But it wouldn't be fair to change that because it would only benefit the chasing side. The bowling side could never win in that scenario.
ICC T20 World Cup 2022
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
But it wouldn't be fair to change that because it would only benefit the chasing side. The bowling side could never win in that scenario.
Why's that unfair? That assumes that a rained out match is inherently fairer. It's not. The idea is to get as many results as possible.
It would work both ways. The bowling side can still win if they’ve restricted the batting side from being on par with the D/L score. If SA were on 40 in this situation, Zimbabwe would be the winners.
Let's assume target is 64 in 7 overs.
Scenario 1: 51/0 after 3 overs. Batting side has reached the 5 over DLS par score but they haven't reached the required 7 over target (64 runs).
Scenario 2: 20/9 after 3 overs. Bowling side is ahead of 5 over DLS par score but they haven't reached their target (10 wickets).
With the current rules of 5 overs per side consisting a result, awarding the batting side the victory in scenario 1 would be wrong because a) they didn't play 5 overs and b) you wouldn't be able to justify the bowling side being awarded the win in scenario 2.
I'm referring to giving the batting side the victory because they've reached their 5 over DLS score in 3 overs (when they haven't actually reached their actual 7 over target). That would be wrong because it would only ever benefit the batting side. A bowling side can never reach their 5 over DLS par score in 3 overs because they don't have one. Their target isn't to score runs but to take 10 wickets.
I see what you’re saying but it’s similar to when a team bats 50 overs and then rain reduces the chasing side to 40 overs. DL is designed not to split the run rate chase as a linear runs per over scenario. The par score required is an exponential curve and that par score required increases significantly the more wickets you lose.
I do agree that in any kind of D/L method, the side batting second always has the advantage because it’s easier to chase a game with reduced overs. It’s also hard to set a target as the team batting first because you don’t know whether you need to go hard at the ball to put a high total up as you don’t know if the overs will get reduced later in the game.
I guess at the moment the only fair way is the D/L method unless they come up with a fairer way.
Don't see the relevance of that? Not similar at all to this situation. If the chasing team plays 20+ overs, there will be a result in that game. Just like in a T20I if the chasing team plays 5+ overs there will be a result.
You can't award a win after 3 overs based on what the par score would be after 5 overs.
If they had come back on within the cut-off time, the game would've been reduced to 5 overs and Saffers would immediately win at the restart. The difference is they would've reached the DLS target, as opposed to reaching a 5 over par score after 3 overs.
This is a horrendous argument and I can’t believe that you have been continuing with it for so long. If the minimum overs needed is 5 and there is a score for that it shouldn’t matter that 5 overs were bowled or not . They didn’t get score equivalent for 3 overs but actually got whatever was needed in 5. It truly is absolutely crazy that the people running the sport can’t change this
I think you’re looking into this deeper than you need to.
The idea behind a “minimum of 5 overs” needed is to protect the batting team from being screwed over by the bowling team as you can’t just bowl one ball and say you had your chance to bat and you failed. The minimum of 5 overs is to give the batting team a fair chance of actually having a reasonable attempt at chasing a target with a reasonable number of overs as opposed to them just facing 1 over and being told they didn’t get the par score required to win the game after 6 balls so they lose. The minimum of 5 overs is allowing the batting at least a decent number of overs to get a score which would be par at the 5 over mark.
But the fact that South Africa have actually got the number of runs required which they would need to have got at the 5 overs mark within 3 overs should mean that is sufficient for the win because the remaining overs are just a formality. Im really not seeing how this is unfair on the bowling team. The bowling team should have scored more runs in their allotted overs to make it harder for SA to even get the target within 3 overs.
If we go by your argument, let’s say the first team bats 20 overs and they get 200 which is a great score. The team batting second would probably need something like 70 by the 5 over mark to constitute a win under D/L. If they smash that 70 in just 2 overs, there shouldn’t be a need to get to 5 overs.
The fact they can do it in 2 overs and not be awarded the win but if they do it at a slower rate and spread it over 5 overs they get awarded the win is where it’s wrong.
You can’t be serious? They were over the par score for 5 overs after 3 overs. Being over the par score for 5 overs after 3 overs doesn’t automatically means you’ll be over the par score for 5 overs after 5 overs. Par scores change from ball to ball depending on wickets and runs.
Obviously SA would’ve won even if there had been another over bowled but that’s not really the point of the argument. The point is the change you guys are suggesting only favours the chasing side. There is no upside for the defending side if they are dominating and the match stops before 5 overs.
I agree something has to change but changing this particular technicality isn’t it, simply because you’re just opening a new can of worms.
5 over mark, or 40% of the innings in T20Is and ODIs, is to give both sides a fair chance. Not just the batting side. Currently it’s actually fair for both sides. You’re suggesting a change that would make it completely unfair for the bowling side.
Firstly, you’re ignoring the fact that the par score changes from ball to ball depending on resources remaining. What if South Africa lose 8 wickets without scoring a run in the next 2 overs? Then they’d actually be behind the 5 over par score after 5 overs because of their lack of resources remaining (wickets+overs remaining). That’s why you can’t award a game based on the 5 over par score after 3 overs.
Secondly, in your example where you’re awarding the win to the batting side for making 70 runs in 2 overs. Are you also awarding the victory to the bowling side if they have taken 6 wickets for no runs in 2 overs and the match is stopped? If yes, what metric are you using? If no, then your logic is flawed.
South Africa would’ve won if they had closed out the first innings professionally by the way. Leaked too many runs in the final 3 overs.
Those 5 penalty runs from de Kock and the extra 2-3 minutes wasted on that situation plus the extra ball it caused. 2-3 more minutes wasted on one of the worst reviews you’ll ever see (pitched miles outside leg stump). With the rain looming you need to be a bit smarter in your approach.
The entire match was a farce, especially the second innings which shouldn’t have happened. Horrible conditions and the umpires put the players safety in danger. It would’ve been very unfair on Zimbabwe to lose when they were too afraid to use their two main bowlers because of the slippery pitch. I don’t think SA get anywhere close to 50 from 3 overs if Blessing is bowling 2 of those overs in better conditions. In the end draw is a fair result in the circumstances.
Those 5 penalty runs from de Kock and the extra 2-3 minutes wasted on that situation plus the extra ball it caused. 2-3 more minutes wasted on one of the worst reviews you’ll ever see (pitched miles outside leg stump). With the rain looming you need to be a bit smarter in your approach.
The entire match was a farce, especially the second innings which shouldn’t have happened. Horrible conditions and the umpires put the players safety in danger. It would’ve been very unfair on Zimbabwe to lose when they were too afraid to use their two main bowlers because of the slippery pitch. I don’t think SA get anywhere close to 50 from 3 overs if Blessing is bowling 2 of those overs in better conditions. In the end draw is a fair result in the circumstances.
I agree with @Samid here I think.
Surely the idea of 5 overs is not just to give the batting side a chance to do their thing, but to make a meaningful game of cricket. The bowlers only had 18 balls to influence the game, and with strike rates being what they are I don't think that's especially fair.
When running against DLS its extremely common for a side to be ahead of the rate, then lose a wicket and be behind.
If the rule was changed to give the win to SA here, surely that would also only benefit the chasing side? How would a bowling side win inside 3 overs, other than bowling them out? If Zimbabwe reduced SA to 10-5 after 3 overs, would anyone say "Well, Zimbabwe should be given the win?". No, because SA could smash the next two overs to get back ahead of the rate. Surely the bowling side deserve the same chance?
Surely the idea of 5 overs is not just to give the batting side a chance to do their thing, but to make a meaningful game of cricket. The bowlers only had 18 balls to influence the game, and with strike rates being what they are I don't think that's especially fair.
When running against DLS its extremely common for a side to be ahead of the rate, then lose a wicket and be behind.
If the rule was changed to give the win to SA here, surely that would also only benefit the chasing side? How would a bowling side win inside 3 overs, other than bowling them out? If Zimbabwe reduced SA to 10-5 after 3 overs, would anyone say "Well, Zimbabwe should be given the win?". No, because SA could smash the next two overs to get back ahead of the rate. Surely the bowling side deserve the same chance?
To be fair I hear what you’re saying and agree with you to a point. I didn’t factor in the loss of wickets. I accept my points do make some flawed logic.
I just feel somethings not right with the current rules. I’m not sure what the solution is tbh. In this particular scenario it just seemed unfair but I guess it’s not always going to be perfect.
I don’t like the D/L method in general tbh. Especially when used in scenarios where a team bats first as normal and completes its allocation. And then the match gets reduced for the second team due to rain. The game is always favoured in the team batting second under D/L because they’ve got less overs so can go hard at the ball a lot earlier than they would if it was full allocation while still having 10 wickets in hand.
Having given it more thought I’m leaning towards what you’re saying, I just don’t know whether the current rules are right.
Yes I see what you’re saying and I guess what Samid’s initial point was. Zimbabwe wouldn’t have the option of winning within 5 overs which is obviously unfair.
They should have just played in a country where it doesn’t bloody rain during tournament time!
Say what you want about the UAE but at least all the matches there are actually played
Yeah a lot of anticipation for the toss
Samid is right here. Easiest rule change would be to have a reserve day for washouts.
I understood what you're saying the first time. In a normal game(let's say 50 overs), if a side bats first and makes 280 runs, and the other side makes 280 runs in 43 overs, you don't ask them to keep playing till the 50th over. Whereas if it was 240 for 8 in 43 overs, you'd expect the bowling side to take two more wickets. In one case the result is known. The target in limited overs cricket is the number of runs -- the same should apply to a 5 over match.
The idea behind cricket is to maximize the number of results; not to distribute washouts equally between batting and bowling teams.
Last edited:
Great last over from Sri Lanka. They have half a chance here now.
Would be great if SL can get the win.
Hasaranga getting smashed is keeping aus well on top..
Maxwell getting peppered
Your example above isn’t a like for like comparison though. Obviously if a team reaches the target chase, they’ve won and you stop playing. That’s like any game.
But the scenario being talked about is if a team gets to the run “rate” required by 5 overs. Obviously if SA got the full 70 odd runs in 3 overs they would’ve won yesterday which is same as your 50 over example.
Samid’s point which is valid is there is no possible way for the bowling team to win if they don’t complete the minimum of 5 overs unless they take all 10 wickets within 3 overs which is unrealistic and unfair.
Sri Lanka are dropping too many catches.
Was about to say some of this Sri Lankan fielding has been comical... but thats a great catch.
Yeah I spoke too soon.
Incredible that he stayed on his toes there. If he let his full foot down it would've been a 6.
Brilliant awareness on that catch.
Pure power from Stoinis.
Spinners cost Sri Lanka. Smashed all over, couldn't build on pockets of pressure.
Stoinis has outscored Finch in 3 overs who had a 12 over head start
Finch's AH MA GAWD
SL need to keep Finch on strike for the remaining overs and they'll win.
Some truly awful slow bowling from Sri Lanka.
Ridiculous innings from Stoinis
Shit bowling but you've still got to put them away.
Shit bowling but you've still got to put them away.
Captain finishes it off in style.
Stoinis has outscored Finch in 3 overs who had a 12 over head start
It's such a bad innings from Finch
I don’t see England and Ireland happening which will blow that group wide open.
Well Nz Afghanistan follows that on the same ground so there could be a double washout as well
Australia right back in it to top the group I imagine and play either SA or Pakistan
feck is the forecast that bad?