ICC World T20 2016

NinjaFletch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yup, they've made small modifications but the concept seems to be the exact same based on this article from last week:

The bigger issue with applying the Duckworth-Lewis method to Twenty20 is more simple: it was not developed or calibrated for this shorter version of the game.

The calculations assigning relative importance to wickets and remaining deliveries have been developed for the 50-over format.

It is often argued that wickets are relatively less valuable in Twenty20, as most teams are ultimately limited by the number of deliveries before they run out of wickets.

In longer versions of the game, the need to avoid losing wickets is more important.

A full examination of ball-by-ball datasets for recent Twenty20 matches should shed some light on exactly how scoring patterns and rates differ from the longer version of the limited-overs game.

As Twenty20 grows ever more popular, it clearly demands its own adjustment system, not the ill-fitting hand-me-down from the 50-over game.

Whatever methods might be developed, such revisions will not be implemented in time for this year’s tournament. In the interests of sporting fairness, you might have to simply cross your fingers are hope for clear skies over India.

If the rain clouds arrive, the most influential figures in the tournament might turn out not to be the game’s premier batsmen or bowlers, but two ageing British statisticians.

That, as they say, is just not cricket.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming they've taken the latest DLS model into account here since they've bothered digging so deep.
 
Day 7: India vs New Zealand
Going to be stunned if India don't win this tournament. Will be interested to see who they play and subsequently beat in the final.
 
Wow, that NZ team looks a little lightweight. Why no Boult and Southee ? Emphasis on spin ?
 
I think NZ will struggle here. They've been way too reliant on Guptill recently plus haven't played much in these conditions the last 2 years.
 
Bad decision by the way. We need DRS in T20!

That first over was like playing stick cricket. Six straight down, out, switch hit six.
 
Samid said:
Bad decision by the way. We need DRS in T20!

That first over was like playing stick cricket. Six straight down, out, switch hit six.
Click to expand...
Certainly in the world twenty20. Having said that, i have no sympathy for India if they get a crook decision given their attitude to DRS.
 
Wow. Two brilliant first overs. One for NZ and one for India. Munro played a needless shot. There was no need to take a risk.
 
Ashwin has been poor. Williamson could and maybe should have scored more runs. Nehra has been amazing in comparison. Bring on Pandya and bumrah I would say
 
Kane will always struggle in these conditions in the shorter formats. On faster tracks he uses the pace of the wicket and his runs are all about timing. He won't succeed as a LO batsman on slow wickets unless he adds a couple of dimensions to his batting.

NZ lost this game at the toss. What were they expecting batting first? 190-200? Anything around 170 would have been easy chase. On top of that leaving out their best seamers and playing 3 spinners vs a good spin playing team. Stupid approach.
 
Samid said:
Kane will always struggle in these conditions in the shorter formats. On faster tracks he uses the pace of the wicket and his runs are all about timing. He won't succeed as a LO batsman on slow wickets unless he adds a couple of dimensions to his batting.

NZ lost this game at the toss. What were they expecting batting first? 190-200? Anything around 170 would have been easy chase. On top of that leaving out their best seamers and playing 3 spinners vs a good spin playing team. Stupid approach.
Click to expand...

It's a spinning pitch though. Even raina is getting good turn.
 
I think a 130 + score would make this interesting. Sadly, I don't see that happening.
 
prath92 said:
It's a spinning pitch though. Even raina is getting good turn.
Click to expand...

They've left out Boult AND Southee and are playing 3 spinners just for the sake of it. Those spinners aren't anything special. 2 would have been enough plus Kane himself is an option.
 
Bumrah is amazing at Yorkers. Hope he doesn't go off boil like Yadav Aaron ishant and all.

Samid said:
They've left out Boult AND Southee and are playing 3 spinners just for the sake of it. Those spinners aren't anything special. 2 would have been enough plus Kane himself is an option.
Click to expand...

That's fair to be honest. Not playing boult is perplexing. You want a top wicket taker in your side irrespective of the pitch.
 
Damn NZ striking early. Thought India would have an easy chase (they still might).
 
This is the spinning equivalent of the recent Ind-Pak match. Three early wickets before these two settled the nerves. Raina got out in exact same fashion both times.
 
Keep calm and trust Kohli.
 
Samid said:
Why does he need 15 replays? Obvious out.
Click to expand...

This really pisses me off with all sports that use DRS.

There was one in the rugby the other day where they were checking if the Welsh player had gouged at the eyes of an England player and despite blatantly gouging at the eyes of the England player the TMO was like 'Yeah, nah, I've only got one angle so thats inconclusive'
 
Pretty poor t20 pitch by the looks of it? If all the other pitches are like this, I wouldn't make India favorites for the trophy at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.