- Apr 29, 2002
- 875
- 2
- AFL Club
- Fremantle
I thought the Aussies would probably crack around 800 or so.
[ICC Cricket World Cup 2003] - Australia vs the Netherlands
- Thread starter GoEagles
- Start date
- Tagged users None
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 ?????
you could try it against Canada though
hmmm... just watching ian healy say to their keeper how he loved the way he was standing up to the stumps today . 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.
. 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
This match isn't an important one, as Australia's wins against India and Pakistan have guaranteed their passage to the next round.
well, I think every point is important - they will determine how many points you start with in the super sixes round, I believe.
F
Fall Out Boy
Guest
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.
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.
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.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
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.
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.
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.
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
- Apr 20, 2001
- 27,336
- 10,443
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Adelaide Utd,Liverpool, WWT Eagles.
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.
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.
you are an idiot. you obviously dont know how the DL method works so you are making a huge fool of yourself.
- Banned
- #43
Can't be helped when it was raining.
Calm down K9-54
Tiger_Of_Old
🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆🏆
well miss brainiac why ya think the formula was brought in for?
S
ScouseCat
Guest
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Similar threads
