Anyone a bit concerned about the 2nd one day cricket international? (1 Viewer)

Otis · Jun 12, 2015

Everyone seems to be very euphoric at the moment, following the great win the other day, but are we getting a little bit carried away?

Heard them saying on the radio this morning talking about whether England could get 400 again and others talking about an upturn in England's fortunes and a new era dawning etc.

NZ dropped 3 catches the other day. Had they taken them it could have been a completely different result. Think we are getting rather far ahead of ourselves.

I'm looking forwards to today's game, but I think we may well come crashing quickly back down to earth and get beaten. New Zealand are one of the best one day teams out there.

olderskyblue · Jun 12, 2015

Otis said:
Everyone seems to be very euphoric at the moment, following the great win the other day, but are we getting a little bit carried away?

Heard them saying on the radio this morning talking about whether England could get 400 again and others talking about an upturn in England's fortunes and a new era dawning etc.

NZ dropped 3 catches the other day. Had they taken them it could have been a completely different result. Think we are getting rather far ahead of ourselves.

I'm looking forwards to today's game, but I think we may well come crashing quickly back down to earth and get beaten. New Zealand are one of the best one day teams out there.

We were 202 for 6 at one stage weren't we? Wasn't too good at that point, but fair play, they did remarkably well after that.

Otis · Jun 12, 2015

Like they say, catches win matches.

Ashdown · Jun 12, 2015

You may have called it right.......50-0 off the first 6 overs ??

Otis · Jun 12, 2015

Having seen NZ post 398, I think we will lose this by 150 runs at least.

Otis · Jun 12, 2015

Well, I was wrong. They wobbled a bit, but gave it a real go at the end.

Fair play England. Developed a backbone all of a sudden.

Jack Griffin · Jun 12, 2015

28 runs to win, 3 wickets and 5.4 overs to get them in!

Could go either way yet!

Edit: Make that 2 wickets left :facepalm:

Covkid1968# · Jun 12, 2015

Jack Griffin said:
28 runs to win, 3 wickets and 5.4 overs to get them in!

Could go either way yet!

Edit: Make that 2 wickets left :facepalm:

Lost by the DL method....very close. I went Edgbaston and we were awesome for most of the game. I think this is a resurgent England team

Covstu · Jun 12, 2015

I was at edge also, absolutely gutted the rain ruined a top day of cricket today. I really thought we were going to chase that massive total down. Very unlucky but very excited by the future of the ODI game at least

stupot07 · Jun 12, 2015

D/L method is a joke, as too not being able to extend a D/N match by 15-20 minutes to play the remaining overs. went from needing 55 of 37 (8.75 runs per over) to needing 35 off 13 balls (15.8 runs another) based on D/L.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Grendel · Jun 12, 2015

stupot07 said:
D/L method is a joke, as too not being able to extend a D/N match by 15-20 minutes to play the remaining overs. went from needing 55 of 37 (8.75 runs per over) to needing 35 off 13 balls (15.8 runs another) based on D/L.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Yes a farcical end to a great day.

Houchens Head · Jun 12, 2015

If England get a couple of penalties, they should be fine. What's the referee like?

Covstu · Jun 13, 2015

Houchens Head said:
If England get a couple of penalties, they should be fine. What's the referee like?

He was rained on so not happy

Houchens Head · Jun 13, 2015

Otis said:
skytronic 401.090 Lamp Socket Converter Bayonet Screw

Get 4 for the Price of 3. More Details.*

by Skytronic

A lamp socket to convert a bayonet cap fitting to an edison screw fitting.

Customer Questions & Answers

2
votes

Q: Does this take a screw bulb or bayonet bulb?

Otis. I think you meant to put this in the "Silly Questions Asked On The Internet" thread?

Otis · Jun 13, 2015

Houchens Head said:
Otis. I think you meant to put this in the "Silly Questions Asked On The Internet" thread?

I bleedin did too.

I was on that thread and didn't come anywhere near this one, so have no idea how the hell that happened.

Plays Twilight Zone music softly in the background.

Houchens Head · Jun 13, 2015

Otis said:
I bleedin did too.

I was on that thread and didn't come anywhere near this one, so have no idea how the hell that happened.

Plays Twilight Zone music softly in the background.

Spooky! :thinking about:

Jack Griffin · Jun 13, 2015

stupot07 said:
D/L method is a joke, as too not being able to extend a D/N match by 15-20 minutes to play the remaining overs. went from needing 55 of 37 (8.75 runs per over) to needing 35 off 13 balls (15.8 runs another) based on D/L.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors

Yeah, it has never worked, always seems to penalise the chasers.

Jack Griffin · Jun 13, 2015

Houchens Head said:
Spooky! :thinking about:

Or you forgot that you had 2 browsers open on SBT on different topics & picked the wrong one.

Covstu · Jun 13, 2015

Jack Griffin said:
Or you forgot that you had 2 browsers open on SBT on different topics & picked the wrong one.

No that's mega posting!!

Otis · Jun 20, 2015

I see the D/L thing is buggering it all up again. NZ got 283 from their 50 overs. That is a run rate of 5.66 per over.

England have been set 192 in 26 overs. That is a run rate of 7.38 runs per over.

How on earth is that deemed fair?

Grendel · Jun 20, 2015

Otis said:
I see the D/L thing is buggering it all up again. NZ got 283 from their 50 overs. That is a run rate of 5.66 per over.

England have been set 192 in 26 overs. That is a run rate of 7.38 runs per over.

How on earth is that deemed fair?

It's easier to score a higher rate over less overs - also the bowlers are restricted in the overs they can bowl.

Otis · Jun 20, 2015

Grendel said:
It's easier to score a higher rate over less overs - also the bowlers are restricted in the overs they can bowl.

Yes, I accept that, but it still doesn't appear fair. There is surely a fairer system than this.

Otis · Jun 20, 2015

What would have been a very catchable total based on NZ not reaching 300, England would have totally felt confident of getting 284 from 50 overs.

Just about 200 off 26 overs is a much, much tougher ask and immediately puts pressure on the English batsmen, when 284 would have been less than a run a ball, we now have more than a run a ball.

Grendel · Jun 20, 2015

Otis said:
What would have been a very catchable total based on NZ not reaching 300, England would have totally felt confident of getting 284 from 50 overs.

Just about 200 off 26 overs is a much, much tougher ask and immediately puts pressure on the English batsmen, when 284 would have been less than a run a ball, we now have more than a run a ball.

Most modern teams achieve 7 an over in 25 overs - it should have been easy - the tactics have been very poor.

Otis · Jun 20, 2015

Grendel said:
Most modern teams achieve 7 an over in 25 overs - it should have been easy - the tactics have been very poor.

I agree to a point, but at less than a run a ball England could have knocked it about for singles and won easily.

With the run rate over 7 runs they knew they needed boundaries.

This system is simply not at all fair. England have had to totally change their mindset for this run chase and have had to chase the game much more than they would have done at a run rate of 5.66.

5.66 would have been easy. 7.38 is much tougher. Very hard to argue against that.

Grendel · Jun 20, 2015

Otis said:
I agree to a point, but at less than a run a ball England could have knocked it about for singles and won easily.

With the run rate over 7 runs they knew they needed boundaries.

This system is simply not at all fair. England have had to totally change their mindset for this run chase and have had to chase the game much more than they would have done at a run rate of 5.66.

5.66 would have been easy. 7.38 is much tougher. Very hard to argue against that.

Most of the commentators believe the system has favoured England and they should walk it

It's a modest score by 20 20 standards and the fielding restrictions are worse.

Otis · Jun 20, 2015

Grendel said:
Most of the commentators believe the system has favoured England and they should walk it

It's a modest score by 20 20 standards and the fielding restrictions are worse.

We will have to disagree I'm afraid. 5.66 runs in 50 overs is so much easier than 7.38 in 26 overs.

I'm not saying it should be the same run rate, but the degree of disparity is wrong.

Otis · Jun 20, 2015

Brian, Beds: What a RIDICULOUS target...!! How on EARTH can this be deemed fair?

Gideon, Manchester: England bowl well and keep New Zealand at 5.66 runs an over. In return, Duckworth Lewis make England have to score at 7.44 an over!!!

Charlie, Essex: How can we lose just under half of the overs yet only lose 91 runs off the total?

Small Man Peaky: No excuse for DL method. 5.68 to 7.38? How is that acceptable? Would be saying the same the other way around

Michael Glyn-Hall: Duckworth-Lewis is a joke, England require 7.38/over meaning effectively we'd need 369 to beat a score of 283, nonsense.

Luke Holden: How does that work out? 7.38 an over when New Zealand's was only 5.66. Robbed again by Duckworth Lewis.

Colin Prudhoe: No mathematician, but how is 200ish off 22 overs fair, when NZ had another 28 overs to score 80 or so?

Angus McPhail: The required rate being raised makes sense as they know they can go harder in fewer overs, D/L not completely illogical

BBC SPort - Target is 192

Possted at17:12

England's target is 192. Off 26 overs. At 7.38 an over. I can hear the knives being sharpened for Duckworth-Lewis already...

Sorry, I'm with the vast majority of all these guys.

Grendel · Jun 20, 2015

I don't know who those people are but they are not botham, gower knight and holding.

In 20 over games the average score is over 8 an over.

The previous system was a joke. It would give a target of 58 in a 10 over game.

most teams would get the total.

The only way you could use existing run rate over less overs is reduce available batsmen. So make England 0-4 at the start of the innings and nominee 4 batsmen to stand down.

Otis · Jun 20, 2015

Grendel said:
I don't know who those people are but they are not botham, gower knight and holding.

In 20 over games the average score is over 8 an over.

The previous system was a joke. It would give a target of 58 in a 10 over game.

most teams would get the total.

The only way you could use existing run rate over less overs is reduce available batsmen. So make England 0-4 at the start of the innings and nominee 4 batsmen to stand down.

I don't know who these people are either and I'm sure you can find plenty of cricket experts who say the D/L method is not great. Yes, it's better than what we had before, but at times it just isn't fair and no amount of gesticulating from your good self is going to convince me otherwise. To me it is wrong.

The D/L introduction today totally changed the way England had to approach the run chase.

Grendel · Jun 20, 2015

Otis said:
I don't know who these people are either and I'm sure you can find plenty of cricket experts who say the D/L method is not great. Yes, it's better than what we had before, but at times it just isn't fair and no amount of gesticulating fromf youe good self is going to convince me otherwise.

The D/L introduction today totally changed the way England had to approach the run chase.

The point you are missing is England have 10 wickets. It's easier to score runs over 26 overs than 50 - with 10 wickets

Otis · Jun 20, 2015

Grendel said:
The point you are missing is England have 10 wickets. It's easier to score runs over 26 overs than 50 - with 10 wickets

I like you Grendel, but sometimes you just keep trying to argue your point.

I know England have 10 wickets. I STILL say the system is unfair. Is this going to turn into an Italia 40 page incessant argument?

There is nothing you can say that will change my mind, so let's just move on.

I will always maintain the system can be better than this and today's challenge for England got harder. They should still have made 192, but the D/L system changed the way they had to approach the chase.

Otis · Jun 20, 2015

I love the D/L method.

Whoever devised that system deserves a medal!! Top lads!!

Grendel · Jun 20, 2015

Otis said:
I love the D/L method.

Whoever devised that system deserves a medal!! Top lads!!

The point of it is that it's supposed to make it close to a last ball game as possible.

It made it slightly too much in England's favour but it got it nearly right.

Otis · Jun 20, 2015

Grendel said:
The point of it is that it's supposed to make it close to a last ball game as possible.

It made it slightly too much in England's favour but it got it nearly right.

Lol.

They seriously need to look at the system and revise it, or come up with something else entirely.

Win or lose, I still think it's unfair, but well played England. They made hard work of it, but Bairstow shone and carried the team.

Anyone a bit concerned about the 2nd one day cricket international? (1 Viewer)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fairly well known member from Malvern

Well-Known Member

Fairly well known member from Malvern

Well-Known Member

Fairly well known member from Malvern

Jack Griffin

Guest

Jack Griffin

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency