Who dares wins

There seems to be a developing trend here. Still one post per day, Monday to Friday tend to be about technology or marketing or science or superstition, but as evident yesterday, romance or sport can intrude at the weekend.

While we slept overnight, the England cricket team collapsed horribly to lose to New Zealand. I am sure that various commentators are going to write scathing match reports, it's reasonably easy to write something different. I am sure that the Cricinfo site will come up with pages of stats, but they have not done so yet, so I'll get in first with some almost miraculous coincidences.

One day games used to be 55 overs per side. The New Zealand second innings today was declared after exactly 55 overs, that is 330 balls. The England second innings was ended after exactly 55 overs, 330 balls. What are the chances of that?

And looking at the first innings - at the close of day one, New Zealand were 6 wickets down for 282 runs; at the close of day three, England were 6 wickets down for 286 runs (just one boundary away).

But the key bit of synchronicity is in the run rate. In the first innings, to two decimal places, England scored at only 2.00 runs per over. In an era where Australia (and even India) push for 4 or 5, that is an affront to the paying spectator. England's run rate in the second innings, exactly 2.00 runs per over.

On the same pitch in the same match, New Zealand scored at 3.3 Because England did not appear to try to win, England deserved to lose.