Group E - England, India, South Africa, West Indies

[grecian]

Oh well who cares. Water under the bridge. WI in the semis along with RSA. That's it. Anyone who thinks they don't deserve it can sod off. Maybe England should have tried having hitters in their lower middle order to push the total.

Laughably poor

 

[Smith]

No he didn't. He said that EITHER they used ODI totals OR they used T20i totals. In either case, it would be inaccurate because there's not enough data on T20is available.

Then what should have been the alternative? Use IPL totals? use random totals? Please feel free to suggest, and I am only willing to agree if we have a better alternative.

 

[Adamc]

No, you surmised that ODI totals are taken as base for determining par score in T20s. I am not sure that is correct.

I suggested two possible alternatives as to how D/L is calculated for Twenty20 (I don't know which, if either, is the actual method), and concluded that both would be inaccurate.

 

[Scaly piscine]

England were marginally hard done by D/L but the idea that they "outplayed" the Windies is ludicrous. If the Windies had 20 overs they would have batted differently and it's unlikely they would have been 45 for 5. And over the course of the tournament they were the better team; quite competitive in their defeats and without an embarassment like the Netherlands game. England wasn't really semi-final material.

The point is it isn't marginal.

Look at their target of 80 off 9 overs. That is equivalent to saying right you were going to be chasing 162 off 20 overs. Now we're just going to fastforward to where you are 82-0 off 11 overs and so you need 80 off the last 9 with all wickets remaining and that such a scenario (82-0 off 11 overs, @ 7.45 an over) would favour neither side and would be even-stevens in chasing 8.1 an over in the full 20 overs. It is pretty obvious that getting a start like that would heavily favour the chasing side.

 

[GIMH]

Could be wrong, but I'd guess that finishing times have more to do with the whims of broadcasters than anything else. Doesn't seem to be any real reason why half an hour of rain should curtail a twenty over match otherwise.

Yeah, probably right. Stoopid.

 

[Smith]

I suggested two possible alternatives as to how D/L is calculated for Twenty20 (I don't know which, if either, is the actual method), and concluded that both would be inaccurate.

Linkage please? A lot of DL bashing is going around here. But what people forget is that a DL par total of 140 and a DL par total of 160 does not constitute a difference of more than 5-6 runs in the final say. I am open to being proved wrong though.

By par score I mean the default score programmed into DL tables. I tried fiddling with the same in ODIs, where 225 is used as par score, and I used 260 and the net difference amounted to about 4 runs.

 

[roseboy64]

You've been better than us in the tournament for sure. don't think anyone is taking issue with the fact that you've gone through, just the way it's gone down

True but those are the rules. When D/L goes against WI I don't blame that for the loss. I blame the poor performances of those who let a poor target be set. England should have posted a much higher score though TBH. Wasted the tailend of your innings.


Don't see how it's a poor total though. 90 may have been fairer but it's hardly a moronic total I would think.

 

[Goughy]

Oh well who cares. Water under the bridge. WI in the semis along with RSA. That's it. Anyone who thinks they don't deserve it can sod off. Maybe England should have tried having hitters in their lower middle order to push the total.

Yeah, I dont think England had enough before the DL target was introduced. I dont think they were hard done by

 

[john1966]

I just had to register because I have never been so angry watching a cricket match. West Indies have 2 batsmen who England have difficulty with. The rest play the occasional cameo but it's basically a 2 man side (okay 3, if you include Gayle). But to see the rest of them jumping up and down at the sides as if they were in any way responsible for that victory was a joke. 2 men plus the rain won that game. I would rather we lost to anyone but them. Yes England lost. And would have been due for a good spanking in the semis had they got through. But as a cricket lover I cannot abide the game being won by a method that allows one side to be 72 for 2 after 9 overs (not knowing they are fighting D/L too!) , while another team wins scoring 81 for 5 after nearly 9 overs. I think Mr Duckworth and Mr Lewis need to revise their system for TWENTY20, if only to avoid sides like the West Indies actually believing they were worthy winners.
Shame their coach had the score worked out for him this time. Otherwise, we might still have had a chance.

 

[GIMH]

TBF I could swear you had a moan about the D/L after one of the ODIs a couple of months back

Fail to see how 161 is poor either. Should have scored more, sure. But it's not like we scored 90 or something.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Collingwood proving again his ineptitude as far as field placing goes. Why the hell did he have boundary fielders when they need a run a ball to win? Even 14 year-olds know that is useless field placing, make the batsman hit over the top for their runs and if it works, then good on them.

Apart frm England getting ****ed over by the D/L system shouldn't detract from our useless batting performance in the latter overs. Hate to blame Pietersen as he is clearly our best batsman, but he really is brainless at times. When you can smash bowlers down the ground like he can, why **** about with paddle sweeps and all that crap.

 

[Uppercut]

Then what should have been the alternative? Use IPL totals? use random totals? Please feel free to suggest, and I am only willing to agree if we have a better alternative.

Personally, i think the calculation needs an overhaul. When you go from 50-over calculations to 20-overs, the relative value of wickets and runs is completely warped.

As Scaly says, to think of what a fair total is you just have to look at the match situation that would bring about an equal situation. If West Indies were 83/0 after 11 chasing 162, you'd think they were well on top- in a much better position than they were at the start of the chase- and that's before we factor in powerplays and the fact that England have to use every bowler at least once. There's definitely an issue there.

 

[GIMH]

^ Decent point. A couple of the straight hits were marvellous, he'd have scored 4s from them all day long.

 

[Adamc]

Linkage please? A lot of DL bashing is going around here. But what people forget is that a DL par total of 140 and a DL par total of 160 does not constitute a difference of more than 5-6 runs in the final say. I am open to being proved wrong though.

By par score I mean the default score programmed into DL tables. I tried fiddling with the same in ODIs, where 225 is used as par score, and I used 260 and the net difference amounted to about 4 runs.

Linkage to what? This isn't ****ing Wikipedia. I acknowledged that I didn't know what method was used; that was in fact partly the point of my post.

Anyway, you're missing the point rather spectacularly. The issue isn't whether or not there are better alternatives available (again, I don't know - and nor do you - if there are). The issue is that the method used led to an unfair outcome, hence it should be improved. As simple as that.

No one was suggesting overturning the result of the match, or withdrawing from the tournament or whatever the **** you were on about.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, I dont think England had enough before the DL target was introduced. I dont think they were hard done by

So in a theoretical 20-over chase of 162, do you think West Indies would be in an equally good position at 80/0 after eleven overs as they were at 0/0 before the chase begun?

 

[grecian]

Yeah, utter joke they couldn't play to a finish, but if it's down to Sky, us going out, you can't help but laugh, with their ridiculously jingoistic coverage, and the fact it will lose them shedloads of viewers, this loss.

BTW, I do think Windies played the 9 over game perfectly, and may well of won the 20 over game by playing it differently, because I thought we were 15-20 runs short on a quick pitch with fast outfields. Yet I thought that against Pakistan and India, and I think it would have been a tougher ask with the full overs.

EDIT: another BTW, I called Roseboys post Laughably bad, because he started it "Oh well who cares", well presumably a number of england fans....

 

[Smith]

Personally, i think the calculation needs an overhaul. When you go from 50-over calculations to 20-overs, the relative value of wickets and runs is completely warped.

As Scaly says, to think of what a fair total is you just have to look at the match situation that would bring about an equal situation. If West Indies were 83/0 after 11 chasing 162, you'd think they were well on top- in a much better position than they were at the start of the chase- and that's before we factor in powerplays and the fact that England have to use every bowler at least once. There's definitely an issue there.

You forget that to reach 83/0 after 11 overs, WI would have done extremely well, and hence rightfully deserve to be number 1.

We have hardly any data regarding DL, heck the people who have been moaning about it here does not even have an alternative "par score" to come up with.

 

[Quaggas]

Not ideal, but still a result one could defend.

Unlike this one.

Win some, lose some.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, utter joke they couldn't play to a finish, but if it's down to Sky, us going out, you can't help but laugh, with their ridiculously jingoistic coverage, and the fact it will lose them shedloads of viewers, this loss.

BTW, I do think Windies played the 9 over game perfectly, and may well of won the 20 over game by playing it differently, because I thought we were 15-20 runs short on a quick pitch with fast outfields. Yet I thought that against Pakistan and India, and I think it would have been a tougher ask with the full overs.

Don't think it's Sky but rather ESPN - Sky have loads of games go on til about 10.30 in the domestic season

 

[Smith]

Linkage to what? This isn't ****ing Wikipedia. I acknowledged that I didn't know what method was used; that was in fact partly the point of my post.

I don't know why you are getting worked up.

Anyway, you're missing the point rather spectacularly. The issue isn't whether or not there are better alternatives available (again, I don't know - and nor do you - if there are). The issue is that the method used led to an unfair outcome, hence it should be improved. As simple as that.

If there are no alternatives you can suggest, how can you randomly suggest this method is bad? It's a plain whinge than any constructive argument in that case. Atleast you suggest what WI ideally would have been chasing in 9 overs?

No one was suggesting overturning the result of the match, or withdrawing from the tournament or whatever the **** you were on about.

Irrational whingeing about a rule accepted by all captains, got my goat.