Dimi wrote:We have no leg to stand on if we start complaining about D/L as the reason for our loss - we did kinda win the toss and decide to bat, and the threat of rain later on had been made quite clear.
D/L wrote:Well done to the Windies. If any team were to get to the semi-finals at England’s expense, I’m glad it was they.
However, tonight’s game once again calls into question the system used to determine the target for a team batting second in a rain-affected match, where the number of overs is so drastically reduced. There are many points on which the system can be criticised but I’d make just two, which seem to be the most salient.
Firstly, the chances of losing all 10 wickets in a 9 over slog are close to zero, which means a team can abandon all caution in the run chase. The team batting first does not have this luxury and Duckworth/Lewis does not address this iniquity.
The second point, which could be more easily addressed, concerns the power-play. In a full 20 over innings, 30% of the overs are delivered with only 2 fielders allowed outside the inner circle. Tonight, however, when 3 overs were allocated to the power-play, this rose to 33%. Surely, in the interests of fairness, the power-play in the Windies’ innings should have ended after 4 balls of the 3rd over. Perhaps though, even this simple calculation is beyond the wit of the time-serving dullards at the ICC.
Any road up, never mind. At the end of the day, it's only Twenty20!
The second point, which could be more easily addressed, concerns the power-play. In a full 20 over innings, 30% of the overs are delivered with only 2 fielders allowed outside the inner circle. Tonight, however, when 3 overs were allocated to the power-play, this rose to 33%. Surely, in the interests of fairness, the power-play in the Windies’ innings should have ended after 4 balls of the 3rd over. Perhaps though, even this simple calculation is beyond the wit of the time-serving dullards at the ICC.
D/L wrote:I know what you mean, gollygosh, but they do impose restrictions on the fielding side. Yesterday, however, The Windies were restricted for 30% of the time they bowled and England 33%.
The effects of interruptions to play on runs and wickets should probably be left to Duckworth/Lewis, unless a better system comes along, but the ICC could quite easily make power plays fairer in these circumstances. Yesterday, the power play would have ended with the 4th ball of the 3rd over. I don’t see any problem with this when field placings are changed almost every ball anyway.
D/L wrote:It should be obvious that a side with 20 overs to bat cannot take as many chances as a side batting for less than half these overs.
What is the logic behind saying that a complete number of overs must be allocated to power plays?
Return to International Cricket
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests