Colin the Mathmo
In the #ICC Men's #Cricket World Cup, if Australia beats Namibia, and then loses to Scotland, then Scotland and Australia would go through to the knock-out stage, and England would not.
Would Australia deliberately field a weaker team against Scotland? Would they quietly lose to Scotland with a lot of small errors that could be attributed to carelessness or a lack of attention?
The #GameTheory strategy is actually pretty clear ...
Sean Murthy
@ColinTheMathmo (a) All players named in the squad for the tournament are "top" from the rules point. But a team cannot *deliberately* select "weaker" players and *claim* to rest others. The deliberate part makes it a violation.
(b) "Giving the appearance of trying their best while not actually doing so" is also a violation. Though done to lose, such conduct is as bad as doctoring the ball or juicing the bat to win.
I understand your Game Theory point. Just that it doesn't apply to #Cricket.
Colin the Mathmo
@smurthys I agree that it's against the spirit of the game, and it's likely that there are rules intended to prevent it, but I also suspect that:
(a) A team could easily select their "non-top" players and claim they are resting their best, and initiating the less well-known;
(b) They won't be upset if they lose, and could easily give the appearance of trying their best while not actually doing so.
All I'm doing is looking at the Game Theory aspect, not judging the morality or otherwise.
Sean Murthy
@ColinTheMathmo machinations like that are not only against the spirit of the game but it is likely also against the rules of the tournament. Every team is expected to play their best eleven for the wicket condition.
With every ball bowled, fielded, and batted, players are expected to lawfully participate in a winning cause in that match, regardless of the consequence outside that match. To do otherwise would be tantamount to match fixing.
JTW, Cornell '91
@ColinTheMathmo @smurthys Sweden did pull something like this in ice hockey in the 2006 winter Olympics, tanking their last game to finish 3rd and draw Switzerland in the quarterfinals. Annoyingly, it worked, since they won the QF.
Colin the Mathmo
@smurthys We are agreed that deliberately losing is (a) "Not Cricket", and (b) against the rules.
We also agree that there are circumstances where losing the game is actually better for the team.
What I'm saying is that there are ways to improve the chances of losing without it being obvious, and I was just speculating about some of them.
With significant experience in security-adjacent activities, seeing the possibilities is unavoidable.
Colin the Mathmo
@smurthys But deliberately choosing a weaker team under the guise of rotating players is potentially a way to cause a losing outcome.
I'm not claiming they will do it, I'm exploring ways that it could be done if a team *did* choose to do it.
(a) Rotating players is common;
(b) Rotating players can lead to a weaker team than might be chosen;
(c) Deliberately choosing a weaker team under the guise of rotating players is therefore possible;
(d) If they then happen to lose, they won't be upset, because actually that's more-or-less a desirable outcome.
Sean Murthy
@ColinTheMathmo Indeed, player rotation routine, but we began this conversation with teams possibly having the purpose of causing a losing outcome.
Colin the Mathmo
@smurthys (a) Rotating players is absolutely a thing that teams do.
(b) You have no argument from me about deliberately not playing your best is a rules violation. No argument that it's a rules violation. None at all.
JTW, Cornell '91
@ColinTheMathmo @smurthys it's in the interest of the organizers to minimize the chance of such a circumstance arising, and eliminating carryover points certainly helps.
fu
JTW, Cornell '91
@ColinTheMathmo I don't see how there would be any benefit in it for Australia unless India lose to the USA. Finishing second in group B means they end up in a super eights group with A1, C1 and D2 instead of A2, C2, and D1. True, Group C is screwy, although assuming WI still wins that group they'll be tougher at home than Afghanistan. So all you're doing is avoiding South Africa.
Colin the Mathmo
@jtwcornell91 It would also be making sure that England ... their traditional "friend" ... doesn't make it out of the group stage.
But the benefits of manipulating results like this are marginal, uncertain, and almost certainly the payoff absolutely isn't worth it.
With my experience in security-adjacent fields, I can't help but speculate.
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.