England Cricketers

Sound. I think the issue you will have is that to me it sounded like they made the call midway through the block. So with a few overs of the ten remaining. Still be interested to see what you find.

 

I got the impression it was in blocks of 10 i.e 11-20 etc. but im not a gambler so unsure. From watching the doc i reckon a few England players might be crapping themselves.

If it was just the filmmakers and the fixers then perhaps itd be a bit questionable but when theyve got comments from ex interpol staff / corruption investigators etc. It does look pretty bad.

 

Major questions need to be asked. I think its probably 50/50 as to whether there will be a conviction but I will never watch the game in the same way again.

 

It's blocks of five bookies offer least for in play. You can from the start of an innings usually bet on under/over so many runs in the first 5, 10, 15 or 20 overs. Then as the match goes on they move it up in the same pattern. So you can't bet on runs scored between say overs 37 and 46.

 

Re: overs and betting. Having watched again, the documentary suggests this is every 10 overs, from the beginning of the game. See here

 

Seems fair. Just have to find a set of 10 where the run rate tails off and the last is a very low score.

 

If you find it in the data will you then know which cricketer it (allegedly) is, or does it not give you that?

 

There's a lot of stuff to be said - but scores in the blocks of 10 overs with a handa only happened 6 times. England averaged 30.29 runs for each of the 10 over blocks (157 overs batted). These make only the 1st ten overs particularly out of kilter (if we're looking for a low score, which we might not be!) - of course we don't know what the bookies were offering per session.




There was a much slower section of play between Rashid and Dawson, but the handa (120th over) went for 4 runs (with Dawson flicking the last ball of the over for 2 runs) which invalidates the fixers comments.

 

Would appear at least one of ali and dawson was involved then.

 

Given that Ali won't even stand for team photos when they're spraying champagne around I'd be nearly as amazed if he were taking bungs than if Joe Root were. Personally I can't see it.

 

For the record England had handa's in 53% of all their overs.

 

The data wouldn't necessarily show anything as it needs the context of what was happening in the game. A maiden over in the handa might look suspicious, but if a batsman played two attacking shots in that over and fielders made two amazing dives to stop the ball from going four then that looks very different to someone dead batting 6 balls. Which in itself is not particularly suspicious. All it can do is point to parts of the game to look at.

I suspect we're looking for low scoring sections, or at least those the below the average scoring for England.

 

I've not watched the report yet, but surely the fixers would need to have players on both sides - both the batsmen, the bowlers and the fielding captain - and multiple batsmen/bowlers at that. It could just take a wicket to fall or even just a change in bowlers (from pace to spin or back) or field positions to change the run rate.

 

There would obviously be a risk, but the as the batsmand is simply trying not to score the likelihood of the wicket is low. Plus it’s done on the first innings when the pitch is behaving well.

I guess by having both batsman at the crease in on the fix at the same time the risk is also minimised.