Group E - England, India, South Africa, West Indies

[gvenkat]

Originally Posted by Sanz

That's one more than England have.

That was a knock out punch..

[shivfan]

Originally Posted by john1966

They have 2 batsmen. That's it. Perfectly capable 2 batsmen. The rest just tag along

I'm sorry, but that's rubbish....

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Sanz

That's one more than England have.

I'd imagine that the Windies would by now have formed the opinion that Bopara can hold a bat

[Dissector]

No they don't have two batsmen. They have Gayle, Bravo, Simmons, Chanderpaul and Sarwan who are perfectly capable of scoring 161 in 20 overs against an average England attack.

[gvenkat]

Whoever Cries About D/L should know there is no method that is there currently that can give us a better solution. 80 of 9 overs was fair enough when u consider that Windies had to chase at 9 an over and only had 3 power play overs.

Of course in T20's the chasing team always has the advantage and in a shortened game its even more extrapolated. West Indies went crazy becuase of the shortened chase. had it been 161 they would have been a little bit more conventional. so saying England was cheated out f the SF is a classic case of sour grapes.

Colly won the toss and still elected to bat. There was not a single boundary hit in the last 9 overs till Broad came in.. So why blame the Windies here when England pretty much sucked the whole game with the exception of KP, Swann and Bopara.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Sanz

That's one more than England have.

I laughed

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by Dissector

No they don't have two batsmen. They have Gayle, Bravo, Simmons, Chanderpaul and Sarwan who are perfectly capable of scoring 161 in 20 overs against an average England attack.

No-one's doubting that chasing 161 was within their capabilities.

I'm a bit regretful that this is all starting to deteriorate into what seems like sour grapes from us English and a bit of English - Windies name calling. It's just a bit of a sad way to go out of a tournament, that's all.

[Sanz]

Originally Posted by zaremba

I'd imagine that the Windies would by now have formed the opinion that Bopara can hold a bat

I thought john was talking about "Perfectly capable" Batsmen.

[Dissector]

And let's not forget that the lowest Windies score off 20 overs in this tournament so far was 163 against South Africa. It's silly to pretend that 161 against England was some kind of formidable target which showed that they had been outplayed.

[westindiangirl]

Originally Posted by Sanz

That's one more than England have.

Lolz soooooo true!

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by gvenkat

Whoever Cries About D/L should know there is no method that is there currently that can give us a better solution. 80 of 9 overs was fair enough when u consider that Windies had to chase at 9 an over and only had 3 power play overs.

Of course in T20's the chasing team always has the advantage and in a shortened game its even more extrapolated. West Indies went crazy becuase of the shortened chase. had it been 161 they would have been a little bit more conventional. so saying England was cheated out f the SF is a classic case of sour grapes.

Colly won the toss and still elected to bat. There was not a single boundary hit in the last 9 overs till Broad came in.. So why blame the Windies here when England pretty much sucked the whole game with the exception of KP, Swann and Bopara.

Personally I'd say England were cheated out of a contest. West Indies were handed a massive advantage. You seem to underestimate how big the advantage was- scoring 80 runs off 9 overs @ 8.89 is much easier than scoring 162 off 20 overs at 8.10.

It would be no better had England won the game like that. West Indies might well have chased 162 and won a fair match- a lot of people here fancied them to do it- but we'll never know.

[PhoenixFire]

At the end of the day, England's batting isn't good enough in 20-20. We have Pietersen and Bopara and that is it. Pretty simple really.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by gvenkat

Whoever Cries About D/L should know there is no method that is there currently that can give us a better solution. 80 of 9 overs was fair enough when u consider that Windies had to chase at 9 an over and only had 3 power play overs.

I agree that there is no better system. By and large, I am a huge supporter of D/L. But that doesn't mean that its algorithms (if that's the right word) are currently well tuned for T20 cricket.

I don't think for a moment that 80 off 9 overs is in any way equivalent to 161 off 20 overs, given that you can still afford to lose 9 wickets in that time.

As for "only 3 powerplays", it's more (pro rata) than you get in a full 20 over innings.

[grecian]

Originally Posted by gvenkat

Whoever Cries About D/L should know there is no method that is there currently that can give us a better solution. 80 of 9 overs was fair enough when u consider that Windies had to chase at 9 an over and only had 3 power play overs.

Of course in T20's the chasing team always has the advantage and in a shortened game its even more extrapolated. West Indies went crazy becuase of the shortened chase. had it been 161 they would have been a little bit more conventional. so saying England was cheated out f the SF is a classic case of sour grapes.

Colly won the toss and still elected to bat. There was not a single boundary hit in the last 9 overs till Broad came in.. So why blame the Windies here when England pretty much sucked the whole game with the exception of KP, Swann and Bopara.

Who's blaming the Windies?

Anyway, Colly did deserve it for batting first, so I'm blaming him, above all TBH. Yet (D/L) is skewed for chasing teams, and really should be sorted out before it knocks out a good team

EDIT: We do only have one good batsman in this form of the game, may have been different if we'd played trott or napier.

[Adamc]

Originally Posted by Smith

I don't know why you are getting worked up.



If there are no alternatives you can suggest, how can you randomly suggest this method is bad? It's a plain whinge than any constructive argument in that case. Atleast you suggest what WI ideally would have been chasing in 9 overs?



Irrational whingeing about a rule accepted by all captains, got my goat.

Haha, geez. No, I'm not going to run a statistical analysis of Twenty20 cricket and build my own prediction model as I have neither the time nor the expertise.

Think of it this way. If someone invented a cart with square wheels, and round wheels hadn't been thought of yet, most people would think it to be an idiotic invention. The fact that no one had thought of a better alternative to the square-wheeled cart at that point doesn't make it any good. Nor does it mean that there will never be a better alternative; eventually someone will think of round wheels.

I don't think D/L is as idiotic as square wheels, but nor do I think it can't or shouldn't be improved upon. Accepting it as gospel and shouting down anyone who dares question it is narrow-minded. I'm a WI fan for the record, so hopefully you can realise that it's not a case of 'whinging'.