[ICC Cricket World Cup 2003] - Australia vs the Netherlands

[GoEagles]

Discuss the upcoming Australia vs Netherlands game on this thread.

Australia will be resting Adam Gilchrist in this game, with Jimmy Maher chancing himself with the gloves yet again. A loss for Holland will be the end of the 2003 World Cup campaign, following early losses against India and England.

This day game will be played in Potchefstroom, but won't be aired at all on free to air TV.

[Jim Boy]

Originally posted by GoEagles
Discuss the upcoming Australia vs Netherlands game on this thread.

Australia will be resting Adam Gilchrist in this game, with Jimmy Maher chancing himself with the gloves yet again. A loss for Bangladesh will be the end of the 2003 World Cup campaign, following early losses against India and England.

This day game will be played in Potchefstroom, but won't be aired at all on free to air TV.

Not that I'm being pedantic, but which two teams are playing? Aus, Holland or Bangladesh? And why would a loss to Bangaldesh end the tournament? Or would it merely dash Bangladesh's hopes, if that's what you call them?

[ScouseCat]

Australia vs Holland, LIVE for those of us lucky enough to have Foxtel at 7pm. :D

This is a game which Australia should win quite easilly. The only thing which can save Holland from suffering a terrible thrashing in this game is the rain. (dare I say it after the other night!)

Holland have tried hard in their 2 matches so far in the World Cup but lack the experience and talent to compete against the stronger cricketing nations.

I am expecting an easy win to the Aussies in this one.

[St-KriS]

I know this is a bold prediction, but im predicting that Australia will win this match. :)

[mustapha]

Where are the odds of a 2000-1 Holland win being offered? I know it sounds stupid but one or two dollars on Holland wouldn't hurt. Australia lost to Zimbabwe in 1983.

[Clackers69]

I'm a bit annoyed that Gilchrist is being rested. Sure give him a break from 'keeping duties, but he should play as a batsman. He's in my Fantasy Team and he would make a s-load of runs if we batted first. :mad:

I guess it will now be up to Hayden and Ponting to get huge scores. I hope we bat first, I don't have any Aussie bowlers in my Fantasy Team.

[GOALden Hawk]

If we win the toss we had better bowl. Stuff this giving Martyn some time in the middle crap, that's what net practices are for.

Imagine we racked up 400, had them 7-19 after 10 overs and it was rained out - disaster.

[Kenny_01]

Originally posted by GOALden Hawk
If we win the toss we had better bowl. Stuff this giving Martyn some time in the middle crap, that's what net practices are for.

Imagine we racked up 400, had them 7-19 after 10 overs and it was rained out - disaster.

There's nothing like spending time out in the middle. If you've ever played cricket before, you would realise it's completely different to having a hit in the nets.

And even if this match is washed out, it won't really matter to us.

[GOALden Hawk]

Originally posted by Kenny_01
There's nothing like spending time out in the middle. If you've ever played cricket before, you would realise it's completely different to having a hit in the nets.

Agreed - but the result is far more important than getting a few batsmen into form. Besides, how much in technique and skill will be gained from flaying a few medium pacers around?


And even if this match is washed out, it won't really matter to us.

It could, because 1 point is carried across from each win against a side not in the Super Six.

[GoEagles]

Just heard that Lee and Gillespie will be rested with Bichel set to make his first WC 2003 appearance.

[iceman]

I see this game as an easy win for us.

If Holland bat first, i expect it to be over very quickly, if the Aussies go in first tho, then us people on Pay TV will get our monies worth :D

[ScouseCat]

THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!

There has been heaps of rain overnight and the pitch has a huge puddle in the middle of it. The have all sorts of things on the ground to dry out the ground... helicopters, hair dryers, etc etc. There was even talk of moving the pitch over a couple of wickets but have decided not to do that.

They were talking at the start of the day that it could be a 25 over match but things have improved and hopefully they'll be able to get a decent game in today.

Inspection to take place in around 35 minutes from now.

[iceman]

Originally posted by ScouseCat
THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE!!!!!!!

There has been heaps of rain overnight and the pitch has a huge puddle in the middle of it. The have all sorts of things on the ground to dry out the ground... helicopters, hair dryers, etc etc. There was even talk of moving the pitch over a couple of wickets but have decided not to do that.

They were talking at the start of the day that it could be a 25 over match but things have improved and hopefully they'll be able to get a decent game in today.

Inspection to take place in around 35 minutes from now.

What a time for this to happen!!

I just turned on the TV and was wondering why the game hadnt started.... hope it does soon

[noodle]

I thought that tournaments only got ruined by rain in England.

[JUBJUB]

Netherlands won the toss and will bowl first.

8pm start.

[Adrian Shelton]

It's not exactly a flat track either, some of that naggy medium stuff that these guys serve up could nip about a bit. Martyn and Maher opening for us

[ScouseCat]

Originally posted by Adrian Shelton
It's not exactly a flat track either, some of that naggy medium stuff that these guys serve up could nip about a bit. Martyn and Maher opening for us

Matthew Hayden was put back up to open with Jimmy Maher, probably because there could be a bit in the wicket early. Regardless of what is in the pitch for the Holland medium pacers, they still have to make whatever we make and I doubt very much they'll be able to do that.

Australia: 0 for 6 after 1 over.

[Kane McGoodwin]

Aus Team: JP Maher, ML Hayden, RT Ponting, DR Martyn, DS Lehmann, MG Bevan, A Symonds, IJ Harvey, AJ Bichel, JN Gillespie, GD McGrath. Must be a bit in the track as I though Gillespie was going to be rested too. CircInfo has Peter Willey as one of the unpires, but I thought he refused to go?? Can anyone with Fox confirm this.

[dr nick]

willey is umpiring and noticed that the groundstaff forgot to put the white discs out that measure the catching position radius :rolleyes:

matthew hayden extremely lucky to survive an LBW shout, we would have been 1-7. they are bowling tight and our run rate would be after 6 overs the lowest for several years.

[Richmondfan#1]

A score update:

96/1

Martyn in, Mayer out for 26 (I think).

[Perty4]

Peter Willey has refused to umpire Aus vs Zimbabwe, which is our next game on monday.

[ScouseCat]

Originally posted by Perty4
Peter Willey has refused to umpire Aus vs Zimbabwe, which is our next game on monday.

He made that decision because he felt uncomfortable going to Zimbabwe after his country, England had boycotted going there.

Back to the game...

We now have a 44 over match.

Australia: 2 for 109 after 25 overs.

Not sure what will happen to our total after the Duckworth-Lewis method has been used. :confused:

[ScouseCat]

Originally posted by ScouseCat
Not sure what will happen to our total after the Duckworth-Lewis method has been used. :confused:

Rain has stopped play yet again with Australia 2 for 123 after 28 overs. This is very frustrating to watch, probably even more frustrating if you were a player in a game like this. It cant be easy for players to go on and off the field like this.... hopefully the rain can clear so we can get a result from this game.

[mattyc2422]

Rain, rain, go away. Come again another day........:(

[Adrian Shelton]

Hands up everyone who was waiting for us to dial up 2-380 or something!

[RogerMellie]

I thought the Aussies would probably crack around 800 or so.

[EagleBlue]

Just wondering if it is legal to declare in a ODI. Lets say (if we get back out on the field) Aus bats for 4 or 5 more overs, get another 50 runs then declare to get Holland in earlier in an attempt to dismiss them quickly before the rain comes in. Fraught with danger I know and probably disrespectful to your opponent BUT could it happen ?????

[Brett Li]

Originally posted by EagleBlue
Just wondering if it is legal to declare in a ODI. Lets say (if we get back out on the field) Aus bats for 4 or 5 more overs, get another 50 runs then declare to get Holland in earlier in an attempt to dismiss them quickly before the rain comes in. Fraught with danger I know and probably disrespectful to your opponent BUT could it happen ?????

I would pay good money to see that plan back-fire

[EagleBlue]

Originally posted by Brett Li
I would pay good money to see that plan back-fire

you could try it against Canada though ;)

[dr nick]

hmmm... just watching ian healy say to their keeper how he loved the way he was standing up to the stumps today :mad:. you are pathetic ian, why did you critisise him all through the commentary for standing up to the stumps, saying that they should encourage hayden to charge and go for runs??

anyway, thats not what i wanted to post about. for those watching the foxtel coverage, you would have heard tony cozier rabbit on and justify why australia were scoring 2 RPO for the last few overs. he claimed that they would have an inflated score if they had more wickets in hand at the end of the innings.

this is not true. Australia lost around 30% (estimating here) of their resources because of the rain delays during the innings. the last little stint at the end, weather did not cause the further reduction of resources. it wouldnt have mattered if australia lost 0 or 8 wickets in that final passage, because the % resources lost had been set in concrete at the cessation of the final rain delay.

[wagstaff]

Originally posted by nicko18
hmmm... just watching ian healy say to their keeper how he loved the way he was standing up to the stumps today :mad:. you are pathetic ian, why did you critisise him all through the commentary for standing up to the stumps, saying that they should encourage hayden to charge and go for runs??

anyway, thats not what i wanted to post about. for those watching the foxtel coverage, you would have heard tony cozier rabbit on and justify why australia were scoring 2 RPO for the last few overs. he claimed that they would have an inflated score if they had more wickets in hand at the end of the innings.

this is not true. Australia lost around 30% (estimating here) of their resources because of the rain delays during the innings. the last little stint at the end, weather did not cause the further reduction of resources. it wouldnt have mattered if australia lost 0 or 8 wickets in that final passage, because the % resources lost had been set in concrete at the cessation of the final rain delay.

Possible explanation: A desperate desire to get the red ink.

[dr nick]

Originally posted by wagstaff
Possible explanation: A desperate desire to get the red ink.

probably, terribly selfish, i just cant think why they did it. if they aren't going to take the game seriously why do they bother with a proper batting line-up??

why wouldnt matthew hayden and jimmy maher open the bowling and glenn mcgrath keep??

if they want a bit of practice then they should be treating it as if it were an elimination match. it does no one any good just blocking pie chuckers.

[wagstaff]

Why are the Australians so obsessed with bowling their 25 overs as quickly as possible and making a match of it, which is making their bowling performance rather sloppy so far?

This match isn't an important one, as Australia's wins against India and Pakistan have guaranteed their passage to the next round.

[Desredandwhite]

well, I think every point is important - they will determine how many points you start with in the super sixes round, I believe.

[Jim Boy]

Good result all round. Australia showed they were clearly in a separate class and we got the result we wanted. The Netherlands didn't disgrace themselves, weren't walloped and put up a good fight. I would think everyone finished the match relatively happy.

[Fall Out Boy]

That was the single most boring match i have ever seen.

I know the pitch was tricky, and we were playing safe, but really, it would have been nice to see our guys at least attempt to score at a decent rate.

[red+black]

Originally posted by nicko18
hmmm... just watching ian healy say to their keeper how he loved the way he was standing up to the stumps today :mad:. you are pathetic ian, why did you critisise him all through the commentary for standing up to the stumps, saying that they should encourage hayden to charge and go for runs??

anyway, thats not what i wanted to post about. for those watching the foxtel coverage, you would have heard tony cozier rabbit on and justify why australia were scoring 2 RPO for the last few overs. he claimed that they would have an inflated score if they had more wickets in hand at the end of the innings.

this is not true. Australia lost around 30% (estimating here) of their resources because of the rain delays during the innings. the last little stint at the end, weather did not cause the further reduction of resources. it wouldnt have mattered if australia lost 0 or 8 wickets in that final passage, because the % resources lost had been set in concrete at the cessation of the final rain delay.
rubbish. surely if we got bowled out within the 36 overs, holland would have been chasing 171. but we didn't, and holland had to chase a score higher than what we actually made, ie. 198.

[K9-54]

Originally posted by Jim Boy
Australia showed they were clearly in a separate class
The dunce's class. That was pathetic.

You'd think at least one of those highly paid geniuses would know the rules of the game they were playing.

How the ACB can let a team represent Australia without ensuring the hierarchy of the team at the very least understand the concepts of the system is beyond belief.

That was so frustrating. I should have just gone to bed.

[red+black]

Originally posted by wagstaff
Why are the Australians so obsessed with bowling their 25 overs as quickly as possible and making a match of it, which is making their bowling performance rather sloppy so far?

This match isn't an important one, as Australia's wins against India and Pakistan have guaranteed their passage to the next round.
incorrect. by bowling 25 overs, we have a live match. by winning we get 4 points and take 1 point through to the super sixes. we can take a maximum of 12 points through to the next round. just means me can probably afford to lose a game or two at that stage and still safely make the semis.

[red+black]

Originally posted by K9-54
The dunce's class. That was pathetic.

You'd think at least one of those highly paid geniuses would know the rules of the game they were playing.

How the ACB can let a team represent Australia without ensuring the hierarchy of the team at the very least understand the concepts of the system is beyond belief.

That was so frustrating. I should have just gone to bed.

WTF ?

[red+black]

Originally posted by Jim Boy
Good result all round. Australia showed they were clearly in a separate class and we got the result we wanted. The Netherlands didn't disgrace themselves, weren't walloped and put up a good fight. I would think everyone finished the match relatively happy.
i agree. sure i would have liked us to score 400 and bounce them out for 50, but it didn't happen, get over it people. does it really do anyone any good to "do a sri lanka" on them? or is it "do a canada" on them.

australia showed that they are a class act. too bad we won't be concerned about hurting the poms feelings though :)

[Jars458]

For God's sake stop whinging you lot

Another good win

Time in the middle for the batsmen

And our spinners got some practice in bowling which they will need to do.

Go Aussie Go Let's Hear it.

[dr nick]

Originally posted by red+black
rubbish. surely if we got bowled out within the 36 overs, holland would have been chasing 171. but we didn't, and holland had to chase a score higher than what we actually made, ie. 198.

you are an idiot. you obviously dont know how the DL method works so you are making a huge fool of yourself.

[goal_umpire]

Originally posted by K9-54
The dunce's class. That was pathetic.

You'd think at least one of those highly paid geniuses would know the rules of the game they were playing.

How the ACB can let a team represent Australia without ensuring the hierarchy of the team at the very least understand the concepts of the system is beyond belief.

That was so frustrating. I should have just gone to bed.
Can't be helped when it was raining.

Calm down K9-54

[tiger of old]

Originally posted by suzi_olsen
Can't be helped when it was raining.

Calm down K9-54 well miss brainiac why ya think the formula was brought in for?

[ScouseCat]

Originally posted by Jars458
For God's sake stop whinging you lot

Another good win

Time in the middle for the batsmen

And our spinners got some practice in bowling which they will need to do.

Go Aussie Go Let's Hear it.

Absolutely spot on Jars458....

The conditions last night were never going to allow the game to reach any great heights but we won, some of our players found some form with bat and ball and on the other side of the coin, Holland got the experience of playing against Australia which is probably the highlight of their careers so far.

[red+black]

Originally posted by nicko18
you are an idiot. you obviously dont know how the DL method works so you are making a huge fool of yourself.

did i purport that what i had said was undeniably correct. no. i was surmising based on common sense, as the commentators were. and no, i haven't gone into the intracacies of the DL system.

your opinion of what i am doing is just that, an opinion, of little consequence mind you.

some of us don't have to resort to name-calling to prop our own egos up.

btw if you're so clued in, post an explanation and calculation of how the game was poised after:
a) it had been reduced to 47 overs
b) it had been reduced to 44 overs
c) it had been reduced to 36 overs

[K9-54]

Originally posted by red+black
post an explanation and calculation of how the game was poised after:
a) it had been reduced to 47 overs
b) it had been reduced to 44 overs
c) it had been reduced to 36 overs
a) as it was reduced to 47 overs before a ball was bowled, the dutch target would have been as per normal, - ie one more than ours

b) and c)

I don't have the full DL table so I can't give the exact calculations but the way the second teams target is calculated for any reductions in the number of overs for the side batting first is based on the following formula:

T = S + (R2 – R1) x G50/100 + 1 (rounded down to a whole number, if necessary)

T is the second team's revised target

S is the score that the team batting first ultimately achieves

G50 is the current average score in a 50 over ODI match as set by the ICC - it is currently 235 (it was 225 I believe for the 1999 world cup)

R1 is the percentage of scoring resources available at the time of the interuption. It is a function of the number of overs remaining to team 1 at that point and the number of wickets in hand

R2 is the percentage of scoring resources available at the time of the resumption.

(R2-R1) gives the percentage of scoring resources unavailable to the team batting first as a result of the lost overs due to rain.

R1 and R2 are given based on look up the full DL table. ie looking up the percentage for 2 wickets down and 16 overs left would give R1 for the 2nd stoppage given the match was down to 44 overs by then and when Aus resumed there was 8 overs remaining so looking up the table for 2 wickets down and 8 overs left gives R2.

The same process can be used to calulate the percentage lost from the first interruption.

The sum of these gives the percentage lost total.

As I said, I don't have the full table to look at but the full impact of the stoppages (known at the point in time Martin and Lehmann walked back out to bat), must have equated to about 12% of scoring resources lost.

This meant that the Australian team should have known that the Dutch target would be increased by 12% of 235 (ie 28 runs), before the last eight overs started.

And assuming there was no further interuption during this last 8 overs of the Australian innings, the Dutch target would be 28 runs more than Australia's regardless of whether Australia lost 8 wickets in the next 8 balls or lost no wickets and hit all 48 remaining balls for 6.

So the reason I was annoyed was I was sitting there looking forward to Australia going hell for leather for 8 overs against an ordinary attack with 8 wickets in hand, but instead they played for safety under the mistaken impression that losing wickets would hurt them. Martin and Lehmann were not using the 8 overs for batting practice, they were clearly under instructions not to go out. The Australian's clearly did not properly know how the DL system worked. That is pathetic for a professional team.

If there was no rain interuptions, and Australia was 2 down and cruising at the 42 over mark, would you be annoyed if the current 2 batsmen adopted a defensive attitude and played basically for a not out?

I would.

And my thoughts at the end of the 8 overs were that Australia deserved to lose the game. Failing to try to achieve as large a score as possible for any reason when batting first is just poor cricket.

BTW, I thought Australia had the correct idea when they bowled i.e get to 25 overs as quickly as possible with the proviso that there is little risk of actually losing.

[red+black]

ok, thanks. i've printed it off and will work through it. have also printed off heaps from cricinfo and with any luck, during the next DL match, might be able to figure it all out.

i see that there is a DL computer program that can be purchased, as well as a book with DL tables. can almost be certain that rain will rear its head again during one of the remaining matches.

[dr nick]

R&B, the reason i had a go at you is because you claimed that what i said happens under the DL system was "rubbish". hardly fair critisism from someone who is not sure how the method works, and makes you look rather foolish. i'm not sure if i misinterpreted you, or if your post came across as overly harsh, but the impression i got was that you were having a go at me. so please, next time rather than just ridicule another persons post (and no it was not an opinion, it was fact) please make sure you know what you are talking about.