katieakita Posted 12 June 2015 Posted 12 June 2015 DL really needs to be looked at how can 9 an over suddenly go 15.
leicsmac Posted 12 June 2015 Posted 12 June 2015 Really think given the modern game that Duckworth/Lewis needs to be looked at. The scoring is so different to when it was first conceived.
purpleronnie Posted 12 June 2015 Posted 12 June 2015 They take forever to get started again get the blinkin covers off quicker, could have easily played 6 overs....stupid ruling.
StanSP Posted 12 June 2015 Posted 12 June 2015 stunning fielding from NZ there. I hate D/L as much as the next person but I doubt if this was NZ batting there'd be as much uproar...
Osavo Posted 12 June 2015 Posted 12 June 2015 What a sad end to what has been a fantastic match. Plenty of positives to take but I think we were on course to win had the rain not come. The D/L method is ridiculous based on the way cricket is played nowadays.
Swarles Barkley Posted 12 June 2015 Posted 12 June 2015 stunning fielding from NZ there. I hate D/L as much as the next person but I doubt if this was NZ batting there'd be as much uproar... Well yeah there would be... In new zealand. I would still say that I wouldn't consider it a special/worthy win if it was England that benefitted from it as im sure would alot of people
leicsmac Posted 12 June 2015 Posted 12 June 2015 stunning fielding from NZ there. I hate D/L as much as the next person but I doubt if this was NZ batting there'd be as much uproar... There would be from me. D/L has been a farce for a while now for many different teams in many different situations.
katieakita Posted 12 June 2015 Posted 12 June 2015 The equation that chasing 54 off 37 to needing 34 off 13 looks strange. we were going at close to 8 an over for the best part of 44 overs.
ADK Posted 12 June 2015 Posted 12 June 2015 We were scoring at 7.81 but the loss of 4 overs reduced our target by 20, how does that work? Guess you can't really have a fair system for changing a 6.1 over match to a 2.1 match.
BoyJones Posted 12 June 2015 Posted 12 June 2015 D/L is antiquated and frankly a disgrace. It assumes that the lower you are in the batting order, the worse player you are in terms of scoring runs. In real life this doesn't happen, most teams bat down to number 11. Why are we using a 20th century system in the 21st century. Thanks for spoiling another game of cricket D/L. Don't get me wrong, if England lose fairly, I can accept that. But D/L has always been suspect, cricket is not based on mathematics, it is based on human spirit and desire to win which can often go against the odds. Why the cricket authorities ever entertained such a System, which they think is objective, but is clearly subjective, is mind blowing. Mathematics and cricket does not work, D/L assumes that if you need 36 from the last over this is an impossibility. You automatically lose.
fuchsntf Posted 12 June 2015 Posted 12 June 2015 Tonights, misfortunes of weather ,D/L, Umpire delays, groundsmans delays, flexabilty of individual game situations. For T20s, and 1 day games, the game has to take look at itself.More than ever the customer/supporter will be more concerting than ever.At present cricket is still in no-mans land whether they can keep supporters motivated, and youngsters interested in the game.Todays customers will not take a season or 2 to decide, cricket will lose supporters within 1 series, if what happened today continues. *Curfew..no argument, enclosed grounds will have their society limitations. *Umpires, must be given more leeway to restart or begin games earlier, when pitch condition allows it. *D/L, served its purpose admirably over the years, but we see in the allround game over the last 4-5 years major technical playing developments within the flow and players technical abilities.This season needs people to sit down,dont wait 2-3 seasons to try and change the format/approach, or present and future fans will have already been lost. *D/l not to be used has a scapegoat, it should only be used when all other possibilties are not attainable, and when as mentioned Umpires are not constrained with illogical time limits.I see D/L only be relevant to day-night matches. If 16:00,18:00 even 20:00 hrs on some grounds the light and weather changes then some type of game should be attempted, again only if there are no curfew constraints. * Another thing ffs the individual game authorities should be so organised, that they can keep media and supportes informed, and up-to-date.During the game, and immediately after stoppages, when poor whether or bad light starts to come into question.
Captain... Posted 13 June 2015 Posted 13 June 2015 Whilst how the fvck duckworth/Lewis come up with the ridiculous target is a valid question the more pertinent question is why could we not have just played for another 6 overs. The only way to see a fair conclusion is to play 50 overs D/L should only be used when there is a washout otherwise play 50 overs, light isn't an issue, it was a day/night match, bollocks to TV schedule, fans etc there is no reason they couldn't have played another half an hour and seen a fair conclusion to the game.
katieakita Posted 14 June 2015 Posted 14 June 2015 Whilst how the fvck duckworth/Lewis come up with the ridiculous target is a valid question the more pertinent question is why could we not have just played for another 6 overs. The only way to see a fair conclusion is to play 50 overs D/L should only be used when there is a washout otherwise play 50 overs, light isn't an issue, it was a day/night match, bollocks to TV schedule, fans etc there is no reason they couldn't have played another half an hour and seen a fair conclusion to the game. Surrey i believe have some sort of conditions on time restrictions as to when the games can continue until that was the issue but the D/L was a joke the umpires could have got them out 10 minutes earlier as the idea is to have a fair contest and going from 54 in 37 down to 34 in 13 can in no way be deemed fair on the batting side, also D/L takes no account as to New Zealand bowling out their better bowlers.
Alexikokopops Posted 14 June 2015 Posted 14 June 2015 D/L certainly needs some tweaking to account for the changes in the game that have happened in the past couple of years. However people calling it ridiculous and a disgrace are getting a little hyperbolic. This is ridiculous... Whilst how the fvck duckworth/Lewis come up with the ridiculous target is a valid question the more pertinent question is why could we not have just played for another 6 overs. The only way to see a fair conclusion is to play 50 overs D/L should only be used when there is a washout otherwise play 50 overs, light isn't an issue, it was a day/night match, bollocks to TV schedule, fans etc there is no reason they couldn't have played another half an hour and seen a fair conclusion to the game.The conditions under which Surrey has a license from the local authority to host cricket include restrictions on when matches can finish. From my understanding playing on would have breached this.Edit: just seen I've been beaten to it
Captain... Posted 14 June 2015 Posted 14 June 2015 D/L certainly needs some tweaking to account for the changes in the game that have happened in the past couple of years. However people calling it ridiculous and a disgrace are getting a little hyperbolic. This is ridiculous... The conditions under which Surrey has a license from the local authority to host cricket include restrictions on when matches can finish. From my understanding playing on would have breached this. Edit: just seen I've been beaten to it Do all grounds have a limit? Surely then you don't play a day nighter, or give yourself an extra hour by starting earlier. Nobody wants to see a great contest ruined by duckworth/Lewis and it really needs to be revised, I don't know what to but if they want ODIs to continue being a popular and valid version of the sport they can't have games ruined by the weather. What exactly is WASP and what was it when the rain came, and what was it after the rain? Depending on how that is viewed in the game one of revising the target is to use that to ensure the chance of winning/losing remains the same after a rain delay.
Captain... Posted 14 June 2015 Posted 14 June 2015 Another good match in the offing, tougher batting conditions but plenty of intent from England, chance here for Billings to show what he's got.
Bobby Hundreds Posted 14 June 2015 Posted 14 June 2015 Wonderful knock from Billings. Looks a really prospect.
Swarles Barkley Posted 14 June 2015 Posted 14 June 2015 Shouldnt let the collapse stop us from continuing to play like this. Just a few tweaks on how to finish off the innings
Donut Posted 14 June 2015 Posted 14 June 2015 Do all grounds have a limit? Surely then you don't play a day nighter, or give yourself an extra hour by starting earlier. Nobody wants to see a great contest ruined by duckworth/Lewis and it really needs to be revised, I don't know what to but if they want ODIs to continue being a popular and valid version of the sport they can't have games ruined by the weather. What exactly is WASP and what was it when the rain came, and what was it after the rain? Depending on how that is viewed in the game one of revising the target is to use that to ensure the chance of winning/losing remains the same after a rain delay. In a nutshell, WASP first calculates the likely score the team batting first will achieve given the amount of overs and wickets they have at their disposal, and then calculates the probability the team batting 2nd will chase their score down. So New Zealands WASP at the start of their chase of 303 today was 73% (a 73% chance of chasing the runs). I believe it takes into account a whole range of factors, the actual players playing on the pitch, the ground, the conditions....Its complex.
Captain... Posted 14 June 2015 Posted 14 June 2015 In a nutshell, WASP first calculates the likely score the team batting first will achieve given the amount of overs and wickets they have at their disposal, and then calculates the probability the team batting 2nd will chase their score down. So New Zealands WASP at the start of their chase of 303 today was 73% (a 73% chance of chasing the runs). I believe it takes into account a whole range of factors, the actual players playing on the pitch, the ground, the conditions....Its complex. So after any rain break the WASP percentage for the chasing team should be the same, if not then the duckworth Lewis revised target is wrong. Is WASP just something Sky came up with?
BlueSi13 Posted 14 June 2015 Posted 14 June 2015 For me it is becoming clear that despite us having plenty of quality batsmen when they are on form, our lack of world class bowling is absolutely killing us.
purpleronnie Posted 14 June 2015 Posted 14 June 2015 For me it is becoming clear that despite us having plenty of quality batsmen when they are on form, our lack of world class bowling is absolutely killing us. Been mentioning that for months.
Donut Posted 14 June 2015 Posted 14 June 2015 So after any rain break the WASP percentage for the chasing team should be the same, if not then the duckworth Lewis revised target is wrong. Is WASP just something Sky came up with? WASP was developed by two PHD graduates at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. There is more info on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WASP_%28cricket_calculation_tool%29 Duckworth Lewis does have its faults, most notably for me the way it over emphasises wickets as a "resource" as opposed to overs, but all in all its a very good system
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.