howzdat wrote:Was just looking at the scorecard of this game and noticed that WI 'won hands down' in the category of extras! 35 altogether in the match. England did concede 24 in the first innings, but in the second, as the match tightened, they only concede 8 in a total of 345. Defending a low fourth innings score West Indies contributed 18 runs to England's total. Telling stats?
I have brought this post over here from the "England vs WIndies, first Test, Lords, May 17-21" topic in order to voice some of my observations/experience of this 40/30 factor as it may help to inform us about the likely outcome of a cricket match.
Despite all the flattering words - and OMG how they are continuing to pour out of the English media wholesale, from people with well informed cricket opinion and then picked up and restated by the chattering classes till you would honestly believe that England has not faced a sterner 'test' in a game for a long, long while - the match result was as many expected beforehand. Yes, perhaps closer at points than many anticipated.
Now, I don't want to dampen any ardour or rising motivation, that the WI camp may have brewing in its ranks; nor do I want to appear to disrespect those who are expressing a genuine opinion with no aim of "disinformation", however in the final, conclusive analysis
the team with the higher number of 40/30 players got the job done - and it was this factor that really lay behind me pointing out the 2nd innings extras situation.
I see for myself that I used the term "
as the match tightened" i.e as the so-called lesser fancied team appeared to arrive at a situation in the game where an upset looked a possibility, the players on the team with the higher 40/30 % stood up to be counted.
Look at this: Fall of wickets 1-1 (Strauss, 1.2 ov), 2-10 (Anderson, 3.1 ov), 3-29 (Trott, 9.2 ov),
4-57 (Pietersen, 14.4 ov),
5-189 (Cook, 45.3 ov). Notice that for all the plaudits coming WI way, they did not have/find the means, or the resources at their disposal were not effectively deployed, to push on to victory when the match appeared to be in the balance. Not only that they
contributed 18 runs to the opposition cause!
Nor did WI find a way to keep the scoring rate down as they defended a low score: conceding 193 runs in 46.1 overs at a run rate of 4.18 in 202 mins! - almost a run-a-ball / run-a-mnute and that bowling last, late on the fourth and into the fifth day of a test match. And yes I know that pitches aint like they used to be. Admittedly, this may count for nothing in the eyes of many because at the start of the innings England had a whole heap of overs to get the job done in. True.
Now, if this 40/30 rule (predictive aid) also intrigues you, look at the WI bowling figures in that second innings. There were only two bowlers who went for less than the rate at which England scored those 193 runs; and yes once again this ought to be considered against their career averages which I have not yet done.
Please do not get not it twisted, this post is not any sort of tirade against the West Indies team, any player or team management but rather it is a sort of marvel at the games within games when it comes to professional sport.
I was at first taken aback by this 40/30 predictive aid, and then upset by it, and then in despair over it because I mistakenly allowed myself to think: So if it this simple what's the joy in being a fan?! When the match done "likely decided" on paper before a ball is bowled But since then I have moved on and I am looking even more keenly at the contests and although the team I support is still coming 2nd I have developed an greater appreciation for those crunch moments in a game.
At 2.40 pm on the 21st May the 40/30 prediction became reality. And so, alas, as I observe this series I am looking to the future insofar as consistent West Indies series victories against higher opposition is concerned.
