Breakout Champion! Isn't it great?
It means England can win by 49 runs when it was really 156! (errm...right?)
It also means Harmy and Freddie only have to bowl half their alotted overs and then rest whilst the rain falls
It should rain more often!!
(I wonder, how many of you will take me seriously??)
Originally Posted by steds
Isn't it great?
It means England can win by 49 runs when it was really 156! (errm...right?
It also means Harmy and Freddie only have to bowl half their alotted overs and then rest whilst the rain falls
It should rain more often!!
(I wonder, how many of you will take me seriously??
Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
RIP Craigos
Avatar Courtesy Indian team that toured England in 2011 & GF
1(I wonder, how many of you will take me seriously??
Nigel Clough's Black and White Army, beating Forest away with 10 men
You cannot be serious (Mc Enroe)Isn't it great?
It means England can win by 49 runs when it was really 156! (errm...right?
It also means Harmy and Freddie only have to bowl half their alotted overs and then rest whilst the rain falls
It should rain more often!!
(I wonder, how many of you will take me seriously??
I believe that the only thing inhibiting the Duckworth-Lewis method is the lack of understanding by the general public. From my twenty or so years of playing cricket at the highest level, I believe that it is the fairest possible way of measuring whether a team wins or not.
An example is the system used in the early days of limited overs cricket - how South Africa went from needing about a run a ball to needing more than twenty off the last ball. The Duckworth-Lewis method ensures that this does not occur. Now, here is the confusion.
In the original post, it was stated that: It means England can win by 49 runs when it was really 156!
As a matter of fact, the Sri Lankans only batted for half the time the English players did. So, this is a fair and equitable system. I don't personally see the viability for comment on that aspect.
Which reminds me, I really must change my details...I'm no longer playing, after all.
Stephen Waugh
c/- Australian cricket team
Melbourne Cricket Ground
I think that it is the best method for the moment.
PS: Wouldn't it be great if Steve Waugh actually became a member....
Member of MSC - Murali Supporters Club
I'm not too dissimilar a batsman to Bradman.
Both of us have batting averages below 100.
its deffinatly the bestmethod ever used in cricket. im sure every one remebers the 1992 semi fiasco. its pretty fair as it takes in alot o f variables.
My 2008/09 stats
Games: 10 Innings: 10 Nout Outs: 3 Runs: 489 Average: 69.86 Highest: 154 Fifties: 0 Hundreds: 3
Catches: 7
Anyone seriously doubting D\L needs their head examined IMO.
The 1992-semi is a never-will-again, thank God.
RD
Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
(Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks