Group D - West Indies, England, Ireland

[Scaly piscine]

Personally I think D-L needs to have an uncertainty margin, this goes for 50 over cricket as well.

This margin trumps the minimum overs crap.

If you're 70-0 after 4.3 chasing 100 to win then you're going to be outside the margin of uncertainty, essentially nailed on to win. If you're like 1 run ahead on D-L midway through a chase and rain comes it should be a no result or finish the game some other way.

Generally speaking I don't think T20 games should have the chases shortened at all. It just doesn't work.

 

[WindieWeathers]

My commiserations to England fans....

After that excellent batting performance, England were in pole position.

However, Gayle practically won the match when he won the toss and sent England in. He suspected that rain would make the run chase easier, and it did. If Colly had won the toss, he probably would've done the same.

Clearly, something needs to be done about how D/L is applied to 20/20 matches before the next 20/20 world champs.

Are you serious Mike? i know England are your "second team" but you're really taking it a little too far man!! , to basically put our victory down to a "toss of a coin" is ludicrous, nothing is certain when it comes to rain, it could have lasted for five minuets and we'd have had to play the full 20 overs, the rules are the rules and it just happen to work in our favor this time, but we certainly made one hell of a start ourselves so i believe it would have been a close game anyway.

And a quick word on England's batting, yes it was impressive in spells but if we're being honest but for Rampaul's shocking display the total would have been much more modest.

 

[Beamer]

My commiserations to England fans....

After that excellent batting performance, England were in pole position.

However, Gayle practically won the match when he won the toss and sent England in. He suspected that rain would make the run chase easier, and it did. If Colly had won the toss, he probably would've done the same.

Clearly, something needs to be done about how D/L is applied to 20/20 matches before the next 20/20 world champs.

Yeah I feel kind of hollow after that victory. Obviously it's great that we are through to the next stage etc but the stupid d & l system robbed us of what would have been a fantastic contest. I agree with some posters here that a super over would have been a fairer way to decide it as it would have leveled the playing field once again (IMHO at 30/0 after 2 overs chasing 190 odd it was looking like an even contest).

Still it was nice to see Darren Sammy continue his fine bowling and fielding form. I also thought Fletcher was just as good with the gloves as Ramdin would have been and that is a very positive sign for the rest of the tournament.

I hope justice prevails and England go through tomorrow, therefore consigning this farce to the dustbin.

 

[gvenkat]

robbed

You play by the rules. Remember 1992 World Cup Semis? England were in pole position. After that start and If rain had not intervened and conditions were good for batting West Indies could have won. We would never know that

We just go by the rules and In this case Windies had the lucky. So I would not say robbed. Unfortunate yes. But not robbed of Victory? Hell NO

 

[Beamer]

Are you serious Mike? i know England are your "second team" but you're really taking it a little too far man!! , to basically put our victory down to a "toss of a coin" is ludicrous, nothing is certain when it comes to rain, it could have lasted for five minuets and we'd have had to play the full 20 overs, the rules are the rules and it just happen to work in our favor this time, but we certainly made one hell of a start ourselves so i believe it would have been a close game anyway.

And a quick word on England's batting, yes it was impressive in spells but if we're being honest but for Rampaul's shocking display the total would have been much more modest.

I agree with you that our rollicking start had evened the game up but you shouldn't write off England's batting performance so easily. It was extremely impressive and even if Roach had played instead of Rampaul we were still looking at 170/180 IMHO.

We have some work to do in the field if we want to win this tournament that's for sure.

 

[GIMH]

You play by the rules. Remember 1992 World Cup Semis? England were in pole position. After that start and If rain had not intervened and conditions were good for batting West Indies could have won. We would never know that

We just go by the rules and In this case Windies had the lucky. So I would not say robbed. Unfortunate yes. But not robbed of Victory? Hell NO

What happened in 92 was a joke too, this is the second year in a row we've been shafted by DL in this tournament.

Not the Windies fault, but there's no way that was fair.

 

[zaremba]

I'm a big fan of D/L for ODIs, but we've had our fingers burned a couple of times now in T20s and I'm not sure what the answer is. If D/L is to continue in this format, the chasing team clearly need to be set stiffer targets. And perhaps some sort of system whereby if you lose wickets, the target goes up (as it does when rain actually brings the game to an end).

Anyhow a really good performance by England's batsmen. Our batting order suddenly looks really strong and well-suited to the limited-overs formats.

 

[gvenkat]

What happened in 92 was a joke too, this is the second year in a row we've been shafted by DL in this tournament.

Not the Windies fault, but there's no way that was fair.

Yep. Agree. In all fairness T20 games should not be reduced. If reduced let's play the one over eliminator. Atleast that gives a fair chance to both teams.

 

[Sir Alex]

I think the ECB has nobody to blame but itself. Last time, they were out of the tournament due to exactly this, and they should've taken it up with the ICC. They didn't afaic.

They signed on this tourney and thereby agreed to exactly the same rule, and now there is no point in whingeing.

This rule has to go in the shorter format. It's too short for doing predictions with acceptable error margins.

 

[NasserFan207]

Its not the ECB complaining you numptey, its ordinary English fans, who have every right tbh.

This makes things simpler for us though.

 

[marc71178]

You play by the rules. Remember 1992 World Cup Semis?

What, when SA deliberately slowed their overs down when we were motoring along meaning we missed out on the last 5 or so overs of our innings?

In terms of D/L - I guess there's still too small a sample of games in T20 for it to be accurate enough, but I would imagine it must be due a rewrite on T20 games with 3 seasons of IPL stats to take into account.

 

[Sir Alex]

Its not the ECB complaining you numptey, its ordinary English fans, who have every right tbh.

This makes things simpler for us though.

No need for such descriptions of myself.

Fans should've go at the ECB than ICC.

 

[NasserFan207]

I really doubt the ECB has the power to do anything like that anymore, whether they did or not.

The ICC shouldn't need lobbying from cricket boards to realise how ******** D&L is in 20/20s.

 

[Jarquis]

Lets see if the rain can save the West Indies again in a T20 World Cup match against England...

What a joke.

 

[Sir Alex]

I really doubt the ECB has the power to do anything like that anymore, whether they did or not.

The ICC shouldn't need lobbying from cricket boards to realise how ******** D&L is in 20/20s.

Not talking about lobbying but EcB's responsibility to formally register their reservations against a system that they regard as unfair.

Anyway looking forward to tomorrow's match. Given the form Eng displayed today, Ireland have little chance of an upset.

 

[Jarquis]

Not talking about lobbying but EcB's responsibility to formally register their reservations against a system that they regard as unfair.

Anyway looking forward to tomorrow's match. Given the form Eng displayed today, Ireland have little chance of an upset.

Form-schmorm. More importantly what's the weather forecast?

 

[NasserFan207]

I don't want to win via the rain. Think we're still capable of an upset actually.

 

[Top_Cat]

Anyone know if the D/L data sources are based in ODI's or T20's? If the former, it's certainly possible to question the validity of the results and if the latter, the model will only get more accurate with more data but for a while will toss up the occasional dud result unfortunately. Because it's based on real-worId data, it has to be updated and sometimes it can take a while. I know they had to update the database when ODI scores started getting consistently greater but that was 5 years ago. Time for another update or, probably, the need for T20-specific tables if they're using ODI data.

Even then, still better than 'pick the batting team's best/worst overs and take those runs off the total to be chased by the second team'.

 

[Adamc]

Haha, again. How unfortunate. Might as well copy and paste the D/L discussion from the WI-England thread last year. Gets heated around the 1300 post mark.

Anyone know if the D/L data sources are based in ODI's or T20's? If the former, it's certainly possible to question the validity of the results and if the latter, the model will only get more accurate with more data but for a while will toss up the occasional dud result unfortunately. Because it's based on real-worId data, it has to be updated and sometimes it can take a while.

Yeah, this was what I was saying last year. There isn't enough data to create an accurate D/L system for Twenty20s yet; alternatively, if they're using ODI data the targets are clearly going to be unfair.

And if Precam's about, don't start again with the 'it's the same system for everyone, therefore it's fair'/'England should have pulled out of the tournament if they thought it was unfair' argument.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think the ECB has nobody to blame but itself. Last time, they were out of the tournament due to exactly this, and they should've taken it up with the ICC. They didn't afaic.

They signed on this tourney and thereby agreed to exactly the same rule, and now there is no point in whingeing.

Come on, this is such a non-point. Let's assume they haven't raised an objection since that loss (which I reckon would be a huge assumption); Frank Duckworth was quoted as suggesting there might be need for a review in the wake of the 2009 loss so this isn't the first we're hearing of this. But the last update to the tables was at least two years ago and tweaking the theory nor doing software updates isn't going to happen within 9 months, especially since it still has go through a formal review process via science rather than bitching fans to show that the system is faulty anyway.

So England and everyone else are left with the system largely untouched with possible validity issues that all of the complaining in the world wouldn't have changed in time for 2010. That England signed on for a tournament with the system in place does not revoke their right to complain again if, as happened, they get dudded again. Or anyone else for that matter. It's not whinging, it's called building weight of evidence.

Saying 'everyone agreed to it' is a non-sequitir because not everyone gets ****ed by it. That line only works if everyone plays under the same bad conditions in every game, not if it only has the potential to go wrong.

This rule has to go in the shorter format. It's too short for doing predictions with acceptable error margins.

So where's your detailed numerical analysis of the D/L method proving this to be so?