#4332

It’s a new format to attract new fans

2 Likes
#4333

I’m aware of that - hence my metric comment earlier. I was merely implying that cricket is a sport that’s often appealed to people who enjoy maths.

#4334

image

#4335

Yes but like 123 needed from 87 balls, doesnt mean anything directly in my head and isnt simple for new fans to work out whos on top

If you say they need 14.whatever per 10 balls, its more simple. And you can have a stat of the runs in the last 10 balls to see if they are going at that rate or need to increase.

Obviously when it gets down 25 or whatevr its more clear cut

#4336

It was interesting that all through the second innings last night they were putting up that win predictor thing which seemed pretty random, and whenever Vaughan could tear himself away from chuckling at his own jokes he regularly noted that the teams were pretty close at the same point of the innings almost all the way through.

They need a big garish worm graphic across the whole screen is what I’m saying.

#4337

But that would be the case for a traditional run rate too as new fans aren’t going to have that built up experience in their head where they know that 5 am over is the minimum for a vaguely defensible target nowadays, or that 10 an over for 6 overs with 7 wickets in hand is nothing to panic about.

Essentially asking for a run rate break down, or a runs per set needed stat is just asking for a translation into an existing vocabulary for trad fans, which new viewers won’t necessarily understand anyway.

All this goes doubly for a new format where the answer to what’s a par score is that no one really knows yet.

If you watched last night as a young family having never watched a game before, then you now have a feeling that Manchester didn’t get quite enough, but it was still fairly close.

There’s no need to start cluttering that up with loads of extra stats just yet. Especially as they’ll be there for people who want them to find soon enough anyway.

#4338

my issue with this is I’ve spent the last couple of months watching cricket with my son (who likes maths) and teaching him about overs and run rate and wickets and things. He’s been getting into it quite a lot.

And now this new format comes along which is different and confusing. I get that moving to 5s/10s is in some ways easier and more intutative, but it just seems weird to have the hundred on one night and then a t20 on another night that clashes in terms of how you process and understand the game

2 Likes
#4339

I disagree I am saying if you dont have simple a per 10 balls stat then traditional fans will still work out by run rate anyway and then there’s kind of a divide between traditional and new fans, which im guessing isnt what wanted.

The existing vocabulary is going to be used by traditional fans anyway unless something replaces it. It wont disappear if its not mentioned

#4340

I think they want the hundred to be a gateway.

#4341

That’s an issue with the ECB etc. And the calendar though and one that was levelled at t20 at the start.

Are we framing cricket as a fun accessible sport, or as a Maths teaching aid? I’m not sure the latter really helps grow the game as you basically need a parent who understands it all to explain it to you, and thats if you don’t find the maths off putting too.

1 Like
#4342

But using your example above, how does a stat telling you 14.83 per end set ot 29.66 per 5 balls, help a new fan who doesn’t think in run rate more than 129 in 87 balls does?

I can’t see why trying to frame it in the old way is the best solution to a potential divide between new and old fans. Surely simplification so everyone understands, and letting trad fans complicate it for themselves if they want to is the best approach?

#4343

I think if you’re thinking in terms of run rate in even a T20 match then you’re probably hanging over from ODI/Test thinking a little too much. In a 100 match you are by definition already talking about a two digit number of balls left, and for me it would be much more intuitive to start thinking heuristically in terms of “60 balls, 120 runs, tough ask” rather than run rates, after watching a few.

I always think of chases in terms of “number of sixes required to win” anyway. I always live in hope.

1 Like
#4344

The Watford Death-Cobras vs The Hastings Megalodons

#4345

Well, firstly, i dont think you would go into decimals to keep it simple and just round. So it would be 15 runs per 10. Thats really simple to understand after youve watched a game surely?

And you can say in the last 10 balls they hit X.

I think its a quite a quick and simple way to frame it

#4346

Royal London One Day Cup is underway this morning and all streaming on YouTube for those who want some WFH cricket on.

Not a great start for Warwickshire with two early wickets after choosing to bat.

#4347

One thing I think would be a sensible tweak for the hundred would be some way of incorporating the batter’s strike rate in the display. In T20 it’s definitely a useful indicator of how well a player’s going and how much they’re contributing.

1 Like
#4348

As @colinfilth says, you’re abstracting something which doesn’t need abstracting in this format.

Strike rates for batters is a good one though.

#4349

Hope the originals open with buttler and braithwaite tonight

1 Like
#4350

250 not out of the question if those two get going.

#4351

Well like i said above as an example above

15 per 10, having scored X in the last ten, easy to understand, gives a quick indicator of whose on top
123 off 87, having scored X off 13, more difficult to calculate.

Anyway agree to disagree.