Group D - West Indies, England, Ireland

[roseboy64]

Was Roach dropped?

Pretty much.

 

[roseboy64]

I wasnt aware that performances against an uber-minnow counted for much and, even if they did, Roach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rampaul in any form of the game

Rampaul more likely to get wickets in T20s and Roach not played as much as him in the other forms so a slightly lopsided comparison.

 

[Sir Alex]

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.



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

Well, if ECB has indeed voiced its concerns, then the ball is firmly in ICC's court.

Regarding the last paragraph I must have been more clearer perhaps. By it I meant t20 and not DL tables. The variables are huge and even one or two overs can change a whole game on it's head.

Besides a system that 'equates' 70 per cent reduction in load per resource (read runs per wicket needed) with just a 0.45 increase in required rate just because the opening pair managed to stay together for 14 deliveries is baffling.

Super overs are much easier and fairer means to go. No need for complex calculations in a format which was founded exactly to do that, entertain.

 

[Jono]

Lol @ Duckworth Lewis. What a joke.

Funny how whenever it robs one team, they cry and everyone else yells at them. Then it robs another team, they cry and the same ones who it robbed last time yell at them.

 

[Top_Cat]

More importantly, no-one has come up with a better system.

Just about every ad-hoc 'common sense' system has been tried and eventually fallen over. D/L is systematic, scientific and the model is largely sound. It's definitely not without fault but if anyone has a better idea, let's hear it.

 

[pasag]

LOL, looked at the scorecard when I woke up and thought the poms on here would be livid. With fair reason two. Should have been chasing 80 minimum.

 

[BoyBrumby]

More importantly, no-one has come up with a better system.

Just about every ad-hoc 'common sense' system has been tried and eventually fallen over. D/L is systematic, scientific and the model is largely sound. It's definitely not without fault but if anyone has a better idea, let's hear it.

To paraphrase Churchill, it's the worst system except all the others that have been tried.

Little doubt in my mind DL has been a god spend in 40 & 50 over games, but it does seem unfair in tiny T20 chases. Seems a no-brainer it's a lot easier to score at 10 per over in 3.3 overs (or whatever the Windies had to do on resumption) than it is to score at 9.5 over 20.

 

[four_or_six]

Duckworth-Lewis will be fine once more T20s have been played and they can feed more data in. It's just daft at the moment because there haven't been enough.

 

[Sir Alex]

Duckworth-Lewis will be fine once more T20s have been played and they can feed more data in. It's just daft at the moment because there haven't been enough.

Hugely doubt whether the revised data (which I believe goes into calculation of a par total) will have much effect in final analysis. Unless the existing average score is something absurd like 120s which I suspect is highly unlikely.

Super overs are much better than DL. Make it 2 or 3 or 5 overs, as long as each side gets to play same number of overs, in the same conditions is much better than this system.

 

[GIMH]

Is it just me who thinks the rain is gonna cost us the game against Ireland tonight?

 

[shivfan]

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 totally agree - rules are rules, and both Gayle and Colly knew them before the match started. In fact, I'm surprised the ECB didn't lobby the ICC to get them changed after what happened in last year's world champs.

But it still wouldn't have stopped me screaming blue murder if the shoe had been on the other foot!

 

[shivfan]

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.

I was pleased with Fletcher's display behind the stumps....

I think he's earned a run in 20/20 cricket ahead of Ramdin. Now, the question remains, should Fletcher also take over the gloves in the 50-overs format?

 

[GGG]

I think the only fair way to do it in 20/20 is to split the remaining overs so the game starts from scratch at 2 overs each, 3 overs each etc unless the minimum 5 overs has been reached.

 

[pasag]

I don't understand this "rules are rules" business, it doesn't make any sense in this context.

 

[Furball]

To paraphrase Churchill, it's the worst system except all the others that have been tried.

Little doubt in my mind DL has been a god spend in 40 & 50 over games, but it does seem unfair in tiny T20 chases. Seems a no-brainer it's a lot easier to score at 10 per over in 3.3 overs (or whatever the Windies had to do on resumption) than it is to score at 9.5 over 20.

Part of the reason the chase seemed so tiny was because the Windies had scored 30 in the 2.2 overs they got in before the rain: if England's bowlers had kept it tight and only gone for half that, asking the Windies to score 60 from 6 suddenly becomes a far more difficult ask.

 

[Prince EWS]

Part of the reason the chase seemed so tiny was because the Windies had scored 30 in the 2.2 overs they got in before the rain: if England's bowlers had kept it tight and only gone for half that, asking the Windies to score 60 from 6 suddenly becomes a far more difficult ask.

They would've needed to score a lot more than 60 in their 6 overs had England kept it tight, too. It's assumed in the D/L system that they'd have been able to take more risks and score at a much quicker rate during those 2.2 overs had they thought they only had 6 overs to play rather than 20. Those overs before the rain break were absolutely huge in the context of what was to come.

 

[Beamer]

I was pleased with Fletcher's display behind the stumps....

I think he's earned a run in 20/20 cricket ahead of Ramdin. Now, the question remains, should Fletcher also take over the gloves in the 50-overs format?

If Ramdin could even play a couple of decentish innings in a short space of time the answer would be no, but Ramdin has been so awful that he leaves us with no choice but to try Fletcher, who is himself liable to massive brain explosions at crucial stages in games.

Could Devon Thomas, Chadwick Walton or Shane Dowrich get themselves up to international standard pronto please!!!!!!!!

 

[shivfan]

I think Gayle speaks for quite a few WI fans in this interview....

Paul Collingwood wants Duckworth-Lewis system overhaul | Cricket News | ICC World Twenty20 2010 | Cricinfo.com

"I think it's something they're going to have to look into," he said. "I would support what Collingwood just said. I could have been in the same position as well. It's something that can be addressed so it can be even stevens for both teams in the future. I'm happy but it's just unfortunate for England."

 

[Ilovecric]

Oh gosh the whining. DL is perfect, the fact is Eng couldn't contain WI below 10 runs per over, how much was it suppose to be ? A required run rate of 15 ? Thats bull**** when you only scored at 9 runs per over. I am very happy with WI winning, it's not easy to score 60 runs off 6 overs - and thats why WI didn't win until the penultimate ball.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Oh gosh the whining. DL is perfect, the fact is Eng couldn't contain WI below 10 runs per over, how much was it suppose to be ? A required run rate of 15 ? Thats bull**** when you only scored at 9 runs per over. I am very happy with WI winning, it's not easy to score 60 runs off 6 overs - and thats why WI didn't win until the penultimate ball.

Because England only managed 76 off the last 5.