Royal London Cup Discussion Thread

[DeltaAlpha]

It's entirely sensible that the domestic one day competition should follow the format of the international ones.

I find 50 over cricket more like test cricket and less like Twenty20 than the 40 over version, so I'm in favour of it.

What you're saying there, D/L, is that, compared to a t20, twice as many overs is still similar to a t20, but two and a half times as many is more like a test match. I find that a little hard to swallow, to be frank.

Also, being "entirely sensible" doesn't necessarily attract crowds, does it?

[hopeforthebest]

It's entirely sensible that the domestic one day competition should follow the format of the international ones.

I find 50 over cricket more like test cricket and less like Twenty20 than the 40 over version, so I'm in favour of it.

What you're saying there, D/L, is that, compared to a t20, twice as many overs is still similar to a t20, but two and a half times as many is more like a test match. I find that a little hard to swallow, to be frank.

Also, being "entirely sensible" doesn't necessarily attract crowds, does it?

All one games are contrived by virtue of fielding and bowling restrictions so are far removed from 4 and 5 day games. I prefer 50 over games because at least batsmen have a chance to develope an innings and bowlers have 10 overs to work a batsman out.

[Aidan11]

That was some rainstorm at Lords.

Full marks to the drainage if they get back out there.

[Aidan11]

Not only got back on but were able to play up to 16 overs too.



Ten years ago that would have been all over straight after the downpour. Middlesex probably wished that was the case.

[sussexpob]

Sussex seem to have been done by Duckworth again, 50 overs reduced to 35 yet their total required is only 56 less than Kent's 299. I just can't see how this is fair.

30 overs at that rate would equal 112 yet the total required is 243, the remaining 5 overs leaving 131.

Kent scored at almost 6 an over, yet Sussex were to score at nearly 7? Madness

You lost 2 wickets before the rain break though.

No we didn't. We hadn't even batted before 5 overs were lost, with only 14 runs taken from the target. Not sure how that in itself is fair, to suggest with 10 wickets Sussex would have only been able to score at 2.8 runs per over in those extra 5 overs. Not seen many teams bat 50 overs for a 140 in a OD game nowadays.

So we are left with scoring 6.31 runs per in reply to 6 runs per over, and naturally do you not think this means you lose more wickets? The most incredible thing is that, by the time the rain came we were nearly two runs per over over what Kent had scored having lost one more wicket, and the D/L rewarded us with 1.5 extra runs per over to score.

So, in replying to 300, without facing a ball we were asked to score essentially 15 runs more than Kent, were outperforming their innings by 23 runs at the same time gone, and we then rewarded with being given a T20 game with 2 wickets already down, and having to score 160.

Essex scored the most T20 runs in the Blast this season, and this is only 10 runs away from their average, and a higher average rate than every other team in the T20.

If you are batting at over a run a ball in a OD game, batting above the original rate set by the team batting first by a lot, batting about the RR rate, and losing wickets at a rate that would mean you will not be left all out, the answer of the formula is to give a team a rate in response that only 1 team in 18 would score with 10 wickets in a T20 game??

D/L is a load of rubbish, it doesn't work, it gives unfair advantage to keep wickets based on some old fashioned notion that tailenders couldn't bat in the 80's,amd that keeping wickets intact was important in OD games.

[D/L]

It's entirely sensible that the domestic one day competition should follow the format of the international ones.

I find 50 over cricket more like test cricket and less like Twenty20 than the 40 over version, so I'm in favour of it.

What you're saying there, D/L, is that, compared to a t20, twice as many overs is still similar to a t20, but two and a half times as many is more like a test match. I find that a little hard to swallow, to be frank.

Also, being "entirely sensible" doesn't necessarily attract crowds, does it?

When comparing two formats of limited overs cricket, surely the one where more overs are bowled is more like a test match than the other, DA?

The sensible part is about the format better preparing our players for the 50 over ODI format.

[D/L]

Sussex seem to have been done by Duckworth again, 50 overs reduced to 35 yet their total required is only 56 less than Kent's 299. I just can't see how this is fair.

30 overs at that rate would equal 112 yet the total required is 243, the remaining 5 overs leaving 131.

Kent scored at almost 6 an over, yet Sussex were to score at nearly 7? Madness

You lost 2 wickets before the rain break though.

No we didn't. We hadn't even batted before 5 overs were lost, with only 14 runs taken from the target. Not sure how that in itself is fair, to suggest with 10 wickets Sussex would have only been able to score at 2.8 runs per over in those extra 5 overs. Not seen many teams bat 50 overs for a 140 in a OD game nowadays.

So we are left with scoring 6.31 runs per in reply to 6 runs per over, and naturally do you not think this means you lose more wickets? The most incredible thing is that, by the time the rain came we were nearly two runs per over over what Kent had scored having lost one more wicket, and the D/L rewarded us with 1.5 extra runs per over to score.

So, in replying to 300, without facing a ball we were asked to score essentially 15 runs more than Kent, were outperforming their innings by 23 runs at the same time gone, and we then rewarded with being given a T20 game with 2 wickets already down, and having to score 160.

Essex scored the most T20 runs in the Blast this season, and this is only 10 runs away from their average, and a higher average rate than every other team in the T20.

If you are batting at over a run a ball in a OD game, batting above the original rate set by the team batting first by a lot, batting about the RR rate, and losing wickets at a rate that would mean you will not be left all out, the answer of the formula is to give a team a rate in response that only 1 team in 18 would score with 10 wickets in a T20 game??

D/L is a load of rubbish, it doesn't work, it gives unfair advantage to keep wickets based on some old fashioned notion that tailenders couldn't bat in the 80's,amd that keeping wickets intact was important in OD games.

It is the result of an entirely mathematical calculation, rightly unaffected by human judgment and bias and, as such, has much to commend it.

Of course, people who support teams that lose on Duckworth/Lewis will complain. They have been doing that for years but the authorities know that no better system could be devised and should continue to ignore the occasional howls of anguish.

[sussexpob]

It is the result of an entirely mathematical calculation, rightly unaffected by human judgment and bias and, as such, has much to commend it.

One that is based on a standard average score of 245 for a OD match involving first class sides...... the top scorers in this competition are scoring 312 per 50 overs, so not sure the maths is based on any standard reality, added to the fact it also doesn't at all take conditions in a match into account.

Not really sure why the use of maths is being advocated by you though, a person who has a lot to say about the lack of value of batting averages.

Maybe you can actually explain the maths, its application, and its relevance rather than hide behind generic and contradictory statements?

[pompeymeowth]

Sussex seem to have been done by Duckworth again, 50 overs reduced to 35 yet their total required is only 56 less than Kent's 299. I just can't see how this is fair.

30 overs at that rate would equal 112 yet the total required is 243, the remaining 5 overs leaving 131.

Kent scored at almost 6 an over, yet Sussex were to score at nearly 7? Madness

You lost 2 wickets before the rain break though.

No we didn't. We hadn't even batted before 5 overs were lost, with only 14 runs taken from the target. Not sure how that in itself is fair, to suggest with 10 wickets Sussex would have only been able to score at 2.8 runs per over in those extra 5 overs. Not seen many teams bat 50 overs for a 140 in a OD game nowadays.

So we are left with scoring 6.31 runs per in reply to 6 runs per over, and naturally do you not think this means you lose more wickets? The most incredible thing is that, by the time the rain came we were nearly two runs per over over what Kent had scored having lost one more wicket, and the D/L rewarded us with 1.5 extra runs per over to score.

So, in replying to 300, without facing a ball we were asked to score essentially 15 runs more than Kent, were outperforming their innings by 23 runs at the same time gone, and we then rewarded with being given a T20 game with 2 wickets already down, and having to score 160.

Essex scored the most T20 runs in the Blast this season, and this is only 10 runs away from their average, and a higher average rate than every other team in the T20.

If you are batting at over a run a ball in a OD game, batting above the original rate set by the team batting first by a lot, batting about the RR rate, and losing wickets at a rate that would mean you will not be left all out, the answer of the formula is to give a team a rate in response that only 1 team in 18 would score with 10 wickets in a T20 game??

D/L is a load of rubbish, it doesn't work, it gives unfair advantage to keep wickets based on some old fashioned notion that tailenders couldn't bat in the 80's,amd that keeping wickets intact was important in OD games.

Maybe the problem lies with the amount of overs in each format. Perhaps a different scale is needed for each.

My feeling is that it needs to be reviewed, maybe by using the WASP (another entirely mathematical system) somehow, which I remember you D/L, saying was a waste of time recently. As you think that averages and now WASP don't prove anything even though they are mathematically correct, I can only assume that Duckworth appeals to you as being perfect, because it's your choice of username.

[D/L]

It is the result of an entirely mathematical calculation, rightly unaffected by human judgment and bias and, as such, has much to commend it.

One that is based on a standard average score of 245 for a OD match involving first class sides...... the top scorers in this competition are scoring 312 per 50 overs, so not sure the maths is based on any standard reality, added to the fact it also doesn't at all take conditions in a match into account.

Not really sure why the use of maths is being advocated by you though, a person who has a lot to say about the lack of value of batting averages.

Maybe you can actually explain the maths, its application, and its relevance rather than hide behind generic and contradictory statements?

Generic?

The important point is that it is a mathematical calculation entirely free of bias towards either side and any human judgment of "conditions", whatever that means.

The comparison between the use of Duckworth/Lewis and the value of batting/bowling averages is a typically false one and has no relevance here. Nor, clearly, is there any contradiction.

An explanation of the maths is available on the internet.

[D/L]

Maybe the problem lies with the amount of overs in each format. Perhaps a different scale is needed for each.

My feeling is that it needs to be reviewed, maybe by using the WASP (another entirely mathematical system) somehow, which I remember you D/L, saying was a waste of time recently. As you think that averages and now WASP don't prove anything even though they are mathematically correct, I can only assume that Duckworth appeals to you as being perfect, because it's your choice of username.

That is entirely coincidental with my initials, pmo (hope I got yours correct).

Use "WASP somehow"? Care to elucidate? WASP is a gimmick used to predict 1st innings scores and the likelihood of a victory for the side batting second. It'd be interesting to know how it could be adapted to replace Duckworth/Lewis.

[sussexpob]

The comparison between the use of Duckworth/Lewis and the value of batting/bowling averages is a typically false one and has no relevance here. Nor, clearly, is there any contradiction.

Why. Its a "mathematical calculation entirely free of bias towards either side and any human judgment of "conditions".....

Or are certain types of mathematical calculation faultless, and others are not?

Nor, clearly, is there any contradiction.

Your point is maths is free of human judgement and free of bias, and therefore is perfectly adequate, but limited by its lack of human interpretation, and therefore not adequate.

Contradiction.

An explanation of the maths is available on the internet.

Didn't think you could explain it, thanks for that.

[D/L]

The comparison between the use of Duckworth/Lewis and the value of batting/bowling averages is a typically false one and has no relevance here. Nor, clearly, is there any contradiction.

Why. Its a "mathematical calculation entirely free of bias towards either side and any human judgment of "conditions".....

Or are certain types of mathematical calculation faultless, and others are not?

Nor, clearly, is there any contradiction.

Your point is maths is free of human judgement and free of bias, and therefore is perfectly adequate, but limited by its lack of human interpretation, and therefore not adequate.

Contradiction.

An explanation of the maths is available on the internet.

Didn't think you could explain it, thanks for that.

I really have better things to do.

Clearly, luck plays a part in any player's figures. As far as I'm aware, Duckworth/Lewis assumes that luck will favour each side equally (what else could it do?) and leaves it out of the equation.

The only contradictions appear to be in your comprehension of what you read.

[pompeymeowth]

Maybe the problem lies with the amount of overs in each format. Perhaps a different scale is needed for each.

My feeling is that it needs to be reviewed, maybe by using the WASP (another entirely mathematical system) somehow, which I remember you D/L, saying was a waste of time recently. As you think that averages and now WASP don't prove anything even though they are mathematically correct, I can only assume that Duckworth appeals to you as being perfect, because it's your choice of username.

That is entirely coincidental with my initials, pmo (hope I got yours correct).

Use "WASP somehow"? Care to elucidate? WASP is a gimmick used to predict 1st innings scores and the likelihood of a victory for the side batting second. It'd be interesting to know how it could be adapted to replace Duckworth/Lewis.

Sorry I meant in conjunction with WASP. I'm not sure how it works or if it is just a gimmick, but I'm the first to admit that I don't understand much about any of the maths involved in such matters. And I did statistics at A level too!

So I can't elucidate, but as you say there's probably an explanation on the net somewhere.

If you need one.

[hopeforthebest]

Varun Chopra chooses to bat first when the BBC weather suggests a rain affect game is possible. I hope he won't regret that decision. No Rankin again so he must have picked up an injury playing for the Lions, which has become par for the course.