View Single Post
04-05-2010, 11:13 AM   #9 (permalink)
GingerFurball
Hall of Fame Member

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Crabs Subbie
Posts: 15,443
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Sir Alex Of course am not questioning your math mate, but the reasoning behind using run rates in T20s comparable to those in One days. In the above example you extrapolated a total of 192 to 318 in a one day which then using DL you reduced back to 170 from 20 overs. ;wacko: So either the logic behind DL reducing a total of 318 to 170 in 20 overs is not fair, or your extrapolation of 192 to 318 is not. Because 192 cannot be equal to 170. Methinks you're doing apples to oranges stuff here. But I do agree with your premise that DL seriously need revision in T20s or be replaced by some other rule like super over.
I'm not saying 192 is equivelant to 170.

My suspicion was that the D/L equation would have been much fairer to England had it been an ODI; I think the numbers I've come up with support that suspicion.

The equivelant score in an ODI, based simply on how much better England's performance was than the average, would be 318. A score of 318 would have required the Windies to chase 171 in 20 overs had it been a rain affected ODI; that appears to me to be a much fairer target than what transpired last night.
__________________
Quote:
 Originally Posted by silentstriker Yup, much more likely. In any case, I will back [Insert Indian Random Batting Order] against Swann in India every day. If they win, it won't be on Swann's back - though he could be valuable to keep things tight and maybe a wicket or two.