New Zealand vs Australia-ODI series

[smac]

And that maiden he just faced pays back the one he bowled!

[NFC]

Southee is a moron, sledging Watto as he walked off.

Hey mate, you got tonked for 4 4's in an over, hence you were taken off. Keep your trap shut moron.

[wycbloods]

Scores anyone?

[Thiele]

Australia won by 6 wickets

[wycbloods]

Thanks thiele

[Lightning McQueen]

Southee is a moron, sledging Watto as he walked off.

Hey mate, you got tonked for 4 4's in an over, hence you were taken off. Keep your trap shut moron.

a bit precious there .

[mal]

Here we go again
NZ make a paltry 238 offering
On a sMALl ground with a fastish outfield that was eqivalent to about 215-220 on a norMAL sized ground
Then it rains
Enter Ducky and Lewis
Then AU are given 33 overs to make 201

102 balls less
37 runs taken of the target

Fortunately the powerful Aussie line up won

Imagine the reverse and the Less powerful NZ line up came up just short of that target

Sometimes the result masks the situation

[Lightning McQueen]

Here we go again
NZ make a paltry 238 offering
On a sMALl ground with a fastish outfield that was eqivalent to about 215-220 on a norMAL sized ground
Then it rains
Enter Ducky and Lewis
Then AU are given 33 overs to make 201

102 balls less
37 runs taken of the target

Fortunately the powerful Aussie line up won

Imagine the reverse and the Less powerful NZ line up came up just short of that target

Sometimes the result masks the situation

I agree that the D/L system is a load of frogsh!t, the old method was better, probably not 100% fair but you knew where you stood and it evened itself out as most teams bat first.
For those who don't recall, if Australia batted first and made 6/230 off of 50 overs, if they lost 17 overs due to rain, New Zealand would have to chase Australia's most productive 33 overs collated.

[MAY-Z]

Here we go again
NZ make a paltry 238 offering
On a sMALl ground with a fastish outfield that was eqivalent to about 215-220 on a norMAL sized ground
Then it rains
Enter Ducky and Lewis
Then AU are given 33 overs to make 201

102 balls less
37 runs taken of the target

Fortunately the powerful Aussie line up won

Imagine the reverse and the Less powerful NZ line up came up just short of that target

Sometimes the result masks the situation

I agree that the D/L system is a load of frogsh!t, the old method was better, probably not 100% fair but you knew where you stood and it evened itself out as most teams bat first.
For those who don't recall, if Australia batted first and made 6/230 off of 50 overs, if they lost 17 overs due to rain, New Zealand would have to chase Australia's most productive 33 overs collated.

what a load of rubbish l.m the reason d/l came in was beacuse the previous method was totally unfair and gave the side who batted first a massive advantage. d/l is by far the best way to come to a result when rain interupts the game. the formulas they use arent just made up, they have been taken from data from thouands of matches in all different conditions. anyone who disagrees with d/l just doesnt have any application of statistics and mathematics and probabilities.

[mal]

LM
MZ
I agree with both of you to an extent on the DL topic
I understand that DL is the best available system, albiet not right at times

I ask everybody this OVERSwhelming question
Whats easier to chase ?
239 off 50 overs
OR
201 off 33 overs

Proffesor Ecky
Proffesor Mayz

What would you rather chase ?

LM/MAL would chase the 239

[MAY-Z]

LM
MZ
I agree with both of you to an extent on the DL topic
I understand that DL is the best available system, albiet not right at times

I ask everybody this OVERSwhelming question
Whats easier to chase ?
239 off 50 overs
OR
201 off 33 overs

they are both equal to chase according to the system.

teams that know they have 33 overs to get 201 from the start of their innings should be able to get that. if australia had batted for 15 overs then gone off and had 18 overs left their target wouldve been different even though they had the same amount of overs

[Lightning McQueen]

Here we go again
NZ make a paltry 238 offering
On a sMALl ground with a fastish outfield that was eqivalent to about 215-220 on a norMAL sized ground
Then it rains
Enter Ducky and Lewis
Then AU are given 33 overs to make 201

102 balls less
37 runs taken of the target

Fortunately the powerful Aussie line up won

Imagine the reverse and the Less powerful NZ line up came up just short of that target

Sometimes the result masks the situation

I agree that the D/L system is a load of frogsh!t, the old method was better, probably not 100% fair but you knew where you stood and it evened itself out as most teams bat first.
For those who don't recall, if Australia batted first and made 6/230 off of 50 overs, if they lost 17 overs due to rain, New Zealand would have to chase Australia's most productive 33 overs collated.

what a load of rubbish l.m the reason d/l came in was beacuse the previous method was totally unfair and gave the side who batted first a massive advantage. d/l is by far the best way to come to a result when rain interupts the game. the formulas they use arent just made up, they have been taken from data from thouands of matches in all different conditions. anyone who disagrees with d/l just doesnt have any application of statistics and mathematics and probabilities.

My mathematical skills are exceptional mate, it is of my opinion that the D/L system is crap, look at the scenario, 37 runs from 102 balls taken away.
Don't be so judgemental on people who you don't know anything about just because they don't share the same opinion as you.

[Lightning McQueen]

LM
MZ
I agree with both of you to an extent on the DL topic
I understand that DL is the best available system, albiet not right at times

I ask everybody this OVERSwhelming question
Whats easier to chase ?
239 off 50 overs
OR
201 off 33 overs

239 from 50 IMO 4.78 rpo, opposed to 6.09.

[westcoastpanther]

What you seem to be missing is that you can lose wickets more regularly in 30 overs than you would in 50.

[Lightning McQueen]

What you seem to be missing is that you can lose wickets more regularly in 30 overs than you would in 50.

Eh?

[MAY-Z]

What you seem to be missing is that you can lose wickets more regularly in 30 overs than you would in 50.

Eh?

to lose all 10 wickets in 30 overs = 1 wicket every 3 overs
to lose all 10 wickets in 50 overs = 1 wicket every 5 overs

therefore the batsmen are able to take more risks in 30 overs tahn in 50 overs which is reflected by the higher run rate required

[Lightning McQueen]

What you seem to be missing is that you can lose wickets more regularly in 30 overs than you would in 50.

Eh?

to lose all 10 wickets in 30 overs = 1 wicket every 3 overs
to lose all 10 wickets in 50 overs = 1 wicket every 5 overs

therefore the batsmen are able to take more risks in 30 overs tahn in 50 overs which is reflected by the higher run rate required

Yes, fair enough, I read the word "can" in the wrong context. I understand your point and the reasoning behind the formula, I just don't see it as a fair synopsis. New Zealand hardly seemed penalized for not batting for their full quota of overs and to be honest, 238 on that postage stamp should not warrant the opportunity they had when the Aussies went out to bat.
As a bowling side, I'd be reasonably confident going out there with the batting side having to score over 6 an over for 33 overs.
I checked out the old method, the chase would've been higher but I don't recall what they done if the team batting first didn't bat the full 50 overs.

[Ecky]

anyone who disagrees with d/l just doesnt have any application of statistics and mathematics and probabilities.

My mathematical skills are exceptional mate, it is of my opinion that the D/L system is crap, look at the scenario, 37 runs from 102 balls taken away.
Don't be so judgemental on people who you don't know anything about just because they don't share the same opinion as you.

If your mathematical skills are so exceptional, are you able to give a mathematical/statistical argument as to why the old system is better, rather than just say that D/L is "cr.p" which isn't particularly scientific?

Anyone who has a good grasp of mathematics/statistics/probability and has read the D/L system thoroughly would understand that it is a vastly improved system on the former one. Duckworth and Lewis have proven this with their extensive research.

Read these papers if you still aren't convinced:

Duckworth, F. C. and Lewis, A. J. (1998). A fair method of resetting the target in interrupted one-day cricket matches. Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 220-227.

Duckworth, F. C. and Lewis, A. J. (2004). A successful Operational Research intervention in one-day cricket. Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 55, No. 7, pp. 749-759.

[Lightning McQueen]

anyone who disagrees with d/l just doesnt have any application of statistics and mathematics and probabilities.

My mathematical skills are exceptional mate, it is of my opinion that the D/L system is crap, look at the scenario, 37 runs from 102 balls taken away.
Don't be so judgemental on people who you don't know anything about just because they don't share the same opinion as you.

If your mathematical skills are so exceptional, are you able to give a mathematical/statistical argument as to why the old system is better, rather than just say that D/L is "cr.p" which isn't particularly scientific?

Anyone who has a good grasp of mathematics/statistics/probability and has read the D/L system thoroughly would understand that it is a vastly improved system on the former one. Duckworth and Lewis have proven this with their extensive research.

Read these papers if you still aren't convinced:

Duckworth, F. C. and Lewis, A. J. (1998). A fair method of resetting the target in interrupted one-day cricket matches. Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 220-227.

Duckworth, F. C. and Lewis, A. J. (2004). A successful Operational Research intervention in one-day cricket. Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 55, No. 7, pp. 749-759.

I still think it has its flaws, go back to the 91/92 world cup semi final to see a classic example. I don't think that last nights revised total was a fair one, having to score 30 odd less runs with 17 less overs just doesn't cut it. I also fail to see how they can interpret a total higher than the original total be justified. Does the system take into account that the team batting 2nd will bat with a heavier ball and the outfield will be slower.
There is some parts of the old system that I see as fairer, it is easier to set a target than chase one down generally yet on the same token there is advantages in knowing what rpo you need to win.
Obviously the ICC are happy enough with the D/L system so my opinion counts for nothing.

[Ecky]

I still think it has its flaws, go back to the 91/92 world cup semi final to see a classic example.

That was well before D/L was introduced.