England gets to play 9 full games and has to win 5, but Sri Lanka gets to play only 7 full games and still has to win 5. How is that fair?
Two points that SL got from abandoned matches don’t mean anything since their number of wins will always be lower than anyone with same points who didn’t have rain affected matches. So through no fault of their own, they need to have 71% win ratio, whereas England can get away with 55% win ratio. This obviously assumes other teams might end up on lower points.
I know with rain affecting the games, not many things are fair, but this rule seems the most ridiculous out of them all. Why not just use net run rate if points are equal? In rare case of equal NRR, they can use head to head record or number of wins, but it should not be first point of comparison.
[link] [comments]
from Cricket https://ift.tt/2KUHOHR
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment