The Definitive Comedy Ranking of Cricket Group Stage Outcomes - Part 2
How funny are group stage outcomes in major cricket tournaments? Yes, it’s a question we’ve all asked ourselves many times. But here, finally, is the definitive answer.
(Note that, for the purposes of this analysis, we’re talking about the standard four-team groupings that are most commonly used in major tournaments. I’m not getting bogged down in eight team, everybody-plays-everybody round robin nonsense, no matter how fun it is to see England wandering aimlessly around India and being thrashed by every team they bump into.)
Meta-Group B - One No Result
In the first part of this analysis, I broke down the comedic merits of the four possible outcomes (The Orderly Queue, The Strutting Peacock, The Hapless Donkey and The Futile David) of a four-team cricket tournament group stage, assuming there were no no results.
(Note: as pointed out by @paranoidadnoid over on BlueSky, there can be greater nuance to these comedic merits, based upon the order in which the matches take place. And, yes, this is true. Timing in comedy is everything. But for this analysis, we’re focusing primarily on the outcomes, rather than how we got there. It’s not the journey, it’s the destination.)
This time around, we’re considering how the humour levels of these four possible outcomes vary once famed cricket comedy input variable rain rears its sodden head. (Or any other ‘no result’ instigator - but let’s be honest, it’s almost always going to be rain.)
More specifically, we’re looking at the case where one (1) match in the group stage is N/Red by the rain.
The Orderly Queue
Base Comedy Potential: 0/10
How does a single no result impact the awful Orderly Queue group outcome? As with all group outcomes, it depends precisely on which match is N/Red. Time for some subcases!
Subcase 1: No Result - Team B v Team C
This is when rain saves the day, ensuring that Team B and Team C end up on the same number of points, requiring net run rate to separate them for the next stage.
As we mentioned previously, the impact of net run rate calculations tend to be way more amusing when they’re more heavily impacted by the teams’ margins of defeat rather than victory. But in this particular subcase, the NRR is likely to be impacted to similar degrees by each side’s margin of victory (over team D) and margin of defeat (to team A). Therefore, for this particular subcase, we end up with a comedy potential somewhere between The Strutting Peacock (7/10) and The Hapless Donkey (3/10). Let’s call it 5/10.
Subcase 2: No Result - Team A v Team B or Team C v Team D
A marginally better group outcome than the original Orderly Queue. At least it’s not quite so obvious any more who is the best or who is the worst team in the group.
But the same two teams go through to the next stage. Whatever. Bump the comedy score to 1/10, based solely on the prospect of some squabbling for supremacy/anti-supremacy.
Subcase 3: No Result - all other matches
No effective change to the boring old Orderly Queue. Just a few odd numbers rather than the even ones. Oooooo-ooooohh! Spooky! No. Still 0/10.
We’re left with only a 1 in 6 chance that rain will offer a half-hearted salvaging of the Orderly Queue. And a 1 in 3 chance of a marginal improvement. Plus a 50% chance it’s no different. Bleurgh.
Orderly Queues suck.
The Strutting Peacock
Base Comedy Potential: 7/10
How does a single no result change the top tier Strutting Peacock group outcome? Let’s see, shall we.
Subcase 1: No Result - Team A v Team B, C or D
In this scenario, the no result saves whichever team happens to be playing Team A, boosting them to 3 points and a spot in the next stage. This removes all that is good from a Strutting Peacock outcome - namely, the net run rate battle between three loser teams, to see which of these losers is the least loseryish. Bad, rain. Bad.
The only thing going for this particular subcase is the prospect that maybe Team B comes out of it believing they would have beaten Team A. Delusion can be funny. Still, at best, this is a 4/10 outcome.
Subcase 2: No Result - Any match between Teams B, C or D
This subcase is also bad, once again removing the net run rate battle from the equation. Worse still, the deluded team that finishes on three points (Team B) can now call upon the transitive relation (they beat Team C, who beat Team D) to argue that they would have also beaten Team D, had it not been for the weather, and that the outcome of the group should have been an Orderly Queue.
Aspiring to be an Orderly Queue? Disgusting. Tempted to give it 0/10, but again there’s a little bit of comical delusion here. So, 1/10 it is.
Rain ruins the Strutting Peacock in both cases. And half the time, it makes people think it’s an Orderly Queue in disguise. Come on.
The Hapless Donkey
Base Comedy Potential: 3/10
On the other hand, throwing a no result into a Hapless Donkey group outcome can be fun. Theoretically, this is just an inverse of the Strutting Peacock NR scenarios, but, in practice, it’s a lot more entertaining.
Subcase 1: No Result - Team D v Team A, B or C
This is quality material. In the classic Hapless Donkey, one team misses out on the next stage because they didn’t thrash Team D sufficiently.
In this N/Red variation, they miss out because of rain. This is obviously infinitely more frustrating, and, hence, very, very funny. A case could even be made that this is comedically stronger than a basic Strutting Peacock. In fact, let’s say it is. 8/10.
Subcase 2: No Result - Any match between Teams A, B, or C
This, on the other hand, is less good. Much as in Subcase 2 of the Strutting Peacock lone no result, we’ve got a team (in this case Team A) who are now in a position, based on the transitive property, to argue that rather than being part of a Hapless Donkey group outcome, they were instead denied by the rain from forming the head of an Orderly Queue. Bleurgh.
Not quite as bad as the corresponding sub-outcome of The Strutting Peacock, because the rain did cost team C a chance of making the next stage. And the team most likely to be deluded (Team A) go into the next stage undefeated, where their unearned hubris may get a delicious comeuppance. So, maybe a point for setup for future gags. But not much going on in the moment. 2/10
A single rained out match, then, is a worthwhile risk for a Hapless Donkey. You’re not getting much out of it, comedy-wise anyway, and there’s a coin toss chance that the upside moves it to the top tier. Definitely a good risk-reward analysis on the humour front. And isn’t that what comedy’s all about? Optimised risk-reward outcomes?
The Futile David
Base Comedy Potential: 6/10
Finally, how does a lone no result affect the Futile David? This one has the most interesting variants. So, settle in.
But before you do, let’s remind ourselves of the base case. Team A beats Team B and Team C. Team B beats Team C and Team D. Team C beats Team D. But then, in a stunning, funny and pointless repudiation of the Orderly Queue outcome, Team D knocks off Team A. Got it? Right.
Subcase 1: No Result - Team A v Team D
Completely undercuts the entire point of the Futile David, which is that the worst team in the group defeats the best team. Worse still, this no result doesn’t make a lick of difference to the final outcome of which two teams go through.
Instead, every reasonable person will assume that this is just a simple Subcase 3 of The Orderly Queue. Worst possible outcome. 0/10.
Subcase 2: No Result - Team A v Team B
This is better. Now it looks like Team B has been denied a Strutting Peacock, which is good delusion material, particularly heading into the next stage of a tournament.
(Note that it’s specifically Team B who moves into the top position in this variant! That’s because of the very ordered way in which a Futile David breaks down.)
This variant is not quite as good as the basic Futile David, because the comedic heroics in Team D knocking off Team A have been obscured. Team B’s Fool’s Strutting Peacock is not quite compensation for this. 5/10.
Subcase 3: No Result - Team A v Team C, Team B v Team D
Better again. In both of these cases, we end up with two teams level on 3 points, with NRR called upon to decide which team goes through. But one of the teams on three points - the straight role of the pairing - has fallen into line, losing to the top team and beating the bottom team in the group. In contrast, the other three-pointer plays it a little wacky, flipping those outcomes.
If it’s a Team A v Team C no result, Team C plays it straight, losing to table-topping Team B, but beating Team D at the bottom. Team A is wacky.
If it’s a Team B v Team D no result, now it’s Team B playing it straight, losing to Team A and beating Team C. Team D is the wacky team.
In both these cases, we have a classic net run rate odd couple. Hard to argue with that strong comedic basis. Is it better than the base Futile David? Probably not. But it’s not really worse, either. 6/10.
Subcase 4: No Result - Team B v Team C
Yes, we’ve again now got two teams on three points. But both of them have lost to Team A and both of them have beaten Team D. Two teams playing it straight isn’t much fun.
On the other hand, we’ve retained the Futile David aspect of the group, so that definitely salvages things somewhat.
In fact, we’ve arguably even improved the basic Futile David here by adding some net run rate fun (even if it is strait-laced fun) into the mix. 7/10.
Subcase 5: No Result - Team C v Team D
Yawn. We’ve messed up the entire point of the Futile David for very little gain. We don’t get to fully see how bad Team D is, because they don’t lose to Team C, and therefore, we don’t appreciate the value of their meaningless victory over Team A.
Instead, Team D might even argue that they’ve been the victims of a Hapless Donkey washout. This would be deluded, but it’s a delusion without payoff, as they’re not going through to the next stage. Some comedy points, though, because it looks like a Hapless Donkey Single N/R Subclass 1, and the damn fool media can play it up as such. But it’s a Fool’s Hapless Donkey Single N/R Subclass 1. 3/10.
Man, I love digging into a Futile David. Rain might mess up the comedy of it (and might not, too!), but usually not too badly, and it adds a thrilling element of chance to the humour of a group stage outcome. Isn’t that what we’re all asking for?
Think all this has become needlessly convoluted? Just wait until tomorrow, when I’m breaking down the comedy prospects of group stage outcomes when there are between 2 and 6 ‘no results’. Subscribe now to get this final vital group stage outcome comedy ranking update straight to your email inbox.
