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

Curran got player of the tournament. 13 wickets in 6 matches at 11's and an econ of 6.5 bowling in a string of high pressure matches mostly against very good sides

well deserved, but it feels unusual for it not to go to the obligatory batter

Durhamfootman wrote:Curran got player of the tournament. 13 wickets in 6 matches at 11's and an econ of 6.5 bowling in a string of high pressure matches mostly against very good sides

well deserved, but it feels unusual for it not to go to the obligatory batter

It was a pretty low scoring tournament. Was this down to the weather and/or larger grounds?

bigfluffylemon wrote:At the risk of putting a downer on what was a well-deserved victory, I notice that once again, the team that won the toss twice in a row and chased twice in a row in the T20 knockouts won their SF and final. This time England had the luck

Even if we were to attribute a 95% probability to the team batting first losing a game, over 11 consecutive outcomes, you are more than 3 times more likely for it not to occur than occur (roughly, cant be arsed to do the maths, but its roughly I think 3/1 on)

And to phrase that sort of probability in sporting advantage, you would get a similar win probability on a 3-goal handicap for Derby to win tonight at Portsmouth, two teams on the same amount of points in their division.

So to conclude, to try to argue this is anything but a random coincidence, it is like saying whatever mental/physical advantages are in play uniquely for a knockout game (as the general rule in games is batting first is an advantage) are roughly the equivalent of starting a game of football already 3-0 down with two evenly matched teams in normal circumstances.

Which surely is not in anyway a case in reality.

It's surely not the only factor, but if you take the converse null hypothesis that teams batting first have a 50% chance of winning, you get approximately 0.04% probability of that hypothesis being correct.

I'm not saying it is the only factor by any means, but there seems to be some advantage bowling first. The odds of it being 'nothing more than coincidence' are low enough that it's reasonable to conclude there is something else at play here.

Some genius decided that four days after the final England and Australia should play a three-match ODI series.

What a pointless waste of time.

that's commie talk, mister

there's money to be made

bigfluffylemon wrote:I think we can forgive Ben for 2016 now.

Two world cup chases. What a star. And 50.

What a way to get rid of those demons. Very few players would ever have the chance to do so, let alone the mental determination.

Also David Willey getting a World Cup winners medal is poetic justice.