Rain played crucial part in knocking South Africa out

[nevada]

Was there rain forecast for the next day as well? Instead of cutting the short the game with antiquated DL method, why not let SA bat full 50 overs and have NZ begin their chase the next day? DL is a mess and it should not be allowed to ruin knock out games.

[adi B]

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' date=' still rain did play some part.[/quote'] and there were guys who opened threads like "scg(92) se scg tak(2015)" when saf defeated srl :cantstop:. rain gods had other ideas of screwing saf in the sf again :giggle:

[jusarrived]

Toss played a bigger par in making the match competitive

[adi B]

But SA knew that only in the 38th over... So' date=' 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?[/quote'] but only 7 overs were reduced,its not like 15 overs were reduced but yeah i agree the d/l method doesnt consider a beast ab mode or a killer miller mode.ideally 25 runs minimum should have been added and i said that during the match

[coffee_rules]

but only 7 overs were reduced' date='its not like 15 overs were reduced but yeah i agree the d/l method doesnt consider a beast ab mode or a killer miller mode.ideally 25 runs minimum should have been added and i said that during the match[/quote'] If Miller was not dismissed, the target score would be more than 300. Wkts also matter in D/L.

[Bumper]

If Miller was not dismissed' date=' the target score would be more than 300. Wkts also matter in D/L.[/quote'] No it does not. The no. of wickets (which is THREE) after the 38th over was the one that mattered, not the no. of wickets at the end of the innings. This was actually an advantage for SAF, as they could have gone all in (which they did!).

[coffee_rules]

No it does not. The no. of wickets (which is THREE) after the 38th over was the one that mattered' date=' not the no. of wickets at the end of the innings. This was actually an advantage for SAF, as they could have gone all in (which they did!).[/quote'] Yes, that makes sense.

[JourneyMan]

They need to reconsider this nonsensical rule and limit it to group stage matches. A World Cup knockout match should not be turned upside down by a bit of rain. It should have been delayed or even rescheduled. What if it rains in the finals? Are we going to have a 23 over affair to decide who the 50 over world cup winner is?

[Lord]

They need to reconsider this nonsensical rule and limit it to group stage matches. A World Cup knockout match should not be turned upside down by a bit of rain. It should have been delayed or even rescheduled. What if it rains in the finals? Are we going to have a 23 over affair to decide who the 50 over world cup winner is?

Did that in CT final

[Forever Indian]

They need to reconsider this nonsensical rule and limit it to group stage matches. A World Cup knockout match should not be turned upside down by a bit of rain. It should have been delayed or even rescheduled. What if it rains in the finals? Are we going to have a 23 over affair to decide who the 50 over world cup winner is?

We already had a 20 over match final in CT final where India won, no one complained then? :cantstop:

[Raghav_12]

Though I have posted it as I found it funny but in reality they were screwed in 1992 because of absence of D/L not because of their presence.

[GrandMasterSaxy]

SA had a decent target to defend. They were short of 5th bowler and their mainstream bowlers failed. NZ truly deserve the win.

[JourneyMan]

We already had a 20 over match final in CT final where India won' date=' no one complained then? :cantstop:[/quote'] Didnt even watch that mickey mouse tournament. Just remember India cruising through it like it was a series of practice sessions.

[Stuge]

Did that in CT final

England came close to beating us jusy because of that.