New Points System

[paul]

An interesting debate. I like I'm sure most of us have played under many different point systems, non of which are perfect. I also know this has been discussed by the committee quite often over the years. Someone last year did a re-calculate of the points to see how much impact some suggested points systems would have on the final standings. The outcome was not a lot of change. the software we use on the site can do just that quite quickly so if any suggestions are put forward for next year I should be able to produce a report to show exactly what impact the suggested changes would have.

My own thoughts on any points system is that it should encourage competitive play at all times. Generally I think the current points system has a good balance. Thats not to say it couldn't be improved. There is talk of starting a Division six next year and that would seem to me to be the ideal place to test any proposed changes should it get off the ground.

Although I play my cricket a Thorley, this year I'm skippering the 2nds in the Saracens league. They have a points system that is good in places but can be a bit too complex. Something I think we should try to avoid. I'm certain of one thing the match structure and points system in our league is better by far.

[andrewshields]

The way to avoid postponements/abandonments having an impact is to award no points for such games, then work out each team's points average per games completed. This system is used in several leagues, including some Premier Leagues. Therefore, a club playing an 18-game season, suffering one postponement and one abandonment, and accumulating 320 points would have an average of 320 divided by 16 = 20.0. This kind of system avoids games being played in farcical conditions, but does depend on clubs' honesty in only calling games off for legitimate reasons. Surely we can all be trusted to do this?

Something does need to be done about the points for postponement/abandonments, though. In Division 3, you have one club that has completed every match and several others that have already suffered two postponements. If we were to have a couple more dodgy weekends, this discrepancy could get even wider and have a real effect on promootion/relegation issues.

I like Jonathan Moon's suggestion. It's similar to a system I've played under before, and is also similar to one I asked the league committee to consider with a view to presenting it at the 2003 AGM (you may recall that they chose not to do so, which provoked a few murmurs of discontent).

I'd make the following amendments: 16 points for a win, maximum 5 batting bonus points as now (but maybe with the targets nudged upwards to 125, 150, 175, 200, 225). 5 bowling bonus points for 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 wickets. The winning side automatically gets maximum batting points (so there's no penalty for bowling a side out cheaply). The diffferential comes with the bowling bonus points: the winning side still has to dismiss its opponents, whether bowling first or second, to get the full 26 points. This allows a side facing, say, a total of 400 legitimately to try and deprive their opponents of maximum bowling points while still striving for their own batting points. It operates on the basis that, to secure a maximum-points win, you have to a) win the game and b) dismiss your opponents. It may prevent sides bowling secoond from setting defensive fields with the aim of merely defending a total rather than trying to dismiss their opponents.

And what about a scores-level tie? We were on the wrong end of one in an absolutely crucial match last season, now we've been the beneficiaries of the 'losing fewer wickets wins the match' rule. It's very hard on the 'defeated' team; should wickets be the decider in such situations or should both sides get, say, 13 points each?

[andrewshields]

Ginster:

Agreed, there could be a temptation to manipulate points averages by not playing, but don't we have to operate on a level of trust here – that we're all members of cricket clubs because we want to play cricket?

As for your other point, you seem to be implying that cricket is only about batting...

[andrewshields]

It's a while since this forum began so it was interesting to come back to it. After reading everyone's suggestions and rethinking my own, how about:

20 points for win

Bonus points for defeat as now

5 points per side plus bonus points for a tied match (ie scores level regardless of the number of wickets lost: that means in 200-8 v 200-3, the first side gets more bonus points). This means that in a high-scoring tie where both teams are all out, it's possible to take 15 points each, which probably reflects the closeness of the game and the fact that both teams were so close to a win.

8 points each for a total washout, 8 plus bonus points for a game that starts.

I think the margin between win and lose is too great and 20 for a win would redress the balance, while the increase in points for a rained-off game is perhaps justified by the position currently in Div 3, where a team that's W7 L4 is ahead of others that have W7 L3 and W7 L2 by virtue of the latter two having had one and two games respectively postponed while the first team has managed to play every match. I genuinely don't think games are cancelled for anything but legitimate reasons; in a summer like this where some games will be played and others won't on any given day, it's unfair to penalise so severely those clubs that through no fault of their own are unable to play.

How does that sound?

[ginster]

I think you're suggesting two disparate problems. The first, is the points for abandoned games, the second, for points scored in matches that are completed.

As regards the points scoring for matches that are copmleted, I think that the system you suggest is too complicated really. I don't see a funadamental problem in the way that we score games at the moment - and although you mentioned your old league did it this way, you didn't say that what you had against the current system. What extra does thi system achieve?

As regards abandoned games, I can sort of see the problem, but I think what you have to remember is that the reason that points for abandonment are low, is to try and encourage as many people to get games on as possible.. which is why, for games that are starte but not finished, bonus points are now kept ( which they didn;t used to be).

You just have to be careful, about making an abandoned game score more points than a loss, as this could lead to problems if some unscrupulous team wanted to try and take advantage. It should always be to both teams advantage to try and get the game on. that, as far as I am concerned is the crux of the matter.

cheers,

Ginster



edited by: ginster, Jun 15, 2004 - 03:26 PM

[ginster]

Just a response to Andrew Shields on a couple of points. YOu mentioned that in some leagues, abandoned games are given points based on average points gained over a season. I could be wrong, but I would guess that in Premier leagues etc. where this is done you would have independent umpires who would be ruling on the playability or not of a match. I'm not trying to suggest taht we have a load of cheats here :evil: but I would be concerned about the temptation to not play a game that could be played, 'cos you could essentially guarntee yourself "win" points by not playing.

As regards having to bowl teams out to get maximum win points, I must say that I completely disagree with that. You have to remember that we play strict limited over cricket, so the only thing that should matter as regards the match, is scoring more than your opponent. As such it should be the responsibility of the chasing team, to make every effort to get to a total, not to try and deprive a team of bowling points. I think that woudl just encourage negative cricket. It would also, I think generally work against those sides whose home grounds are good for batting.

Thats just my thoughts on it.

cheers,

Ginster

edited by: ginster, Jun 16, 2004 - 09:13 AM

[ginster]

Andrew,
Do agree with you as regards trust. I just think that the way it is now provides maximum encouragement to play games, which , as you say is the primary reason we're all playing.

As for suggesting cricket is all about batting, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but I guess you mean that setting defensive fields in respect of big totals is negative, just like batting defensively and in some respects I agree... but also, you only have to look at the basics of limited overs cricket, and it is fundamentally about winning a game by not allowing a team to score more than you( ie about runs, NOT wickets). The way I see it, is that in general, we're talking about second innings characteristics, and if you elect to bat first you are in effect setting a total and challenging a team to beat it to win the game, so setting defensive fields is not negative, just a sensible tactic to win a game. Whereas shutting up shop, as a batting side, purely to deprive the opposition of maximum points, is negative, as far as I am concerned as it is not about winning the game, or even maximising you own points. Thats why I think bonus points for when you lose are good, as they encourage a team to score as many as they can, but max points for winning is justified. In general I've been talking about sides making big first innings totals, but thats because, if a team is going to win a game comfortably, after bowling a sside out cheaply, bonus points don;t really come into it, as they'll already have picked up a lot of bowling points anyway, and these "new" points systems would guarantee max batting points if you won.

And here's my other problem with guaranteeing max batting points for winning, but differentiating on bowling. At a club who plays at a big ground, with maybe a slightly uneven square, whose games are say usually 170ao vs 160ao the winning team is going to scroe max points every week, whereas at somewhere like Molehill Green or Stansted, where you typically see 500 odd runs scored for the loss of about 10 wickets, the winning teams are going to score less points. Who is to say which performance is better, given the variety of pitch conditions that we play on?

cheeers,

Andy

[ginster]

That's got to be one of the most bizarre ideas I've ever heard! You have a "draw" despite the fact that you clearly lost? As I understand that post (and I could have got this wrong) if team 1 scored 250 and team 2 scored 199 , team 1 would score 25 points for a win, however, if team 2 scored 200, it would be a "draw" and team 1 woudl score only 7 points? Whats that all about?

And, another thing, this system doesn't seem to address the issue of the team batting second winning ( do they have to win by more than 5 wickets to claim a win, otherwise its a draw :-? )

I don't actually think the system needs changing ( look how close the 1st divsion is at the moment), but if you wanted to reduce the proportion of points, surely it would be easier to just knock the points for winning down to 20 or, some other number, than introduce the idea of draws, which limited overs cricket is fundamentally designed to avoid! But having said that, the more you drop the margin down, the more difference is likely to be made by abandoned games.

[ginster]

Yeah, clarifies a bit. But still doesn't really do it for me! my point still stands that the difference between winning a match by 49 or 50 runs could mean a difference of 10 points, give or take bonuses. So surely that is creating point gaps that are completely unjustified.

Can you explain to me WHY you think the points gap is too large... as I pointed out, it seems to have left divisiion 1 in a very close situation, which is fundamentally what we should be aiming for as far as I am concerned.

By the way, this isnt personal, as you say, it is just an idea... I just happen to not agree with it! :-D

[ginster]

I'm not saying it doesn't need changing but I'm not sure that this suggestion sorts it out... eg... looking at div 3 there are 3 teams involved
if you take off deductions, as they skew the debate, you would get

w7 l2 c 2 points 204
w7 l4 c 0 points 201
w7 l3 c 1 points 199

which is essentially having 1 team "out of position "

if you apply the suggested points formula you get

w7 l3 c1 points 167
w7 l2 c2 points 164
w7 l4 c0 points 159

which also has one team out of position...

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that if you have abandoned matches, you're always going to get imbalances, and maybe we should just accept it, and spend our time worrying about how to raise funds for covers so this never happens instead!! :-D

[Stokesy29]

The idea of having draws in limited overs cricket when in fact the team batting second have fallen 49 runs short of the total is crazy. By this reckoning the team batting 2nd would have to get 50 over the total set to claim a win! Otherwise there would be a massive advantage to the team batting 2nd.

[Stokesy29]

You clearly misunderstood my suggestion. A draw would only be possible if the team batting second got within 50 runs. I can't imagine them having to exceed the first innings score by 50 to win that would indeed be CRAZY!! Given the scoring we see in the HECL I can't imagine any matches of 78 a.o plays 75-8.

i.e ACC 267-3 (4 batting 4 bowling and 5 drawing points totals 14) BCC 233-9 (1 bowling 4 batting 3 drawing totals 8 pts.

I hope this eases your understanding
[/quote]

I didn't misunderstand what you was saying and I know you wasn't suggesting the team batting 2nd outscore the target by 50 in your post. I was simply pointing out that under this system, as I see it, in order to win the game the team batting first would have to score 50 more runs than the team batting second otherwise it is a draw. However, the team batting second only needs to outscore the oppo by one run to claim a win. Obviously giving a massive advantage to the team batting 2nd which could only be evened out by making them score 50 runs more than the opposition, or in a similar fashion as mentioned by ginster win with more than 5 wickets remaining.

[colincraig]

Dear All,

It's good to see the Forum being used for healthy debate.

There was a League Committee Meeting held last Monday for which the minutes will be posted in the 'League Info' section in the next 7-10 days. But to give you a heads up, there will be a reference to proposing rule changes.

This year the Rules Meeting will be held on Monday 18th October. It is at this forum that the Committee will adjudicate on which proposals are put forward to the AGM in November.

It is important to note that this year the Committee will require rule change suggestions to be proposed and then seconded by a different Club.

So there is plenty of time for Clubs to have the internal debate over this issue and any other suggestions, share their thoughts through the Forum pages and then submit proposals to the Committee through me.

Cheers

Colin
(HECL Secretary)

[JMoon]

Whilst the hot weather is here it wasn't that long ago that we had rained off games. Since then I have spoken to a few captains and players to get their views on the points system and everybody seems to agree that 4 points for an abandoned game is not enough but nobody has any other suggestions.
In my old league in Essex we had the following points system, it is similar to our points except that the winner gets 16 points for the win plus any bonus points they have accumulated:-
Bonus points are scored in the same way in that you get up to 10 points. Bowling points for the 2nd,4th,6th,8th,10th wickets and batting points for 120,140,160,180,200 runs
Win 16 points plus bonus points
Lose - bonus points only
Abandoned game / rained off game / tied game is 8 points each plus bonus points if applicable.
If you bowl the opposition out for less 120 this would stop the team batting second getting any batting points, so in this case you are awarded extra points if you bowl the team out and go on to win e.g. bowl team out for <=80 - 5 points, 81-90 4 points, 91-100 3 points, 101-110 2 points, 111-120 1 point.

The most points you can get is 26 points.

Some Examples
1 .Team A bats first and gets 230-4, Team B is all out for 185 - Team A gets 16+5 batting +5 bowling = 26 points, Team B gets 2 bowling and 4 batting = 6 points

2. Team A is all out for 95, Team B wins and is 96 - 1 -Team A gets 0 points and Team B gets 16+ 5 (bowling) + 3 (for bowling out the team for 91-100 and winning)

3. Team A is all out for 110 Team B is all out for 60 - Team A gets 16+5 bowling points Team B gets 5 bowling points - no batting points are earned as Team B did not go on and win.

4. Team A gets 178-1, Team B gets 180-1, Team A gets 3 batting, Team B gets 16 + 4 batting – this type of score encourages Team B to try and get to 180 and obtain an extra batting point.

Another good point about this system is that it encourages teams that are winning to try and get the extra bowling points by bowling out the opposition. It means that games can be competitive right until the end.

Let me know what you think and if there is enough support we can put it to the league.

Jonathan

[JMoon]

In response to your reply I don't have a problem as such with the current scoring system it works fine. However this system does reward you for doing better and it encourages teams to compete until the end - teams will try and 'buy' the last wicket whilst batsmen fight until the end ensuring that they don't give the other team any more points. Your point about the abandoned game shouldn't be worth more than a loss is a fair point and I have just looked on the website and it is 5 points for an abandoned game not 8 - only a tied game is 8 points each.

I don't think the system is any more complicated than at present, you have to calculate bonus points for the losing team, now you would have to do it for the winning team as well. I believe the purpose of the system was originally to try and bring teams closer together in terms of points, currently we don't have that distinction - a win is a win (which sometimes is good enough for me)

[bearski]

The only problem i have with the points for cancelled matches is the fact that some games will be played in dreadful conditions overhead or under foot. You will generally score more or less the same points if you play and lose than if you don't play at all. My point is, are we not risking injury if we play, when, 99% of the time you wouldn't play in bad conditions. In the end, no one gets paid to play in this league( at least i think they don't?!!) and we all have to go to work on Monday morning, and i for one would rather go to work without a broken ankle or other such injuries. Have the league had problems with cancelled games before? have the points been reduced due to an incident in the past?

[thomaswp]

I quite like this solution, but whilst it looks pretty simple it is pretty complex. Would we have tortuous recounts at the end of the season?

What I really like is that you get up to 26 points depending on how comprehensively you win.

What I don't like is the split on the batting - it assumes that all games are in the 120-200 range. About 20% of innings are over 200 I suspect and yo uget no reward. There was a score of 407 in division 4 this week!

I suppose with the current way, a team that wins most of its games is likely to be at the top of the league at the end of the season - you'd have to be unfortunate to miss out on promotion if you had more games cancelled than everyone else since the league covers relatively small area.

So, I suppose I am sitting on the fence as usual.

Thomas

[andywebster]

I played in a league where cancelled matches were re-arranged at the discretion of club fixture secretaries, normally on Sundays. As long as all matches were completed by season end you had no issue over points for an abandoned match as they were all played to a proper result.

On a seperate points debate I believe the points for a win are disproportionate when compared to that for a loss, especially when the teams end very close in runs scored terms.

I would like a response on the concept of a draw principle which might equalise the current gap in winning and losing and encourage more tactical cricket minds.

I suggest 25 pts for a win. Current bonus points system remains. A draw is possible if the side batting second scores within 50 runs of the side batting first. 8 points are awarded for a draw. Within 50 runs the award would be 7, to the side batting first to 1 for the side batting second, within 40-50 runs 6 to 2 within 30-40 runs 5 to 3 within 20 -30 runs 4 each to witihin 20 runs of victory. This graded system would encourage all possibilities and prevent sides just stodging it out when they face 300 as they would need to stodge to 250 to avoid the loss.

This might all be a bit radical but would reduce the huge gaps in points we can see in the league tables today.

:-?

[andywebster]

The idea of having draws in limited overs cricket when in fact the team batting second have fallen 49 runs short of the total is crazy. By this reckoning the team batting 2nd would have to get 50 over the total set to claim a win! Otherwise there would be a massive advantage to the team batting 2nd.

You clearly misunderstood my suggestion. A draw would only be possible if the team batting second got within 50 runs. I can't imagine them having to exceed the first innings score by 50 to win that would indeed be CRAZY!! Given the scoring we see in the HECL I can't imagine any matches of 78 a.o plays 75-8.

i.e ACC 267-3 (4 batting 4 bowling and 5 drawing points totals 14) BCC 233-9 (1 bowling 4 batting 3 drawing totals 8 pts.

I hope this eases your understanding

[andywebster]

That's got to be one of the most bizarre ideas I've ever heard! You have a "draw" despite the fact that you clearly lost? As I understand that post (and I could have got this wrong) if team 1 scored 250 and team 2 scored 199 , team 1 would score 25 points for a win, however, if team 2 scored 200, it would be a "draw" and team 1 woudl score only 7 points? Whats that all about?

And, another thing, this system doesn't seem to address the issue of the team batting second winning ( do they have to win by more than 5 wickets to claim a win, otherwise its a draw :-? )

I don't actually think the system needs changing ( look how close the 1st divsion is at the moment), but if you wanted to reduce the proportion of points, surely it would be easier to just knock the points for winning down to 20 or, some other number, than introduce the idea of draws, which limited overs cricket is fundamentally designed to avoid! But having said that, the more you drop the margin down, the more difference is likely to be made by abandoned games.

I hope my reply to stokesy clarifies the matter. your team who scored 250 for say 3 would get 4 batting points, 4 bowling points and 7 draw points TOTAL 15 the team batting secong finishing on 201-9 would get 4 batting, 1 bowling and 1 draw point TOTAL 6.

It's only an idea......... :-(