Jump to content

The whingeing begins


Feed

Recommended Posts

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/cricket/article6523720.ece The Edge: England caught Duckworth bowled Lewis in World Twenty20 The Sunday Times Cricket Correspondent says West Indies were set a target to win at The Oval that was so easy it was 'bonkers' England bowler Stuart Broad (Andrew Couldridge/Reuters) Stuart Broad and his England team-mates were given plenty of food for thought over the nature of their exit Simon Wilde Call me a whingeing Pom if you want, but what happened at the Oval on Monday must go down as one of the biggest nonsenses seen in a rain- affected cricket match since South Africa were told they needed 21 from one ball in the 1992 World Cup. That incident, which followed a rain-delay with South Africa wanting 22 from 13 balls, was a major factor in the creation of the Duckworth-Lewis system, a complex but largely respected method for recalculating targets in the event of rain. What the Duckworth-Lewis method did, through an analysis of scoring patterns, was determine what was a fair score for a team to chase in the event of a rain reducing the number of overs that could be bowled. It recognised what previous rudimentary methods had not, that the fewer the overs the faster teams can score. But two things have thrown spanners in the works of Messrs Duckworth and Lewis. One is the introduction of Power Play overs (where special fielding restrictions apply); the other is the advent of Twenty20. The Duckworth-Lewis scoring charts were originally based on scoring patterns from 50-overs matches but 20-overs cricket has changed everything. As the Duckworth-Lewis system acknowledges, the fewer the overs, the faster teams score. The Duckworth-Lewis website admits it has had to ignore Power Play overs because there is no practical way to incorporate them into its system. It also bravely claims that the Duckworth-Lewis system is "particularly" well suited to Twenty20 cricket. Pull the other one. Since Monday, Frank Duckworth has come clean on a few things. He has admitted that the system does indeed need looking at (that'll cheer up England, I'm sure) and that there has been a shortage of Twenty20 data (strange this, as there seems to be a Twenty20 tournament going on somewhere in the world every week, not all of them arranged by Lalit Modi). Duckworth was also reported as saying that his charts had not been updated for three years. If true, this is scandalous. In Twenty20 terms, three years ago was the stone age. For the professional game, these charts should be updated every season. Mathematically, what happened at the Oval was bonkers. England scored 161 from 20 overs at a run-rate of 8.05. West Indies, in return, were asked to maintain a rate of just 8.88 for nine overs. Given that West Indies had ten wickets to play with, this increase in run-rate (which equates to 10.3 percent) seems nothing like enough, as Chris Gayle, the West Indies captain, tacitly admitted when he said that during such a short innings the loss of a wicket meant little except a dot ball. Compare this with the revised targets Duckworth-Lewis came up with for two 50-overs games involving England last winter. In Bangalore in November, India scored 166 for four from 22 overs when their 50-overs innings was cut short. England were then asked to make 198 in 22 overs themselves. India's run-rate was 7.55 but England were asked to score at 9.00, an increase of 19 percent. England lost that game but won one in Barbados in March, when rain cut their reply to a West Indies score of 239 for nine in 50 overs to 135 in 20 overs. West Indies had scored at 4.78 runs per over and England were told they needed to maintain a rate of 6.75, a percentage rise of 41 percent - a big hike but then (like West Indies on Monday) England did have all ten wickets at their disposal for a very short innings. Had West Indies been told to improve on England's score by 41 percent on Monday, they would have been set 102, which might have made for a better contest and one they might still have won (England won easily in Barbados). I would suggest that the shorter the innings, the more flawed the Duckworth-Lewis calculations prove. Let's look at it another way. In this tournament, England's 161 was fractionally above the average first-innings score in matches between Test-ranked teams (ie, excluding those involving minnows) yet a target of 80 in nine overs looks easier-than-average compared to the scores being posted in the last nine overs of those innings. Obviously, how teams fare in overs 12 to 20 cannot be directly compared to what West Indies were asked to do because these teams had no Power Play overs to exploit. Also, they had in most instances already lost wickets (several, in some cases) during the first 11 overs. They had to proceed with much more caution than Gayle's side. And yet still we find that the average score during these nine-overs periods of play was 75.1, just five fewer than West Indies were asked to score even though West Indies had three Power Play overs and ten wickets to play with. Back in 1992, when South Africa were given their impossible one-ball task, England were the beneficiaries. This time (although their tactic of choosing to bat first when rain was in the offing was highly risky) they were undeniably the losers ... England caught Duckworth bowled Lewis. Lack of big-hitting not the whole story England's critics have not been slow to put the team's elimination down to a lack of big hitting. Indeed, Andy Flower, the coach, has himself said that this is an area that the team must look at. But this has not actually been a tournament dominated by six hits. Scoring levels have been relatively low, especially at Lord's and Trent Bridge, where the pitches have looked more tired than Mahendra Dhoni. This has been a competition for bowlers - the best fast bowlers dominating at each end of the innings, the best spinners proving devilishly difficult to get away in the overs between. The cricket has been more varied than it was at the inaugural World Twenty20 in South Africa, where a staggering 265 sixes were hit in 27 matches. Admittedly Johannesburg is at altitude, which no doubt helped the aerial bombardiers, but that cannot explain entirely why this time the tally of sixes has just topped 150 with three games to go. The ratio has fallen from 9.8 to 6.3 sixes per match. There is little evidence to suggest that big-hitting sides fare better. In fact, there is precious little to chose between the eight major teams. Sri Lanka, clearly one of the strongest sides on show, seem least interested in clearing the ropes. The six-hitting list reads as follows: India 19, New Zealand 17, South Africa 17, West Indies 16, Pakistan 16, Australia 13, England 12 and Sri Lanka 11. Combine the figures for two World Twenty20s, and England have hit 39 sixes, the same number as Australia, three more than West Indies, one more than Sri Lanka and one less than South Africa. England may be short of firepower but it hardly tells the whole story. Fortune smiles on West Indies Sorry if this sounds like a rant against West Indies, but after a miserable start to their tour, fortune does now appear to be smiling on them (Fidel Edwards's mishap minutes before the England game excepted). Even though they finished second in Super Eight group E, West Indies have been handed a highly favourable semi-final draw. Their match with Sri Lanka on Friday will take place at the Oval, of the three venues the one that most favours strokeplay. This certainly suits their brand of play, whereas Sri Lanka (winners of Super Eight group F) would no doubt be happier were the game taking place at either Lord's or Trent Bridge where pitches have been slower and perhaps more helpful to their spinners. More to the point, West Indies should feel thoroughly at home at the Oval, having already played three of their five games there (batting second each time). It is already a place which holds happy memories for them as it is where they won the Champions Trophy in 2004. Now they should well know how the square will play, how quick the outfield, how long the boundaries. This seems a considerable advantage, especially as the Sri Lankans have yet to set foot on the ground in anger in this tournament. This seems like very bad scheduling. There is also an imbalance in the other semi-final, but at least the advantage lies with the team whose results merit it. South Africa (played five, won five) have already played twice at Trent Bridge, scene of the first semi-final on Thursday, whereas Pakistan (played five, won three) have yet to appear there.
Link to comment
Can't disagree with the premise - though usually pretty accurate in this case DL was messed up. 160 in 20 overs and 80 in 9 is no where near an equivalent challenge.
I did not see the match, so how many overs did WI play after the revision of the target? IIRC the target depends on the number of overs played before and after the rain.
Link to comment

The fact is Old England - the military retiree types and the upwardly mobile who are White tend to support the longer version of the game especially the rivarly with Australia. Its the Desi-Brit compound that supports the newer brand. The media typically back the traditionalists , in this case being the oldies that pay for seats even if that means watching Australia pile runs against a hapless attack over and over again.

Link to comment
All 9 overs were after the rain interval which happened after the first innings.
wow....then that really sucked. A target around 100-110 would have been a fair target. I am surprised D/L came up with that target. I thought it was a lot better than that.
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...