Netherlands beat England in the cricket!

quote:

Originally posted by JWM:

I couldn't believe Sri Lankan Malinga's bowling action. Has ever been looked at for chucking?

What? Malinga the Slinga?!!

What a farce - they'd have been all out for 100. Mr Duckworth and his mate Lewis have a lot to answer for.

Oh well - that's that then - best wait for the Ashes.

I have never been convinced by the efficacy of the Duckworth/Lewis calculations.

The targets given always seem to defy reasonable logic but the "method" seems too complicated for anyone with any authority in cricket to challenge it

It was amusing listening to the Sky commentating team trying to analyse what might happen before the WI innings even started.

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:
What a farce - they'd have been all out for 100. Mr Duckworth and his mate Lewis have a lot to answer for.

You could counter argue by saying they would not have slogged so recklessly if they were in for 20 overs and risked their wickets so much.

I agree that it is a very unsatisfactory way to calculate a result.

I think we were beaten fair and square.

Stop being so reasonable!

Two wins in five games isn't going to get you too far.

Yeah, but what great wins they were - deserved to get us through IMHO - and wouldn't you say we were dead unlucky to lose on Duckworth-Lewis after two fantastic wins and only narrow defeats by Holland and South Africa?

Good luck to WIndies and the others left in the tournament.

The D/L method isn't the best for sure. Individual bowlers can only bowl a certain amount of overs relative to the overs remaining but the batting side can use all their batsman????

I don't really think that England were unlucky. They only had one consistent batsman throughout the five games. Lack of talent and experience. Flintoff, in form, would have helped.

Not for the first time, administrators have messed up cricket as a spectacle with inflexible rules. As this competion is played in England, rain should always be factored into the playing time. The early match to start at say 1PM with a cut off time of 4.45PM. The last match starts at 5.45PM and a cut off time of 9.30PM. This would limit D/L to being used as a last resort. I beleive D/L rules give the team batting 2nd a greater advantage than the team who completed their 20 overs with a different mindset.

As this is entertainment the authorites really should look to extend the playing time of ALL cricket matches. That includes Test matches, where Floodlights can improve the light to conclude a thrilling climax of a days play, instead of a petering out to tame draw. The facilities should be used in order to promote the game to a wider audience.

I would even make County Cricket a Day/Night competition to get more crowds attending in the evening

Denis

What a lot of mindless whingers you are. It reinforces my detestation of all that is English cricket; a set of so-called fans that cannot appreciate other sides.

WI have had a terrible summer against England; one could say they were beaten by the weather; cold and damp throughout the Test series. Yet here in one of the hearts of English cricket (and still with appalling weather) they managed to pull off a great win. Well done West Indies.

For all of the complainers about the D/L method, search on the internet for the paper that sets out the process. It is based on real matches and analysis of what happened. The method is a best fit process. If you can come up with a better fit, then try it.

Where is the lack of entertainment in using the D/L method? Oh sorry, only an England victory would have been entertainment for most of the 'fans'. For me it was hugely entertaining to see (on the highlights just now) grown men crying because their beloved Ingerland had lost.

Nick,

Just to clear things up, which cricket country do you support?

As an England supporter, I have no problem with our side being beaten by anyone. What I like to see (in T20) is both sides given an equal opportunity to bat with the same mindset. At the moment time constraints are preventing 20 overs each side (when rain intervenes). Last nights match could easily have given WI a full 20 overs, as no further rain fell after the restart at 7.08PM.

We have the same problem with rain interuptions in Test matches. In the past there have been glorious Sun filled evenings at the end of the day, but because there is a 7PM curfew, it's close of play. This inflexibility and no understanding that the paying public need to be entertained is killing cricket in this country.

Denis

quote:

What a lot of mindless whingers you are

Did you read the thread before you made such a generalisation?

quote:

WI have had a terrible summer against England;

Better to say England had a fantastic summer against WI. I agree with Dennis and think D/L spoiled the spectacle, Although I think England would have won if the match had been 20 overs a side we'll never really know.

As for being a mindless whinger, I know I am.

ATB Rotf

quote:

I beleive D/L rules give the team batting 2nd a greater advantage than the team who completed their 20 overs with a different mindset.

In some respects this is true - particualrly if you know they target in advance and it stays the same.

However very frequently the D/L calculation seems to put the team batting second at a disadvantage in simple mathematical terms for the very same reasons - although they still have a full complement of batters to use.

I also think that the calculations seem to throw up more anomolies in Twenty20 than in the longer versions of limited overs games.

Having said that I think Einstein's Theory of Relativity is flawed too.

Chris

quote:

Having said that I think Einstein's Theory of Relativity is flawed too.

Chris

Not as much though.

Here are the T20 rules and here is the playing schehule.

Up to the semi finals, there have been 2x3 hour matches played at the same ground. There has been a 1 hour window between matches to prepare for the next game. The playing times allocated have been 13.30-16.30 and 17.30-20.30. Do you think the semi finals playing on Thu/Fri having a 17.30-20.30 slot will have the same D/L imposition if rain intervenes? There will only be one match to play, so does it really matter that the game finishes at 20.30? There are floodlights and a 20,000 crowd who want to see 2x20 over matches, however long it takes. My argument is that the playing time should be 3 hours, but in say a 4 hour window. The playing time can be calculated from the last over to be bowled at say 21.30. As South Africa demonstarted last night, they defended 130 and had 20 overs in which to do it. That was an even contest. The playing time rule, below, makes interesting reading.

Rule 3: Twenty overs within 75 minutes

This rule imposes strict penalties on bowling teams not completing their alloted 20 overs within 75 minutes. As per this rule of Twenty 20 cricket, a bonus of 6 runs is awarded to the batting team in case the bowling team does not begin their 20th overbefore 75 minutes.

Nick,

Are you awake yet?

"WI have had a terrible summer against England; one could say they were beaten by the weather; cold and damp throughout the Test series. Yet here in one of the hearts of English cricket (and still with appalling weather) they managed to pull off a great win. Well done West Indies."

I guess we should vote in the next election for the party that has practical plans to move the UK to a sunnier global location