Australia v Saffers - One day Series

[Ron Burgundy]

Steyn had to bowl. At that stage wickets were the only thing that was going to win them the match.

The equivalent of bowling coulter Nile instead of mitch the other night.

[mal]

After tonight
ODI games
Head to head AU V SA in Australia
Is this correct ?
35 played
17 wins each and one tie
Thats a very very good record for any touring team in Australia if correct

[LaughingKookaburra]

How many of those 17 wins have yielded a trophy or tournament victory? Still lack the balls to stand up when it counts like every South African team that's ever played cricket.

[heater31]

Faulkner is the real big show not this other imposter. He is so cool under pressure

Nice to see Faulkner admit that he's had his share of failures in the past....2011/12 Ryobi Cup final springs to mind....

[Grahaml]

Steyn had to bowl. At that stage wickets were the only thing that was going to win them the match.

The equivalent of bowling coulter Nile instead of mitch the other night.

I didn't mind it to be honest. We'd been going well against the quicks including Steyn himself and they needed to change the game. Difference to the other night was we'd just broken the partnership and had them under pressure. Had Steyn bowled it then it would have been either Parnell or Petersen the next over anyway. IMHO it was either bowl Steyn and lose in the 50th or bowl Petersen and either lose a few balls earlier or win the game.

[bennymacca]

Great knock by de kock, and good to see him walk, not sure he would have been given otherwise, and cummins didn't seem confident enough to review either

[mal]

AU 1/66[9.2]
SA 6/280

It rains , short delay
Revised target
Is this right ????
The same target less 2 overs
What !
Surely AU should be made to chase a sMALler target ?

[bennymacca]

Not necessarily. Because of less overs they can go a bit harder earlier. Ch9 not reporting a revised target yet.

[bennymacca]

Cricket Australia app has the revised target of 275

[mal]

Not necessarily. Because of less overs they can go a bit harder earlier. Ch9 not reporting a revised target yet.

275 revised target
2 overs less
6 runs less
Thats prob still a little better for SA

PS
Benny
Dont kid yourself
It didnt happen with the other scenario
Chasing 281 in 50 overs is always easier than 48 overs

[bennymacca]

Ok so let's round it off to 6 an over and then lose 20 overs. Do you then agree that if they just took 6 per over off it would favour the team batting second enormously?

Duckworth and lewis didn't just make this stuff out of thin air, they are both mathematicians and there is method in the madness, even though it is impossible to understand.

[mal]

Ok so let's round it off to 6 an over and then lose 20 overs. Do you then agree that if they just took 6 per over off it would favour the team batting second enormously?

Duckworth and lewis didn't just make this stuff out of thin air, they are both mathematicians and there is method in the madness, even though it is impossible to understand.

Your bring in a different argument
I am discussing if it happened this way
2 less overs same target

[bennymacca]

But it didn't happen that way did it?

The Wikipedia article explains it all pretty well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duckworth% ... wis_method

[mal]

AU 1/66[9.2]
SA 6/280

It rains , short delay
Revised target
Is this right ????
The same target less 2 overs
What !
Surely AU should be made to chase a sMALler target ?

Benny
I dont give a rats anal about Wikipedia or whatever
Stop twisting what I have posted
READ
READ
READ
What I have posted

OR
READ this

It is unfair IF a team has:
50 overs for 281
then reduced by any formula
48 overs for 281
12 balls less, same target
ANY PERSON WITH ANY INTELLIGENCE WILL MOST LIKELY AGREE

Thats what I have posted
It didnt happen , so forget it

[bennymacca]

But the target is 275. I'm not quite sure what you are arguing mate.

[mal]

Not necessarily. Because of less overs they can go a bit harder earlier. Ch9 not reporting a revised target yet.

275 revised target
2 overs less
6 runs less
Thats prob still a little better for SA

PS
Benny
Dont kid yourself
It didnt happen with the other scenario
Chasing 281 in 50 overs is always easier than 48 overs

BENNY LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOK
First paragraph means I understand that the equation ended up being 275 off 48 overs

Once again I will explain
After listening to the commentators I had thought they had said
2 LESS OVERS
SAME TARGET

[bennymacca]

Faf does it again! Great stuff

[mal]

AU 2/155 [27]
Watto 45*[61]
East Coast Peroxide Don 9*[20]

Australia are cantering to victory

[mal]

East Coast Blonde Don B Abbott 20
Recalled as replays show Abbott bowled a no ball
Some say fair enough , and probably so

Beats me why they dont check every delivery for a no ball for consistency and fairness

And Smith got a free hit as well

AU 2/187 [34]
Cruising

[mal]

Watto you wanker

AU 3/218 [37]
Watson C Rossouw B Morkel 82[93]
East Coast Blonde Don 33*[49] was caught behind last over, and is still batting
Glenn Slogwell the incoming batsman