weldone
Hall of Fame Member
The groundstaff have just chucked a load of water onto the outfield.
I think they want 2 days pay instead of one.
The groundstaff have just chucked a load of water onto the outfield.
I think they want 2 days pay instead of one.
I nominate Duckworth, Lewis and Stern as the 3 experts.When I was a kid, I thought that a panel of experts should be asked for the revised target in case of rain delays. And then average it out. Wish this was a world where that kind of a thing could be made to work.
Yeah the problem with this is that if it rains all day tomorrow and some team qualifies just by virtue or finishing higher, then the ICC looks absolutely stupid for setting that rule and wasting the opportunity to have a shortened game with a result. Much more stupid than using an imperfect but still awesome DLS system (unless India lose of course ).I basically agree with you with the additional caveat that it’s far easier to take a long run sample size POV perspective on DLS in a non-KO scenario. In a situation like this with disproportionate rewards for victory, the long run logic isn’t as tight imo prima facie and ‘rerun or start where you left off tomorrow’ might even be better over a a 47 overs to 20 overs DLS. Haven’t really looked into it much though.
150 in 30 overs IMO. India were getting set for ~235 in 50 overs.When I was a kid, I thought that a panel of experts should be asked for the revised target in case of rain delays. And then average it out. Wish this was a world where that kind of a thing could be made to work.
I mean, what's a reasonable estimate in a situation like this. 30 overs - target should be ~160, right?
Howard?I nominate Duckworth, Lewis and Stern as the 3 experts.
oh god imagine if the expert panel was like shane warne, michael vaughan and pommie mbangwa thoughWhen I was a kid, I thought that a panel of experts should be asked for the revised target in case of rain delays. And then average it out. Wish this was a world where that kind of a thing could be made to work.
I mean, what's a reasonable estimate in a situation like this. 30 overs - target should be ~160, right?
Eggzactly.oh god imagine if the expert panel was like shane warne, michael vaughan and pommie mbangwa though
And then further demerit points for Kohli for arguing with the umpires that the target should be 48 in place of 148.Maybe it could be the umpires and the match referee.
I'm sure he would have a lot to say on the subject. It could take 2 days of 'debating' to sort it outHoward?
wouldn't call 50-50 match because India have some batsmen who are better in T20 and ODI (Pant, Hardik, DK)If 20 overs then it's 50-50 match. Damn how lucky NZ can get.
Yeah India's questionable batting selections suddenly become awesome ones in this situation. I wonder if Kohli actually looked at the forecast before selecting the team -- he overthinks everything so it wouldn't surprise me at all.wouldn't call 50-50 match because India have some batsmen who are better in T20 and ODI (Pant, Hardik, DK)
Nah, exaggeration. 120 in 20 overs is considered almost sure shot victory - and I don't see how 150 in 30 overs is any more difficult. 240 in 50 overs is also easy - but it's certainly tougher than 120 in 20.150 in 30 overs IMO. India were getting set for ~235 in 50 overs.
Mbangwa would hardly get a word in edgeways as the 2 narcissists swapped hair and beauty tips.oh god imagine if the expert panel was like shane warne, michael vaughan and pommie mbangwa though
Disagree strongly unless it's Rothbard's ghost.World would be theoretically awesome if we had a theoretically benevolent dictator