Bonus point system is not the problem

[Fat Red]

It's the stupid head-to-head rule. If Australia win this match, they should go ahead of NZ because they will have the same number of points and a better run rate.

I can't believe Dan26 hasn't made this point already!

 

[damnfine]

Originally posted by Fat Red
It's the stupid head-to-head rule. If Australia win this match, they should go ahead of NZ because they will have the same number of points and a better run rate.

I can't believe Dan26 hasn't made this point already!

The stupidest thing is the bonus points system , utterly ridiculous.
Anyway its only pretend cricket least it gives us more time to prepare for south africa. Lets face it since england everything has been geared to the two three test series against the South Africans. Everything else has been secondary...

 

[London Dave]

Australia have missed out , not because of any quirk in the rules, but because weplayed crap cricket. Chucking away the first game v Kiwis has cost us dear. We thought we'd cream NZ without much trouble, and came a cropper. No one but ourselves to blame. If we had started the series as well as they finished, we would have made it. Still, better a wake up call here than in the World Cup.

The head to head rule is fair enough, if you ask me. Everyone agreed to the rules, so why moan now?

Its exactly what happened in India in a way...you cant keep relying on 2 bats to score enough runs.

Great knock by Kallis, easily the best SA bat.

 

[Fat Red]

don't argue with that Dave, in fact I'm quite pleased we missed out; should provoke a selection shakeup (as in, sack Hohns and Border).

But I think head-to-head as a method of splitting is always wrong, and I said so on the boards before it became an issue. All a better head-to-hear record means is that you are worse against the 3rd team. Net run rate is a much fairer method.

Note that under the old system Australia would have finished FIRST.

 

[Fat Red]

Also, note that it wasn't the Australian captain who was moaning about the rules, it was the NZ and SA

 

[Fat Red]

Also, note that it wasn't the Australian captain who was moaning about the rules, it was the NZ and SA Captains.

 

[Player]

I don't really believe Australia has picked up any momentum against New Zealand during this series.

Game One: Australia should have won easily.
Game Two: Australia got into a position to win
Game Three: New Zealand crushed Australia
Game Four: New Zealand should have won but were beaten almost single-handedly by one player.

Personally I think as a team Australia has gotten worse against New Zealand as the competition went on.

I'm not entirely sure why either.

It would be too easy to attribute it to Fleming's captaincy, and certainly the New Zealand bowlers are no better than the South Africans.

 

[Dan26]

Fat Red,

You are 100% correct. Net-run rate should be the factor that separates the teams.

Why?

Because bonus points are achieved through the exceptional performances in ONE match. Just one. Net-run rate takes into account every run of EVERY match and therefore is a more appropraie indicator of how good a team is, and therefore should be used in a tie-breaker situation.

The head-to-head rule is stupid too. So, Australia was 1-3 against the Kiwi's. Big deal. Both teams were 4-4. I think Australia should have gone through, because ater both teams were 4-4 against the other 2 teams combined, Australia's net-run rate, which takes into account ALL matches was superior. The fact that Australia had an inferior record against New Zealand shouldn't be a factor, because the only win-loss record that counts is your TOTAL[/b[ win-loss record, and both teams were 4-4.

By the way I am not devastated to se Australai out of the finals. I am quite happy to see anyone make it as long as we see good cricket, so I am not being biased, but net-run rate is by far the most appropriate way to seprate teams.

 

[gocatsgo]

What we all seem to be overlooking is that the team that has finished on top has actually fallen to the team that has finished last in three out of four matches, and in one case given up a bonus point to the bottom side.

Something is seriously wrong here, South Africa to qualify have beaten New Zealand three times, twice thrashing them while Australia have managed to defeat South Africa three times and picking up one bonus point.

It now looks as though it will be a disappointing series in both matches and crowd figures, given that South Africa have won 16 of the last 17 encounters between the two sides, which by my reckoning is actually a more superior performance that Hawthorn has mustered against Geelong in recent years.

It will be interesting to see how many police turn up to curb the trouble makers in Bay 13 on Wednesday - Will anyone actually bother to go?

And what about those losers in Sydney who have already sold out the SCG to see a game that doesn't involve Australia - I'm sure there will be a few asking for their money back.

And who knows, if the impossible happens and the game goes to a third match, will a one day game in Sydney actually not go live all day into Sydney for once?

Quite clearly this has become a Mickey Mouse tournament this season and the real battle for one day supremacy will come during the 7 match series in South Africa next month.

 

[Dave]

Four bonus points were accrued throughout the series, and not one of them came about as a result of what the originator of the idea was trying to achieve. The concept has been a failure and should be abandoned.

I hope his latest idea, docking teams 2 runs for facing a maiden, is given short shrift.

 

[goatmaster]

The bonus point system was introduced to try to keep interest in the games were the result is clear a long way out (I.e the game yesterday & Friday they were perverted by the situation however ). The problem would be fixed by docking the losing team a point when they concede a point. Under that system you would have seen
S.A on 17
Aust on 16
N.Z on 15

 

[red+black]

Originally posted by Fat Red
Note that under the old system Australia would have finished FIRST.

That's the incredible thing. Who cares if Australia made the final or not, it's a good wake up call. But the injustice must be rectified for future series.

I mean how arbitrary is this 80% / 1.25 bonus point rule? If it was 70% or 85% then the points table may have ended up different. The NRR is sufficient.

It's as ridiculous as Slater losing Test Cricketer of the year to Funky because the idiots at PWC decided at the 11th hour that a wicket = 20 runs, and that pretty much ended the night for Slats.

 

[BMD]

Originally posted by Dave
Four bonus points were accrued throughout the series, and not one of them came about as a result of what the originator of the idea was trying to achieve. The concept has been a failure and should be abandoned.

I hope his latest idea, docking teams 2 runs for facing a maiden, is given short shrift.

Totally agree with this comment. I wasn't opposed to the bonus points system when it was announced but I didn't foresee the sort of farce we got at the weekend. Obviously the ACB didn't foresee it either.

As for being docked when you face a maiden - that is the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. You've already been punished on the scoreboard for facing a maiden - by not having scored any runs.

Stupid idea.

 

[Dave]

Agree with docking a bonus point when you give one away. After all if you are going to reward a great win why not also punish a shocking loss?

 

[Bomber Spirit]

Originally posted by gocatsgo
And what about those losers in Sydney who have already sold out the SCG to see a game that doesn't involve Australia - I'm sure there will be a few asking for their money back.

And judging by the weather we've had up here the last couple of days, and the forecast for the rest of this week, they may get it.

 

[Bomber Spirit]

The bonus point was brought in to encourage more attacking cricket and to give teams an incentive to keep going during one-sided games. No problem there.
But if they used net run rate rather than head to head, that would also encourage a team, even if they're losing, to keep going rather than contrive a result.
If that had been in place, NZ would have kept batting on Friday night to try to get their net run rate within reach of Australia's rather than putting down the shutters to concede a bonus point.

 

[Player]

Originally posted by Dan26
Fat Red,

You are 100% correct. Net-run rate should be the factor that separates the teams.

Why?

Because bonus points are achieved through the exceptional performances in ONE match. Just one. Net-run rate takes into account every run of EVERY match and therefore is a more appropraie indicator of how good a team is, and therefore should be used in a tie-breaker situation.

The head-to-head rule is stupid too. So, Australia was 1-3 against the Kiwi's. Big deal. Both teams were 4-4. I think Australia should have gone through, because ater both teams were 4-4 against the other 2 teams combined, Australia's net-run rate, which takes into account ALL matches was superior. The fact that Australia had an inferior record against New Zealand shouldn't be a factor, because the only win-loss record that counts is your TOTAL[/b[ win-loss record, and both teams were 4-4.

By the way I am not devastated to se Australai out of the finals. I am quite happy to see anyone make it as long as we see good cricket, so I am not being biased, but net-run rate is by far the most appropriate way to seprate teams.

I'm not bagging NRR, it customary use is testiment to its widespread acceptance, but I don't think net run rate is necessarily the great shakes it is made out to be.

Imagine this scenario.

A tri-series between three relatively equal teams.

Team A is put into bat on a green top and is rolled for 99 after 20 overs (run rate 1.98).

Batting on the slowly improving pitch Team B takes 20 overs to overhaul the target for say 9 down for 100 (run rate 5).

Team B now benefits from a +3.02 run rate, A positive NRR attributed as much to favourable conditions than any exceptional performance by Team B.

Clearly the NRR can be radically affected by a single rogue result.

The result, Team A is now heavily handicapped for the rest of the competition should there be the need for a tie-breaker.

Does this seem any fairer to you then letting teams accumulate bonus points during the competition for "expectional performances" to add them up at the end of the competition?

 

[Briedis]

Originally posted by goatmaster
The bonus point system was introduced to try to keep interest in the games were the result is clear a long way out (I.e the game yesterday & Friday they were perverted by the situation however ). The problem would be fixed by docking the losing team a point when they concede a point. Under that system you would have seen
S.A on 17
Aust on 16
N.Z on 15

I agree with this 100% as well. In fact I came into this thread to say that also. This would stop the situation we had where NZ were better served to give away the bonus point.

The sad thing is that the bonus point system is in place for the 2003 world cup....