Eng vs Aus ODI series

[andy]

Pitch is turning...turn to bethel not carse!

[Durhamfootman]

Australia are 165-2 after 21 overs. I'm guessing that England were probably on a very similar score at the same stage, maybe even a few more, so the fact that Australia are 50 runs ahead of the DLS par score must be entirely down to the fact that England collapsed in a heap between 25 and 35 overs.

That can happen, but my understanding is that rain was always going to be a distinct possibility, so from a position of strength, England effectively just threw the game away in their customary brainless fashion...... Hey.... this is how we want to play, according to Harry.... hmm.... well it's a point of view I suppose.... I'd prefer them to use their brains just a little more than their testosterone.... but then I don't have any testosterone left, so perhaps I'm in no position to comment

[GarlicJam]

When I went to bed, England were on track for 400+...

[sussexpob]

Australia are 165-2 after 21 overs. I'm guessing that England were probably on a very similar score at the same stage, maybe even a few more, so the fact that Australia are 50 runs ahead of the DLS par score must be entirely down to the fact that England collapsed in a heap between 25 and 35 overs. That can happen, but my understanding is that rain was always going to be a distinct possibility, so from a position of strength, England effectively just threw the game away in their customary brainless fashion...... Hey.... this is how we want to play, according to Harry.... hmm.... well it's a point of view I suppose.... I'd prefer them to use their brains just a little more than their testosterone.... but then I don't have any testosterone left, so perhaps I'm in no position to comment

Australia's par score is calculated on England's final score, not any of its progression or comparison during the match. So how England batted the first 20 overs isnt part of the equation.

[sussexpob]

The DL method is a loads of tripe anyway, and the ICC should put it to bed. It might have made sense in an era of limited overs cricket where losing top order wickets was a death sentence, but thats not the case anymore, so the resource calculation is a complete nonsense. Wickets remaining factors ridiculously high in comparison to runs scored/run rate, even to the point that having 10 wickets in hand in a final over can reduce the runs needing to be scored by 2-3 runs in some cases, even when a batting side has only lost 2-3 batsman anyway, so it shows how lopsided the calculation is based on wickets in hand.

Last night is a perfect example. Had Australia not lost a wicket and the game was called off at halfway, the par score was 110. D/L assumes therefore that the wicket resource left would mean on average, they could score 8 an over at SR133 over the second half of the innings making another 200 odd runs.

This rate exceeds the average T20 score (sustained over 20% few overs) by about 5 runs per innings. Amusingly, the best 11 batsman in OD history lined up in order of hitting power would end 30 runs short and 9 wickets down based on average performance. In fact, using the average "average" at that point, having more wickets would actually be a hinderance.... SR declines between position 7 and 1 roughly per batting position with average increasing, so your slowest batsman still being in at over 25 would generally devalue your effort.

The bottom line is, DL assumes the average capability of a team with wickets left is actually more than the best line up ever could manage, so its stupid.

[Durhamfootman]

Australia's par score is calculated on England's final score, not any of its progression or comparison during the match. So how England batted the first 20 overs isnt part of the equation.

I understand that, but batting stupidly and losing loads of wickets stalls the innings completely and affects that final score, so the chasing side's target becomes that much more manageable. 49 runs more manageable it turns out

Hey.... maybe Australia just bowled unplayable deliveries for 20 overs and England can console themselves that it wasn't their fault at all.... just a bit of bad luck that's all

[sussexpob]

Australia's par score is calculated on England's final score, not any of its progression or comparison during the match. So how England batted the first 20 overs isnt part of the equation.

I understand that, but batting stupidly and losing loads of wickets stalls the innings completely and affects that final score, so the chasing side's target becomes that much more manageable. 49 runs more manageable it turns out

England's batsman put up 300, and their bowlers gave away 8 runs an over.... Not sure I get blaming the batters imo.

D/L method always favours the team batting last heavily, because the reduction in overs always makes it less likely to lose wickets in a short space of time, which is the biggest defining factor in the resource calculation. If rain is a high possibility you can win on the DL method by batting pedestrian and keeping resources.

The par score at the 20 over mark with no wickets down was 78. In fact, the par scores are ridiculous for the first couple of wicket resources because they are worth about 1 run an over per wicket in this period. You end up with the ridiculous conclusion that a team 78-0 after 20 overs has the same batting power left as someone 120-2. I doubt the difference between 10 and 8 wickets left at all factors to 8 and 6 overs respectively over the next 30, that just never plays out.

I'd love to see how many teams at 78-0 under 4 an over for 20 overs get to 300.... I am guessing its a tiny, tiny percentage. The assumption wickets allows automatic acceleration is completely wrong..... its far more likely in statistical data that a team batting under 4 an over will lose batting wickets/resources when trying to increase to 8 an over instantly.... because you to maintain 8 as opposed to 6 is higher risk. The likelihood of losing wickets is so much higher.....

As I said, DL is idiotic. Not that it matters here, as Australia beat the rate by 2 runs an over.

[sussexpob]

I don't really care about the isolated result, but it just feels wrong to award a match based on what happens in the first 20 overs. 165-2 at 8 an over as England proved can easily become 250 all out or 300 all out.

What's wrong with a no result or draw in LOs cricket?

[Durhamfootman]

well, yes

it isn't a global tournament