BBL 2012/13

[whufc]

Ok in last nights game would people have considered this a fair revised target

Scorchers need 42 to win off 5 overs with 2 wickets in hand?

[Brodlach]

IMO they should have been set at least 75 off the 5 overs

[whufc]

Ok in last nights game would people have considered this a fair revised target

Scorchers need 40 to win off 5 overs with 2 wickets in hand?

Remembering would Coulter Nile hit with such freedom knowing getting out would have lost them the game.

[whufc]

IMO they should have been set at least 75 off the 5 overs

So u wanted them to have to go at double the run rate the Heat went at.

[mal]

The absurdity of this game was Duckworth Lewis
I know its worked out on a devised method off this and f....g that
BUT
BH 4/109[13.1]
Christian is still in and burning
Perera and Cutting are Killer batters still to come in

Look at the Perth line up
They batted the only 3 guys who can hit a cricket ball in this weak batting line up

Marsh hit or miss
Gibbs match winner if gets going
Coluter Nile can smash
North useless
Katich too old a liability
Stoinis the worst speciallist batsman Ive seen in the last 2 years
Cartwright handy
Triffit handy
Thomas average
Hogg too old
Beer awful

How could that line up get 160- 180 if Marsh and Gibbs dont make a big score

But somehow Duckworth Lewis has the result mastered

With the rain, whoever batted 2nd was always going to win

BH hits 109 off 13.1 overs, thats exceptional scoring at this format
And lose a game they were heavily favored to win

I don't agree with the figure DL system came up with BUT 2 things.

1/ the figure can't possibly take into account the oppositions batting line up,

2/ whatever the score set is there has to be at least a 1% chance the opposition can get it, just because the heat may have hit 200 doesn't mean the team batting second couldn't make it.

Maybe a better formula would be something that sets the opposition a similar run rate (or slighty increased run rate considering 99% of innings build) but with reduced wickets in hand.

The 10 runs an over seemed pretty fair considering the heat were on track for about an 8.5-9 runs an over. The bigger issue was the 10 wickets in hand which meant the Scorchers didn't have to consider getting out as an option.

Maybe that target of 51(5) with 3 wickets in hand would have been a better formula

One of the most impressive things on Safooty, is some of your very thoughtful and very very good posts
What you have posted makes a lot of sense

Your last point is absolutely spot on
PS could have made the runs and finished on say 7/52
That would have meant BH would have outplayed PS and lost the game

I really really like your solution in a 5 over run chase
Dont gift a 10 wicket leeway
Make the chasing team more accountable, if they lose 3-4 wickets, they should lose the match

there is a big flaw with that though

say its decided 3 wickets is used as all out for a 5 over game

the game is rain interupted before the start and is reduced to 10 overs per side

team 1 makes 100 runs

team 2 is 3/45 off 4 overs, then it starts to rain - rain stops and it is decided that teh 5th over can be played but becuase team 2 has already lost 3 wickets do they lose the match?

Once a contest is deemed as
10 overs in duration
and the designated overs cant be bowled then the game should be called off ?
In the instances of 5 or 10 overs games, the game has already been stopped once, if its stopped a second time call the game off ?

OR

Makes more sense to play super overs of 1 over each for the verdict ?
At least both teams can be given equal opportunities from the outset

[mal]

Ok in last nights game would people have considered this a fair revised target

Scorchers need 40 to win off 5 overs with 2 wickets in hand?

YES

[mal]

Ok in last nights game would people have considered this a fair revised target

Scorchers need 40 to win off 5 overs with 2 wickets in hand?

Remembering would Coulter Nile hit with such freedom knowing getting out would have lost them the game.

Good point
With 9 other batsman in the shed , he could play with freedom and no risk
If he was to lose his wicket , then a greater and fairer pressure is imposed on the batsman

[whufc]

[flash=][/flash]

Ok in last nights game would people have considered this a fair revised target

Scorchers need 40 to win off 5 overs with 2 wickets in hand?

YES

That is a simple as the heat run rate x 5 overs

They lost 4 wickets in 13.1 overs which is a wicket every 3.27 divide that by the five overs you have 1.53, round up they have 2 wickets

[whufc]

[flash=][/flash]

Ok in last nights game would people have considered this a fair revised target

Scorchers need 40 to win off 5 overs with 2 wickets in hand?

YES

That is as simple as the heat run rate x 5 overs

They lost 4 wickets in 13.1 overs which is a wicket every 3.27 divide that by the five overs you have 1.53, round up they have 2 wickets

[Pup]

IMO they should have been set at least 75 off the 5 overs

So u wanted them to have to go at double the run rate the Heat went at.

5 overs is just too short, Teams could chase down 70+ with all 10 wickets in hand.

10 overs minimum or games should be scrapped

[Ecky]

I agree with the basic sentiments on here. My view has always been that if you can't complete a 20/20 game then it should be a draw, or at the very least it should be 10 or 15 overs a side.

The problem is that the shorter the innings, the greater the luck factor and the greater the impact that individual players have, and hence it becomes more hit and miss whether Duckworth-Lewis (or any other algorithm) can set a fair target or not.

[Brodlach]

IMO they should have been set at least 75 off the 5 overs

So u wanted them to have to go at double the run rate the Heat went at.

Considering they could throw the bat without having to worry too much about their wicket, yep I think that is fair.

[D14]

how about every wicket they lose a further 10 runs gets added to the total?

[overloaded]

The whole show is a joke and so is anyone who watches it. Its not cricket!

[Squids]

The whole show is a joke and so is anyone who watches it. Its not cricket!

I'll stop watching when the streak ends.

[whufc]

The whole show is a joke and so is anyone who watches it. Its not cricket!

I'll stop watching when the streak ends.

Lol get amongst it, will be on it again tonight

[whufc]

IMO they should have been set at least 75 off the 5 overs

So u wanted them to have to go at double the run rate the Heat went at.

Considering they could throw the bat without having to worry too much about their wicket, yep I think that is fair.

I think thats why you reduce the amount of wickets the second team has, they already get the advantage of knowing exactly how many runs are needed, they get to switch their batting line up around to suit the new run chase.

If you reduce the wickets in hand you also give the team bowling second two ways of winning the game, either defend the total, or bowl the other side out, at the moment with these reduced games like last night, the only way the heat could of won was by going ultra defensive, wickets become irrelevant.

[Jim05]

LOL at the Thunder whingeing about Khawaja being withdrawn from tonights match to be on standby for Boxing Day.
Newsflash d**kheads the Australian national side is all that matters and your insignificant mickey mouse cup can get stuffed!!!
Glad CA has shown some balls on this one

[whufc]

Renegades batting second I'm on them and going for 11/11

[whufc]

LOL at the Thunder whingeing about Khawaja being withdrawn from tonights match to be on standby for Boxing Day.
Newsflash d**kheads the Australian national side is all that matters and your insignificant mickey mouse cup can get stuffed!!!
Glad CA has shown some balls on this one

Thunders playing tomorrow night good decision by CA