• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

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

Dissector

Dissector

International Debutant
Scaly piscine said:
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.
Click to expand...
The two situations aren't identical though. If you are 82-0 you have two well-set batsmen who have had a chance to settle in and see the bowlers. The rest of the batsmen would be in a much more relaxed frame of mind if they had to come in. In an 8 over game you have no time to settle in and a single bad over can cause real panic.

In any case where did England outplay the West Indies? They put up an average score which the Windies were perfectly capable of chasing in 20 overs. They would have batted in a different way if they had to chase the full total and would probably have taken fewer risks early on.
 
GIMH

GIMH

Norwood's on Fire
Smith said:
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.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about??
 
Uppercut

Uppercut

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Smith said:
You forget that to reach 83/0 after 11 overs, WI would have done extremely well, and hence rightfully deserve to be number 1.
Click to expand...
Yes you're quite right. It would have taken excellent batting to get that far.

But they didn't do that at all. They were gifted that head-start by the dodgy DL calculation.

If it helps you understand how unfair the number itself was, forget about the adjusted total stuff, and imagine they had said, "Okay, we're going to skip ahead- so we'll make it 83/0 after eleven overs and you can play from there. Oh, and you get three powerplay overs now too."
 
shivfan

shivfan

Banned
john1966 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Welcome, john....
:)
Please don't take this personally, but your first post does come across as an angry rant which borders on sour grapes.

DL has been around for a while, and Colly knew that it was going to rain, and he STILL decided to bat first!
:laugh:
Also, you're wrong to say the WI have only two batsmen. During this tournament, in various matches, Gayle, Bravo and Simmons all came good with the bat. In this match, it was the turn of Shiv and Sarwan.

After posts like yours, I must admit, I'm quite happy that the WI beat England....
:cool:
 
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
kingkallis said:
That comes to our mind ONLY when D/L screws our team :ph34r:
Click to expand...
I'm happy to admit it! As I did in this post...


zaremba said:
No - the point is that with 9 overs you can bat like muppets (as the Windies, except for Sarwan and Chanders, have done) and still have no real risk of running out of batsmen. That changes the dynamic so much that you should be looking at more like 95 off 9 imho

Mind you I would NOT be saying this if England were chasing
Click to expand...
 
J

john1966

Cricket Spectator
Dissector said:
TIn any case where did England outplay the West Indies? They put up an average score which the Windies were perfectly capable of chasing in 20 overs. They would have batted in a different way if they had to chase the full total and would probably have taken fewer risks early on.
Click to expand...
They have 2 batsmen. That's it. Perfectly capable 2 batsmen. The rest just tag along
 
Smith

Smith

Banned
Uppercut said:
Yes you're quite right. It would have taken excellent batting to get that far.

But they didn't do that at all. They were gifted that head-start by the dodgy DL calculation.

If it helps you understand how unfair the number itself was, forget about the adjusted total stuff, and imagine they had said, "Okay, we're going to skip ahead- so we'll make it 83/0 after eleven overs and you can play from there. Oh, and you get three powerplay overs now too."
Click to expand...
Except that the openers have hardly got their eye in, and hence there is every risk of them consuming deliveries or worse losing wickets. Hence the two situations are not ideally comparable imo.
 
Dissector

Dissector

International Debutant
No they don't have two batsmen. They have Gayle, Bravo, Simmons, Chanderpaul and Sarwan who are perfectly capable of scoring 161 in 20 overs against an average England attack.
 
G

gvenkat

State Captain
Whoever Cries About D/L should know there is no method that is there currently that can give us a better solution. 80 of 9 overs was fair enough when u consider that Windies had to chase at 9 an over and only had 3 power play overs.

Of course in T20's the chasing team always has the advantage and in a shortened game its even more extrapolated. West Indies went crazy becuase of the shortened chase. had it been 161 they would have been a little bit more conventional. so saying England was cheated out f the SF is a classic case of sour grapes.

Colly won the toss and still elected to bat. There was not a single boundary hit in the last 9 overs till Broad came in.. So why blame the Windies here when England pretty much sucked the whole game with the exception of KP, Swann and Bopara. :)
 
zaremba

zaremba

Cricketer Of The Year
Dissector said:
No they don't have two batsmen. They have Gayle, Bravo, Simmons, Chanderpaul and Sarwan who are perfectly capable of scoring 161 in 20 overs against an average England attack.
Click to expand...
No-one's doubting that chasing 161 was within their capabilities.

I'm a bit regretful that this is all starting to deteriorate into what seems like sour grapes from us English and a bit of English - Windies name calling. It's just a bit of a sad way to go out of a tournament, that's all. :(
 
Dissector

Dissector

International Debutant
And let's not forget that the lowest Windies score off 20 overs in this tournament so far was 163 against South Africa. It's silly to pretend that 161 against England was some kind of formidable target which showed that they had been outplayed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top