Rain played crucial part in knocking South Africa out

[Raghav_12]

SA was certainly unlucky on this front today..5 overs after a rain break is to0 little time to improvise. If i am right,the D/L method takes into account data which may not be relevant anymore since teams started scoring 300 for fun. some tweaking could be required there. that's how it goes..we have to overcome even unfair barriers for success times today they did get an unfair hurdle in their way. however , they still had chances when nz was down to 4 and few other crucial breaks..but they didn't take those

Absultely. D/L works on historical data to projcet target score. Now with the approach SA has been playing where they literally tee-off in last 15 overs at the rate 12 runs/over will never going to be reflected in D?L adjusted targets. Considering when rain interruption happened SA was 216 with just 3 wickets down, par score for 43 should have been some 330 or so. They increased just 18 overs in SA score where they took away 7 overs of absolute massacre from SA. If SA knew that they going to play just 43 overs, they would have gone all guns blazing from 30th over and would easily have ended up with some 330 or so in 43 overs. In the end, anything could have happened and SA could have got bowled put for 290, but it is hard to deny that SA was very hard done by rain-rules once again.

[Sachin=GOD]

In 1999 it was dropped catch and tie. In 2003 it was rain and D/L. This time it was D/L and dropped catches/missed runouts. Gotta say they have been quite unlucky one way or the other.

[RedFever]

Absultely. D/L works on historical data to projcet target score. Now with the approach SA has been playing where they literally tee-off in last 15 overs at the rate 12 runs/over will never going to be reflected in D?L adjusted targets. Considering when rain interruption happened SA was 216 with just 3 wickets down, par score for 43 should have been some 330 or so. They increased just 18 overs in SA score where they took away 7 overs of absolute massacre from SA. If SA knew that they going to play just 43 overs, they would have gone all guns blazing from 30th over and would easily have ended up with some 330 or so in 43 overs. In the end, anything could have happened and SA could have got bowled put for 290, but it is hard to deny that SA was very hard done by rain-rules once again.

Also D/L should consider the size of grounds in NZ too, adding just 18 runs to the final total is bizarre. The target should have been atleast 315.

[helperononline]

.....

[Lord]

SA won the toss,so got real lucky there,still batted first n posted big total.Then if you cant take chances,you cant blame luck

[addicted4444]

Rain definitely hurt SA's chances, but sorry, they have no one to blame but themselves. 300/43 in a WC semi is an eminently defensible score. You cannot blame anyone else if you start misfiekding, the keeper gives 2 easy byes because he is incapable of hitting the stumps, or if fielders start running into someone who is in an easy position to take a catch. This was a plain and simple choke. Nothing more, nothing less. SA fell apart with the WC pressure on them.

[goose]

Anyone who thinks rain did not help NZ needs to think again. This is a 50 overs competition not 43 or 37 overs. It matters not that 298 was a stiff enough target in 43 overs.

[vvvslaxman]

.....

:hysterical:

[vvvslaxman]

we have come a full circle. 23 years back they lost a match due to rain. Although this is not as dramatic that match was, still rain did play some part.

[Number]

Rain forecast was there to see for everyone. A team which has capability of chasing would go for batting second in such scenarios. Since SA doesn't have it, AB had no option but to go for bowling in second innings.

[Raghav_12]

Also D/L should consider the size of grounds in NZ too' date=' adding just 18 runs to the final total is bizarre. The target should have been atleast 315.[/quote'] Yes. Incaresing just 18 runs was kind of joke. South Africa got just 5 overs of hitting instead of 12 and they added just 18 runs. We need improvement in D/L to bring in factors to give more weights to recent matches and take into account other factors which could be team, ground specific.

[Lord]

Yes. Incaresing just 18 runs was kind of joke. South Africa got just 5 overs of hitting instead of 12 and they added just 18 runs. We need improvement in D/L to bring in factors to give more weights to recent matches and take into account other factors which could be team, ground specific.

Target was for 43 overs too :dontknow:

[vvvslaxman]

SA piled up runs in the last few overs.. So they would take that into account as well. If the match had suddenly stopped target would have been different.

[youngindia]

it is fair to say they lost a crucial opportunity to bat NZ out.. however the loss of this opportunity was not the end of the match..there was still some way to go Even if you lose a key battle due to external bad luck, you have to find ways to win the war long term SA has to learn how to make its players peak for tournaments,get the best of its key players .they are still not convincing at all. ofcourse a better top 6,bowlers who can adjust themselves to ODI's better would be the cricketing factors.

[YCCC]

Didn't see the game but this was my initial thought when I saw the scorecard. D/L and a shorter chase always seems to favour the side batting second

[Dooks]

Nope. SA choked as usual. Any team would have been able to defend 298 (almost 300) in 43 overs. To get 298 in 43 overs is *NOT* easy. SA we cr@p in fielding and bowling. They wilted under Brendon's batting. Imagine if he had last another 2/3 overs! 350 would have been chaseable.

[vijay50]

Rain will always screw SA or they will screw themselves.

[Bumper]

This has been the case with SAF for over 20 years. They are always good, but not good enough. 1992, 1999 & 2003 was far worse. In those instances, there was an unfair element to SAF's ouster. But we had a fair game today. SAF had everything going for them going into the 2nd half. They just did not do their homework against McCullum. They should have bowled short & onto his hips. Aussies suffered the same fate for 3-4 overs until Johnson figured out how to bowl to McCullum. And taking Imran Tahir out after he bowled one over and had Guptil tied into knots is another costly mistake. This allowed Guptil to build partnerships with others. Overall NZL held their nerves better and made less mistakes and won. But SAF put up a much better performance that they are used to in a knockout game in a world cup. And who is to say 350 was enough on this small ground. NZL was still good enough to get past that total. SAF has always been about woulda-coulda-shoulda. But, Woulda-coulda-shoulda = Did NOT.

[veer]

Rain may have affected the game.. but SA themselves were to blame for the defeat. They dropped an easy catch of Elliot.. and one easy run out of Anderson just before power play. Considering, the match got into last 2 balls, then i would say SA fielding cost them dearly..

[bowl_out]

Target was for 43 overs too :dontknow:

But SA knew that only in the 38th over... So, the revision for knowing a 7-over reduction is only 16 runs? That means SA would have scored only 16 more runs had they known right at the start that it would be a 43 over match... Don't you think that is ridiculously low?