NZ v SA Semi Final

 Luke
I thought it was 50:50 until I looked at the history of NZ performances - the Guptill situation - and the showing of NZ against Windies at home.
Fact is NZ normally struggles against SA in ODI's and there winning record over the past few years - whether at home or away - has not been good.   As late as in October last year they lost two ODI's against SA at home.
Their main problem remains Guptill.   He scored virtually 60% of the runs scored in the quarterfinal against the Windies - a very admirable performance.  If it was not for that score by him the match could have gone either way.   Thoroughly deserved the MOM.  However, Guptill has a very poor record in games against SA - which I mentioned elsewhere - during the October 2014 series there was even talk by the NZ commentators  about who should replace him in the batting line-up.
Insofar as the comparison between the NZ win over the Windies and the SA win oiver the same team is concerned - there really is one thing that is clear.  The SA win was substantially more emphatic - the SA winning margin was by more than 250 runs - the NZ one by less than 150 runs.
The only thing that counts in the NZ favour could be the pitch.  Pitches are designed to favour the local team as was the Auckland pitch in the Aussie game recently.   That being said - for any team to rake out SriLanka in Sydney - the way SA did - and then scoring runs ar virtually 8 rpo - showed that the SA team is finding top form at just the right moment.
I think that there will be an early indication of the actual outcome - and that is the way De Kock performs - if SA bats first and he score s as he did against Sri Lanka - NZ will be doomed from the start.       

the aussies love their cricket, and some of my aussie mates who are really into it tell me a ton of things bout the cwc.
i dont want to be rude and dont have the heart to tell them i dont really give a poo, cos imo cricket is a like the average saffa or aussie rugby derby, a good reason to be unconscious.

but here are what the aussie arkchair critics have to say about the saffa v nz one day test semi final...

- NZ should win they are the form team, but like steve hansne said, u dont have to be the top dog to win the world cup, u just have to be the right dog on the day

- SA in the cwc have been useless when it comes to batting 2nd, if the bat 2nd against NZ, another huge advantage rolls towards nZ favour

- bowling is going to be a huge factor, as both teams have heavy hitters, sa have the best trio in cricket, but NZ have the form duo

- ab devilliers is the best batsman in the world, NZ want to get him out asap, likewise, mcullum despite guptils heroics is the real danger man in the NZ batting lineout, if both get on a roll, its going to hurt the apllicable bowlers big time

- NZ and india are the form teams in the cwc, but NZs form began a year and half ago, making them the form team

- they are pretty sure that NZ beat south africa in SA during the last one day test series between the two???

good luck kiwis, but theres only one WC that matters in 2015,

 No.

This is the first game in this WC where the players will have a sense that they can take their team out of the WC. Perhaps the Proteas did before the Sri Lanka game, but that game was over after a few overs.

Here a dropped catch, two poor overs, a low score at the wrong time could sink the ship.

So this game becomes more about pressure management than small differentials in skill. The teams are close.....luck, the toss and pressure will decide this semi. 

 The above from the idiot who claimed that SA had a 10% chance of beating SriLanka. Now it is all  about pressure - nothing about skill and execution.   There are three elements required in winning performances and those are -
*   maximum application of skill sets - whether bowling, batting  or fielding;*   concentration on execution - not making silly mistakes like Klusener did in 1999;*   not allowing circumstances to develop which will create pressure on own team - by for instance making sure that in bowling the scoring or runs does not come easily and that the required run rate is not getting out of control in the case of batting.
Pressure is not necessarily created by the opposition - often enough pressure is created by your own players on teammates.   This has been a constant in the past - which caused problems for SA.   In the past WC's  when the opposition gets 250 runs, the idea was that we must build an innings - allowing the slow batters to bat at a low run rate so as to protect their wickets.  It was typical that for the first 25 overs SA scored at a run rate of circa 3 to 3.5 rpo.   We then had 75 - to 85 runs and and needs a further 165 to 175 runs to win at an rpo of nearly 7 runs per over.  That is where in the past opening batsman and no 3 batsmen created serious pressure on lower order batsmen and then the latter gets blamed for the fiascos that bedevilled SA performances in previous WC's.  If they bat at 5 rpo from the beginning - the pressure is all on the opposition bowlers and fielders - not on your own lower order batsmen.
Pressure created by the opposition is one thing pressure created by your own team on themselves is worse.  I think the present team players realize their responsibilities in the relevant regard and would not themselves create pressure for their teammates, like so often happened in the past in WC's .                  

You really should leave the numbers alone Moronic....it was a 10 per cent chance of winning the tournament.  Surely even you understand there is a difference?  Surely?

 Now the deviation from the SriLanka match story - so what about the rest of the things written above?   

There you are Moronic, if you  ask nicely I'll draw you a picture:

" In aggregate our chances of winning all three games are .5 x .49 x .39 = 9.56 % of winning the WC final. It looks depressing but winning any three games on the trot against top opponents is low"

 Do it is rare for SA to win 3 ODI's in a row is rare.   That calculation rs serious flawed and could only have been done by a complete idiot.
*   .5 in that case  means that SA has a 50-50 chance of winning;

*   .49  in that case  means that SA has a 49-51 chance of winning;  
*   .39   in that case  means that SA has a 39 -61 chance of winning; 
The crazy calculation is done in a way that makes no sense whatsoever.  Instead of converting it into percentages in the first place - the crazy idiot use decimal figures multiply it and then in the end put a percentage on the result.  How on earth is the following calculation .5 x .49 x .39 =  9,56% in this case material.   It is so immaterial that the Proteas beat the Sri-Lankans by the biggest margin ever in a play-off game in the WC competition.        
The first game was won so what is the crazy percentage now?   Suddenly 19,1%
Any expert would say that it is crazy to try and come up with a mathematical calculation with a figure determined without any basis based on just plain and simple guessing.   For any real calculation against the various chances - look at results against the competing nations over the past two years and then decide on a a reasonable percentage based on average wins.
In this case against Sri-lanka it was 3 wins and 1 loss, ie 75%, against New Zealand it was 4 wins 2 losses, 66,67% and against India it was 3 wins out of 4 played. Against Australia it was 4 losses against 1 win.
What would turn that 75% down to 50% - the 66,67% to 49%, etc?   It was just Mozart plugging figures from the sky and making a fraudulent calculation.  Utter balls as per normal.  
     

 Interesting enough one of the New Zealand wins came about as follows:-
*   New Zealand made 246 runs and SA needed 247 runs to win.
*   In came Graeme Smith and he made 116 runs - problem it was from 232 balls. 
*   That left the other batters to get 131 runs from 68 balls.  They obviously failed.
Who lost the game for the Proteas?  Graeme Smith - despite his century - was the culprit.  
See what I mean by lower order batsman being put under pressure by their own team-mates?    I think that was the last century made by Graeme Smith and the management apparently did not like what they saw.  

"Fact is NZ normally struggles against SA in ODI's and there winning record over the past few years - whether at home or away - has not been good."

Ou Maaik, the Black Caps haven't exactly struggled against us in CWCs.

In 2003 they smashed us by 9 wickets meaning we didn't even get to the knockout stages of the tournament we hosted.

In 2007 they beat us in the Super 8s which meant we got Australia in the semi.

In 2011 they knocked us out of the tournament in the quarterfinals.

We have become their CWC bunnies!

If you think Martin Guptill is their only threat then you haven't been following their fortunes very closely. Guptill had a very ordinary start to his CWC and it's only his last two innings that were substantial. Before then it was Kane Williamson, Corey Anderson and Brendon McCullum scoring their runs. But the real threats are their fast bowling pair of Tim Southee and Trent Boult who have been superb throughout the tournament.

I wouldn't write off their chances too quickly. We're going to have to play very well to beat them.

Come on Proteas!

If anything NZ are strong favs. Based on current form 1-11 NZ should be considered favs. Could say sa only dangerous player is AB De Villiars. But I wont lol. Nz have the best bowling attack in the wc. Boult is the leading wicket taker in the wc with 19 wickets. On their day NZ can beat anyone. Same for SA. Hence why I said its 50/50. History is on nz side. And we did beat you in thet warm up :D.

 Rooinek 
My problem is that since the Smith and Kallis era o ur approach to scoring in ODI's have changed.   Smith was a major problem scoring at less than 3 rpo and often takes up too many balls for the low scores  he eventually posted.   Kallis had the same problem - in the last two years he posted only one significant score - 50 off 90 balls.
That more than anything else accounted for our failure in previous WC's.  I think that since the departure of Smith and Kallis our rpo's early in games increased in a major way - putting  less pressure on the middle-order batsman.   After being rated at no 6 - we are now rated in the top 3.
This may be harsh on Smith and Kallis - both were markedly better batsmen in tests than in ODI's and it cost us dearly in many ODI's - whether in WC's or other games.  .             

 Dave
I got a strange feeling about this game.  I think it will be another low scoring game and that NZ will try and set a mark - which will be inadequate - a low number of runs to be made.
It could easily become a replica of the SA-SriLanka game.  I have looked at all angles and must agree with you that the Proteas are favoured to win that one.  I was watching the Foxsport discussion programme on the WC semi's and there was much talk about the result. Three of the four panellists - inclusive of Lara, Mark Waugh and Chappell thought SA will win - only KP saying it is a 50:50 match.      

We just have to believe as we are better man for man and we have everyone on form now......its going to be a hum dinger  

So hang on Dave . . . according to you we're in good form, we're better than them in every department of the game and every one of our players is better than his opposite number . . . yet you say it will be a "humdinger"?

What is going to make it such a close match? Are we going to fall asleep? Match-fixing?

Also, if Steyn and Morkel are so much better than Boult and Southee, how come Boult and Southee between them have taken 34 wickets (in the tougher group) compared to Morkel and Steyn who only have 24?

Form and home ground advantage make NZ favourites in my opinion. We have the better side, but we have more pressure to deal with (a self inflicted condition), .
Good lord I hope I am wrong! 

Just checking because if we're so much better than them then I would have thought we'd only have to pitch up to win this one.

Personally I don't subscribe to this theory that we're so much better on paper or that our individuals are better than theirs. Who is our opening bat with a strike rate of over 180? Who is our allrounder who can stand comparison with Corey Anderson? How many of our guys have hit ODI double centuries? Who is our bowler with 19 wickets so far in the tournament?

I agree it'll be close, but not simply because it's a semifinal, but because it's between two very competitive and capable teams.

I never said SO much better, I said better....and agreed it will be close as they are to good sides......without doubt I believe we are better, but that is on paper....which counts for very little.....but my call is that our boys will prevail.......but I would not put money on it!!  

 Rooinek
I do not know of a opening bat that has a strike rate on either side.  The fact that Guptill managed that in one game - while flopping continually against SA in the past - means nothing to me.  
This match depends on the quality of bowling and batting in the game.   If our bowlers are as good as they were against SriLanka - and I think they would be - then the game will be much easier for our batsmen.   
Prior history in WC's has nothing to do with the present scenario.   It depends on whether the Proteas can bowl, bat and field well and the SriLanka game showed they peaked at the right time.
I said elsewhere that if De Kock comes off - like he did against SriLanka - and I think he will - its going to be a hard day at the office for the Black Caps.   De Kock earlier in the tournament was badly out of form, lack confidence  and his timing was completely out - in the SriLanka game that lack of confidence vanished and his timing and accuracy were faultless.   I have always said De Kock is a class act - and class acts do not disappear - they may at times have confidence, form and timing problems - but once that has been overcome they are difficult to deal with.   We will see early ins the game if we have to bat - how De Kock is going, or if bowling - whether the bowlers can maintain the level they attained against SriLanka.
Although I give the Proteas a 60% chance of winning - I concede that it could be a tight game.
                

Ou Maaik, Brendon McCullum's strike rate in this tournament is currently 185.51, the highest in the tournament, even higher than Glenn Maxwell's.

McCullum with his strike rate vs the class of Amla......I'd go with Amla in my side.  

 Not over-awed by that at all - which teams did they play against making that kind of run rate for McCullum?  His showing in October last year against SA in two ODI's was less than 3rpo and even in the warm-up game - where we did not play our best bowlers it was 59 from 89 balls.  Against SA his strike rate was 87 from 161 balls.
If he gets the 180 strike rate you are talking about - I will eat my hat - do not ahve one and will have to  buy one for the occassion.
By the way the bookmakers have the odds on a win as follows:
New Zealand   =    11/10South Africa    =     7/10
 

 Hell, ou Maaikie, I cannot believe that you are even thinking of challenging others on calculating strike rates, run rates, and all kinds of cricket data. Not after this palaver that you sneaked  away from, as usual:
"if a player's run rate is 47 - how many runs did he score per over?"

Moronic how would you calculate the chance of tossing a coin and getting three heads in a row.....take your time wind bag.  

NZ have a 55 per cent chance of winning. They have beaten Oz and England. We lost to Pakistan and India. There is information in that, but not much. The teams are very close. Still  NZ have played all their games in home conditions, and these pitches have varied a lot. So I give NZ a slight edge.

Am giving SA the edge as they are the better side  

 Mozart - the simpleton aka Dofdoos
You are the one that made up some numbers in your crazed mind and splash  them all over the thread as if it means something.  You are bloody clueless on cricket - clueless on rugby - and in the process you are a bloody fraud as well.
How did you - idiot - arrive at the famed .5,.49 and .39 story?  Was their any basis whatsoever for those figures you splashed around - or were those just the products of lunacy.   Explain that one - don't try your normal idiocy to try and get away from that.
The first figure was .5 - so what does that show - piss brain?   The biggest victory ever in any WC play-off game and Mozart said the chances for victory by the Proteas was .5.  How much knowledge of cricket does that show.  I think something like 0.05% - but that is still too much.
Enjoy wallowing in ignorance - it fits your personality like a glove.

Moz and Mike seem to be getting on quite well these days!!  

No Moronic lets not go off on tangents....show me how to calculate the probability of three heads coming up on consecutive throws.  

NZ's gripped with sports fever, the only comparison being RWC '11 . Buoyed with a belief of many that this is their finest team ever & there'll be a sold out home ground fervently behind them, the rugby's all but forgotten . I do know that if they do lose, the majority of NZers will be supporting our oaks in the final, & I'm sure that feeling will be reciprocated if we lose ..... btw, Aussies are backing their cuzzie bros .

The weather's looking promising & although D/L might rear their ugly heads, it shouldn't be too influential ............. remember '92, 29 runs to win & D/L allocates one ball .

 so close to the start of the match, it is still not sure who will play ... Hendriks or Abbott. Hope it is Abbott.

 AB won the toss and the Proteas will bat first.

 philander in ... Abbott out.

 Mozart aka Dofdoos
Show me how to determine  the match decimals in your case and on what it was based to be used by you as aprt and parcel of a BS calculation.  

 oh boy, Amla is gone, De Kock living very dangerously.25 - 1

 runs will come just need to keep wickets in tact