***Official*** England in South Africa 2015/16

[91Jmay]

We were a long way ahead of the game with that last wicket. DL Run margin is fair in the end.

 

[grecian]

It's not great for Jordan that the most favourable thing people are saying about him is 'He's not worse than Dernbach'

There's Saj as well.

TBH though, Jordan's not very good but he's not in the top ten of bad England fast-bowlers I've seen, probably not top 20 if I could trawl through all the horrible limited overs ones.

As a cricketer you can kind of see his appeal, he can bowl quick, hit big and is a great fielder, but really only the last bit is International class.

Hope Woakes or Broad play the rest of the series.

Oh and glad they gave MOTM to the outstanding performer in the game despite being on the losing side. Should happen more. Obviously the main England contender will win many more for turning the match a few times, but there'll be many more for Moeen

 

[Gnske]

Glad QDK is reaping some rewards, if he and Buttler get their keeping up to scratch MS DOS might actually have competition for ODI team of the decade

 

[Howe_zat]

Strike rates by team:

Up to and including 2015 world cup: Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

Since the 2015 world cup:

Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | ESPN Cricinfo

So England have gone from being on the fringes of the top sides, but closer to the WI/Bangladesh side of things, to being the best team by miles.

This is scientific right

 

[Daemon]

Yes English fans, we get that your team has turned a corner. We're still going to laugh at you for losing to Bangladesh twice in two WCs though.

 

[kykweer.proteas]

Oh yes, D/L is the problem, not the fact that you've lost 5 wickets.

Makes a change from blaming quotas I guess

Actually i posted earlier that we deserve to lose because of our bowling.

However cricket is a contest and even though we were very unlikely to win, there was still a small chance, and most of us enjoy watching cricket waiting for those small chances to see something great or else cricket will be boring and predictable.

 

[MrPrez]

I actually think the DL required totals looked remarkably fair, given their reputation.

It is a pity we didn't get more action, though. Was really set up to explode, either way, although the English were undoubtedly favourites. Seeing QdK's innings cut short like that really was a pity.

 

[Dan]

Yeah, I do feel like D/L might need a tweak at some point given how back-heavy innings have become these days, but you have to remember that RSA were 5 down at the end of the game. QdK was #rekt, and the #7 was Berhardien. Sure, Morris is a pretty good #8, but it'd only take one wicket for England to be right back on top.

South Africa were still behind in that game; they were certainly catching up at a rate of knots on the back of QdK and had all the momentum, but I don't think the D/L was especially unfair.

 

[LegionOfBrad]

D/L was updated a few years back. The professional edition is called Duckworth Lewis Stern, and needs a computer, you can't just rely on tables.

On the old standard method the Saffas were ahead by a couple of runs. The standard version is still used in amateur/club games where they don't have a computer. It only really diverges at high scores.

 

[Stefan9]

I still don't like d/l and never will. Would much rather see a rain day set aside for all international games.

It doesn't and probably never will someone like qdk playing a blinder. He had some cramp but it wasn't anywhere close to the likes did faf has had so we don't know whether he would have recovered and continue on. If he bats through and gets support from behardien and morris then its definitely doable.

Not blaming d/l on the loss, that goes to the likes of de lange and co but just don't feel its ever a fair system.

 

[kykweer.proteas]

Whatever the d/l equation would have been would been emphasized because of the 400 score.

I cant give a better solution so we are stuck with it as a best fit scenario... Either way it rained out and losing by 39 sounds much better than 150 runs.

What score would we have had to chase of 10 or 5 overs if we ever went back?

 

[LegionOfBrad]

I just ran the numbers using https://dlcalc.codeplex.com/ (Only one that does the proffesional edition)

Assuming no wickets lost (So five down)

38 overs - 338
39 overs - 346
40 overs - 353
41 overs - 359
42 overs - 365
43 overs - 371

I can't attest to that programs accuracy but it does get the 290 they would have needed at 33.3 bang on.

 

[StephenZA]

I still don't like d/l and never will. Would much rather see a rain day set aside for all international games.

It doesn't and probably never will someone like qdk playing a blinder. He had some cramp but it wasn't anywhere close to the likes did faf has had so we don't know whether he would have recovered and continue on. If he bats through and gets support from behardien and morris then its definitely doable.

Not blaming d/l on the loss, that goes to the likes of de lange and co but just don't feel its ever a fair system.

While I understand your sentiments D/L is for me still the best method. It can always be improved but it is still the best.

For me the problem with rain day is that it has the same effect as D/L (in big scheme of things), if you continue from where you were in the match the batsmen's eye may no longer be in, the bowler may not be as accurate the pitch could alter a bit... and all this does is bring in the exact same arguments. "Oh, well if it had not rained then batsmen x would have kept going and had the initiative... bowler y was bowling really well and did not do as well next morning" etc etc. And playing a whole new match is exactly that and not fair on the team that was ahead in the game... So ultimately rain days do not help in ODI cricket (unless the game never started).

Test cricket is a whole other matter though....

 

[indiaholic]

Genuine fan of D/L for ODIs. It is very very good most of the time.

 

[kykweer.proteas]

So in about 5.3 overs we would require 96 runs

Alternatively in 9.3 overs a further 121 runs?

 

[kykweer.proteas]

I suppose 121 off 9.3 would kind of suited us.

96 of 5.3 would have been extremely tough.

 

[Prince EWS]

So in about 5.3 overs we would require 96 runs

Alternatively in 9.3 overs a further 121 runs?

It's assuming no wickets lost, which is why it seems a bit off like that.

EDIT: Actually no, LoB was posting something different to what I thought. It wouldn't matter if they lost wickets in that period after the rain delay.

 

[91Jmay]

I'd have been pretty angry if they'd have got 9.3 to score 121 runs.

 

[kykweer.proteas]

I'd have been pretty angry if they'd have got 9.3 to score 121 runs.

Yep

 

[LegionOfBrad]

I'd have been pretty angry if they'd have got 9.3 to score 121 runs.

True. However if one more wicket goes down the target then goes out of reach. So it would have been a tough ask.