Paxter Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 Just now, Mosi Mynn said: Because it would change the way limited overs cricket is played. It would no longer be just about number of runs scored. Maybe the PtBS want to go that way, but it would alter teams' approaches to ODIs in particular, and some Twenty20 games too. You can see the approach and tactics change when the DL method is in effect. The loss of wickets is taken into account, which leads to different field settings, different mindsets of the batters, everyone watching the scoreboard etc. I'm not saying you couldn't do this, but it would change the nature of the game. So awarding it on boundaries has changed the way the game is played? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosi Mynn Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, Paxter said: Look to be honest, I would have preferred a tie or a second super over. I just think a boundary countback is indefensible as a rule. Again, that isn't any team's fault - it's on the the ICC. It does seem a bit arbitrary But all the teams knew it was a distant possibility at the start of the competition and no objections were raised (probably because they thought it would never happen). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 Just now, Mosi Mynn said: It does seem a bit arbitrary But all the teams knew it was a distant possibility at the start of the competition and no objections were raised (probably because they thought it would never happen). I just don't think that's a reason to defend the rule. I think leg byes is an equally crap rule for the record, as is the overthrows rule RE: the Stokes incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosi Mynn Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 Just now, Paxter said: So awarding it on boundaries has changed the way the game is played? No, because limited overs is all about getting runs - and more boundaries usually means more runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 1 minute ago, ljkeane said: That's not really true though. Like I said before England lost their last two wickets because losing a wicket didn't matter. Santner should have played a shot the last ball of New Zealand's innings because losing a wicket wouldn't have mattered. Because DL is a method of predicting a score, we already know the scores are level. Why should a tiebreaker depend on the same method as a score prediction? Why not? I think it's better to be consistent, rather than have different ways of deciding no results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosi Mynn Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 Just now, Paxter said: I just don't think that's a reason to defend the rule. I think leg byes is an equally crap rule for the record, as is the overthrows rule RE: the Stokes incident. I'm not really defending it. I think superovers-until-there's-a-winner is probably the best approach. But it is what it is. This is how this World Cup was decided. All teams knew and accepted that this could happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Mosi Mynn said: No, because limited overs is all about getting runs - and more boundaries usually means more runs. I disagree. It's about getting the most runs without getting bowled out in 50 overs. If you want most runs, you need T20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosi Mynn Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Paxter said: Why not? I think it's better to be consistent, rather than have different ways of deciding no results. But DL is not a method of deciding a no-result. It's a way of re-orientating the game to try and get a fair result after a delay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 Just now, Mosi Mynn said: But it is what it is. Not disputing the result. This is an argument about the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Mosi Mynn said: But DL is not a method of deciding a no-result. It's a way of re-orientating the game to try and get a fair result after a delay. Not necessarily. DL can be used to determine the result when the game ends suddenly. The delay situation is only one occasion when DL gets invoked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosi Mynn Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Paxter said: I disagree. It's about getting the most runs without getting bowled out in 50 overs. If you want most runs, you need T20. What's the difference between the two? Both formats are about getting the most runs. Losing wickets just impedes this, but it does affect the result as much as runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 Just now, Paxter said: Why not? I mean I've said why not about 3 time now but ok. Wickets are factored into the DL method because having wickets in hand allows you to bat more aggressively. Having lost wickets by batting more aggressively to reach a score doesn't matter in limited overs cricket once the score has been reached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosi Mynn Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 Just now, Paxter said: Not necessarily. DL can be used to determine the result when the game ends suddenly. The delay situation is only one occasion on when DL gets invoked. Can it? I thought it could only be invoked when one innings was complete and the second was truncated for some reason? I might be wrong. What situations are you thinking of when a game ends suddenly and DL is suddenly invoked to determine a result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, Mosi Mynn said: Can it? I thought it could only be invoked when one innings was complete and the second was truncated for some reason? I might be wrong. What situations are you thinking of when a game ends suddenly and DL is suddenly invoked to determine a result? I'm not a DL expert, but my understanding was that this was how games were awarded in the case of a sudden washout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosi Mynn Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 That doesn't seem very fair if the team batting second does not know DL is involved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 They do know though. You have to keep an eye on the par score. Isn't this what stuffed SA up in 2003? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 9 minutes ago, ljkeane said: I mean I've said why not about 3 time now but ok. Wickets are factored into the DL method because having wickets in hand allows you to bat more aggressively. Having lost wickets by batting more aggressively to reach a score doesn't matter in limited overs cricket once the score has been reached. Yeah point taken. I'm still not convinced that boundaries is a great indicator. Who is the better side when one team scores 300-0 and the other scores 300-9 but one extra boundary? Wickets wouldn't be perfect by any means, but surely it's better than boundaries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mosi Mynn Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 That was because they miscalculated Duckworth Lewis. Now captains have a sheet with the runs needed at the end of each over, wickets permitting. And it's on the big screen too so that everyone in the stands knows the state of play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Mosi Mynn said: That was because they miscalculated Duckworth Lewis. Now captains have a sheet with the runs needed at the end of each over, wickets permitting. And it's on the big screen too so that everyone in the stands knows the state of play. Yes I'm aware of that - I'm just saying it's an example of play never resuming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paxter Posted July 15, 2019 Share Posted July 15, 2019 Obviously my frustration is coming through here. Just devastated at the circumstances really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.