ICC World T20 2016

Afghanistan's keeper is wonderfully un-crickety.

Laughing in Williams' face when he gets done by a googly :lol:
 
Afghanistan should have this won from here.
 
Zimbabwe aren't even making an effort. Are they playing under protest or something ?
 
England win their first warm up comfortably, runs for Roy and wickets for Rashid both huge bonuses.
 
They're going to be in our group aren't they?

Absolutely nailed on to beat us.
 
Glad Scotland were able to register a win.
 
Day 6: Ireland vs Netherlands | Bangladesh vs Oman


Wonderful sight. Same can't be said about this group. Bangla might progress with 1 win from 3 because of a slightly better NRR than Oman.
 
That's a great picture indeed.

All this damn rain, though :(
 
That was a game changing over. Bowler became too predictable, all he did was bowl slow stuff.
 
6 overs each way... This isn't cricket.
 
Got a gif of the catch? I stopped watching.
 
I'm not convinced by D/L in T20s. In ODIs if you're behind the eight ball when rain strikes you still have a decent chance. In T20s you stand no chance at all. Looks like they've just copied the D/L suited for ODIs and applied it to T20s without modifying it, lazy work.

Pretty fecked up qualifiers. Time to get on with the main event.
 
Tbh, I thought the D/L equation today was fine. They were absolutely no where near close to chasing that score and the D/L target reflected that, the point of DLS isn't to create an exciting contest, its to replicate the original match situation as best as possible in the truncated overs.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Tbh, I thought the D/L equation today was fine. They were absolutely no where near close to chasing that score and the D/L target reflected that, the point of DLS isn't to create an exciting contest, its to replicate the original match situation as best as possible in the truncated overs.
Click to expand...

41/2 in 7 overs (RRR 10.69) when the rain stopped play the first time. Let's not take into account Oman's batting strength weakness because D/L doesn't do that either. RRR of 11 is very much chaseable. Just the other day Australia had 45/3 in 7 overs (RRR 12.30) and ended up chasing down 205.

The revised target after 7 overs was 111 from 9 overs (RRR 12.33). No problem there, that seems fair. Batting side still in it. Oman had to go for it and lost 2 wickets within the next over before rain stopped play again. When they came back on the revised target was all of a sudden 75 from 22 (RRR 20.45). Game over.

I'm not saying that D/L is supposed to create excitement, of course not. Just that this version of D/L is suited for 50 overs, not T20s. In T20 it gives way too much importance to a fall of wicket. Fall of wickets happen much more frequently in T20s and therefore should have less effect on revised D/L targets. If Oman hadn't lost those two wickets in the 8th over then the RRR wouldn't have been as extreme as 20.45. RRR should have gone to 16-17 at the very most.
 
Group 2 :eek:

Don't think we'll win a single game.
 
ha_rooney said:
Group 2 :eek:

Don't think we'll win a single game.
Click to expand...

That group is insane after Bangla joined. It doesn't look good for Pakistan, I think they'll marginally beat NZ and lose the rest. Bangla are a way more settled unit than Pak.

Group 1 is a joke. Chokers vs kings of complacency vs clubbers vs rebuilders vs amateurs.
 
Yeah group composition is crazy lop sided. It seems like the perfect group to lull SA into choking in knockouts again.
 
Groups aren't as unbalanced as people are making out?

Yeah Bangladesh vs Afghanistan is a mismatch but other than that its fair enough I think.

India are favourites so whatever group they go into has the best side. But there's really not much difference between Sri Lanka, Australia, New Zealand, West Indies, England, Pakistan and South Africa. If anything, I'd say Pakistan are the weakest, possibly followed by Sri Lanka (but they are reigning Champions, which has to count for something) with the West Indies (I think people are forgetting that they're still good at this one form of cricket) South Africa better than Australia and New Zealand. If as strong an England side turn up as some are predicting, then theres a fairly good case for Group A being stronger.

Samid said:
41/2 in 7 overs (RRR 10.69) when the rain stopped play the first time. Let's not take into account Oman's batting strength weakness because D/L doesn't do that either. RRR of 11 is very much chaseable. Just the other day Australia had 45/3 in 7 overs (RRR 12.30) and ended up chasing down 205.

The revised target after 7 overs was 111 from 9 overs (RRR 12.33). No problem there, that seems fair. Batting side still in it. Oman had to go for it and lost 2 wickets within the next over before rain stopped play again. When they came back on the revised target was all of a sudden 75 from 22 (RRR 20.45). Game over.

I'm not saying that D/L is supposed to create excitement, of course not. Just that this version of D/L is suited for 50 overs, not T20s. In T20 it gives way too much importance to a fall of wicket. Fall of wickets happen much more frequently in T20s and therefore should have less effect on revised D/L targets. If Oman hadn't lost those two wickets in the 8th over then the RRR wouldn't have been as extreme as 20.45. RRR should have gone to 16-17 at the very most.
Click to expand...

Are the batting side really in it at 41/2 off 7? I'd say not really. To chase anything like 180, or in your example 205, you need a really special partnership, which is what the Aussies clearly got. But just because it has been chased, doesn't mean its easy, and the DLS targets reflect that and the fact that its far more likely teams will fall short than to win the game. How many teams have put on a 150 partnership for the 4th wicket in T20is before then? I'll give you the answer: no one. Not only that, but that was the highest partnership record for any wicket lower than 1st, 2nd or 3rd.

Crucially, between the two rain breaks Oman used up 1.2 overs for 4 runs, and lost two wickets. So their position had got markedly worse. I don't really think there can be too many complaints this time.
 
Any reason why Ten doeschate hasn't been involved in Netherlands Internationals since 2011 WC? Didn't find any link regarding international retirement
 
You are talking crazy.

Bangla just proved themselves to be better than Lanka and Pak recently. So don't discount them.
Oz's bowling line up is weak but their batting is second only to India- Watson, Finch, Warner, Smith, Maxwell is a crazy top 5. Infact it is probably even better than India.
It is a cliche but you can never count out Pakistan. They have the bowling, just need a couple of batsman to stand up.
NZ seem weak right now without Brendon Mccullum but doubt they would be pushovers for any team.

On Group A' side, SRL are a clear weak team alongside Afghanistan right now. So it is basically between WI and Eng for the second semi spot alongside SA.
 
NinjaFletch said:
Are the batting side really in it at 41/2 off 7? I'd say not really. To chase anything like 180, or in your example 205, you need a really special partnership, which is what the Aussies clearly got. But just because it has been chased, doesn't mean its easy, and the DLS targets reflect that and the fact that its far more likely teams will fall short than to win the game. How many teams have put on a 150 partnership for the 4th wicket in T20is before then? I'll give you the answer: no one. Not only that, but that was the highest partnership record for any wicket lower than 1st, 2nd or 3rd.

Crucially, between the two rain breaks Oman used up 1.2 overs for 4 runs, and lost two wickets. So their position had got markedly worse. I don't really think there can be too many complaints this time.
Click to expand...

8 wickets in hand, 10 runs an over for the next 13 overs. I would say yes, they're very much still in it. Going at tens on flat pitches is doable. You obviously don't need a 150 partnership to chase it down. One 70-80 partnership and a couple of shorter ones are equally sufficient.

Rain came at: 41/2 in 7 overs (Required 140 in 13 - RRR 10.69)
Back on at: 41/2 in 7 overs (Required 111 in 9 - RRR 12.33)
Rain came again: 45/4 in 8.2 (Required 107 in 7.4 - RRR 13.96)
Back on again at: 45/4 in 8.2 (Required 75 from 3.4 - RRR 20.45)

For me it's blatantly obvious that the loss of those two wickets skyrocketed the RRR. As I said, loss of wickets are been given way too much importance. D/L for T20s needs a revamp.

Here is how D/L looks like in ODIs:
117268.jpg


Here is how it looks like in T20s:
117269.jpg


Here is how Cricinfo want D/L to look like in T20s:
117270.jpg


Look closely at the first two graphs. D/L is treating T20 as the final 20 overs of an ODI. T20 is not the final 20 overs of an ODI and should not be treated that way either. T20 is a completely different ball game.

Yesterday it didn't matter because Oman are shit and would have lost anyway. But going forward they need to redesign D/L so that it is suited for T20s. T20s have been played for over a decade now so they should have more than enough data to revamp D/L.
 
You're going to have to explain the axis to me, because it looks like you're comparing two different things. In T20 the combined resource score is measured out of 60 and in ODIs our of 100? If thats true then you can't really make any conclusion based on what the graphs look like.
 
India > SA
Australia > England
NZ > WI
Pakistan > Sri Lanka
Bangladesh > Afghanistan

There's just no way you can make an argument that the groups are evenly matched.
 
NinjaFletch said:
You're going to have to explain the axis to me, because it looks like you're comparing two different things. In T20 the combined resource score is measured out of 60 and in ODIs our of 100? If thats true then you can't really make any conclusion based on what the graphs look like.
Click to expand...

The D/L method as applied to Twenty20 is a sawed-off version of the system governing ODIs. There's a need to adapt the method for the short form based on actual Twenty20 match data

Basically D/L in T20s is pretending that you're playing an ODI and haven't lost any wickets in the first 30 overs.

Combined resources at the start of an innings are supposed to be 100, not below 60.
 
Samid said:
The D/L method as applied to Twenty20 is a sawed-off version of the system governing ODIs. There's a need to adapt the method for the short form based on actual Twenty20 match data

Basically D/L in T20s is pretending that you're playing an ODI and haven't lost any wickets in the first 30 overs.

Combined resources at the start of an innings are supposed to be 100, not below 60.
Click to expand...

Ah I see, but anyway thats a 6 year old article and the system has undergone revisions (for example, I have been referring to it as the DLS which is its proper name now, as it is the Duckworth, Lewis, Stern system) since then.

According to this: http://www.sportskeeda.com/cricket/duckworth-lewis-stern-d-l-s-method the changes made have 'improved [DLS] for T20 games' I can't find any up to date visitations referring to T20 cricket, the revision was made around the time of the last world cup so people only cared about ODI stuff in the reporting, but they've clearly changed it from the example in your article.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.