Almost every country was unfairly done in by the DL method so you are not alone, get over it, poms. We have lost against you in the past b/c of the same rule. Almost every time the losing side complains about the rule. If I remember correctly, one indian guy had come up with an alternative but was never considered by the ICC. They need to come up with a better system.
Re: Truth
by Amit on Jun 16, 2009 10:27 PM
Dont they give credit to dhoni when india wins. So why dont they blame him for india's loss. Also neither did he bat well not did he keep well. So think before saying and dont be a bas.terd
England won against India because they were booed by the predominantly Indian crowd. This time around the crowd was not there to boo them.Hence the loss!
DO U BELEIVE THAT 20-20 IS CRICKET? IT IS VERY SIMILAR THOUGH. SO PL STOP DEVISING ANY NEW D/L VARIETY. IT IS FOOL'S PARADISE TO DO SO. LET EVERYTHING RUN AMUCK AS IT IS NOW TILL PEOPLE GET TIRED AND SAY ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. OF CURSE POPLE LIKE KRISTEN WOULD PREFER 20 -20 SO THAT THEY COULD CONVENIENTLY SHIFT THE BLAME RATHER THAN ADMITTING STRATEGY FAILURE.
Re: IS IT CRICKET?
by yo yoyo on Jun 16, 2009 11:39 PM
If u think its not cricket then it is your problem. For the rest of us, it is definitely serious cricket; and much more entertaining than other forms...
It is really surprises me to hear that Indian players were not able to perform in T20 WC due to fatigue of overcricket. Ha ha ha ha ha. How many times u hae seen Indian team practicing or resting een when there is no cricket. During off period also players are busy for shooting ads & walking on ramp. Just if u will see current tournament, after every two ovrs there is one commercial featuring MS Dhoni. This only gives the reason for team's failure. On top of it currently in this team there are at least three contenders for the captaincy namely MS Dhoni, Yuvi & veeru. Obviously these three are having their perticular groups in team & one group always try to pull other's leg. Current defeat is not because of overstress or team is weak but it is because of internal controversies & arguments. Its the ego of few palyers costing team matches after matches. If these three players will not realize it now soon this team will be on the same way as that of Pak.
Re: Indian team's secret
by Lucky B on Jun 16, 2009 10:03 PM
Why India should win every time? Win and Loss is part of the game. We all ready had very good winning streak last year.
Re: Re: Indian team's secret
by yo yoyo on Jun 16, 2009 11:43 PM
I completely agree with Lucky B.
Stop criticising our players by saying that they do not practice and instead work in commercials. Too much of practice may also lead to fatigue.
Allow them to spend their spare time the way they like.
And ofcourse, cricket is a sport. 20-20 is the most unpredictable sport. So lets not make a huge issue out this loss. This same team has won so many matches for our country in the last couple of years.
It seems the author does't have any knowledge of the D/L method or the WI-England match. He picked up some graph and trying to analyze the things. His statement "For captains on the field it is: even if there's a small chance of rain, always choose to chase" is meaningless. Its englnad who choose to bat first and not WI who choose to chase.
Re: Nonsense Article.
by Someone on Jun 16, 2009 09:58 PM
Hare Baya. That is the reason why England lost the match. They knew that the match will be affected by the rain and still they have opted for batting and paid the price. Better you please read the article again and if you dont understand, better ask some one who can read the graph for you.
Re: Nonsense Article.
by Kunal on Jun 17, 2009 12:30 AM
That was the utter stupid mistake what england made look at the history n you will find that in 99% the team chasing have it easy to achieve the target.
There is no need for any estimation technique for 20-20. The rules should be altered such that all matches has to be completed after the rain stops. I think most spectators would prefer that over watching this kind of drama. If the rain doesn't stop, the match should be continued the next day since 20-20 would take only a few hours.
Re: Matches should be completed
by David Coulthard on Jun 16, 2009 09:23 PM
precisely! We are already paying hell to watch cricket in between a few overs of cricket...
Re: Re: Matches should be completed
by David Coulthard on Jun 16, 2009 09:27 PM
a few overs of cricket in between the beloved commercials, that is ;) I thought Set Max was worst, looks like the non-existant superlative to "st" should be revisited when one watches Star Cricket! Most of the action after a wicket-ball or an over are slowly being trickled off. Good that India is outta contention: no offence intended.
Chasing team can't go and hit every ball without losing the wicket. You should know the fundamentals of the D/L method. For example in Yday's match, after completion of 5 overs, if WI had scored only 40 runs and lost 6 wickets means, they would have lost if the match was abondened at that point.
It's just the risk the chasing team takes. It's not rewarded 100%. We've had so many instances where the chasing team lost using D/L method.
Re: Author is completely missing the whole pic
by Bharatwasi on Jun 16, 2009 09:22 PM
Surya you completely lost the point! Author is saying D/L method is generally good, because it considers wickets as resources. But it is practically meaningless for overs below 20. Making 162 in 20 overs would have been much difficult task compared to making 80 in 9 overs. Specifically, Srilanka had lost 5 wickets already. Had they been chasing actual 162 target, it was far difficult for them after losing 5 wickets. Clearly, the method is practically unfair for 20-20.
Re: Re: Author is completely missing the whole pic
by Surya TheGreat on Jun 16, 2009 09:07 PM
One more point is, England lost 6 wickets during their batting. Had they lost only one wicket, the target for WI would have been something like 115-120. My advice to the author, get the complete picture of D/L method.
Re: Re: Re: Author is completely missing the whole pic
by David Coulthard on Jun 16, 2009 09:18 PM
Surya TheGreat, You are right. I think the author, maybe in his haste, mouthed more than he could chew. He has considered only two dimensions: overs and runs. But, DL takes the third dimension as well (we dont want to go to the next level(s) do we? :) ) Wickets!
All things said and done, a match that is played out fully, whether 50 overs or 20 or even 5, ONLY will tell the end of a tale; period.
A batsman like Walsh could hit a sixer off the last ball with five runs needed to win, right? :)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Author is completely missing the whole pic
by Bharatwasi on Jun 16, 2009 09:29 PM
Read the article carefully. Yes. The wickets in hand is an important resource. But when using D/L method this resource becomes meaningless in 20-20. Because the difference is too small! In reality, WI would have struggled to chase real target of 163 after losing 5 wickets. This is because D/L method does not give enough rewards/punishments for having/losing the third resource i.e. "Wickets". It is proving ineffective for 20-20.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Author is completely missing the whole pic
by Surya TheGreat on Jun 16, 2009 09:58 PM
Again you're talking like the author. Both the teams are given 20 overs and 10 wickets in T20. The D/L can be applied for that only.
See, why couldn't England score more runs than 163 in 20 overs? If England scored 190 runs, the target would have been diffrent fro WI.
All I can say is this is the best method available in cricket to force a result.
Did you really know how the earlier rules worked out?
