Net Run Rates

[Cricketman]

Continued discussion from the World Cup forum regarding NRR - nightprowler10

Why would India have been in big trouble?
Theoritically its easier to get the Net Run Rate up batting second.

Lets say that Bermuda scores 100 irrespective of whether batting first or second.
If India bats first then they can score at max at about 8 an over, this giving them NRR of +6.
If they bat second however, if they have a low score to chase they can go all out and play like they did in the slow overs. Its very possible then that they would score at more than 10rpo, thus giving them a NRR of atleast +8.

They probably wanted to replicate what Ireland and Bangladesh did.

Your kinda wrong.
On the NRR rule no matter how many overs you bat the runrate is taken out of 50 overs.
So if BRM hit 100-we chase it down even in 3 overs (Exaggerating) Even though our actual runrate would have been 33.3333.... Our run rate would have been out of 50 overs.
So 100 runs in 50 overs is 2 an over.

 

[SaiSrini]

Your kinda wrong.
On the NRR rule no matter how many overs you bat the runrate is taken out of 50 overs.
So if BRM hit 100-we chase it down even in 3 overs (Exaggerating) Even though our actual runrate would have been 33.3333.... Our run rate would have been out of 50 overs.
So 100 runs in 50 overs is 2 an over.

No, he is right and you're wrong. Its taken to the full 50 overs only if you are all out. India were all out against Bangladesh and so it was calculated as 191/50. Whereas Bangladesh were not all out and so it was 195/48.5

Bermuda were all out against Sri Lanka, so they were taken as 78/50.

So, lets say that Bermuda bat first and are all out for 127 in 37 overs and India chase down 128 in 15 overs, India's run rate from that match will be (128/15) - (127/50) and that equals 5.99

 

[Cricketman]

No, he is right and you're wrong. Its taken to the full 50 overs only if you are all out. India were all out against Bangladesh and so it was calculated as 191/50. Whereas Bangladesh were not all out and so it was 195/48.5

Bermuda were all out against Sri Lanka, so they were taken as 78/50.

Alright, my bad...
Sohum said something in the other thread so it confuzzled me

 

[Indyan]

This is incorrect. Because India would not have played as many overs to sustain that high run rate, so it would not have affected their overall net run rate as much.


This is also incorrect. Your run rate is taken with 50 overs only if you are bowled out. So if you have wickets left at the end of the match, the correct number of overs will be used.

Net Run Rate doesnt depend on number of overs played.
From Wikipedia :

3. Side that bats first is bowled out. Side batting second wins.
Team A bat first and are skittled out for 127 off 25.4 overs. Team B reach the target for the loss of four wickets off 25.5 overs, scoring a single to win the game and end with 128 runs.
Despite Team A's runrate for the balls they faced being 127 / 25.667 = 4.95 (2dp) because they were bowled out the entire 50 overs are added to their total overs faced tally for the tournament, and Team B are credited with having bowled 50 overs.
Team B actually scored at a slower pace, however they managed to protect their wickets. Thus, only the 25 5/6 overs are added to the seasonal tally.

So, as I said, if you bat first and get bowled out, full 50 overs would be considered. However, if you bat second and win with wickets in hand, only overs used by you would be considered.

So, its always better to bat second against weak opposition to increate NRR. In fact this is what happened in one edition of Asia Cup. India was playing Bangladesh and needed to beat them and increase their NRR to qualify for the finals. They bowled first, dismissed them for 130 odd and then got the runs in less than 20 overs.

 

[sohum]

Net Run Rate doesnt depend on number of overs played.
From Wikipedia :

So, as I said, if you bat first and get bowled out, full 50 overs would be considered. However, if you bat second and win with wickets in hand, only overs used by you would be considered.

You are just reiterating what I have been saying for ages. The Net Run Rate rule is being made more confusing than it is. Here is a easy way to figure it out.

1. Calculate total number of runs you have scored. (RF)
2. Calculate total number of overs you have faced, 50 (or D/L reduced number) for times you are all out (OF).
3. Calculate total numbers of runs you have conceded (RA)
4. Calculate total number of overs you have bowled, 50 (or D/L reduced number) for times you have bowled opposition out (OA).

NRR = (RF/OF) - (RA/OA)

If you do not believe me, download my spreadsheet (attached to this post) and compare it to the ICC Cricket World Cup Website and the Cricinfo website. You will notice that this method is the correct one.

So, its always better to bat second against weak opposition to increate NRR. In fact this is what happened in one edition of Asia Cup. India was playing Bangladesh and needed to beat them and increase their NRR to qualify for the finals. They bowled first, dismissed them for 130 odd and then got the runs in less than 20 overs.

The reason you are wrong here is mathematics. The more overs you sustain that run rate for, the more it will count, mathematically speaking. This is because you add more runs to your total. For example, if you have a run rate of 5 before playing a match, scoring 30 runs from 1 over will not increase your run rate by much. Hitting 30 runs an over for 25 overs will increase it more, and hitting 30 runs an over for 50 overs will give you the highest possible increase.

Hence, to benefit NRR, for the most part, you want to bat first and put up a lot of runs at a healthy run rate, and then dismiss the opposition for a small number.

 

[Indyan]

For example, if you have a run rate of 5 before playing a match, scoring 30 runs from 1 over will not increase your run rate by much. Hitting 30 runs an over for 25 overs will increase it more, and hitting 30 runs an over for 50 overs will give you the highest possible increase.

Hence, to benefit NRR, for the most part, you want to bat first and put up a lot of runs at a healthy run rate, and then dismiss the opposition for a small number.

I still dont agree.
If you are chasing and you are the winner, then simply your current run rate would be taken into account. No. of overs played doesnt matter. For the team batting first (who lost) run rate is calculated for 50 overs. For the team batting second (who won) its their current run rate. Its as simple as the difference of those two.
Hence, for increasing NRR its always better to bat second. As you need to sustain the Run rate for lesser number of overs, which is easier.

 

[sohum]

I still dont agree.
If you are chasing and you are the winner, then simply your current run rate would be taken into account. No. of overs played doesnt matter. For the team batting first (who lost) run rate is calculated for 50 overs. For the team batting second (who won) its their current run rate. Its as simple as the difference of those two.
Hence, for increasing NRR its always better to bat second. As you need to sustain the Run rate for lesser number of overs, which is easier.

I really don't know what we are arguing about because we are both saying the same thing. Where your understanding breaks down is mathematics. If you sustain a run rate for a longer period, it is going to affect your net run rate more because it will have a higher weight. That is why if you bat first, you will have a better chance to boost your NRR since you will be sustaining a higher run rate for a longer period.

 

[Indyan]

I really don't know what we are arguing about because we are both saying the same thing. Where your understanding breaks down is mathematics. If you sustain a run rate for a longer period, it is going to affect your net run rate more because it will have a higher weight. That is why if you bat first, you will have a better chance to boost your NRR since you will be sustaining a higher run rate for a longer period.

Thats the point we are arguing about. The preiod doesnt matter.
The NRR of a match is decided by the difference in Run rate. And as we can see its easier to get higher difference batting second.
The NRR over a period id simply (Summation of NRR in individual matches)/No. of Matches.

 

[sohum]

The NRR over a period id simply (Summation of NRR in individual matches)/No. of Matches.

That is completely incorrect. You can look it up on Cricinfo/Wikipedia and whatever you want, but NRR is your run rate (total runs you scored / total overs you faced) minus your opponents run rate (total runs you gave away / total overs you bowled) with the only difference being is that overs counted are 50 if the team was bowled out.

I repeat: NRR IS NOT THE SUMMATION OF RUN RATES OVER ALL YOUR GAMES. It's not a matter of opinion.

And the reason this makes sense is that run rate is an average. And if you did algebra in school, you will know that adding up averages and dividing by the number of averages you added just doesn't work.

 

[Indyan]

That is completely incorrect. You can look it up on Cricinfo/Wikipedia and whatever you want, but NRR is your run rate (total runs you scored / total overs you faced) minus your opponents run rate (total runs you gave away / total overs you bowled) with the only difference being is that overs counted are 50 if the team was bowled out.

I repeat: NRR IS NOT THE SUMMATION OF RUN RATES OVER ALL YOUR GAMES. It's not a matter of opinion.

And the reason this makes sense is that run rate is an average. And if you did algebra in school, you will know that adding up averages and dividing by the number of averages you added just doesn't work.

You are still not getting me.
Read carefully. I said, NRR over a period of time is the average of NRR (and not run rate) during that period.
I.e. if your NRR in one match is -0.14 and NRR in next match is +5.14, total NRR would be 2.5
Where you are going wrong is that you are saying

If you sustain a run rate for a longer period, it is going to affect your net run rate more because it will have a higher weight.

That is not true. NRR over a preiod is simply the average of NRR. So, the number of overs played in a match doesnt increase the weightage.

 

[sohum]

You are still not getting me.
Read carefully. I said, NRR over a period of time is the average of NRR (and not run rate) during that period.
I.e. if your NRR in one match is -0.14 and NRR in next match is +5.14, total NRR would be 2.5
Where you are going wrong is that you are saying

That is not true. NRR over a preiod is simply the average of NRR. So, the number of overs played in a match doesnt increase the weightage.

Let's calculate a team who has played games with the following results' NRR:

Game 1 (Runs/Overs)
Team A: 300/50
Team B: 50/50

Game 2 (Runs/Overs)
Team C: 50/50
Team A: 55/5

Let's calculate Team A's NRR using Method 1 (the ICC method).

RF = 300+55 = 355
OF = 50+5 = 55
RA = 50+50 = 100
OA = 50+50 = 100

NRR = (355/55) - (100/100) = 5.4545...

Let's calculate Team A's NRR using Method 2 (your method)

NRR(game1) = 300/50 - 50/50 = 6-1 = 5
NRR(game2) = 55/5 - 50/50 = 11 - 1 = 10

Average of these two is (10 + 5 / 2) = (15/2) = 7.50 which does not equal 5.45...

Now--why doesn't this work? Because the base of the second NRR calculation was too small. What if a team scored 36 from 1 over, chasing 36 for victory? Their NRR would be 36 - (35/50). Now, suppose they played a full 50 over game against another team. Then this NRR of just less than 36 would not affect the overall NRR by that much because it has only be sustained over 1 over.

Also, could a mod split this thread into something like "Net Run Rate Debates" or something?

 

[nightprowler10]

I gave it a try, it came out kinda screwed looks like. Hadn't done this before.

 

[sohum]

I gave it a try, it came out kinda screwed looks like. Hadn't done this before.

Looks good to me, but what do I know?

 

[Indyan]

I see.
I was under the impression that its an average of NRR for individual matches. Thats where I was going wrong.
Thanks

 

[nightprowler10]

I split the threads and discussion's over?