NRR is meant to give a measure of how well a team has won or lost over a series of games. Have they won handsomely? Were their losses at least close games?
The one thing that NRR does not consider when determining the 'closeness' of a game, is the wickets lost in a winning chase. It only considers the number of over taken to get to the victory.
Example: Assume 2 sides have a NRR = 0.
Side-A chases 180 and gets them 9 down in the 14th over.
That was an extremely close game, but Side-A gets a BIG NRR boost.
Side-B chases 180 and gets them 2-180 in the 19th over.
Side-B has won easily, but only gets a SMALL NRR boost
Most sides chase targets in the Side-B manner to ensure victory. I think because of this, NRR always favours the sides that bat first.
I have no statistics whatsoever to back that claim up!
I have a feeling that your hypothesis does not need statistical corroboration. It just makes sense...!
NRR is meant to give a measure of how well a team has won or lost over a series of games. Have they won handsomely? Were their losses at least close games?
The one thing that NRR does not consider when determining the 'closeness' of a game, is the wickets lost in a winning chase. It only considers the number of over taken to get to the victory.
Example: Assume 2 sides have a NRR = 0.
Side-A chases 180 and gets them 9 down in the 14th over.
That was an extremely close game, but Side-A gets a BIG NRR boost.
Side-B chases 180 and gets them 2-180 in the 19th over.
Side-B has won easily, but only gets a SMALL NRR boost
Most sides chase targets in the Side-B manner to ensure victory. I think because of this, NRR always favours the sides that bat first.
I have no statistics whatsoever to back that claim up!