Re: England v New Zealand, 5xODI + 1xT20, 9-23 Jun, 2015

by embee Sat 13 Jun 2015, 01:56

Ethics? The Gall! wrote:t20 on steroids. pity about the english weather. but at least the ~~good~~ lesser bad guys won

by embee Sat 13 Jun 2015, 01:58

Basil wrote:Jordan has a side strain it would appear. David Willey will be his replacement I would imagine.

Brilliant game - England didn't give a stuff, they just went for it.

A more experienced bowler would have discovered a niggle at 8 overs for 89

by taipan Sat 13 Jun 2015, 06:14

embee wrote:
Basil wrote:Jordan has a side strain it would appear. David Willey will be his replacement I would imagine.

Brilliant game - England didn't give a stuff, they just went for it.

A more experienced bowler would have discovered a niggle at 8 overs for 89

Mick Lewis?

by beamer Sat 13 Jun 2015, 10:11

Nath wrote:so England have sort of figured out this one day caper? aw, that's no fun!

Well, half of it. Bowling's a bit more of a challenge...

by Merlin Sat 13 Jun 2015, 10:24

Morgan is absolutely right.

It is time they re-visited the Duckworth -Lewis scenario again.
Unchanged for almost 20 years now, whilst the game has moved on apace a great deal since those days.

To have 56 runs off 37 balls "altered" to 34 runs needed off a mere 13 balls when they resumed was diabolical.
Why they didn't pick up exactly where they left off (rather than slice up the game with D/L) will remain a mystery.
Time was well on side (9.30pm), the rain had ceased, the floodlights strong, the outfield dried and the air clear!

And yes, I'd be saying exactly the same thing had the roles been reversed and the Kiwis had needed
an almost impossible 2.6 runs per ball to win the game, rather than England!

This was too good a show-case game to have ruined by the diabolical "logic" that is the D-L system.

by lardbucket Sat 13 Jun 2015, 10:27

Swings and roundabouts, it's the same rules for all.

by Merlin Sat 13 Jun 2015, 10:32

lardbucket wrote:Swings and roundabouts, it's the same rules for all.

Not denying that.

The point is that it ruined a terrific match.
It would have been far more entertaining for the diehards who remained after braving the elements
together with the odd million watching on Sky to have let the match continue to run its course rather
than abruptly curtail it with a ridiculous re-calculation.

Just emphasising the fact that D/L now urgently needs tweaking.

by Guest Sat 13 Jun 2015, 10:32

In a floodlit game they should have just bowled the extra 4 overs, that was the craziest part.

D-L has never been perfect and whilst it would be great if it was improved, it's still the best system we have.

by Brass Monkey Sat 13 Jun 2015, 10:33

Merlin wrote:Unchanged for almost 20 years now, whilst the game has moved on apace a great deal since those days.

....apart from it isn't unchanged and has always been modified, the last time being late last year.

by beamer Sat 13 Jun 2015, 10:34

When small numbers of overs are remaining after the stoppage it does become crazy though. I'd say whenever there are less than 10 overs remaining in the game at the time of the stoppage, either complete it or don't restart. Reserve days could be used as a last resort, although it's a bit crap when a thriller finishes at 11am the next day in front of one man and his dog.

by Merlin Sat 13 Jun 2015, 10:40

An interesting quote from Wiki surmising a criticism levelled at the D/L calculations:

The D/L method has been criticized on the grounds that wickets are a much more heavily weighted resource than overs, leading to the suggestion that if teams are chasing big targets, and there is the prospect of rain, a winning strategy could be to not lose wickets and score at what would seem to be a "losing" rate

by taipan Sat 13 Jun 2015, 10:52

D/L gets updated on a regular basis. The time rules are a different matter.

It's better than the previous system which left SA to get 22 off 1 in a far more important game.

by Merlin Sat 13 Jun 2015, 11:03

taipan wrote:D/L gets updated on a regular basis. The time rules are a different matter.

It's better than the previous system which left SA to get 22 off 1 in a far more important game.

Did SA then choke ?

by taipan Sat 13 Jun 2015, 11:04

Merlin wrote:
taipan wrote:D/L gets updated on a regular basis. The time rules are a different matter.

It's better than the previous system which left SA to get 22 off 1 in a far more important game.

Did SA then choke ?

Aye, they could only get 17.

by Merlin Sat 13 Jun 2015, 11:08

taipan wrote:
Merlin wrote:
taipan wrote:D/L gets updated on a regular basis. The time rules are a different matter.

It's better than the previous system which left SA to get 22 off 1 in a far more important game.

Did SA then choke ?

Aye, they could only get 17.

Two 6's, a dot and a 2 off three no balls?!
Nice!

by PeterCS Sat 13 Jun 2015, 12:22

embee wrote:
Ethics? The Gall! wrote:t20 on steroids. pity about the english weather. but at least the ~~good~~ lesser bad guys won

Scrooge.

by PeterCS Sat 13 Jun 2015, 12:26

What really gets me is that the game moves on, but that insane Duckworth Lewis remains unchanged since the days of Albert Trott. Harrumph, bah humbug. Not the British way.

Why can't they just change the calculations whenever England lose? Moral victory to Middlesex and England, anyway.

On the serious side, I like the way England FINALLY have started to play. I wouldn't quite agree with the views that "that's all England fans want" - I think that plays to the Aussie view that the Poms are too happy to lose, whereas, personally, I'd like a few more wins, please. But it is a properly competitive start. And exciting to watch (the batting).

by Brass Monkey Sat 13 Jun 2015, 12:52

The only reason that I'd care about results is that I'd like to see this team stay together. Bad results would change that.

Otherwise, seriously WGAF about the results - we've got two year's worth of friendlies to play out. They mean nothing. They do not have one iota of meaning.

As long as we continue to entertain I'll be a happy man - they're fast becoming the ODI team that I want to watch out of all the international sides. Hitters right down the order.

It's refreshing and exciting to know that the next batsman in isn't going to be a drab wanker straight out of the 70s. I think we're all realistic enough to recognise that the bowling performance of the first match was a fallacy created by the fact NZ were chasing a mammoth score, so we're by no means the finished article but, again, WGAF? If we can score big runs, then I'm happy to go down that road

by Guest Sat 13 Jun 2015, 13:07

There will be occasions where everyone misfire but if 2 or 3 hit bag then the match is practically in the bag.

by Basil Sat 13 Jun 2015, 16:52

Craig Overton has been called up as cover for Chris Jordan

by tricycle Sat 13 Jun 2015, 17:54

Craig was the slower of the two Overtons when they started, wasn't he?

by Basil Sat 13 Jun 2015, 18:01

Yes, and the better batsman

by tricycle Sat 13 Jun 2015, 19:00

Cheers Bas.

by taipan Sat 13 Jun 2015, 19:05

Brass Monkey wrote:The only reason that I'd care about results is that I'd like to see this team stay together. Bad results would change that.

Otherwise, seriously WGAF about the results - we've got two year's worth of friendlies to play out. They mean nothing. They do not have one iota of meaning.

As long as we continue to entertain I'll be a happy man - they're fast becoming the ODI team that I want to watch out of all the international sides. Hitters right down the order.

It's refreshing and exciting to know that the next batsman in isn't going to be a drab wanker straight out of the 70s. I think we're all realistic enough to recognise that the bowling performance of the first match was a fallacy created by the fact NZ were chasing a mammoth score, so we're by no means the finished article but, again, WGAF? If we can score big runs, then I'm happy to go down that road

Word. Once again if you score big runs you will win most matches.

by LeFromage Sat 13 Jun 2015, 19:38

tricycle wrote:Craig was the slower of the two Overtons when they started, wasn't he?

Yes. He's a trundler who can bat a bit. But he hasn't been broken and ruined by England, like brother Jamie, so he's still got that to look forward to.

I think it's a surprise call up. I doubt anyone would've imagined him getting a gig for his bowling - ahead of Jamie - 12-18 months ago.

Shouldn't think he's likely to get a game, with Willey and Wood still in the wings.

by Sponsored content