Bonus Points in CCh

[iloveireland]

Why does something along the lines of

Sussex 500pts
Yorkshire 460pts

Look messier than

Sussex 175pts
Yorkshire 170pts?

I like the sysytem they have now. It is well balanced. I just feel higher scores are messier imo.

 

[Kev]

Actually it doesn't matter, Andrew's system would actually lead to less points, so I guess you'll prefer it now anyway

Of course once again this isn't very scientific, as there certainly were some "interesting" first innings declarations that took place this year that wouldn't have done so if Andrew's points system had been in use.

 

[iloveireland]

Actually it doesn't matter, Andrew's system would actually lead to less points, so I guess you'll prefer it now anyway

Of course once again this isn't very scientific, as there certainly were some "interesting" first innings declarations that took place this year that wouldn't have done so if Andrew's points system had been in use.

Really, well then you've changed my mind. I like Andrew's system. Of course the results would be different. I doubt they will change it though.

 

[Sureshot]

Actually it doesn't matter, Andrew's system would actually lead to less points, so I guess you'll prefer it now anyway

Of course once again this isn't very scientific, as there certainly were some "interesting" first innings declarations that took place this year that wouldn't have done so if Andrew's points system had been in use.

This poses a different problem though.

We have won 2 more games than Yorks but because of they have 5 more 1st innings leads than us they are only 2 points behind us.

Could you not introduce something based on how clinical a team is at turning advantage of a 1st innings lead into a victory?

 

[Kev]

Personally, I'd like to drop the first innings lead from that system anyway. I dont believe a win where you were ahead in the first innings is more valuable that a win from where you were behind, in fact I'd say the latter was the greater achievement! Maybe replace it with points for an Innings victory instead.

While I'm at it, although I didnt have the data to include it anyway, but i dont like the points only for a draw only if over 8 hours of play have been lost. It kinda makes it pointless to rescue a game only to get no points, I think 14 points for a win versus 3 for a draw is enough to encourage attacking play without the 8 hours lost rider.

 

[smssia0112]

Why does something along the lines of

Sussex 500pts
Yorkshire 460pts

Look messier than

Sussex 175pts
Yorkshire 170pts?

Its only because you are used to seeing a certain points value come the end of the season, but if you look at it from the outside (pretending you have no knowledge of the current system) there isn't much difference, ok it would be slightly silly if the scores were in the 1000's I'll give you that.

It looks more exciting when teams are closer in points, and is easier to follow.

What happens if it rains for so long there is not even a first innings?

I assume that the match is abandoned and points are shared.

The Aussie system just seems a lot fairer.

 

[Sureshot]

Why not follow football? 3 Points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss?

 

[Kev]

Well thats what we pretty much have in Pro40, and it seems to work there, of course its old fashioned footie points (2 for a win)

 

[iloveireland]

Why not follow football? 3 Points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss?

I have changed my mind again. Its plain and simple. I like it.

 

[smssia0112]

Why not follow football? 3 Points for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss?

Well that is very good for the sport it's designed for, but cricket perhaps not so much. An outright win in a first class match in England is a lot tougher than a win in a sport which can't have no result. It's somewhat similar, but at the same time somewhat different.