinners not stifling the scoring rate like they typically would in Asia, this rebuilding strategy felt like a theme of this WC.

I presume in the early games the toss isn't going be effected by conditions because there's no dew. As someone suggested above, the semis/final could have been played earlier.

It's a money making exercise, of course, first and foremost, and I imagine that more revenue is generated in the evening. I further imagine that the dates and times of matches are written into contracts after negotiations with broadcasters and can't be moved

Durhamfootman wrote:It's a money making exercise, of course, first and foremost

Money is obviously the result of public interest, so a less cynical point would be why put on the big show when no one can watch? Obviously it makes sense to slot it in with 100s of millions of Indians are turning on the tv, and not when they cant.

Arthur Crabtree wrote:I presume in the early games the toss isn't going be effected by conditions because there's no dew. As someone suggested above, the semis/final could have been played earlier.

The "dew factor" is one of those mythical things in sport that has become a sort of widely appreciated truth, but has zero actual tangible evidence to support. Well actually, there is a lot of evidence to show that actually the dew factor is real, but it actually works in the total opposite way to the established widsom of commentators and captains - the team batting second historically performs worse.

Take ODIs (bigger sample and a longer portion of an innings played in dew conditions).

- Generally, the team batting second in D/N matches win/loss ratio is about 0.91

- Contrary to established wisdom of dew being more a factor in Asia, this win ratio lowers to 0.88 batting under lights in Asia. So it becomes a slightly bigger disadvantage.

in T20Is (smaller sample)

- In asia, the win/loss ratio chasing is 0.671 in DN matches - A HUGE advantage to the team batting first.

- Elsewhere outside Asia, the ratio actually narrows to significantly to almost reach parity - 0.925 loss ratio but over only 110 matches - with only 3 matches difference in wins/loss (which could be overturned in one series in the future)

Now you could argue that this limits itself to games in which captains think the conditions will mean that dew will be an advantageous factor for them batting in the second innings.

- In games teams win the toss an elected to field, the win loss ratio drops significantly in general to 0.683

- This is noticeably worse in Asia - 0.53 for chasing teams electing to chase.

You then come to bowling types. Its generally accepted its harder to bowl with a wet ball, especially for spinners who cannot grip the ball.

First innings of DN matches

-Pace bowlers average 24.91 with econ of 8.03
-Spinners average 25 with an econ of 7.21

Second innings of DN matches

- Pace bowlers average 24.62 with econ of 7.71
-Spinners average 21.50 with an econ of 6.83

The trend is clearly the opposite to that accepted. If you wanted to take it slightly further and limit these figures again to toss wins where conditions are more likely to suit the argument, when electing to field first and bat last, the second innings bowling team have slightly (almost negligible) positive trends in wicket averages for both bowler types and small but noticeable (0.2 RPO in both cases) positive trends in runs given away.

So in short, any captain, and there are many, that elected to field first in a T20 and mentions the Dew factor is actually batting against decades of facts that disapprove their theory. In general actually, batting first has a clear advantage.

All these figures also make perfect common sense. Dew on the surface might make it harder to grip the ball and be accurate, but dampness in a pitch also has significant effects on how it behaves; most obviously, the bounce, carry and pace of the pitch will reduce, and in combination with a damp outfield its actually harder to score quickly or time the ball. Dampness in a pitch will also give slight inconsistencies in bounce. T20I is a game based on hitting power, so whatever is lost in bowling accuracy is more than made up for an increased difficulty in scoring quickly.

And as for spinners, damp pitches are historically deadly conditions to face spin in, especially when the level of moisture in the surface is just enough that the pitch is not completely saturated or wet (the classic drying, slightly damp surface of cricket folklore). A pitch that has a little natural dew should be perfect for a spinner, the fact he cant grip the ball properly might be the only reasons spinners dont run out of control underlights with moisture around - but the facts speak for themselves. Spinners noticeably perform better in dew conditions.

Lastly (more in line with above) - finger spinners outperform wrist spinners, which again defies generic belief. Its often supposed that finger spinners struggle more to grip the ball naturally, but out of all the players to take 10 T20I wickets underlights..... 12 out of 15 are fingers spinners

Interesting figures, SP.

Also interesting that it seems to go complete against the trend in knockout T20 games quoted above, where the W/L ratio for the chasing side is overwhelmingly positive.

Is your hypothesis then that it is entirely psychological - teams are not aggressive enough when setting a total in a knockout game?

bigfluffylemon wrote:Is your hypothesis then that it is entirely psychological - teams are not aggressive enough when setting a total in a knockout game?

There is a natural tendency for sports people under extreme pressure to think more in terms of how to survive/not lose, than think about how they can go out and win.

As a sort of example, look at Euro 2020 - all the semis/final were drawn games at 90 minutes. The odds on a drawn match in football is roughly 3/1 - the chances of that occurring 3 matches in a row under normal conditions? 63/1. The same odds youd have got for three consecutive drawn WC finals before the last. Knockout football tournaments have an abnormal amount of draws compared to other games, a lot more I would guess without calculating it accurately.

Middle distance to long distance running is probably the best example in fact - All athletes are priming themselves to be in the best physical condition possible for the Olympic cycle and final, but how many Olympic Records are even remotely close to World Records? Most Olympic records are minutes (even several minutes in long races) away from record pace. Its because people are that much more hesitant to blow their chances by pushing it until they need to.

Teams batting first have to think about setting the target, teams batting second know what they need to do, and its do or die. So the chances of being reaching efficiency are a little more easy. I mean, if a marathon runner sees another go in the last mile, hes going to go with them and might find he has the stamina. If hes racing blind, he might think he always needs to keep something in the tank.

sussexpob wrote:

bigfluffylemon wrote:Is your hypothesis then that it is entirely psychological - teams are not aggressive enough when setting a total in a knockout game?

There is a natural tendency for sports people under extreme pressure to think more in terms of how to survive/not lose, than think about how they can go out and win.

As a sort of example, look at Euro 2020 - all the semis/final were drawn games at 90 minutes. The odds on a drawn match in football is roughly 3/1 - the chances of that occurring 3 matches in a row under normal conditions? 63/1. The same odds youd have got for three consecutive drawn WC finals before the last. Knockout football tournaments have an abnormal amount of draws compared to other games, a lot more I would guess without calculating it accurately.

To some extent, I thought that was because once you get to the later knockout stages the teams are (at least in theory) closely matched, but you are right, it is clear many teams play knockout football with a mentality of not losing rather than actively winning.

sussexpob wrote:

bigfluffylemon wrote:Is your hypothesis then that it is entirely psychological - teams are not aggressive enough when setting a total in a knockout game?

There is a natural tendency for sports people under extreme pressure to think more in terms of how to survive/not lose, than think about how they can go out and win.

Yes. I have thought this (at times) when you see the more scared to lose than want to win approach. Part of this can be put down to a player's individual ratings of their standing in the side - are they playing for their position as well as for the win?