*Official* New Zealand in England 2015

[Dan]

Not sure if it was mentioned on the last page but Craig Overton has been called up to cover Jordan.

Can't help but feel they've got the wrong Somerset bowling all-rounder, but Craig will do alright if he somehow plays IMO.

 

[Furball]

You can't ever make it satisfactory, though. You're sort of "pre-deciding" part of the game which reduces part of the uncertainty which is kind of the point of sport.

My gripe is that the D/L equation took the chase from "intriguing, unlikely to succeed, but still definitely possible" to "pretty much no chance."

Although my main gripe is that we were even using D/L in the first place. There were ****ing lights at the ground.

 

[Furball]

Not sure if he has been dropped in the traditional sense, he needs 4 day cricket desperately with The Ashes on the horizon, thus its a better idea for everyone that he is playing with Worcester and Ajmal red ball cricket.

In that case it's fair enough. In fact, that's quite a sensible move, all things considered.

 

[Zinzan]

My gripe is that the D/L equation took the chase from "intriguing, unlikely to succeed, but still definitely possible" to "pretty much no chance."

Although my main gripe is that we were even using D/L in the first place. There were ****ing lights at the ground.

That's another argument altogether, but yeah, the fact you were 7 down ultimately screwed you on DL.

 

[Furball]

In fact, the equation was 54 from 43. England were definite favourites provided Plunkett and Rashid stayed there for 6 overs.

Once D/L kicked in, New Zealand were definite favourites barring a miracle.

 

[Chewie]

That is a big "provided"

 

[Zinzan]

In fact, the equation was 54 from 43. England were definite favourites provided Plunkett and Rashid stayed there for 6 overs.

Once D/L kicked in, New Zealand were definite favourites barring a miracle.

Yeah DL being tough on chasing teams from a wickets-lost POV was my point.

 

[Zinzan]

That is a big "provided"

I think he meant from a RRR perspective as opposed to just stating the obvious there.

 

[Howe_zat]

I think he meant from a RRR perspective as opposed to just stating the obvious there.

But that's the whole point. If the NRR stays the same with no wickets being lost, that's not even slightly close to even. That's the batting side winning. This is especially true when a side is down to the last pair who can bat.

As we saw, the game was only really over when Rashid got out. If that shot from Rashid had an extra metre on it, England would've needed 18 from the last over, bowled by Grant Elliot, with Rashid still there. It's still doable. Instead it was a great catch that won it.

The rain stopped that from happening for 24 deliveries. Yes, England were unlikely to make 34 off 13 balls. They were also very unlikely to keep their 8th wicket stand going at 9rpo for another 5 overs.

I think the rain did affect the result, but only because it halted a phase of play where England were coming back into the match, and the run of play is a delicate thing.

 

[Zinzan]

But that's the whole point. If the NRR stays the same with no wickets being lost, that's not even slightly close to even. That's the batting side winning. This is especially true when a side is down to the last pair who can bat.

As we saw, the game was only really over when Rashid got out. If that shot from Rashid had an extra metre on it, England would've needed 18 from the last over, bowled by Grant Elliot, with Rashid still there. It's still doable. Instead it was a great catch that won it.

The rain stopped that from happening for 24 deliveries. Yes, England were unlikely to make 34 off 13 balls. They were also very unlikely to keep their 8th wicket stand going at 9rpo for another 5 overs.

I think the rain did affect the result, but only because it halted a phase of play where England were coming back into the match, and the run of play is a delicate thing.

Yeah, don't disagree with any of that. I was meaning I doubt Furball was suggesting the fav outcome was those two actually batting out the 6 overs.

 

[Days of Grace]

The issue here is that D/L doesn't take into account momentum. England may have lost two wickets in two balls right before the rain break and then we would say NZ were favorites at that point. But D/L only sees runs, balls, and wickets in hand.

 

[Flem274*]

I love how we spend half our lives scoffing at "JAMODIs" and then endlessly debate who would have won one when it rains.

 

[Spark]

I love how we spend half our lives scoffing at "JAMODIs" and then endlessly debate who would have won one when it rains.

This series could turn out like that ODI series tbf. No one can see any point in it, which makes it all the more fun when it becomes entirely bonkers.

 

[Howe_zat]

Well yeah, a JAMODI is defined as 'this probably isn't important enough to hold my interest on result alone if the cricket were boring', not 'i refuse to take any interest in this regardless'.

 

[GIMH]

Well yeah, a JAMODI is defined as 'this probably isn't important enough to hold my interest on result alone if the cricket were boring', not 'i refuse to take any interest in this regardless'.

Also known as the Richard approach to Twenty20

 

[JediNudist]

Just read the ICC will meet in Barbados end ofn the month and consider the following :

Recommendations by the ICC's Cricket Committee are expected to be ratified and implemented within a few months. The ODI suggestions include:

• Removing the batting powerplay

• Allowing five fielders outside the 30m circle between the 41st and 50th overs

• Removing the need for two fielders to be in catching positions in the first 10 overs.

I would go as far as well and remove the two balls per innings. Unsure why they did that in the first place.


To be honest I think the current spectacle is excellent. ODI is exciting , people are turning up and games are being sold out. So who are the ICC responding too when they want to restrict the game now ? Themselves ? It seems pointless.
I believe the changes above wont make too much of a difference. What do people want most of the time ? runs or wickets ? I for one do not want a return to the days when sides routinely crawled to 230 of 50 and ot was a snore fest. Like it or lump it this is ODI now. People are turning up to games and it seems a few purists in the media seemed to have influenced the ICC to make changes non of which I believe will make a jot of difference. I for one, enjoy ODI cricket as it is now, Hope for another run fest at the Rosebowl.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

Just watched the highlights. Yeah it's getting to the point where sides are employing death batting throughout the whole innings. Some of the shots played by both sides in the first 10 overs are just stupid, you shouldn't be able to routinely blast length deliveries through the line without risk until the ball is older imo.

I found Santners wickets to be very promising, did the batsmen with extra turn and bounce.

 

[weldone]

• Allowing five fielders outside the 30m circle between the 41st and 50th overs

I particularly like this one; hope they do it.

 

[Spark]

Removing the two catching men restriction is a good idea, that always struck me as silly. Resulted in some odd looking fields as captains tried to make their "catching" fielders as close as possible to actual ring fielders.

 

[Bahnz]

Just watched the highlights. Yeah it's getting to the point where sides are employing death batting throughout the whole innings. Some of the shots played by both sides in the first 10 overs are just stupid, you shouldn't be able to routinely blast length deliveries through the line without risk until the ball is older imo.

I found Santners wickets to be very promising, did the batsmen with extra turn and bounce.

Yeah but I found his endless sequence of half volleys a little concerning too.