SA Footy

In the old days it favoured the team batting second.... now it favours the team batting first....FFS get it right.... we lost 17 overs in all last night and only 35 runs came off the total.... when was the last time we scored 35 in only 17 overs.... a true disgrace and bligh on the game.....

That was due to the amount of wickets lost by the Australians early in the game. I think it works out reasonably well now. Perhaps our one day series finals should all be played at Telstra Dome?

Duckworth/Lewis is spot on.

The previous system was a joke.

I think the Duckworth/Lewis works quite well. I have no probelms with it. Although, I would hate to see it decide a World Cup final or even a crucial World Cup game, I would prefer to see the game abandoned and replayed

Australia's total was adjusted correctly last night to reflect the the number of wickets that they had lost prior to the rain.

This DWL system is spot on, the rain delay shouldnt favour australia when they lost all those early wickets. If it didnt rain we wouldve had less chance IMO. Australia were just not good enough.

Take that patch off your one eye AG.

Aerie wrote: Perhaps our one day series finals should all be played at Telstra Dome?

This would add to the ever-growing sports monopoly that Melbourne already has!

But it would be a smart move, especially if we host a World Cup anytime soon, to have the final played there (it would have been in Melbourne anyway) to ensure that weather does not affect it!

When it was reduced from
227[42 overs]
to
211[33 overs]
that was 9 overs for 16
i think the system works well and is the best available,
But to assume that HODGE + WATSON would only score 16 of 9 overs .....

blink wrote:

Aerie wrote: Perhaps our one day series finals should all be played at Telstra Dome?

This would add to the ever-growing sports monopoly that Melbourne already has!

But it would be a smart move, especially if we host a World Cup anytime soon, to have the final played there (it would have been in Melbourne anyway) to ensure that weather does not affect it!

I reckon WATSON would get injured playing on that crapp oval

Watson should be counting his lucky stars to be even playing

AG - perhaps you could suggest a better alternative to the D/L method. It is certinaly the best system we have got, and Australia was beaten by a better team last night. That opening spell of swing bowling was brilliant. And, that catch... Wow!

just making the point that it just didnt seem right loosing all those overs and the batsmaen having to throw their wickets away and embarres themselves.......... it was a joke....

perhaps for each block of 5 overs lost you could take away 1 batsman at the end (eg. reduced to 46 overs McGrath can bat...... reduced to 44 overs McGrath and Bracken cant bat.....reduced to 37 McGrath, Bracken and Lee cant bat)... the run rate could then be divided up eg chasing 250 off 50 (5per over) .... if reduced to 38 overs they would chase 190 (5 per over) and only have 7 wickets to do it..... if it was reduced to 25 overs they would chase 125 and only have 5 wickets to do it.....

Just a thought!!!!!! anyone got any others?!!??!?!!!

One Day cricket is a joke because it must be the only game (except golf of course) where you can win scoring less than your opposition. Either play the whole 50 overs or call it a draw. End of story, and you can stick the Duckworthless-Lewis where the sun doesn't shine.

another grub wrote:just making the point that it just didnt seem right loosing all those overs and the batsmaen having to throw their wickets away and embarres themselves.......... it was a joke....

perhaps for each block of 5 overs lost you could take away 1 batsman at the end (eg. reduced to 46 overs McGrath can bat...... reduced to 44 overs McGrath and Bracken cant bat.....reduced to 37 McGrath, Bracken and Lee cant bat)... the run rate could then be divided up eg chasing 250 off 50 (5per over) .... if reduced to 38 overs they would chase 190 (5 per over) and only have 7 wickets to do it..... if it was reduced to 25 overs they would chase 125 and only have 5 wickets to do it.....

Just a thought!!!!!! anyone got any others?!!??!?!!!

the duckworth lewis system is by far and away the best system for deciding shortened matches
in the 2003 world cup match between south africa and new zealand the duckworth lewis system provided this scenario:

http://www1.cricinfo.com/link_to_databa ... B2003.html

when the game was halted with new zealand 1/182 the required run rate was 6.25
after the delay as new zealand had only lost 1 wicket the required rate was only 4.89

australia woulve found it much harder to bat with only 5 wickets remaining for 34 overs than for 15 overs hence the runs didnt lower that much

MAY-Z whats easier ?

246 off 50 overs the original target
211 off 33 overs the last adjusted total

mal wrote:When it was reduced from
227[42 overs]
to
211[33 overs]
that was 9 overs for 16
i think the system works well and is the best available,
But to assume that HODGE + WATSON would only score 16 of 9 overs .....

But to also assume Australia wouldn't lose a wicket....

mal wrote:MAY-Z whats easier ?

246 off 50 overs the original target
211 off 33 overs the last adjusted total

mal when austalia were chasing 246 off 50 overs they had 100% of their resources available
by the time that they main rain delay occurred england had diminished australias resources considerably by removing 5 front line batsmen.

therefore obviously the first target should be much easier due to the fact england had played well for 16ish overs, thus the australian target needed to be harder.

if the rain had continued longer and only another 5 overs were possible would it have been fair on england (or any bowling side for that matter) if australia were still able to use all their wickets but still have a target comparable to that at the start of teh innings ie 5 per over, off of another 5 overs with 5 wickets in hand is much much easier than 5 an over for 35 overs with 5 wickets in hand.

Aerie wrote:

mal wrote:When it was reduced from
227[42 overs]
to
211[33 overs]
that was 9 overs for 16
i think the system works well and is the best available,
But to assume that HODGE + WATSON would only score 16 of 9 overs .....

But to also assume Australia wouldn't lose a wicket....

Assumptions are just that
If offered 0/16 off 9 overs on a dry day ENG would have been delighted.

ADELAIDE HAWK is on the right track, abandon the game
We are now left guessing at what LEE+ BRACKEN were capable of.
Probabilty says that they wouldnt get 59 runs off 6 overs left
But we never had a chance in the end when the last rain came.

Closure is what Im not satisfied with

MAY-Z wrote:

mal wrote:MAY-Z whats easier ?

246 off 50 overs the original target
211 off 33 overs the last adjusted total

mal when austalia were chasing 246 off 50 overs they had 100% of their resources available
by the time that they main rain delay occurred england had diminished australias resources considerably by removing 5 front line batsmen.

therefore obviously the first target should be much easier due to the fact england had played well for 16ish overs, thus the australian target needed to be harder.

if the rain had continued longer and only another 5 overs were possible would it have been fair on england (or any bowling side for that matter) if australia were still able to use all their wickets but still have a target comparable to that at the start of teh innings ie 5 per over, off of another 5 overs with 5 wickets in hand is much much easier than 5 an over for 35 overs with 5 wickets in hand.

AU were about 5/79 off about 16.2 overs before the rain came

The equation
34 overs to get 167 runs [target 246]
became
17 overs to get 132 runs [target 211]

MAY -Z If I was HODGE + WATSON i would certainly want to chase the 246

When the first revised target came up look at this
34 overs to get 167 runs [target 246]
became if finished on the 20 over minimum
3.4 overs to get 52 runs [target 121 runs]

Once again the 246 was far more gettable than 52 off 22 balls

MAY-Z I cant beat your argument however, basically the formula is
the best possible taking all the variables and D/L is a system based
on many years of statisical research of all previously played o/d games.
Its here to stay.

Probability suggests EG were a long odds on favourite before the last rain,
BUT history shows and the future will always show that odds on favourites do get beaten.


We will never EVER know if LEE+BRACKEN could have won the game.

mal wrote:Probability suggests EG were a long odds on favourite before the last rain,
BUT history shows and the future will always show that odds on favourites do get beaten.

so why do you only tip odds on favourites

of course you would want to chase the bigger toatl coz you had 17 more overs to do it and dont have to throw the bat at absoloutly everything..... it should have been abandoned..... agree with AH.....

mal is a good punter MAYZ.....