Australia were misinformed

[DaveW]

There's a lot of misinformation about the Duckworth/Lewis system. Here's one:

Australia were clearly of the belief that wickets in hand at the end of their innings mattered; either that or Martyn and Lehmann batted very poorly. Tony Cozier and Richie Benaud harped on about the importance of keeping wickets in hand at the end of the innings, they were wrong. It didn't matter how many wickets Australia had at the end of the 36 overs, once a 36 over ceiling had already been set.

So when does wickets in hand matter? At the interuptions, the Netherlands target will be adjusted according to how many overs had elapsed and how many wickets were in hand when the match was reduced from 47 overs to 44 overs and again from 44 overs to 36 overs.

That batting at the end there was most frustrating for me to watch.

 

[EagleBlue]

The wickets at the time of the reduction are taken into account. If Aus had lost 5 wkts when the last interruption had happened instead of 2 their revised target would have been less. The amount of wickets lost in between the last interruption and the end of the innings is irrelevant, we could have been 9 down and the revised target would be the same. Cant believe someone like Richie would not know that

 

[wagstaff]

Your theory seems to be backed up by what I was hearing on the radio (I don't have Foxtel). The commentators were saying with a few overs to go that Holland would have 27 runs added to their score, so presumably it was known that would be the addition to the target no matter how many wickets Australia lost.

It still doesn't justify Australia's batting in the last four overs. Even if they didn't want to lose wickets, how hard is it for professionals like these to get a run a ball. Off some of the overs the Australians only got one or two runs off individual overs.

Amazingly, Holland have kept them at a lower run rate then either India or Pakistan manged so far in the WC.

 

[dr nick]

yep, i just posted something similar in another thread. i am of the opinion that australia were not really batting just to keep wickets in hand, because they were just jogging singles when easy two's were on offer. i dont think they were batting like that because they thought they needed wickets in hand at the end.

the batting was frustrating to watch, but even worse was listening to the so called experts who dont know the rules of the game (richie benaud included)

 

[ScouseCat]

I had no idea what would happen to our target under the Duckworth-Lewis method last night. It was very frustrating watching Australia bat the way they did towards the end of their innings, but it was understandable if they were led to believe that wickets in hand would matter when calculating Holland's revised target. I'm just glad it didn't change the result of the game.

 

[goal_umpire]

Originally posted by ScouseCat
I had no idea what would happen to our target under the Duckworth-Lewis method last night. It was very frustrating watching Australia bat the way they did towards the end of their innings, but it was understandable if they were led to believe that wickets in hand would matter when calculating Holland's revised target. I'm just glad it didn't change the result of the game.

As I said it can't be helped if it's been raining like it was last night.

 

[ScouseCat]

Originally posted by suzi_olsen
As I said it can't be helped if it's been raining like it was last night.

That's fine to say that, but we're talking about the Duckworth-Lewis system and the fact Australia were either given incorrect information or misunderstood how the calculations worked.

They should have put up some sort of table on the television coverage so the viewers understood what was required. Listening to both Richie Benaud and Tony Cozier last night, they both didn't know how the calculations worked properly.... if they didn't know, how the hell are we supposed to know???