Imagine any other sport where game officials can give you incorrect information and face no consequences... aside from baseball. Match refs told the team they had to win in 37.1 overs. That was flat out wrong since they could have won in 38.1 overs.
Not even just the teams. The people running the game either didn't know what was going on, or flat out lied to the team when they told the team they had to win by 37.1.
apparently they asked the match referee at "half time" if they could qualify past 37.1 and he said no, makes it slightly more excusable but obviously they had nothing to lose by just swinging at those last 3 balls
They did have something to lose by swinging at the balls; the match. When a #11 batter is at the pitch and you need 3 runs to win off the next 13 overs you don't normally try to hit a 6 immediately. The #11 would try to block out an over to get off strike. I can very much understand how Afghanistan did not think of this rules loophole.
its still worth it to win the match. When the 11 Farooqi goes in, he's not trying to win the match, hes trying to pass the strike to Rashid Khan. Farooqi has never hit a 6 in any format, has a high score of 6 in ODI's, and knows he doesn't have the power to win the match with a 6.
@@braydenyee9388thank you. Someone who watches cricket. The guy off strike looks like that cause he knows their screwed. I’ve seen children with better bar control
So the important stat Afghanistan needed was based on run rate, they had several opportunities to get it with: 292 after 37.1overs 293 after 37.2 294 after 37.3 295 after 37.5 296 after 38 or 297 after 38.1 overs But they only knew about the first target and that's why they gave up after missing it
Yup. Because that is what the refs told them. When the people running the game tell you something, one tends to think the people running the game aren't going to lie to them.
@@Carter6197Yeah, its a 50 over game, so there were technically 12 overs left but even if they won they would be tied on points. Generally the first tiebreaker in cricket tournaments is net run rate which is basically how fast you score runs vs how fast you concede them (there's more to it but the exact system is a bit complicated). So those were their targets to go ahead in net run rate
@@mimcduffee86 it's not upto the umpires to tell them this, they needed to have a higher net runrate than Srilanka to qualify, it's completely on the team analyst to figure this out, considering the broadcasters, the commentators and the fans knew about it's just the analyst failing at his job.
Posted this elsewhere but I think its probably needed top level somehwere. ITS NOT ABOUT THIS GAME, ITS ABOUT WHETHER THEY "MAKE PLAYOFFS" Its a really confusing scenario, basically they need to win, but that will only give them a tied record with another team, so then they would go to a tiebreaker called net run rate. Basically how many runs you've won games by how quickly. So scoring the total 292 in 37.1 overs would give them what they need to have a better net run rate than the team they would be tied with. But since they are actually capable of scoring MORE than 292 they don't necessarily need to do it in 37.1 overs. They could score a higher score of 295 in slightly more overs and still have achieved a net run rate that would be higher than Sri Lankas. TL:DR a win would make them tied in the standings with srilanka but with a lower tiebreaker (net run rate) unless they had won before over 37.1 (Afghanistan believed). But since they could actually score a slightly larger score than 292, this thinking was incorrect.
I get they thought they couldn’t advance at the time, but why not just still try and win the game. This would be like a team that’s out of the playoffs just forfeiting the rest of the season. Why did he just tap the ball and not swing? I must be missing something.
@@kevin1153 there's 13 overs left to play and they only need 3 runs the smart play to win the game is for the new & worse low order batsman to just block a few balls safely and let the better batsman who already has his eye in take the game home, if you're not in a rush. The #11 batsman just fucked it, as you'd kind of expect a #11 batsman to do
Backstory that is not mentioned here that might help folks understand. This is a 6-team tournament, divided into 3-team groups. In this group, Afghanistan winning this game would make it a three-way tie with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh with 2 points each. But when the points are tied, there's a tiebreaker in what is called the "NRR" - net run rate (runs score vs. run given vs. pitches faced etc, etc., you can look up the equation if you care to). So Afg isn't just trying to win the game, they're trying to win and up their netrun, which they can do if they do win at ^such and such^ rate as JB went over here. That's where the confusion is. hope that helps!
But the only point that actually matters. Don't get details right and you run the risk of not being taken seriously. The minor details are where people lose credibility.@@TheTrippleTKA
replied to a comment with this, but since a lot of people are asking why they didn't at least have a swing at the end (or go the other way and completely give up ): They would have been trying to win the match itself, even if they thought qualifying wasn't possible. They only had to get 3 runs off 80 balls, so there's ZERO pressure to do it quickly, and the guy batting for those last three balls is their number 11, the worst batter on the team. He did exactly what you would want him to do in that situation: defend as well as he can, take zero risks, and let the other (much better) batsman take over. Either by scoring an easy run if it's on offer, or otherwise just defending til the end of the over, when the other batsman will take over automatically (because the fielding team swaps the end they bowl from after each over).
Yes, this. Ironically, if their (false) understanding of the rules had been correct, swinging for the fences the way they needed to do would have looked far more like giving up, like they couldn't be bothered to professionally secure the win once qualification wasn't possible.
@@Lilitha11 no, Farooqi has never hit a six in any format, and against a spinner its harder to clear the fense. Farooqi as a number 11 knows that his job is to defend, since Rashid would've taken strike at the end of the over
@@braydenyee9388 Sounds like they were kind of screwed then. I think with a really competitive team, you go for it anyway, but it makes sense in the situation that wasn't really in their mind.
@@Lilitha11 you can think of it like this: Afghanistan had 2 goals: 1. win the game, 2. win in 37.1 overs. After the second goal wasn't possible in their minds, they thought "well now we can take it slow, since we just need 3 runs in 80 balls". And if it is a really competitive team like India, their number 11 isn't going to be good at batting either and would've played the exact same way
Afghanistan did not give up, they were trying to win the match. They just weren't aware that it still mattered to win the match *quickly*. They thought overtaking Sri Lanka's tournament run-rate was now impossible so they slowed down to try to increase the chance they at least won the match.
@@benneem thank you. You nailed it. It needs to be said: Cricket itself is not confusing. Jomboy was confused and/or did a bad job explaining it this time. Probably on deadline or something.
How do you qualify teams to the next stage of a baseball league when points and number of wins are tied? In cricket they see strike rate, run rate. How easily they beat the other teams or how badly they lost. So winning this game wasn't enough for them to qualify. They had to win by a certain margin in order to qualify and continue in the tournament.
@@benneem they phoned it in. They half-assed it. Sorry but the "They just weren't aware it still mattered" is where culture and sportmanship collide. In the America's you give 110% until the game is done. Even when you are out IT ALWAYS MATTERS. If you are going to lose do so with something to show for it.
@smokes98516 you've completely misunderstood. Afghanistan still cared about winning they just weren't aware that it still mattered to win quickly with a high scoring shot rather than winning in a more conventional manner. A Basketball team doesn't attempt a buzzer beating 3 pointer when they are down by 1, they go for a 2 point shots. If it was later revealed after they miss the 2 point shot and lose that actually the scoreboard was incorrect and they trailed by 2 it would be nonsensical to say "why did they give up by not shooting for 3!?" This is the situation Afghanistan were in, they weren't aware that there were actions still relevant to qualifying.
When two teams in a tournament has same point. One can qualify. So, which one will qualify? It's a rare case in cricket. That's why it looks complex. The game itself not complex.
Hawk-Eye is used in a few sports now but it was first developed for cricket. Btw, do Americans know how much cricket has borrowed from baseball over the years? Eg, the first One-Day competition was called World Series Cricket and went to war with the traditional cricket boards in the 1970s.
Awesome to see you getting into Cricket. Most Americans don't even know what cricket is by the sound of some comments...lol. As a Aussie we love the game. 🇦🇺👍
Slowly learning about it from Jomboy. My only experience with Cricket before that was from Casey Jones in The Original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Movie.
Hey Jomboy. I am one of the few Americans that follows cricket. Great analysis. Rhashid khan is my favorite player. Seems like he should have known the situation.
They didn't. They just no longer needed to win fast. They now had 13 overs to score 3 runs. The smart play is for the lower order batsman who doesn't have his eye in to play defensively and let the higher order batsman who's got his eye in take the game home. They didn't give up they adjusted their gameplan to suit the new scenario
This is how a #11 batter normally bats, he wasn't "giving up". Lower order batters try to survive so that they can get to the non-strikers end. He didn't know that going for the difficult six would improve their run-rate for the tournament's tiebreaker.
thats not giving up, Farooqi has never hit a six in any format, so the smart thing is to try and win by playing strategically. In this case it would be to defend and let Rashid take the strike so they could win in the remaining 13 overs they had
I love watching your cricket breakdowns. There are a bunch of students who play pick up cricket matches at the school I teach at, and it is really fun to watch them. Fascinating game. The only game I know of where the scoring and everything is so wacky that players don't know what's going on.
@@RabiyaRavenclaw Right, so why are the people in the video playing then? They didn't understand what the score was, but were clearing playing. Seems to go against your little comment there.
@@JonathanMartin884 Everyone in the video knows perfectly well how the scoring works and how to play the game. If this was just a stand alone cricket match, the situation in the video is a no brainer for any cricket player. The confusion that you see in the video is due to the further requirement of understanding the overall points table and net run rate in the tournament group.
@@vikramvega I'm sure they understand the scoring. But still, there is a lack of understanding of the _current_ score. Just show me one other sport where a team as forfeited while still having a chance to win, whether it is a tournament, a series, or a single match, and I will concede that there is in fact another sport where this could happen. You two trying to come here telling me this doesn't happen when it is literally happening in the video is...baffling, to say the least.
@@JonathanMartin884 Bro, I am a cricket player and let me assure you they haven't forfeited. They are still trying to win the match. They only incorrectly think there is no point in trying to hurry and get the winning runs anymore. When Afghanistan started their batting innings, they had two objectives: 1) Score the 292 runs to win the match. They have 50 overs to score those runs to get the win. 2) Score the 292 in 37.1 overs to boost their net run rate sufficiently to advance to the next round of the tournament. The net run rate is used as a tiebreaker when teams have equal points in the pool. This net run rate situation is what they have misunderstood. Once the 37.1 over was crossed and they hadn't yet got the 292, they incorrectly thought the objective 2 was out of the picture. Since Sri Lanka had scored 291, the match ends immediately when Afghanistan crosses that score. But they still could have tried to hit a six or a four and achieved their required net run rate if they got to: 293 after 37.2 294 after 37.3 295 after 37.5 296 after 38 or 297 after 38.1 These other scores is what they didn't know. Their team analyst messed up regarding this. And this mess up is not due to the scoring or the rules of cricket like you think, but due to the larger context of the tournament. Now from the Afghanistan batters point of view, since they think they can no longer qualify to the next round, all they can now get is a consolation win. And in the current situation which they think they are in, they did exactly the correct thing. They now only need to get 3 runs in the remaining 77 balls. So they think they have plenty of time to get those 3 runs and hence they see no need for any big hitting. Moreover, the new batter is the number 11 batter (last batter in the lineup who is in the team for his bowling). The number 11 is always the worst batter in any team and hence is just trying to block out the balls so that his partner (who is the better batter) can get the remaining runs. Hundreds of cricket matches are played every year all around the world and this is an extremely rare situation only because of the larger context of the tournament.
I massively don't understand this one. WHY did they think they'd already been eliminated? I got Jomboy saying "all the runs count", but like, of course they do? What faulty reasoning were they using to think they couldn't advance at that point? What was the math they got wrong?
Its a really confusing scenario, basically they need to win, but that will only give them a tied record with another team, so then they would go to a tiebreaker called net run rate. Basically how many runs you've won games by how quickly. So scoring the total 292 in 37.1 overs would give them what they need to have a better net run rate than the team they would be tied with. But since they are actually capable of scoring MORE than 292 they don't necessarily need to do it in 37.1 overs. They could score a higher score of 295 in slightly more overs and still have achieved a net run rate that would be higher than Sri Lankas. TL:DR a win would make them tied in the standings with srilanka but with a lower tiebreaker (net run rate) unless they had won before over 37.1 (Afghanistan believed). But since they could actually score a slightly larger score than 292, this thinking was incorrect.
Presumably they just worked out the bottom line if they scored exactly 292 and didn't think that cricket is a game where you can and commonly do score more than one run at once. Not a mistake we should expect national teams to make again for a little while.
@@thejesusaurus6573 so if I understand you correctly, there were two ways they could have won: A) score exactly 292 in 37.1. B) score more than 292 in 37.4. And B) never occurred to them?
Don't watch this video cause you will be rightly confused. But generally jomboy cricket is great. Watch the video cricket explained for baseball fans for a really good primer
You usually do a good job of explaining the rules, but I was kinda lost on this one... didn't understand why a 4 wouldn't have been enough and they would have needed 295 when the target was 292.
It would have been enough to win the match but just winning was not enough to make the playoffs of the tournament. They needed to win quickly to be ahead on the points table when the tiebreaker method was considered. That tie breaker is called Net Run Rate. A team's run rate is the total number of runs they scored divided by the total number of overs they have batted (all matches in the tournament combined). The run rate conceded is the total number of runs the opponents scored against them in the tournament divided by the total number of overs the opposition have batted. A team's NET run rate is their run rate minus the run rate conceded. Let's look at an example: Team A scores 1000 runs in total in the tournament. They bat a total of 200 overs. Team As tournament run rate is 1000/200 = 5. Let's say the other teams in the tournament scored 960 runs in total against them, and the other teams face a combined 240 overs against them (in other words Team A bowls 240 overs total in their matches. That means the conceded run rate is 960/240 = 4. Team A's net run rate is therefore 5 - 4 = 1. When a tie breaker is needed to decide who makes the playoffs, the team with the higher net run rate makes the playoffs.
The target they were chasing was 292, which means to win, they need 292 or more runs. In this case, they had to get 292 in 37.1 overs to QUALIFY for the playoffs, because of net run rate. Basically, if they got 292 in 37.1 or less overs, they would have a better net run rate than SL so they would qualify for the playoffs. After the 37.1 over was finished, they were still at 289, but a six would’ve gotten them to 295, so if they hit a six within the next 3 balls, their net run rate would’ve been better than SL, and they would’ve qualified
They didn't need to just win it, they needed to win by a margin. That's why there were trying to chase the target in 37.1 overs instead of 50. So, 292 was needed to be chased in 37.1 overs, but other targets are also possible like 293, 294 etc. in maybe 37.2, 37.4 etc overs. The reason it's possible is because once you reach 291, you can hit a six and reach 297 to finish the match. So anything between 292 and 297 is possible.
That is a tough loss. They could have won. It seems like Ron Rivera that he forgot that his team could've made the playoffs but he too forgot. Life is tough.
I've wanted to say this, and have held back for over a year, but why, in the meat of baseball season, are you breaking down cricket clips and all the other nonsense? Baseball breakdowns. That's why we love you. That's why we subscribed.
I suppose the net run rate calculation is made doubly confusing when, as in this case, the opposing team in the match is also the team whose NRR you need to beat. So every run you score (or don't score) affects both you NRR and theirs!
I don't think I followed you on these rules of this game as I always thought the game was more like baseball! However, this was more like a puzzle and a math test! Lol. Great video! THX
(commented below to some people who like to take any opportunity to shit on cricket) this isn't something unique to cricket. The issue Isn't this game its whether they "make playoffs" to give it a north American spin. The situation is they can win that game but still not make playoffs because another team has the same record but with a better tie-breaking score. In cricket they use net run rate as a tie breaker. But, for another example if it were american football it would be like if it was your last game of the regular season and a win would have you tied with a team that has a better +/- than you in the last available playoff spot. So you need to win your last game but not just win it, you need to win by a margin of at least 25 points. That is what's happening here.
The actual problem that caused the entire issue isn't unique to cricket either. The match refs (essentially the umpire) made a bad call. They asked the match ref what was needed to win, the ref gave them incorrect information.
@@mimcduffee86it's kind of outside the match refs purview to be honest to let them know what they need to advance in the tournament. It's entirely external to the match at hand.
Jomboy was a little cheeky with the title of this video. Nobody gave up, what you're seeing is normal tactics for a no.11 batsman who thinks his team don't need to score quickly. (OK he messed up by getting out regardless, but he's not in the team for his batting ability)
Jimmy the leg side, the side your backside faces when batting, is also known as the on side, hence the other being called the off side. Why one side has two names and the other only one beats me but that’s cricket.
So maybe im not understanding something here. Jimmy is saying 37.5 overs but the clip at 0:07 says 37.1 which if they needed to do it within 37.1 they falled. But if they can get to 37.5 then yeah sure they had a chance. I dont consider myself a cricket expert but i understand the basics and i can read the banner on the screen. So is there a rule im missing here?
Jomboy could have done a little better job explaining the situation. This was part of a tournament called the Asia Cup. Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Bangladesh were in the same group. If Afghanistan had won that would have meant they all would have finished on equal points and then it would have come to which team had the best for/against to progress to the next round. The odd situation here is that Afghanistan made the calculations based on scoring 292 runs within 37.1 overs, which was the winning margin required for them to win and progress to the next round. But they were at 289 and hitting a 6 (like a home run in baseball) would have given them 295 runs, 3 above the winning target thus giving them a few extra balls to reach 295.
There was a tournament called the Asia Cup featuring 6 teams with 3 teams in 2 groups for the first round. This was a 1st round group game. Afghanistan needed not only to win but win by a certain margin to progress into the 2nd round of the tournament. Thats the part Jomboy didn't do a great job explaining.
Let me clear a few things it is not about winning the match but advancing the group stage of Asia cup if they won the match they will equal the total group point with Bangladesh . So run rate is a metric which used to determine who played better . So Afghanistan need to to chase a target of 292 runs just in 37.1overs(223 balls/ pitches) out of 50 overs ( 300 balls/pitches) there run rate would be better than the will advance to playoffs instead of Bangladesh. they scored 289 runs in 37 overs and they need to score 3 more runs and in the next ball it self to advance to playoffs , so players tries to hit a six (home run) but they where unable to do it and players morale where down and they also given away there last out after that but the twist in the tail is there statistics person failed them because if they score 295 runs in 37.4 overs (226 balls/pitches) they could have got on required run rate to advance for the playoffs , and it is possible if they score 1 run in that ball and tried to go for a six runs (home run) in next three ball .
Only a certain number of teams advance to the next stage and if Afghanistan won they would be in a tiebreaker to advance. So it wasn’t just about winning the game, it was about winning the game by enough runs to win the tiebreaker. But if the run differential is also a tie then it matters the number of overs they scored those runs on to win the second level tie breaker.
This was for advancement in the group stage of the Asia Cup. When teams tied on points for wins, something called Net Run Rate (NRR) is used as a tiebreaker to determine who places where when only some teams (2 out of 3 in this case) can advance to the next round. This is a fairly tricky mathematical equation: how many runs you scored divided by how many overs you faced MINUS how many runs you conceded divided by how many overs you bowled. So in effect, they could have won the match in 50 overs no problem, but because their Net Run Rate wasn't as strong going into the match, they had to win the match by a certain margin to increase their NRR enough to win the tiebreak.
think of it like if MLB use run differentials for tie breakers to go in playoffs. So if Afghanistan score it earlier that means they scored faster in overall tournament. Cricket unlike baseball rewards blowout wins and penalises one sided losses in a season.
Is this a sportsmanship thing? If anything, if I thought I'd lost, I'd just try to swing for the fences on everything because if you think it doesn't matter, why not at least try to have fun out there? Its wild to me to just see a team concede like that.
Nah that's not one of those unwritten rules of conduct that sometimes gets brought up as a matter of "the spirit of the game", they just gave up rather than going out on a win regardless. Had nothing to lose by getting out on a big swing, the game would've been over in a few deliveries regardless.
No, it's because the guy who came in at 37.1 overs was the number 11 batter (think a pitcher who really struggles with the bat in the pre-DH days). They still wanted to win the game even if they were gutted they couldn't get the win fast enough to qualify. But time wasn't an issue and Rashid at the other end was a much better batter, so blocking out the over and letting Rashid do his thing in the next over (because it's bowled from the other end) is a viable strategy.
Well Afghanistan would've been eliminated, but were still trying to win the game. The batter who came out (Farooqi) has never hit a six in any format, so it's illogical for him to swing the bat as hard as he can as if he has nothing to lose, they still want to win the game, even if that means not qualifying. Since this was the case, he did what most number 11's do, defend to let the better batter (Rashid Khan) get on strike, since they needed 3 runs in 13 overs to win the game, it was an obvious choice to let Rashid take the strike.
Many people in the comments don't realize that this was a rain affected match so scores were revised heavily and the players wouldn't have known it. Analysts and support staff of the team should have done a better job of informing them.
It's most likely a stats thing, the less outs a player has the better their average will be, they believed they had already lost so the final batter was just trying to preserve his wicket (His out) and help his average. Kind of moot since he got out anyway, but mindlessly slogging for no apparent reason isn't a sign of good team culture.
They would have been trying to win the match itself, even if they thought qualifying wasn't possible. They only had to get 3 runs off 80 balls, so there's ZERO pressure to do it quickly, and the guy batting for those last three balls is their number 11, the worst batter on the team. He did exactly what you would want him to do in that situation: defend as well as he can, take zero risks, and let the other (much better) batsman take over. Either by scoring an easy run if it's on offer, or otherwise just defending til the end of the over, when the other batsman will take over automatically (because the fielding team swaps the end they bowl from after each over).
They needed to win quickly to be ahead on the points table when the tiebreaker method was considered. That tie breaker is called Net Run Rate. A team's run rate is the total number of runs they scored divided by the total number of overs they have batted (all matches in the tournament combined). The run rate conceded is the total number of runs the opponents scored against them in the tournament divided by the total number of overs the opposition have batted. A team's NET run rate is their run rate minus the run rate conceded. Let's look at an example: Team A scores 1000 runs in total in the tournament. They bat a total of 200 overs. Team As tournament run rate is 1000/200 = 5. Let's say the other teams in the tournament scored 960 runs in total against them, and the other teams face a combined 240 overs against them (in other words Team A bowls 240 overs total in their matches. That means the conceded run rate is 960/240 = 4. Team A's net run rate is therefore 5 - 4 = 1. When a tie breaker is needed to decide who makes the playoffs, the team with the higher net run rate makes the playoffs. They needed 292 to win the match (since Sri Lanka batted first and scored 291), but for their net run rate to be above Sri Lanka's they needed to get 292 in 37.1 overs. That was gone, 37.1 overs had passed. But they still had time provided they scored more runs - they still had an extra three or four balls (pitches) if they scored an extra three or four runs.
To be fair the odds of the number 11 batter hitting a six are very low.....but that first full toss was the ball that could have done it. Rough, real rough :(
Basically, the team asked the refs for confirmation on what score was needed to win. The refs gave them false info. They assumed the refs knew the rules and wouldn't give them bad info.
Despite what it looks like the guy at the end was trying to win the game. The reason they had to win at the 37.1 mark (or so they thought) in order to progress to the next stage of the Asia Cup is because winning the game makes them level with Sri Lanka on the points table but only one of them can go through. Because of this there is a tie breaker that measure how fast you score runs. Since they thought they couldn't beat Sri Lanka's run rate they stopped trying to win as fast as possible. But they were still trying to win.
Afghanistan kinda had two goals: 1. win the game 2. qualify for the playoffs by winning within a certain amount of overs. After 37.1 overs, Afghanistan thought that they couldn't achieve the second goal, but this still leaves the first one very open. In that case they are left to score 3 runs in 80 balls, which means that the number 11 (Farooqi) should defend until the end of the over to let Rashid take strike. For some background, Farooqi has never hit a six in any format, and is awful at batting, so it makes sense for him to not try and slog a six against a spinner
To all the Americans who didn't understand what is going on... How do you qualify teams to the next stage of a league when points and number of wins are tied? In cricket they see strike rate, run rate. How easily they beat the other teams or how badly they lost. So winning this game wasn't enough for them to qualify. They had to win by a certain margin to continue going on in the tournament. This is what that was miscalculated.
No. (Well, yes, in another context, but I don't see what in this video was prompting you to ask that question - They kept going here because they just needed 3 more runs to win the match. What they believed had changed after 37.1 overs was that the win would no longer be enough for them to advance to the next stage of the tournament.)
I hate to say it Mr. Boy, may i call you Jimmy? But i think youve done a disservice to cricket understanding and acceptance in america with this one. Still the best thing to happen to cricket for north americans, but you bottled this one (in the vernacular)
Despite what it looks like the guy at the end was still trying to win the game. The reason they had to win at the 37.1 mark (or so they thought) in order to progress to the next stage of the Asia Cup is because winning the game makes them level with Sri Lanka on the points table but only one of them can go through. Because of this there is a tie breaker that measure how fast you score runs. Since they thought they couldn't beat Sri Lanka's run rate they stopped trying to win as fast as possible. But they were still trying to win.
I'm not going to say that cricket is dumb. It's not. It's a cool game, at least as far as I understand it. But this kind of arcanery in terms of determining advancement in a tournament is.... not good. It should be much clearer - win game/lose game or win match/lose match. It's just as bad with some ridiculous tie breaking procedures in other sports though most are less obscure/obvious than this.
@cricketexplained8526 I get it. I hate most tie breaking procedures that don't involve the two teams playing H2H. The more complex the math the worse they are. (Run rate isn't exactly complicated but it's not something most people can keep track of in their head, unlike something like run differential.)
It cannot be that simple. Tie breaking is required. Or are you saying that if there was a tournament where only four teams can make the playoffs and two teams finish fourth equal, they should allow FIVE teams through?
@@amireallythatgrumpy6508 In my perfect world the two teams that were tied would play another game head to head to break the tie. Probably not realistic. I get that tie breakers are needed. I don't to have to find them aesthetically pleasing.
I think they knew a bit, not the whole thing, the last batter was trying to take a single and give it to rashid. And that guy is the number 11, which means HE CAN'T BAT IF HIS LIFE DEPENDED ON IT. He is there to bowl.
No matter which team you support, it breaks your heart when you see Rashid Khan like that. He's probably the most universally loved cricketer on the planet.
So in summary, they didn’t know they had opportunities to win so instead of trying crazy swings when they were thrown the ball they bunted because they thought there was no more opportunities, and so then the ball hit the leg so the guy was out, but had the ball not hit the leg the guy could have had another chance to swing when the batter already thought they mathematically were out? At first I thought I was writing something satirical, but then I started to wonder if I actually had it right. 😅
Basically, Afghanistan want to 1. Win the game, 2. Win the game within a certain amount of overs (37.1) in order to qualify for the super 4 After the 37.1 over, they didn’t think it was possible to qualify for the playoffs, but they still wanted to win. In this case, the batter (Farooqi) wants to defend the ball (bunt it) because at the end of the over, Rashid, the much better batter, would take strike, and he would be able to win the match.
Bro if u don't know cricket u won't understand.who said they gave up the match? They gave up trying to qualify,but they didn't gave up the match.the guy who was last to get out is not a very good batsman,so he was actually trying to block out the remaining balls of the Over knowing Rashid is at the other end who cud have easily gotten the remaining Runs. The innings was just 37 Overs old, Afghanistan had 13 more overs to win the match
@@pwizandtheween3652Yeah I can see why that is confusing people. I guess "Team forfeits before realising they could have qualified" doesn't have the same ring to it.
Afghanistan kinda had two goals: 1. win the game 2. qualify for the playoffs by winning within a certain amount of overs. After 37.1 overs, Afghanistan thought that they couldn't achieve the second goal, but this still leaves the first one very open. In that case they are left to score 3 runs in 80 balls, which means that the number 11 (Farooqi) should defend until the end of the over to let Rashid take strike. For some background, Farooqi has never hit a six in any format, and is awful at batting, so it makes sense for him to not try and slog a six against a spinner.
Hey Jomboy while you're at it why don't you make a math breakdown on string theory; I'll probably understand it better than this voodoo Duckworth-Lewis stuff
Your analysis isn’t helpful at all since I still have no idea why they thought they lost and gave up, I know they did the math wrong but I mean it’s much more complex of a mess up than just that. So this video isn’t really good, but I guess it’s kinda entertaining to see an entire organization mess something up like that, even though I can’t say I get the sport whatsoever.
I think Jomboy has confused many people here with the "forfeits" and "gave up" comments. Afghanistan were very much trying to win the game the whole time. They just believed it was no longer relevant to win the game *quickly*. Those defensive shots by the #11 batter are very typical of what would happen in this situation where a team needs only 3 runs from 80 balls remaining. The #11 is the worst batter in the team, the way he helps the team win in this situation is to not get out and to get off strike. Why are the tournament tiebreak rules designed to be at odds with with how teams make the best effort to win the game? Don't ask me 😂
@@johndoe-yw7eb except they had only 1 wicket remaining. The strategy is to not take risks trying to score runs quickly with your worst batter because he is the most likely to get out.
@amireallythatgrumpy6508 that's true, it's hard to design a tiebreaker system in a 3 team round-robin. However a system where a team can be rewarded for trying to hit a shot that is *more than is required to win* is quite bizarre. I think a good tiebreaker might be to compare "the worm" of both innings (the graph of teams scoring runs over time). You look to see how often a team had both more runs and more wickets in hand throughout the whole innings. Teams accrue a tiebreaker statistic based upon that "proportion time ahead" basically.
Basically it was a tournament rule about who goes through to the final in the case teams in the pool stages tie on W/L points. Afghanistan are on a rapid rise, despite being exiled from their country, but made a huge miscalculation due to never having been in any position like this. In this years World Cup they put on an impressive showing overall, they reject the Taliban and play under the old Afghan flag while living in exile and under constant death threats from the Taliban.
@@RoyaltonDrummer922 Deleted the other comment based off the fact I didn't watch the game and thought they were chasing a rain delay adjusted score. Apparently just tournament tie break rules where it comes down to their average run rate over the tournament if they tie on W/L points in the pool stages before finals/play offs. They just miscalculated the run rate (points per ball) badly.
Imagine any other sport where the coach (the guy in charge) gives the excuse that “no one told us we could have won”
**Ron Rivera enters chat**
Imagine any other sport where game officials can give you incorrect information and face no consequences... aside from baseball. Match refs told the team they had to win in 37.1 overs. That was flat out wrong since they could have won in 38.1 overs.
@@mimcduffee86 No nooo they could NOT have won in 38.1 overs
@@mimcduffee86cricket*
@@mimcduffee86it's not the match refs job though. It's external to that match
"No one told us we could win"
There's a life lesson in there.
Winning is subjective and made up
I cant feel bad for thinking cricket is confusing when the teams dont even know whats going on.
Not even just the teams. The people running the game either didn't know what was going on, or flat out lied to the team when they told the team they had to win by 37.1.
This
Amen brother.
Blernsball is more comprehensible to me than cricket.
NRR is confusing. The game itself is no more complicated than baseball.
apparently they asked the match referee at "half time" if they could qualify past 37.1 and he said no, makes it slightly more excusable but obviously they had nothing to lose by just swinging at those last 3 balls
Not really the match refs purview though. He's not the authority here as we're talking about something that has nothing to do with the match at hand.
They did have something to lose by swinging at the balls; the match.
When a #11 batter is at the pitch and you need 3 runs to win off the next 13 overs you don't normally try to hit a 6 immediately. The #11 would try to block out an over to get off strike.
I can very much understand how Afghanistan did not think of this rules loophole.
Daaaaamn. Ain't that some shit
its still worth it to win the match. When the 11 Farooqi goes in, he's not trying to win the match, hes trying to pass the strike to Rashid Khan. Farooqi has never hit a 6 in any format, has a high score of 6 in ODI's, and knows he doesn't have the power to win the match with a 6.
@@braydenyee9388thank you. Someone who watches cricket. The guy off strike looks like that cause he knows their screwed. I’ve seen children with better bar control
So the important stat Afghanistan needed was based on run rate, they had several opportunities to get it with:
292 after 37.1overs
293 after 37.2
294 after 37.3
295 after 37.5
296 after 38
or 297 after 38.1 overs
But they only knew about the first target and that's why they gave up after missing it
Okay thank you so much for this explanation. I was so confused why 37.1 overs was the “end” and then it suddenly changed to 37.4 lmao
Yup. Because that is what the refs told them. When the people running the game tell you something, one tends to think the people running the game aren't going to lie to them.
@@Carter6197Yeah, its a 50 over game, so there were technically 12 overs left but even if they won they would be tied on points. Generally the first tiebreaker in cricket tournaments is net run rate which is basically how fast you score runs vs how fast you concede them (there's more to it but the exact system is a bit complicated). So those were their targets to go ahead in net run rate
@@mimcduffee86 it's not upto the umpires to tell them this, they needed to have a higher net runrate than Srilanka to qualify, it's completely on the team analyst to figure this out, considering the broadcasters, the commentators and the fans knew about it's just the analyst failing at his job.
Clear explanation, thanks
Posted this elsewhere but I think its probably needed top level somehwere. ITS NOT ABOUT THIS GAME, ITS ABOUT WHETHER THEY "MAKE PLAYOFFS"
Its a really confusing scenario, basically they need to win, but that will only give them a tied record with another team, so then they would go to a tiebreaker called net run rate. Basically how many runs you've won games by how quickly. So scoring the total 292 in 37.1 overs would give them what they need to have a better net run rate than the team they would be tied with. But since they are actually capable of scoring MORE than 292 they don't necessarily need to do it in 37.1 overs. They could score a higher score of 295 in slightly more overs and still have achieved a net run rate that would be higher than Sri Lankas.
TL:DR a win would make them tied in the standings with srilanka but with a lower tiebreaker (net run rate) unless they had won before over 37.1 (Afghanistan believed). But since they could actually score a slightly larger score than 292, this thinking was incorrect.
It wouldn't have been nearly as confusing if the refs hadn't told them the wrong info.
Thanks for explaining it clearer. I didn’t get it from the original video.
Pin this comment, Jimmy!
I get they thought they couldn’t advance at the time, but why not just still try and win the game. This would be like a team that’s out of the playoffs just forfeiting the rest of the season. Why did he just tap the ball and not swing? I must be missing something.
@@kevin1153 there's 13 overs left to play and they only need 3 runs the smart play to win the game is for the new & worse low order batsman to just block a few balls safely and let the better batsman who already has his eye in take the game home, if you're not in a rush.
The #11 batsman just fucked it, as you'd kind of expect a #11 batsman to do
Backstory that is not mentioned here that might help folks understand. This is a 6-team tournament, divided into 3-team groups. In this group, Afghanistan winning this game would make it a three-way tie with Sri Lanka and Bangladesh with 2 points each. But when the points are tied, there's a tiebreaker in what is called the "NRR" - net run rate (runs score vs. run given vs. pitches faced etc, etc., you can look up the equation if you care to).
So Afg isn't just trying to win the game, they're trying to win and up their netrun, which they can do if they do win at ^such and such^ rate as JB went over here. That's where the confusion is.
hope that helps!
You mean the NRR (net run rate) not the N/R (N/R means no result - when a game is rained out).
@@amireallythatgrumpy6508 okay you nerd, that's not even the top 10 main points of my comment, but I edited
But the only point that actually matters. Don't get details right and you run the risk of not being taken seriously. The minor details are where people lose credibility.@@TheTrippleTKA
Thanks man that wasn't clearly explained but I got it now
Short story they need to win with time to spare just winning wouldn't do
I like that we're getting the deep cricket theory breakdowns now. (Especially from not a math pod)
replied to a comment with this, but since a lot of people are asking why they didn't at least have a swing at the end (or go the other way and completely give up ): They would have been trying to win the match itself, even if they thought qualifying wasn't possible. They only had to get 3 runs off 80 balls, so there's ZERO pressure to do it quickly, and the guy batting for those last three balls is their number 11, the worst batter on the team. He did exactly what you would want him to do in that situation: defend as well as he can, take zero risks, and let the other (much better) batsman take over. Either by scoring an easy run if it's on offer, or otherwise just defending til the end of the over, when the other batsman will take over automatically (because the fielding team swaps the end they bowl from after each over).
Yes, this. Ironically, if their (false) understanding of the rules had been correct, swinging for the fences the way they needed to do would have looked far more like giving up, like they couldn't be bothered to professionally secure the win once qualification wasn't possible.
What about that first pitch that was a 'juicy full toss'? You don't think he should of swung at that one either?
@@Lilitha11 no, Farooqi has never hit a six in any format, and against a spinner its harder to clear the fense. Farooqi as a number 11 knows that his job is to defend, since Rashid would've taken strike at the end of the over
@@braydenyee9388 Sounds like they were kind of screwed then. I think with a really competitive team, you go for it anyway, but it makes sense in the situation that wasn't really in their mind.
@@Lilitha11 you can think of it like this: Afghanistan had 2 goals: 1. win the game, 2. win in 37.1 overs. After the second goal wasn't possible in their minds, they thought "well now we can take it slow, since we just need 3 runs in 80 balls". And if it is a really competitive team like India, their number 11 isn't going to be good at batting either and would've played the exact same way
It’s crazy how many sports I started to admire more because of your channel
Why you never give up even when you think you’ve lost.
Afghanistan did not give up, they were trying to win the match.
They just weren't aware that it still mattered to win the match *quickly*. They thought overtaking Sri Lanka's tournament run-rate was now impossible so they slowed down to try to increase the chance they at least won the match.
@@benneem thank you. You nailed it.
It needs to be said: Cricket itself is not confusing. Jomboy was confused and/or did a bad job explaining it this time. Probably on deadline or something.
How do you qualify teams to the next stage of a baseball league when points and number of wins are tied?
In cricket they see strike rate, run rate. How easily they beat the other teams or how badly they lost.
So winning this game wasn't enough for them to qualify. They had to win by a certain margin in order to qualify and continue in the tournament.
@@benneem they phoned it in. They half-assed it. Sorry but the "They just weren't aware it still mattered" is where culture and sportmanship collide. In the America's you give 110% until the game is done. Even when you are out IT ALWAYS MATTERS. If you are going to lose do so with something to show for it.
@smokes98516 you've completely misunderstood.
Afghanistan still cared about winning they just weren't aware that it still mattered to win quickly with a high scoring shot rather than winning in a more conventional manner.
A Basketball team doesn't attempt a buzzer beating 3 pointer when they are down by 1, they go for a 2 point shots. If it was later revealed after they miss the 2 point shot and lose that actually the scoreboard was incorrect and they trailed by 2 it would be nonsensical to say "why did they give up by not shooting for 3!?"
This is the situation Afghanistan were in, they weren't aware that there were actions still relevant to qualifying.
4:18 is exactly why I watch, I don't know shit about it but you make it entertaining and I don't think you're lying to me in any ways that matter
I Love These Breakdowns. Such A Complex Game.
When two teams in a tournament has same point. One can qualify. So, which one will qualify? It's a rare case in cricket. That's why it looks complex. The game itself not complex.
And Jamboy failed miserably to explain that. Rather he made it looks complex.
I love all the little bits of technology that cricket has
Hit ball with stick
Hawk-Eye is used in a few sports now but it was first developed for cricket.
Btw, do Americans know how much cricket has borrowed from baseball over the years? Eg, the first One-Day competition was called World Series Cricket and went to war with the traditional cricket boards in the 1970s.
Don't know s..t about cricket but having Jimmy explain it is so entertaining.
Watched every ball of this Live and it was heartbreaking to witness in those final moments.
was waiting ages for a cricket breakdown. finally came one
I didn't understand ANY of this but it was a Jomboy breakdown so I inevitably enjoyed ALL of this.
I see cricket and I click it! Crazy that no one had their head in the game. Cheers!
Awesome to see you getting into Cricket. Most Americans don't even know what cricket is by the sound of some comments...lol. As a Aussie we love the game. 🇦🇺👍
Slowly learning about it from Jomboy. My only experience with Cricket before that was from Casey Jones in The Original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Movie.
The aussie friends I have are interested in test matches only.
I appreciate the cricket content man! Its a good sport
Let's gooooo with the extended another thing I never planned on watching
Hey Jomboy. I am one of the few Americans that follows cricket. Great analysis. Rhashid khan is my favorite player. Seems like he should have known the situation.
These cricket videos are making want to watch cricket. Keep up the cricket content!
Regardless if you thought losing was a certain thing, why would you just give up like that? They deserve the loss now.
They didn't. They just no longer needed to win fast. They now had 13 overs to score 3 runs. The smart play is for the lower order batsman who doesn't have his eye in to play defensively and let the higher order batsman who's got his eye in take the game home. They didn't give up they adjusted their gameplan to suit the new scenario
This is how a #11 batter normally bats, he wasn't "giving up". Lower order batters try to survive so that they can get to the non-strikers end.
He didn't know that going for the difficult six would improve their run-rate for the tournament's tiebreaker.
thats not giving up, Farooqi has never hit a six in any format, so the smart thing is to try and win by playing strategically. In this case it would be to defend and let Rashid take the strike so they could win in the remaining 13 overs they had
I love watching your cricket breakdowns. There are a bunch of students who play pick up cricket matches at the school I teach at, and it is really fun to watch them. Fascinating game. The only game I know of where the scoring and everything is so wacky that players don't know what's going on.
It's not wacky, u just don't understand it, if the players didn't know what's going, they wouldn't even play the sport in the first place
@@RabiyaRavenclaw Right, so why are the people in the video playing then? They didn't understand what the score was, but were clearing playing. Seems to go against your little comment there.
@@JonathanMartin884 Everyone in the video knows perfectly well how the scoring works and how to play the game. If this was just a stand alone cricket match, the situation in the video is a no brainer for any cricket player.
The confusion that you see in the video is due to the further requirement of understanding the overall points table and net run rate in the tournament group.
@@vikramvega I'm sure they understand the scoring. But still, there is a lack of understanding of the _current_ score. Just show me one other sport where a team as forfeited while still having a chance to win, whether it is a tournament, a series, or a single match, and I will concede that there is in fact another sport where this could happen.
You two trying to come here telling me this doesn't happen when it is literally happening in the video is...baffling, to say the least.
@@JonathanMartin884 Bro, I am a cricket player and let me assure you they haven't forfeited. They are still trying to win the match. They only incorrectly think there is no point in trying to hurry and get the winning runs anymore. When Afghanistan started their batting innings, they had two objectives:
1) Score the 292 runs to win the match. They have 50 overs to score those runs to get the win.
2) Score the 292 in 37.1 overs to boost their net run rate sufficiently to advance to the next round of the tournament. The net run rate is used as a tiebreaker when teams have equal points in the pool. This net run rate situation is what they have misunderstood.
Once the 37.1 over was crossed and they hadn't yet got the 292, they incorrectly thought the objective 2 was out of the picture. Since Sri Lanka had scored 291, the match ends immediately when Afghanistan crosses that score. But they still could have tried to hit a six or a four and achieved their required net run rate if they got to:
293 after 37.2
294 after 37.3
295 after 37.5
296 after 38
or 297 after 38.1
These other scores is what they didn't know. Their team analyst messed up regarding this. And this mess up is not due to the scoring or the rules of cricket like you think, but due to the larger context of the tournament.
Now from the Afghanistan batters point of view, since they think they can no longer qualify to the next round, all they can now get is a consolation win. And in the current situation which they think they are in, they did exactly the correct thing. They now only need to get 3 runs in the remaining 77 balls. So they think they have plenty of time to get those 3 runs and hence they see no need for any big hitting. Moreover, the new batter is the number 11 batter (last batter in the lineup who is in the team for his bowling). The number 11 is always the worst batter in any team and hence is just trying to block out the balls so that his partner (who is the better batter) can get the remaining runs.
Hundreds of cricket matches are played every year all around the world and this is an extremely rare situation only because of the larger context of the tournament.
I massively don't understand this one. WHY did they think they'd already been eliminated? I got Jomboy saying "all the runs count", but like, of course they do? What faulty reasoning were they using to think they couldn't advance at that point? What was the math they got wrong?
they asked the match referee and he said they couldnt qualify past 37.1 l
would've loved a more thorough explanation but maybe it would've been too confusing
Its a really confusing scenario, basically they need to win, but that will only give them a tied record with another team, so then they would go to a tiebreaker called net run rate. Basically how many runs you've won games by how quickly. So scoring the total 292 in 37.1 overs would give them what they need to have a better net run rate than the team they would be tied with. But since they are actually capable of scoring MORE than 292 they don't necessarily need to do it in 37.1 overs. They could score a higher score of 295 in slightly more overs and still have achieved a net run rate that would be higher than Sri Lankas.
TL:DR a win would make them tied in the standings with srilanka but with a lower tiebreaker (net run rate) unless they had won before over 37.1 (Afghanistan believed). But since they could actually score a slightly larger score than 292, this thinking was incorrect.
Presumably they just worked out the bottom line if they scored exactly 292 and didn't think that cricket is a game where you can and commonly do score more than one run at once.
Not a mistake we should expect national teams to make again for a little while.
@@thejesusaurus6573 so if I understand you correctly, there were two ways they could have won: A) score exactly 292 in 37.1. B) score more than 292 in 37.4.
And B) never occurred to them?
Love the cricket breakdowns
As an American, I want to learn cricket so this is helpful to see these videos!
Its not a good game. Just stick to baseball.🤷
Don’t learn from him. He’s only half correct
@@manujohn99 there's room for both, crickets a great game and so is baseball
Don't watch this video cause you will be rightly confused. But generally jomboy cricket is great. Watch the video cricket explained for baseball fans for a really good primer
@@thejesusaurus6573 Nonsense, both are dumb games.
Am one of the viewers mentioned in the last 10 seconds haha but thanks to Jomboy, I’m learning.
thanks jomboy, this was really fascinating
Never give up, always fight to the end. And keep track of the game yourselves.
You usually do a good job of explaining the rules, but I was kinda lost on this one... didn't understand why a 4 wouldn't have been enough and they would have needed 295 when the target was 292.
It would have been enough to win the match but just winning was not enough to make the playoffs of the tournament. They needed to win quickly to be ahead on the points table when the tiebreaker method was considered.
That tie breaker is called Net Run Rate. A team's run rate is the total number of runs they scored divided by the total number of overs they have batted (all matches in the tournament combined). The run rate conceded is the total number of runs the opponents scored against them in the tournament divided by the total number of overs the opposition have batted. A team's NET run rate is their run rate minus the run rate conceded.
Let's look at an example: Team A scores 1000 runs in total in the tournament. They bat a total of 200 overs. Team As tournament run rate is 1000/200 = 5. Let's say the other teams in the tournament scored 960 runs in total against them, and the other teams face a combined 240 overs against them (in other words Team A bowls 240 overs total in their matches. That means the conceded run rate is 960/240 = 4. Team A's net run rate is therefore 5 - 4 = 1.
When a tie breaker is needed to decide who makes the playoffs, the team with the higher net run rate makes the playoffs.
@@amireallythatgrumpy6508 thanks!
The target they were chasing was 292, which means to win, they need 292 or more runs. In this case, they had to get 292 in 37.1 overs to QUALIFY for the playoffs, because of net run rate.
Basically, if they got 292 in 37.1 or less overs, they would have a better net run rate than SL so they would qualify for the playoffs.
After the 37.1 over was finished, they were still at 289, but a six would’ve gotten them to 295, so if they hit a six within the next 3 balls, their net run rate would’ve been better than SL, and they would’ve qualified
They didn't need to just win it, they needed to win by a margin. That's why there were trying to chase the target in 37.1 overs instead of 50. So, 292 was needed to be chased in 37.1 overs, but other targets are also possible like 293, 294 etc. in maybe 37.2, 37.4 etc overs. The reason it's possible is because once you reach 291, you can hit a six and reach 297 to finish the match. So anything between 292 and 297 is possible.
i have tried...but...i just get more and more confused...?...thanks...
Jimmy I love ya, but I haven’t been this confused since Trigonometry Class
I wish I understood Cricket. It's such a popular sport and yet, like many American's, I can't tell you anything about it.
Check out the video "cricket explained for baseball fans" it's fantastic. It's actually a pretty simple game at it's core
That is a tough loss. They could have won. It seems like Ron Rivera that he forgot that his team could've made the playoffs but he too forgot. Life is tough.
I've wanted to say this, and have held back for over a year, but why, in the meat of baseball season, are you breaking down cricket clips and all the other nonsense? Baseball breakdowns. That's why we love you. That's why we subscribed.
Lol his last 10+ breakdowns before this one were baseball. Stop crying.
He should do both baseball breakdowns AND other things. And he does. We love him because he covers BOTH baseball and cricket
I suppose the net run rate calculation is made doubly confusing when, as in this case, the opposing team in the match is also the team whose NRR you need to beat. So every run you score (or don't score) affects both you NRR and theirs!
Good point.
Can you do the Chiefs Right Tackle constantly being in the wrong position and false starting, but never getting called?
Jomboy . ❌ . Jomman . ✅
Just another example why you play your hardest until the game is over.
"The afgah stats dept" ... ah, I had a good chuckle at that one mate !!
I don't think I followed you on these rules of this game as I always thought the game was more like baseball! However, this was more like a puzzle and a math test! Lol. Great video! THX
The specific rule here isn’t really a cricket rule, more of a tournament rule
As an Indian who watches cricket regularly, even I was not aware of the rule...
(commented below to some people who like to take any opportunity to shit on cricket)
this isn't something unique to cricket. The issue Isn't this game its whether they "make playoffs" to give it a north American spin. The situation is they can win that game but still not make playoffs because another team has the same record but with a better tie-breaking score. In cricket they use net run rate as a tie breaker.
But, for another example if it were american football it would be like if it was your last game of the regular season and a win would have you tied with a team that has a better +/- than you in the last available playoff spot. So you need to win your last game but not just win it, you need to win by a margin of at least 25 points. That is what's happening here.
The actual problem that caused the entire issue isn't unique to cricket either. The match refs (essentially the umpire) made a bad call. They asked the match ref what was needed to win, the ref gave them incorrect information.
@@mimcduffee86it's kind of outside the match refs purview to be honest to let them know what they need to advance in the tournament. It's entirely external to the match at hand.
Jomboy was a little cheeky with the title of this video. Nobody gave up, what you're seeing is normal tactics for a no.11 batsman who thinks his team don't need to score quickly. (OK he messed up by getting out regardless, but he's not in the team for his batting ability)
Something I have in common with cricket players is that I don’t know how cricket is played.
Jimmy the leg side, the side your backside faces when batting, is also known as the on side, hence the other being called the off side. Why one side has two names and the other only one beats me but that’s cricket.
You've got the causation backwards. The second name (on-side) came from it being the opposite side to the offside,not the other way around.
So maybe im not understanding something here. Jimmy is saying 37.5 overs but the clip at 0:07 says 37.1 which if they needed to do it within 37.1 they falled. But if they can get to 37.5 then yeah sure they had a chance. I dont consider myself a cricket expert but i understand the basics and i can read the banner on the screen. So is there a rule im missing here?
Jomboy could have done a little better job explaining the situation. This was part of a tournament called the Asia Cup. Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and Bangladesh were in the same group. If Afghanistan had won that would have meant they all would have finished on equal points and then it would have come to which team had the best for/against to progress to the next round.
The odd situation here is that Afghanistan made the calculations based on scoring 292 runs within 37.1 overs, which was the winning margin required for them to win and progress to the next round. But they were at 289 and hitting a 6 (like a home run in baseball) would have given them 295 runs, 3 above the winning target thus giving them a few extra balls to reach 295.
Watching this Live,
That was heartbreaking 💔
Me Unable To Comprehend Anything That Just Happened: "Lol what idiots."
Love the cricket content!
Man that’s heartbreaking
To that, I say good, that's what you get for making the most complicated scoring system in the history of sports.
Love the cricket content.
This is the one time that jomboy did not explain well enough. I still have absolutely no idea what he is talking about and what’s happening
There was a tournament called the Asia Cup featuring 6 teams with 3 teams in 2 groups for the first round. This was a 1st round group game. Afghanistan needed not only to win but win by a certain margin to progress into the 2nd round of the tournament. Thats the part Jomboy didn't do a great job explaining.
Let me clear a few things it is not about winning the match but advancing the group stage of Asia cup if they won the match they will equal the total group point with Bangladesh . So run rate is a metric which used to determine who played better . So Afghanistan need to to chase a target of 292 runs just in 37.1overs(223 balls/ pitches) out of 50 overs ( 300 balls/pitches) there run rate would be better than the will advance to playoffs instead of Bangladesh. they scored 289 runs in 37 overs and they need to score 3 more runs and in the next ball it self to advance to playoffs , so players tries to hit a six (home run) but they where unable to do it and players morale where down and they also given away there last out after that but the twist in the tail is there statistics person failed them because if they score 295 runs in 37.4 overs (226 balls/pitches) they could have got on required run rate to advance for the playoffs , and it is possible if they score 1 run in that ball and tried to go for a six runs (home run) in next three ball .
Im new to cricket. Can someone explain why they had to do it in so few overs? Like why couldn’t they win in 50 overs?
their net run rate was poorer than bangladesh and sri lanka
Only a certain number of teams advance to the next stage and if Afghanistan won they would be in a tiebreaker to advance. So it wasn’t just about winning the game, it was about winning the game by enough runs to win the tiebreaker. But if the run differential is also a tie then it matters the number of overs they scored those runs on to win the second level tie breaker.
This was for advancement in the group stage of the Asia Cup.
When teams tied on points for wins, something called Net Run Rate (NRR) is used as a tiebreaker to determine who places where when only some teams (2 out of 3 in this case) can advance to the next round. This is a fairly tricky mathematical equation: how many runs you scored divided by how many overs you faced MINUS how many runs you conceded divided by how many overs you bowled.
So in effect, they could have won the match in 50 overs no problem, but because their Net Run Rate wasn't as strong going into the match, they had to win the match by a certain margin to increase their NRR enough to win the tiebreak.
the tie breaker is basically how fast you score runs - how fast ur opposition scores runs
think of it like if MLB use run differentials for tie breakers to go in playoffs. So if Afghanistan score it earlier that means they scored faster in overall tournament. Cricket unlike baseball rewards blowout wins and penalises one sided losses in a season.
Is this a sportsmanship thing? If anything, if I thought I'd lost, I'd just try to swing for the fences on everything because if you think it doesn't matter, why not at least try to have fun out there? Its wild to me to just see a team concede like that.
Nah that's not one of those unwritten rules of conduct that sometimes gets brought up as a matter of "the spirit of the game", they just gave up rather than going out on a win regardless.
Had nothing to lose by getting out on a big swing, the game would've been over in a few deliveries regardless.
No, it's because the guy who came in at 37.1 overs was the number 11 batter (think a pitcher who really struggles with the bat in the pre-DH days). They still wanted to win the game even if they were gutted they couldn't get the win fast enough to qualify. But time wasn't an issue and Rashid at the other end was a much better batter, so blocking out the over and letting Rashid do his thing in the next over (because it's bowled from the other end) is a viable strategy.
Well Afghanistan would've been eliminated, but were still trying to win the game. The batter who came out (Farooqi) has never hit a six in any format, so it's illogical for him to swing the bat as hard as he can as if he has nothing to lose, they still want to win the game, even if that means not qualifying. Since this was the case, he did what most number 11's do, defend to let the better batter (Rashid Khan) get on strike, since they needed 3 runs in 13 overs to win the game, it was an obvious choice to let Rashid take the strike.
Many people in the comments don't realize that this was a rain affected match so scores were revised heavily and the players wouldn't have known it. Analysts and support staff of the team should have done a better job of informing them.
That's absolutely on the coach for the absysmal team culture. Even if you're lost, you should always go out with a bang.
It's most likely a stats thing, the less outs a player has the better their average will be, they believed they had already lost so the final batter was just trying to preserve his wicket (His out) and help his average. Kind of moot since he got out anyway, but mindlessly slogging for no apparent reason isn't a sign of good team culture.
@@krisjohnston5569oh no professionals stats might change boohoo
It's on the match refs for lying to the team telling them they had to win by 37.1 when they could have won after that.
They would have been trying to win the match itself, even if they thought qualifying wasn't possible. They only had to get 3 runs off 80 balls, so there's ZERO pressure to do it quickly, and the guy batting for those last three balls is their number 11, the worst batter on the team. He did exactly what you would want him to do in that situation: defend as well as he can, take zero risks, and let the other (much better) batsman take over. Either by scoring an easy run if it's on offer, or otherwise just defending til the end of the over, when the other batsman will take over automatically (because the fielding team swaps the end they bowl from after each over).
You can't expect the last (and worst batter) in the team to go out with a bang. The bangs should have come from the previous batters.
I have no idea what's going on.
Jomboy I love you have gone to cover cricket.
The T20 World cup comes to the US in 2024 🥳 you should def go to a game!
wait i dont understand why they needed 295 to advance. is it based on runs?
They needed to win quickly to be ahead on the points table when the tiebreaker method was considered.
That tie breaker is called Net Run Rate. A team's run rate is the total number of runs they scored divided by the total number of overs they have batted (all matches in the tournament combined). The run rate conceded is the total number of runs the opponents scored against them in the tournament divided by the total number of overs the opposition have batted. A team's NET run rate is their run rate minus the run rate conceded.
Let's look at an example: Team A scores 1000 runs in total in the tournament. They bat a total of 200 overs. Team As tournament run rate is 1000/200 = 5. Let's say the other teams in the tournament scored 960 runs in total against them, and the other teams face a combined 240 overs against them (in other words Team A bowls 240 overs total in their matches. That means the conceded run rate is 960/240 = 4. Team A's net run rate is therefore 5 - 4 = 1.
When a tie breaker is needed to decide who makes the playoffs, the team with the higher net run rate makes the playoffs. They needed 292 to win the match (since Sri Lanka batted first and scored 291), but for their net run rate to be above Sri Lanka's they needed to get 292 in 37.1 overs. That was gone, 37.1 overs had passed. But they still had time provided they scored more runs - they still had an extra three or four balls (pitches) if they scored an extra three or four runs.
Its cool to see sports i have zero clue about!
To be fair the chance of a number 11 hitting a 6 is very minute.
I’ve watched cricket my whole life and I’ve never seen this happen, ever lol
I now know what it sounded like when I explained football (soccer) to my exes
what were they trying to qualify for?
To be fair the odds of the number 11 batter hitting a six are very low.....but that first full toss was the ball that could have done it. Rough, real rough :(
Even lower on his first ball.
I don't get it
Basically, the team asked the refs for confirmation on what score was needed to win. The refs gave them false info. They assumed the refs knew the rules and wouldn't give them bad info.
I don't understand the game, obviously. But what is the downside to just swinging big and saying "F*ck it" rather than just protecting?
Despite what it looks like the guy at the end was trying to win the game. The reason they had to win at the 37.1 mark (or so they thought) in order to progress to the next stage of the Asia Cup is because winning the game makes them level with Sri Lanka on the points table but only one of them can go through. Because of this there is a tie breaker that measure how fast you score runs. Since they thought they couldn't beat Sri Lanka's run rate they stopped trying to win as fast as possible. But they were still trying to win.
@@yoshimajestic1666 Hmmm interesting. Now I know. Thanks my dude.
@@C.J_the_Goat Happy to help :)
Afghanistan kinda had two goals: 1. win the game 2. qualify for the playoffs by winning within a certain amount of overs.
After 37.1 overs, Afghanistan thought that they couldn't achieve the second goal, but this still leaves the first one very open. In that case they are left to score 3 runs in 80 balls, which means that the number 11 (Farooqi) should defend until the end of the over to let Rashid take strike. For some background, Farooqi has never hit a six in any format, and is awful at batting, so it makes sense for him to not try and slog a six against a spinner
The downside is you would lose the match.
To all the Americans who didn't understand what is going on...
How do you qualify teams to the next stage of a league when points and number of wins are tied?
In cricket they see strike rate, run rate. How easily they beat the other teams or how badly they lost.
So winning this game wasn't enough for them to qualify. They had to win by a certain margin to continue going on in the tournament.
This is what that was miscalculated.
“YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME!”
So they keep playing in cricket even if there is no chance mathematically for a team to catch up?
No. (Well, yes, in another context, but I don't see what in this video was prompting you to ask that question - They kept going here because they just needed 3 more runs to win the match. What they believed had changed after 37.1 overs was that the win would no longer be enough for them to advance to the next stage of the tournament.)
I hate to say it Mr. Boy, may i call you Jimmy? But i think youve done a disservice to cricket understanding and acceptance in america with this one.
Still the best thing to happen to cricket for north americans, but you bottled this one (in the vernacular)
Why not swing if there is nothing else going on??? That is the PERFECT time to just say fuck it and swing big, right?
Despite what it looks like the guy at the end was still trying to win the game. The reason they had to win at the 37.1 mark (or so they thought) in order to progress to the next stage of the Asia Cup is because winning the game makes them level with Sri Lanka on the points table but only one of them can go through. Because of this there is a tie breaker that measure how fast you score runs. Since they thought they couldn't beat Sri Lanka's run rate they stopped trying to win as fast as possible. But they were still trying to win.
If you're not the worst batter in the team facing your first (and second) ball (pitch), yes.
this is like a math class
Homeboy jomboy has taught everyone who knows about cricket in the USA
I'm not going to say that cricket is dumb. It's not. It's a cool game, at least as far as I understand it. But this kind of arcanery in terms of determining advancement in a tournament is.... not good. It should be much clearer - win game/lose game or win match/lose match. It's just as bad with some ridiculous tie breaking procedures in other sports though most are less obscure/obvious than this.
@cricketexplained8526 I get it. I hate most tie breaking procedures that don't involve the two teams playing H2H. The more complex the math the worse they are. (Run rate isn't exactly complicated but it's not something most people can keep track of in their head, unlike something like run differential.)
It cannot be that simple. Tie breaking is required.
Or are you saying that if there was a tournament where only four teams can make the playoffs and two teams finish fourth equal, they should allow FIVE teams through?
@@amireallythatgrumpy6508 In my perfect world the two teams that were tied would play another game head to head to break the tie. Probably not realistic. I get that tie breakers are needed. I don't to have to find them aesthetically pleasing.
You have to do one on Afg vs Bangladesh in the super 8s. Insane match..
I think they knew a bit, not the whole thing, the last batter was trying to take a single and give it to rashid. And that guy is the number 11, which means HE CAN'T BAT IF HIS LIFE DEPENDED ON IT. He is there to bowl.
Damn...I this sport is too complicated the players don't know what's going on. They need Jomboy to explain everything.
In this instance its not the fault of the sport specifically but of the complicated tiebreaker rules for this tournament.
Baseball has some wacky rules but cricket is on another level lmao
🤦
No matter which team you support, it breaks your heart when you see Rashid Khan like that. He's probably the most universally loved cricketer on the planet.
ABD or Kane
I gave up understanding this breakdown in the fifth ball of the 3rd over after the ball was tossed under the barrier
Never back down never what?
So in summary, they didn’t know they had opportunities to win so instead of trying crazy swings when they were thrown the ball they bunted because they thought there was no more opportunities, and so then the ball hit the leg so the guy was out, but had the ball not hit the leg the guy could have had another chance to swing when the batter already thought they mathematically were out?
At first I thought I was writing something satirical, but then I started to wonder if I actually had it right. 😅
Basically, Afghanistan want to 1. Win the game, 2. Win the game within a certain amount of overs (37.1) in order to qualify for the super 4
After the 37.1 over, they didn’t think it was possible to qualify for the playoffs, but they still wanted to win.
In this case, the batter (Farooqi) wants to defend the ball (bunt it) because at the end of the over, Rashid, the much better batter, would take strike, and he would be able to win the match.
I mean, even if you think you've lost. Why not try and hit over anyway?
Bro if u don't know cricket u won't understand.who said they gave up the match? They gave up trying to qualify,but they didn't gave up the match.the guy who was last to get out is not a very good batsman,so he was actually trying to block out the remaining balls of the Over knowing Rashid is at the other end who cud have easily gotten the remaining Runs. The innings was just 37 Overs old, Afghanistan had 13 more overs to win the match
@@chooky7676 ok, but the title literally says, "team doesn't realize they can win so they give up".
After they couldnt get the game done in 37.1 overs they were indeed trying to win the game thats why the guy blocked the balls later
@@pwizandtheween3652Yeah I can see why that is confusing people. I guess "Team forfeits before realising they could have qualified" doesn't have the same ring to it.
Afghanistan kinda had two goals: 1. win the game 2. qualify for the playoffs by winning within a certain amount of overs.
After 37.1 overs, Afghanistan thought that they couldn't achieve the second goal, but this still leaves the first one very open. In that case they are left to score 3 runs in 80 balls, which means that the number 11 (Farooqi) should defend until the end of the over to let Rashid take strike. For some background, Farooqi has never hit a six in any format, and is awful at batting, so it makes sense for him to not try and slog a six against a spinner.
Hey Jomboy while you're at it why don't you make a math breakdown on string theory; I'll probably understand it better than this voodoo Duckworth-Lewis stuff
And this is why you never give up.
Reminds me of my Rocket League teammates who vote to forfeit down 1 with two minutes left
Your analysis isn’t helpful at all since I still have no idea why they thought they lost and gave up, I know they did the math wrong but I mean it’s much more complex of a mess up than just that. So this video isn’t really good, but I guess it’s kinda entertaining to see an entire organization mess something up like that, even though I can’t say I get the sport whatsoever.
I think Jomboy has confused many people here with the "forfeits" and "gave up" comments.
Afghanistan were very much trying to win the game the whole time. They just believed it was no longer relevant to win the game *quickly*.
Those defensive shots by the #11 batter are very typical of what would happen in this situation where a team needs only 3 runs from 80 balls remaining. The #11 is the worst batter in the team, the way he helps the team win in this situation is to not get out and to get off strike.
Why are the tournament tiebreak rules designed to be at odds with with how teams make the best effort to win the game? Don't ask me 😂
How else would tiebreak rules go? Any possible tiebreak system will be at odds with how teams play in some situation.
If they needed 3 runs in *80* balls to win, I really don't think it was necessary to start employing strategy at that point.
@@johndoe-yw7eb except they had only 1 wicket remaining.
The strategy is to not take risks trying to score runs quickly with your worst batter because he is the most likely to get out.
@amireallythatgrumpy6508 that's true, it's hard to design a tiebreaker system in a 3 team round-robin.
However a system where a team can be rewarded for trying to hit a shot that is *more than is required to win* is quite bizarre.
I think a good tiebreaker might be to compare "the worm" of both innings (the graph of teams scoring runs over time). You look to see how often a team had both more runs and more wickets in hand throughout the whole innings. Teams accrue a tiebreaker statistic based upon that "proportion time ahead" basically.
A tiebreaker system must consider the tournament as a whole not just one match. Three-way ties are possible too...@@benneem
I missed the cricked context. Ball in play league had me invested
why would they quite
Math is hard, eh?
I’m still confused about what they were confused about
Basically it was a tournament rule about who goes through to the final in the case teams in the pool stages tie on W/L points. Afghanistan are on a rapid rise, despite being exiled from their country, but made a huge miscalculation due to never having been in any position like this. In this years World Cup they put on an impressive showing overall, they reject the Taliban and play under the old Afghan flag while living in exile and under constant death threats from the Taliban.
@@goodshipkaraboudjanthis is the most “cricket fan” answer I’ve ever seen that doesn’t even clarify anything
@@RoyaltonDrummer922 Deleted the other comment based off the fact I didn't watch the game and thought they were chasing a rain delay adjusted score. Apparently just tournament tie break rules where it comes down to their average run rate over the tournament if they tie on W/L points in the pool stages before finals/play offs. They just miscalculated the run rate (points per ball) badly.