clubcricketeradi wrote:DiligentDefence wrote:clubcricketeradi wrote:This system is useless.
New Zealand scored 271/7 (42/42 ov) but the target given to India is 297 .
http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand ... 67643.html
Seems fair enough to me given the timing of the rain.
We score 4 more runs than them and that too in 3 less balls, so why we cannot win.Also, other doubt is why they give 22 extra runs to NZL in giving us target.
New Zealand 271/7 (42/42 ov)
India 277/9 (41.3/41.3 ov, target 293)
DiligentDefence wrote:clubcricketeradi wrote:DiligentDefence wrote:clubcricketeradi wrote:This system is useless.
New Zealand scored 271/7 (42/42 ov) but the target given to India is 297 .
http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand ... 67643.html
Seems fair enough to me given the timing of the rain.
We score 4 more runs than them and that too in 3 less balls, so why we cannot win.Also, other doubt is why they give 22 extra runs to NZL in giving us target.
New Zealand 271/7 (42/42 ov)
India 277/9 (41.3/41.3 ov, target 293)
The rain came in something like the 33rd over of the New Zealand innings, not at the start. If no adjustment is made it is blatantly unfair to the side batting first.
DiligentDefence wrote:The rain came in something like the 33rd over of the New Zealand innings, not at the start. If no adjustment is made it is blatantly unfair to the side batting first.
clubcricketeradi wrote:DiligentDefence wrote:clubcricketeradi wrote:DiligentDefence wrote:clubcricketeradi wrote:This system is useless.
New Zealand scored 271/7 (42/42 ov) but the target given to India is 297 .
http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand ... 67643.html
Seems fair enough to me given the timing of the rain.
We score 4 more runs than them and that too in 3 less balls, so why we cannot win.Also, other doubt is why they give 22 extra runs to NZL in giving us target.
New Zealand 271/7 (42/42 ov)
India 277/9 (41.3/41.3 ov, target 293)
The rain came in something like the 33rd over of the New Zealand innings, not at the start. If no adjustment is made it is blatantly unfair to the side batting first.
How rainfall will impact the match in changing the first innings score.
Dr Robert wrote:clubcricketeradi wrote:How rainfall will impact the match in changing the first innings score.
Probably would have slogged earlier, if they knew they only had 42 overs to bat.
clubcricketeradi wrote:Dr Robert wrote:clubcricketeradi wrote:How rainfall will impact the match in changing the first innings score.
Probably would have slogged earlier, if they knew they only had 42 overs to bat.
But slogging earlier also means few wickets would have fallen in their innings also.It is wrong that the method assumes that for example 150 runs scored cautiously without slogging will also mean wicket would not have fallen had they slogged taking risks to score 150.It is contradicting its own assumptions.
clubcricketeradi wrote:Dr Robert wrote:clubcricketeradi wrote:How rainfall will impact the match in changing the first innings score.
Probably would have slogged earlier, if they knew they only had 42 overs to bat.
But slogging earlier also means few wickets would have fallen in their innings also.It is wrong that the method assumes that for example 150 runs scored cautiously without slogging will also mean wicket would not have fallen had they slogged taking risks to score 150.It is contradicting its own assumptions.
Arthur Crabtree wrote:I think that is taken into account Adi, otherwise the score would be higher. The amount the total is increased is based on how many runs and wickets have occurred. So it is an extension of something that has happened. It seems a lot fairer than not adding the runs, for example.
Dr Robert wrote:Imagine going to watch a 50 over game, which changes into a t20 match because they think it might rain for an hour. I'd want my money back.
clubcricketeradi wrote:Dr Robert wrote:Imagine going to watch a 50 over game, which changes into a t20 match because they think it might rain for an hour. I'd want my money back.
That is from the customers point of view and whether the customers want money back or not should not justify the use of this DL method.Solutions need to be found to that point as well.The ticket revenues are probably not even 5% to broadcast rights, so even if they refund full money back to ticket purchasers, it will not make much difference.The ground owners, the respective boards and ICC should find a way to share profits to cover up this loss for the grounds.
Dr Robert wrote:clubcricketeradi wrote:Dr Robert wrote:Imagine going to watch a 50 over game, which changes into a t20 match because they think it might rain for an hour. I'd want my money back.
That is from the customers point of view and whether the customers want money back or not should not justify the use of this DL method.Solutions need to be found to that point as well.The ticket revenues are probably not even 5% to broadcast rights, so even if they refund full money back to ticket purchasers, it will not make much difference.The ground owners, the respective boards and ICC should find a way to share profits to cover up this loss for the grounds.
It's not just about the money, although the paying public are important in all this. To change a 50 over game into a 20 over one on the premise that it might rain is illogical. one, it might not rain, two, it may do for half an hour, in which case no harm done, and three, D/L is not perfect but is a pretty fair way of deciding a match.
clubcricketeradi wrote:Dr Robert wrote:clubcricketeradi wrote:Dr Robert wrote:Imagine going to watch a 50 over game, which changes into a t20 match because they think it might rain for an hour. I'd want my money back.
That is from the customers point of view and whether the customers want money back or not should not justify the use of this DL method.Solutions need to be found to that point as well.The ticket revenues are probably not even 5% to broadcast rights, so even if they refund full money back to ticket purchasers, it will not make much difference.The ground owners, the respective boards and ICC should find a way to share profits to cover up this loss for the grounds.
It's not just about the money, although the paying public are important in all this. To change a 50 over game into a 20 over one on the premise that it might rain is illogical. one, it might not rain, two, it may do for half an hour, in which case no harm done, and three, D/L is not perfect but is a pretty fair way of deciding a match.
In some cases we wont get a DL match. So it is better to go for a T20 atleast if rainfall is highly probable.I think one example of such occurrence was during CT2013 where a T20 could have been played .Sometimes we might miss the opportunity of a 50 over match, thats true.But rather than DL being used in 40 overs match, i would personally prefer a cricket match decide a result.
Return to International Cricket
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 61 guests