Donut Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 Lose half the overs but only 91 runs. Thats makes perfect sense It is supposing that if New Zealand knew they had 26 overs to bat, they would have tried to score at a quicker rate. At the start of the innings, it was 26 overs with 10 wickets in hand and a moderate scoring rate. Duckworth-Lewis in the majority of cases is very fair
IOWFOX Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 So increased run rate because theoretically you can go hard because its less overs but they now have better bowling conditions and a slow outfield.
Donut Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 So increased run rate because theoretically you can go hard because its less overs but they now have better bowling conditions and a slow outfield. New Zealand batted a full 50 overs in bowler friendly conditions and had to pace the innings on the basis of thinking they had to bat 50 overs. What happened at the oval exposed a flaw in Duckworth-Lewis, today the par score seems very equitable
RowlattsFox Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 All well and good having an attacking mentality but this is shite batting
Donut Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 Theres a difference between playing aggressively, and getting yourself out with pre meditated shit shots. It was only 7.9 an over needed. It wasnt that tall an order.
Brainy Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 New Zealand batted a full 50 overs in bowler friendly conditions and had to pace the innings on the basis of thinking they had to bat 50 overs. What happened at the oval exposed a flaw in Duckworth-Lewis, today the par score seems very equitable With the threat of rain today and the overs being reduced there was nothing stopping NZ from upping their run rate. Thats what teams do in every other format.
Donut Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 With the threat of rain today and the overs being reduced there was nothing stopping NZ from upping their run rate. Thats what teams do in every other format. Well, it didnt rain, so they made the right choice. And if theyd have upper their scoring rate, Englands would have been upped even more by duckworth lewis. So your point is?
leicsmac Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 Four wickets left, 68 from 8 needed. It's going to be close.
Donut Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 Willey can hold a bat and Rashid's made runs this series, so its not over
Ross-Kemp Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 Whatever happens, this has been superb by Bairstow. Drafted in as a replacement, 72 off 56 so far, we need 17 from 12. Come on.
Ross-Kemp Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 45/5 to winning is massive. The shot from Rashid in the penultimate over was incredible. Johnny Bairstow, take a bow son. 83 off 60 and wins the series !
RowlattsFox Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 Brilliant from bairstow. Also glad Santer was the one who dropped him, there is something about him. Great series, credit to both teams but England definitely deserved the win.
TheSomersetFox Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 Brilliant end to a brilliant month of cricket against the kiwi's
leicsmac Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 Fantastic match, fantastic victory, fantastic series.
AKCJ Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 Wow that series was superb. Well done England and well done New Zealand.
BoyJones Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 Well played Bairstow, a great effort. Still not happy with DL as how is having to get 68% of NZ score in 50% of the overs they used a fair chase. Just because England got there doesn't make the maths right. If every one was happy with the DL method, why are the algorithms amended on a regular basis. Fortunately, NZ bowled too many poor balls and too many wides and the two "B's" took great advantage. Dropping Bairstow at the end was criminal from their point of view.
AKCJ Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 Well played Bairstow, a great effort. Still not happy with DL as how is having to get 68% of NZ score in 50% of the overs they used a fair chase. Just because England got there doesn't make the maths right. If every one was happy with the DL method, why are the algorithms amended on a regular basis. Fortunately, NZ bowled too many poor balls and too many wides and the two "B's" took great advantage. Dropping Bairstow at the end was criminal from their point of view. Because New Zealand would have "gone for it" more if they only had 26 overs. Basically the system will always be flawed because both sides will use each side of the argument. That Bairstow drop was the difference though.
Donut Posted 20 June 2015 Posted 20 June 2015 Well played Bairstow, a great effort. Still not happy with DL as how is having to get 68% of NZ score in 50% of the overs they used a fair chase. Just because England got there doesn't make the maths right. If every one was happy with the DL method, why are the algorithms amended on a regular basis. Fortunately, NZ bowled too many poor balls and too many wides and the two "B's" took great advantage. Dropping Bairstow at the end was criminal from their point of view. Because New Zealand batted their innings with the intention of 50 overs per side. England go out knowing they have 26 overs to bat and ten wickets. So they can be more aggressive with their run rate. The alogrithms are amended on a regular basis because the system evolves as the game evolves
katieakita Posted 21 June 2015 Posted 21 June 2015 Got to be a positive when the worse thing is the test match series was too short. A cracking series of games played in the right spirit. Both teams should take credit for it, also all of a sudden we have a decent nucleus of ODI players maybe bring Moen in for Roy but lots of positives.
Captain... Posted 22 June 2015 Posted 22 June 2015 Got to be a positive when the worse thing is the test match series was too short. A cracking series of games played in the right spirit. Both teams should take credit for it, also all of a sudden we have a decent nucleus of ODI players maybe bring Moen in for Roy but lots of positives. If Ali is going to be our frontline test spinner he needs to focus on that and not be a opening batter for ODI, Roy hasn't set the world a light so far, but he has shown enough to give him the next series. Test and limited overs is so different and it is good that we are finally putting in specialists in the ODI team, rather than test regulars, let Jimmy, Broad, Bell, Cook, Balance, Ali play test cricket. Root, Buttler and Stokes have the ability and style to be effective in both, likewise let Morgan, Rashid, Hales, Roy, Billings focus on being limited overs specialists get them playing in the IPL the big bash and any other limited overs tournament going. The bowlers, Finn, Plunkett, Wood, Willey could all push for a test place, but the 2 disciplines are getting further apart and death bowling and variations are going to be vital in ODI's and T20s and I think Plunkett and Finn focusing on ODI and just putting test cricket out their minds wouldn't be a bad thing.
Voll Blau Posted 23 June 2015 Posted 23 June 2015 Good win tonight. Never thought I'd be saying we need the Test side to take their inspiration from the other formats!
Corky Posted 23 June 2015 Posted 23 June 2015 Love this team, entertainers and very likeable lads too.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.