Sri Lanka in New Zealand

[sohum]

But the point is, regardless of how long or short the series is, even if Sri Lanka win the next two, New Zealand win the series 3-2. Now, how will the statisticians claim that New Zealand won a 4-game ODI series 3-2? What they should do is edit the previous series and show it as a postponed version, instead of abandoning all the matches and confusing the hell out of everyone else.

 

[andrew_nixon]

But the point is, regardless of how long or short the series is, even if Sri Lanka win the next two, New Zealand win the series 3-2.

If Sri Lanka win the next two games, this series will be a 2-2 draw, as far as the statisticians are concerned. There is no confusion there.

However, for the purposes of awarding of prize money, the New Zealand cricket board are counting this as a 5 match series with the only ODI played in 2004 counting as the first match.

Therefore, officially, New Zealand are up 2-0 in a 4 match series. For the purposes of awarding prize money, they are 3-0 up in a 5 match series.

 

[jazz]

new zealand are 3-0 up including 1st odi back in december 2004, i even heard the sky sport commentators say this yesterday. so really if sri lanka win the next two games new zealand still win the series

 

[Adarsh]

Can we, for once, prove Nixon wrong?!
Reps for everybody involved if this is proved

 

[irottev]

Yes, as I said earlier, NZ started 1-0 up. THis has been confirmed by cricinfo, the tv commentators and othe rnews sources. I have never heard 2-0 up. I mean I have seen news in various places what we have won the series meaning 3-0 at the moment.

Anyhow Oram is out with a bruised heel so Martin has been added to the squad and Kyle Mills has a few injuries a groin strain I think and is being replaced by Franklin (who fingers crossed won't play because he sucks in ODI's)

Fleming and Patel replaced Astle and Franklin (but then Franklin got re-added when Mills was injured)

So:

Stephen Fleming (captain), Daniel Vettori (vice captain), Shane Bond, Chris Cairns, Peter Fulton, Jamie How, Hamish Marshall, Brendon McCullum, Jeetan Patel, Scott Styris, Lou Vincent, Chris Martin (added for Oram), James Franklin (added for Mills)

By the way, Fleming scored a domestic century yesterday in quick fashion to win the game for his team. So watch out!!!!

 

[andrew_nixon]

Yes, as I said earlier, NZ started 1-0 up. THis has been confirmed by cricinfo, the tv commentators and othe rnews sources. I have never heard 2-0 up. I mean I have seen news in various places what we have won the series meaning 3-0 at the moment.

Read this:

If Sri Lanka win the next two games, this series will be a 2-2 draw, as far as the statisticians are concerned. There is no confusion there.

However, for the purposes of awarding of prize money, the New Zealand cricket board are counting this as a 5 match series with the only ODI played in 2004 counting as the first match.

Therefore, officially, New Zealand are up 2-0 in a 4 match series. For the purposes of awarding prize money, they are 3-0 up in a 5 match series.

 

[ZexyZahid]

It isn't difficult to understand that New Zealand have already won the series.

Also read that in this article. And Cairns can achieve something great.

Cairns edging close to unique double
http://content-uk.cricinfo.com/nzvsl/content/story/231636.html

Too bad Oram is injured. But for the youngsters it's good to have an opportunity.

 

[andrew_nixon]

I also point you to the schedule on the official New Zealand website.

http://www.blackcaps.co.nz/page.aspx?pri=40

Note how the 4 matches on this tour are the 1st ODI, the 2nd ODI, the 3rd ODI and the 4th ODI.

To repeat: For official stats, this is a 4 match series. For the awarding of prize money, the match played in December 2004 counts as the first match in a 5 game series.

It isn't difficult to understand that New Zealand have already won the series.

It depends on what standards.

For the purposes of the official statistics, they haven't.

For the purposes of awarding prize money, they have.

Am I the only person who actually understands the difference between the two things?

 

[irottev]

Does that mean we get two series wins against Sri Lanka. Because thats even better. A one off match win and a series win.

Am I the only person who actually understands the difference between the two things?

Your definatly the only person who actually cares and thinks it matters.

 

[jazz]

no its not its included a the 5 match odi series. i don't know what rubbish andrew is talking about statistics and prize money. the fact is if this is a separate series why is their only 4 matches being played. 3 matches, 5 and 7 odi matches would make sense.

this series is an inclusion from the 1st odi in 2004

 

[andrew_nixon]

no its not its included a the 5 match odi series.

For the purposes of awarding prize money it is.

For statistical purposes, Sri Lanka played a 5 ODI series in 2004/05. New Zealand won the first ODI. The other 4 matches were recorded in the official stats as abandoned.

Sri Lanka are now playing a 4 ODI series in 2005/06. For statistical purposes, it is treated as an entirely separate series, as indicated on the schedule for New Zealand on the official New Zealand website.

I wholy agree that for the purposes of awarding prize money, New Zealand are 3-0 up. However, in this individual series, they are 2-0 up.

It's probably best to think of the whole thing as a 10 match series, with 4 abandoned games.

 

[irottev]

Does this really matter anyway?

 

[andrew_nixon]

Again, note that on official New Zealand cricket website, it has the match being played on the 31st of December as the first ODI, and the most recent match as the second ODI.

It doesn't really matter, but the fact remains that in this individual series, New Zealand are 2-0 up, but in the overall series, they are 3-0 up. The difference is merely statistical.

It's like when in 1999, South Africa and Zimbabwe played each other in a two match series, one game in each country. For the purposes of awarding prize money, they regarded it as a two match series, but the ICC and all statisticians treat the two games as two individual series.

Does this really matter anyway?

Not really, I'm just trying to explain the official situation, which some people seem unable to differentiate from the unofficial situation.

Hopefully this puts the matter to rest.

From the ICC website: http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc-odi/content/story/230953.html

 

[aussie1st]

Well it does matter if SL win their last 2 games. Who ever wins the series gets points for the ODI table.

 

[irottev]

I can;t see it happening. Losing Jaysuria didn't help their cause.

I seriously hope we bat first in both or at least 1. We need to do it sometime.