Talk:Net run rate

removed

Back with us? Good! Now let's try and explain that with a slightly more step by step approach.

I have removed the above sentence from this article. Unnecessary.

It also seems to have come from an early, near copyvio version of the page - see the Battrick site rules... Blackjack4124 07:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

good start

this article has a good start however some parts of the need to be rewritten. Can I suggest a rewrite of the step-by-step explanation section. It's very conversational and too wordy. --220.237.166.156 03:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Before worldcup 2007

The article talks about NRR changes with respect to D/L matches for the worldcup 2007, but nothing about before the worldcup. Nikanth 06:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Nikanth

I don't reckon it was changed at all, it's just that people have realised it now. Can't find a source for that, mind. (Would have to go through some old series and calculate to be sure.) Sam Vimes | Address me 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent Explanation. Havent found a better explanation than this in the net. Cheers

Regards Ravi Hyderabad, India

Example to explain D/L

Friends Provident Trophy: Lancashire v Worcestershire 22-04-2007 at Old Trafford [1] Worcestershire beat Lancashire by 122 runs (D/L) Worcestershire won the toss and decided to bat Worcestershire Innings: 182 for 4 (42.0 overs) Lancashire Innings: 90 all out (25.1 overs) It was the first match of the competition. The BBC table has the Worcestershire R/R as + 4.07 [2] How does that work? 88888 16:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Not clear from there whether a revised target and number of overs was imposted on Lancashire (ie. a second rain delay after the W'shire innings). That would effect the number of overs Lancashire batted/W'shire bowled. Any idea? Blackjack4124 07:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't find more detail on the BBC or Sky. Is it possible to assume there was one rain delay cutting Worc to 42 over & then Lancs were scuttled out. (Why isn't that kind of thing a standard part of the final scorecard - delays, reset overs, & reset targets?) I guess it is possible that the rain came down at 42 overs, but on resumption, Lancs had only 30 overs (or something) with reset totals. 88888 17:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Here we are http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Lancashire/Scorecards/107/107485.html

Worcestershire innings was reduced to 42 overs, Lancashire target was 213 runs in 30 overs Lancashire innings interrupted at 23.4 overs, 5 overs lost Lancashire innings interrupted at 24 overs, 7 overs lost An easy one I guess! 88888 17:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)...

Counter argument to first critisism

I have removed the following part:

"The counter-argument to this is that victory is decided by whether a side has scored more runs than the opposition − the number of wickets a side takes and loses in achieving this is immaterial. Therefore judging a performance only by how quickly runs were scored could be legitimate."

Because it is not referenced, and I can't find anywhere which states this as a defence of using NRR. And it is invalid - it is at best an "excuse". I could make exactly the same argument the other way around:

"The counter-argument to this is that victory is decided by whether a side has scored more runs than the opposition − the number of overs a side takes to achieve this is immaterial. Therefore judging a performance only by how safely runs were scored could be legitimate."

If anyone has a reference to the ICC or an official body stating that this is why they prefer NRR then it could be included in that context. Richjhart (talk) 13:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I added that sentence in, but you're right. Mmitchell10 (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I think there's actually too much criticism in the article. The issue with wickets for example - surely that's just a flaw in short form cricket. Side A gets 250-7, Side B replies with 251-8. Side B "wins" by 2 wickets - even though they lost more wickets. So I think it is accurate to say "the number of wickets a side takes and loses in achieving this is immaterial". 141.92.67.43 (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree there's probably too much criticism in the article. Please feel free to edit it down appropriately. On the issue of wickets, it may not be expressed very well, but there's a fundamental point in that how fast a side scores and concedes runs is not at all the same as how big its margin of victory or defeat is, and so ranking sides by NRR does not rank them by size of victory. It may be possible to express this better than it has been. Mmitchell10 (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have removed further criticism as it was poorly sourced; and even some of those which are sourced seem to be using sources creatively (ex. the CricInfo page used to criticize NRR for being "misunderstood" does not even seem to actually be criticizing it - if anything, it looks like a mere hook and using it as a source seems like cherry picking and quoting out of context. The "example" is probably a figment of an editor's imagination; and I haven't even started talking about the previous sections... 107.190.33.254 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)