International Cricket 2015

16768707273249

Comments

  • alfamalealfamale Posts: 10,309
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Always disappointing when so little extra time is available. Has to be finished by 9.15pm so sadly that's probably it. What a shame, its been a brilliant match. McCullum was getting so worried he was slowing things up big time knowing the rain was coming.
  • mimik1ukmimik1uk Posts: 46,701
    Forum Member
    even if we do lose this its still been a good performance and shows we are going in the right direction

    yes the bowling is a problem but even the best bowlers around atm are taking punishment in limited overs these days when you get a cracking pitch , what you need is the firepower to compete when teams are capable of making big scores and we seem to have that. as well as the intent to just keep going and trust the guys coming in behind you when wickets go down

    this game a year ago we would still have conceded 400 but just not had the personnel to really have a chance to chase it down
  • jazzydrury3jazzydrury3 Posts: 26,980
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    should the duckworth/lewis totals be changed, to fit in with how the totals are growing these days
  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    So they have gone from just over a run a ball to over just three a ball?

    Why cannot they play the remaining seven overs?

    The ICC need to have a rethink.

    New Zealand have won by rain.
  • mimik1ukmimik1uk Posts: 46,701
    Forum Member
    should the duckworth/lewis totals be changed, to fit in with how the totals are growing these days

    afaik the database used is constantly updated but i agree because it is based on historical scores it will take time to reflect what teams are capable of now in the last 10-15 overs
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    should the duckworth/lewis totals be changed, to fit in with how the totals are growing these days

    The problem is that the 7 wickets down works against England even though the pair in were going so well.
  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Or if they needed 9 an over when they came off why don't they have a target 9 an over when they come back?

    Not the 17 they are given.

    They have had their requirement doubled by this ridiculous method.

    Either have the run rate at the same rate as at the same rate as they went off or have them having to better the score at the same amount of overs.
  • mimik1ukmimik1uk Posts: 46,701
    Forum Member
    jcafcw wrote: »
    Or if they needed 9 an over when they came off why don't they have a target 9 an over when they come back?

    Not the 17 they are given.

    They have had their requirement doubled by this ridiculous method.

    Either have the run rate at the same rate as at the same rate as they went off or have them having to better the score at the same amount of overs.

    because 9 an over for a shorter period is easier to do , so the amended target takes account of that
  • BosoxBosox Posts: 14,164
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ugh, what an awful D/L calculation. I knew it didn't work in T20 but it's usually pretty good in ODIs. No one can claim this is a fair adjustment.
  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mimik1uk wrote: »
    because 9 an over for a shorter period is easier to do , so the amended target takes account of that

    And 17 an over from 9 an over is fair?

    Especially when the batsmen have to get back into the rhythm?
  • jazzydrury3jazzydrury3 Posts: 26,980
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Times have changed, Duckworth/Lewis needs to
  • mimik1ukmimik1uk Posts: 46,701
    Forum Member
    jcafcw wrote: »
    And 17 an over from 9 an over is fair?

    Especially when the batsmen have to get back into the rhythm?

    where did i say it was fair ?

    i simply said you cant just retain the same required rate for a shorter period as that wouldn't be fair on the bowling team either as its easier to score at a high rate for a shorter period
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,884
    Forum Member
    It's one of the more extreme D/L calculations I've seen in a while. It's pretty much guaranteed only one result, barring a miracle. Whereas leading up to the rain delay it was looking like a close finish with England having a genuine good chance, based on the 2 set batsmen and poor remaining NZ bowling options.

    But...there is no perfect system for trying to force results in a rain affected match.
  • iamsofirediamsofired Posts: 13,054
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lol catch - GG England, another fantastic match.
  • mimik1ukmimik1uk Posts: 46,701
    Forum Member
    obviously not the most satisfactory way for a game to finish , didn't really expect to see them come back on tbh , might have been better if they hadn't now as all the D/L talk is going to overshadow what has been a fantastic game of cricket and a great attempt by england to chase down a massive score
  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    BTW why can't they play out the remaining four overs. It would take about fifteen minutes. I can accept if the rain came earlier but there surely must come a point in the match when you can just play it out.
  • BosoxBosox Posts: 14,164
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Even more encouraged by today's performance by England than the 1st game. Facing near 400 on the board is infinitely more difficult than batting first and yet England still managed to get themselves into a position where I think they would have won but for rain and a poor D/L adjustment.
  • mimik1ukmimik1uk Posts: 46,701
    Forum Member
    Bosox wrote: »
    Even more encouraged by today's performance by England than the 1st game. Facing near 400 on the board is infinitely more difficult than batting first and yet England still managed to get themselves into a position where I think they would have won but for rain and a poor D/L adjustment.

    agreed

    for all the stats and records being broken the number of 6s being hit has been the big one for me and shows the depth of power hitting we now have , something thats been lacking for awhile now
  • jazzydrury3jazzydrury3 Posts: 26,980
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well done New Zealand for the win, well done England for doing soo well, for the first time in my life we have a ODI side I want to watch.

    If England had won and it become 2-0, it wouldnt have been a true result, 1-1 makes the series interesting.

    Isnt part of the problem, with the cut off time with the residents of London, meaning the matches having to finish at 8:r45 normally.

    If it had reached its normal conclusion, the DN game would have finished in the light.

    Surely would have made more sense, to have given the Ageas Bowl the second ODI, and the Oval the game on Sunday, in the Day
  • GrecomaniaGrecomania Posts: 19,580
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jcafcw wrote: »
    BTW why can't they play out the remaining four overs. It would take about fifteen minutes. I can accept if the rain came earlier but there surely must come a point in the match when you can just play it out.

    One of crickets illogical rules I wouldn't worry about it Too much, possibly something to do with being in London too.

    Yes agree with everyone else a very encouraging loss. I know people want Wood in for Jordan, I'd prefer Willey another explosive bat, but more importantly, the left-arm bowling thing may just help in these high-scoring matches, give a bit more variety.
  • jazzydrury3jazzydrury3 Posts: 26,980
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I zgree about Willey, dont no if you guys saw the T20 game live on Sky last night, but Willey was brillaint
  • mimik1ukmimik1uk Posts: 46,701
    Forum Member
    I zgree about Willey, dont no if you guys saw the T20 game live on Sky last night, but Willey was brillaint

    i think willey was due to play in game one but wasn't 100% so they played billings instead and probably just didn't want to change a winning team going into today
  • jazzydrury3jazzydrury3 Posts: 26,980
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Enjoyed Matt Prior today he seemed to come over good, hope he works for Sky more, he would give an uptodate feel
  • garbage456garbage456 Posts: 8,225
    Forum Member
    SULLA wrote: »
    What is an average bowler?

    One that isn't world class and doesn't deserve to be in an international team.
  • mimik1ukmimik1uk Posts: 46,701
    Forum Member
    garbage456 wrote: »
    One that isn't world class and doesn't deserve to be in an international team.

    so you are saying that every bowler who plays international cricket is "world class" ?
Sign In or Register to comment.