England vs West Indies - World Twenty 20 - Live - SS1 Now

[Manthorpee]

Oh well need to beat the Paddies for a place in the super 6

Super 8?

 

[Pavilionaire]

What a farce. The ICC are lucky this happened in a match that doesn't matter, rather than a semi or a final.

Duckworth-Lewis is an excellent system for the 40/50 over game but I'm staggered they haven't adjusted it for T20.

England started with 70 off 7 and then carried on almost the same pace for the remaining 13 overs. I would have thought given the wickets in hand at least 70-odd off 6, rather than 60, would have been fair. 10 an over means they can throw the bat completely until the first 2 or 3 get out, rather than have to nudge or nurdle as is normal.

 

[Gwylan]

What a farce. The ICC are lucky this happened in a match that doesn't matter, rather than a semi or a final.

Duckworth-Lewis is an excellent system for the 40/50 over game but I'm staggered they haven't adjusted it for T20.

England started with 70 off 7 and then carried on almost the same pace for the remaining 13 overs. I would have thought given the wickets in hand at least 70-odd off 6, rather than 60, would have been fair. 10 an over means they can throw the bat completely until the first 2 or 3 get out, rather than have to nudge or nurdle as is normal.

The point is, right or wrong, the DL method is the one that was chosen for this event. So, it's not going to change for the semi-final or final either- no tournament changes its rules halfway through.

Personally, I reckon that if the WI had been set 70, they'd have still got them.

 

[Gerbil]

f***ing farce. f*** YOU 'DUCKWORTH LEWIS'.

Couldn't agree more.(even though i don't fully understand how DL works)
But not to worry we should easily beat the Paddys tonight *kissofdeath*

 

[Left Footer]

Bloody farce, i felt so cheated last night.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The point is, right or wrong, the DL method is the one that was chosen for this event. So, it's not going to change for the semi-final or final either- no tournament changes its rules halfway through.

Personally, I reckon that if the WI had been set 70, they'd have still got them.

I wasn't saying I thought it should be changed mid-tournament, just that I was surprised nobody ever thought it might need to be rejigged to fit T20.

The Windies have only ever got more than 200 twice in 23 internationals, so that's an indication of how hard it would have been, especially under lights.

There's an argument for saying whoever won the toss was already halfway to victory, and if there's rain forecast I'd bat second every time.

 

[Gwylan]

I wasn't saying I thought it should be changed mid-tournament, just that I was surprised nobody ever thought it might need to be rejigged to fit T20.

There's an argument for saying whoever won the toss was already halfway to victory, and if there's rain forecast I'd bat second every time.

You did say that the ICC were lucky that this didn't happen in the final or semi-final and I was just pointing out that it still could.

I'd agree with the assessment that if there's rain around, batting second is the way to go.

The boot has been on the other foot. Anyone remember the 1992 WC when, after a break due to rain, South Africa's target (against England) changed from 22 runs from 13 balls to 21 runs from one ball. It was after that farce that the D/L method was adopted. I suspect that something similar will happen this time.