• 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.

*Official* England in South Africa Thread

Swervy

Swervy

International Captain
Neil Pickup said:
No, all we'll do is lose resources. This will mean that the target is scaled down with respect to the resources we lost. If we lose 10%, our target will become 90% of what it was before.

And shut up Botham, you don't understand the method at all.
Click to expand...
argh right.....but the required run rate might go up...is that right..less runs but less overs in a way that means higher run rate needed.
 
Neil Pickup

Neil Pickup

Request Your Custom Title Now!
It all depends upon when it rained. If the rain happened, as I'm guessing, in the innings break, they'd have needed 133 off 30.

If it rained mid-innings, then it would have been less (more convoluted calculations).
 
Neil Pickup

Neil Pickup

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Swervy said:
argh right.....but the required run rate might go up...is that right..less runs but less overs in a way that means higher run rate needed.
Click to expand...
Yup, as it's easier to maintain a higher run-rate over fewer overs (that's the crux of D/L).
 
Swervy

Swervy

International Captain
Neil Pickup said:
It all depends upon when it rained. If the rain happened, as I'm guessing, in the innings break, they'd have needed 133 off 30.

If it rained mid-innings, then it would have been less (more convoluted calculations).
Click to expand...
mmm...i cant remember what happened.

it seemed damned unfair at the time though
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Scaly piscine said:
OK what was the point in Collingwood bowling a second over (which wasn't too bad, 5 runs off it) if he was gonna be taken off - was he expecting him to bowl a wicket maiden or something?
Click to expand...
Well, since you keep saying his first over of a spell is always so rubbish, it's stupid to not at least make it into a spell!
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Scaly piscine said:
How many runs have SA lost by being bowled out as opposed to having 2/3 wickets left at the end?
Click to expand...
I think D/L is applied at the break in play isn't it, rather than the end of the innings?
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Neil Pickup said:
I now have a bit more sympathy for Boucher and Pollock :D
Click to expand...
Withy all due respect I don't think the hopes of you nation depended on you reading it right...

It did make me laugh when Bouched walked out to bat on Wednesday and Jack Bannister said something along the lines of "he's not a blocker"
 
marc71178

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Neil Pickup said:
It was an absolute disaster. Things like removing the lowest scoring two overs of the innings (23 off 13 balls suddenly becomes 22 off 1 - google England SA World Cup 92), or just run rate adjustments - which were unfair due to the run-rates involved.
Click to expand...

What annoyed me about that game was how the South African's got so much sympathy from everyone...
 
BoyBrumby

BoyBrumby

Englishman
marc71178 said:
What annoyed me about that game was how the South African's got so much sympathy from everyone...
Click to expand...
It was a bit of a farce, TBF.

I was well pleased tho, it really looked like SA were going to do it at one stage.

Of course we ar$ed up the final after having bowled Pakistan out for 70-odd in the group game. Mind you from this distance it looks like a golden age for the English OD team in light of our WC performances since!
 
Langeveldt

Langeveldt

Soutie
A happy SA cricket fan, its good to see the boys smiling and playing some good cricket again.. England have been a tough opposition this summer but we seem to be more dominant in the shorter form of the game now..

I'd like to think we weren't saved by the weather tonight, and that we would have rolled England. Judging by the way they came out to bat at least.
 
Swervy

Swervy

International Captain
Langeveldt said:
A happy SA cricket fan, its good to see the boys smiling and playing some good cricket again.. England have been a tough opposition this summer but we seem to be more dominant in the shorter form of the game now..

I'd like to think we weren't saved by the weather tonight, and that we would have rolled England. Judging by the way they came out to bat at least.
Click to expand...
shame for England that their best one day player wasnt actually playing!!!
 
C

cricket player

International Debutant
Swervy said:
shame for England that their best one day player wasnt actually playing!!!
Click to expand...
What?If the good players are not playing then the junior player have to respond well.

Each and every one of those english batsman are talented if they werent they would'nt have made it to international cricket.It is just that south african bowling attack was at it's best.

Dont blame batsman blame the weather :)
 
Langeveldt

Langeveldt

Soutie
Well injuries are a fact of cricket and they happen randomly, teams don't get singled out because it happens to everyone.. its all swings and roundabouts..

Saying Flintoffs absence means SA didn't deserve their win (if that was implied) is as ludicrous as me saying Australia didn't deserve to roll SA over a few summers back because we didn't have Allan Donald playing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Top