-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** West Indies in New Zealand 2013/14
- Thread starter Prince EWS
- Start date
WASP is a joke. Second only to the DRS in terms of stupidity. I mean how can you say NZ had a 20% chance of winning the match when we were 8/1 after the first over?!
Bahnz
Hall of Fame Member
Why? I mean, it wasn't like McCullum did terribly in any of the three formats. He hit an excellent hundred (admittedly on a flat pitch) in the tests, was the only top order player to hit an innings of substance in the 1st ODI at Auckland and basically won New Zealand the first T20. He wasn't brilliant or anything, but he certainly isn't in drop-worthy form.
Last edited:
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
no, no, no.
Flem274*
123/5
McCullum was good in the ODIs, class as usual in T20 and did enough in the tests with his second ton as a specialist batsman to relieve some pressure. If he continues to do well then he'll be fine, but if he bats like a flake against India I can see questions being asked again.
Prince EWS
Global Moderator
You'd know more about this than me, but wouldn't the TAB be looking to predict where the money would go and react to the money already bet more than actually predict the probability of the result anyway, to ensure a profit either way? It'd be more useful on the punting side, assuming it was actually any good that is.
KiWiNiNjA
International Coach
Well, there's your problem.
You don't understand what WASP is actually doing, which probably comes from it's ****ty name which is totally misleading.
WASP looks at past matches, where teams are chasing 160, 80% of them have lost, so there is a "20% chance of winning".
This shouldn't really be "a 20% chance of winning" but "in the past only 20% of teams have won from here".
All it does is use past match data to show what score (or result) has been achieved from such situations. It doesn't take team strengths, conditions, or any real useful variables into account whatsoever. It's all about the PAST, and nothing about the FUTURE.
All it's really good for is telling your missus "who's winning". So it's ****ing useless for me.
Last edited:
So basically useless.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
Exactly, which is what makes it an interesting tool.
"Most teams lose from this position" is quite a nice thing to be able to say.
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Not when the sample size is laughably small. It's just an incredibly weak measure.
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Based on former results in games that were not comparable in most ways with the current game being played.
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
Well, that seems to me the very definition of damning something with faint praise.
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
sure, it's not comprehensive is it.
There was a point though that WI were on top. I don't think any of the WASP ratings were unfair or didn't reflect the state of the game. Perhaps they were over-exaggerated, but a reasonable reflection.
HeathDavisSpeed
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
No, there was at least one point it was incredibly weak. NZ needed about 8.50 an over with 6 overs left and it put NZ's likelihood of winning at 51%. Now, that'd be reasonable at 5 wickets down for most teams, but NZ still had Neesham and Nathan McCullum left to bat - something that obviously WASP ignores and thus significantly understated NZ's likelihood of winning from that position against comparable line-ups IMO. At that stage, I very much doubt that any reasonable bookmaker would have had the odds at evens.
And the WASP in the first 5 overs of the 2nd innings is absolutely bloody useless. One boundary can cause massive swings in the percentage, which renders the whole predictive angle an absolute joke. You don't go from a 2% likelihood of winning to a 50%+ likelihood of winning because you've flayed a single boundary.
The day I take WASP's prediction over my own finger-in-the-air, anecdotal, subjective guesstimate will be a black day at my house.
And the WASP in the first 5 overs of the 2nd innings is absolutely bloody useless. One boundary can cause massive swings in the percentage, which renders the whole predictive angle an absolute joke. You don't go from a 2% likelihood of winning to a 50%+ likelihood of winning because you've flayed a single boundary.
The day I take WASP's prediction over my own finger-in-the-air, anecdotal, subjective guesstimate will be a black day at my house.
Athlai
Not Terrible
I dont think the RRR ever went over 9.0 and we were at 20% for a lot of the game. Seemed fairly ridiculous considering how low our team bats.
WindieWeathers
International Regular
I'm just glad the series is over to be honest as it's been one problem after another since our boys arrived. This last t20 was pretty much like the first where the bowling was concerned...put pressure on NZ early and have them in trouble...let Ronchi settle with poor bowling towards the end and it lost us the game...simple really.
Just a word on Milne..the lad looks decent but like Tino has proven just having pace doesn't get you far...the commentators were talking like the lad was 18 or something...so i was surprised to learn he's infact 21 and will be 22 in April...which means he's only four or so months younger than Holder..and the difference in experience between them is quite big right now..
Like Beamer i was happy that Fletcher showed that he's improved...much like Leon Johnson and Asad Fudadin have...these days apart from the youngsters who were class from the start like Darren Bravo and Brathwaite a lot of our batsmen tend to be maturing at 26/27...recently Kirk Edwards has been prime example of that...but if our domestic system improves and our players have more games then can see players developing much quicker tbh.
Anyway good luck to the kiwis versus India and we'll see what happens when you come back to the Caribbean in may...i have a feeling the story will look a lot different to what it was in NZ that's for sure!!
Just a word on Milne..the lad looks decent but like Tino has proven just having pace doesn't get you far...the commentators were talking like the lad was 18 or something...so i was surprised to learn he's infact 21 and will be 22 in April...which means he's only four or so months younger than Holder..and the difference in experience between them is quite big right now..
Like Beamer i was happy that Fletcher showed that he's improved...much like Leon Johnson and Asad Fudadin have...these days apart from the youngsters who were class from the start like Darren Bravo and Brathwaite a lot of our batsmen tend to be maturing at 26/27...recently Kirk Edwards has been prime example of that...but if our domestic system improves and our players have more games then can see players developing much quicker tbh.
Anyway good luck to the kiwis versus India and we'll see what happens when you come back to the Caribbean in may...i have a feeling the story will look a lot different to what it was in NZ that's for sure!!
hendrix
Hall of Fame Member
The thing that you take from this is that NZ bats a lot deeper than most t20 teams. That's pretty obvious to us, but it's not to the average cricket fan.
Also, we were in very big trouble at points in that chase. 20% is an exaggeration - as is going to happen when you have a small sample size - but we were certainly behind.