Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

England Cricket 2025

1…109110111112113115»

Comments

  • PrincessFiona
    PrincessFiona Posts: 5,447
    Addick Addict said:
    133-9 (31) with 54 runs scored off those 6 overs. Waiting for confirmation of Pakistan's target but it's probably going to be 20 or so runs less than our total.

    The one area of concern might be the ability to grip the ball especially for the spinners. Pakistan's certainly struggled to land it in the right place post the break for rain.
    Why is it less? It's more like a T31 than a T50 so more like a T20 when the run rate is higher and you have less time to lose wickets
  • Addick Addict
    Addick Addict Posts: 39,790
    And they are off again for rain. 
  • Addick Addict
    Addick Addict Posts: 39,790
    edited October 15
    PrincessFiona said:
    Addick Addict said:
    133-9 (31) with 54 runs scored off those 6 overs. Waiting for confirmation of Pakistan's target but it's probably going to be 20 or so runs less than our total.

    The one area of concern might be the ability to grip the ball especially for the spinners. Pakistan's certainly struggled to land it in the right place post the break for rain.
    Why is it less? It's more like a T31 than a T50 so more like a T20 when the run rate is higher and you have less time to lose wickets
    It's less because we were 79-7 off 25 when the rain came i.e. the calculation takes into account the fact we were unlikely to see out 50 overs or post a meaningful target even if we had done so. Had we been 79-0, for example, then the target would have been more than the 133 we eventually posted. 
  • PrincessFiona
    PrincessFiona Posts: 5,447
    Addick Addict said:
    PrincessFiona said:
    Addick Addict said:
    133-9 (31) with 54 runs scored off those 6 overs. Waiting for confirmation of Pakistan's target but it's probably going to be 20 or so runs less than our total.

    The one area of concern might be the ability to grip the ball especially for the spinners. Pakistan's certainly struggled to land it in the right place post the break for rain.
    Why is it less? It's more like a T31 than a T50 so more like a T20 when the run rate is higher and you have less time to lose wickets
    It's less because we were 79-7 off 25 when the rain came i.e. the calculation takes into account the fact we were unlikely to see out 50 overs or post a meaningful target even if we had done so. Had we been 79-0, for example, then the target would have been more than 131. 
    ah ok
  • Addick Addict
    Addick Addict Posts: 39,790
    We have to bowl another 13.1 overs for a match. The irony is that had this match been reduced to 25 overs then Pakistan's target would have been about 60 off 20 overs which they would have reached before this latest deluge. 
  • Zulu
    Zulu Posts: 94
    Looks like my Red position might be (luckily) nulled.
  • Zulu
    Zulu Posts: 94
    PrincessFiona said:
    Addick Addict said:
    PrincessFiona said:
    Addick Addict said:
    133-9 (31) with 54 runs scored off those 6 overs. Waiting for confirmation of Pakistan's target but it's probably going to be 20 or so runs less than our total.

    The one area of concern might be the ability to grip the ball especially for the spinners. Pakistan's certainly struggled to land it in the right place post the break for rain.
    Why is it less? It's more like a T31 than a T50 so more like a T20 when the run rate is higher and you have less time to lose wickets
    It's less because we were 79-7 off 25 when the rain came i.e. the calculation takes into account the fact we were unlikely to see out 50 overs or post a meaningful target even if we had done so. Had we been 79-0, for example, then the target would have been more than 131. 
    ah ok
    DLS is a very clever (and fair) algorithm.

  • Zulu
    Zulu Posts: 94
    England will be top of the table should it be rained off due to NRR above OZ
  • blackpool72
    blackpool72 Posts: 23,678
    Come on Fanny get those dancing shoes on.
  • PrincessFiona
    PrincessFiona Posts: 5,447
    Zulu said:
    PrincessFiona said:
    Addick Addict said:
    PrincessFiona said:
    Addick Addict said:
    133-9 (31) with 54 runs scored off those 6 overs. Waiting for confirmation of Pakistan's target but it's probably going to be 20 or so runs less than our total.

    The one area of concern might be the ability to grip the ball especially for the spinners. Pakistan's certainly struggled to land it in the right place post the break for rain.
    Why is it less? It's more like a T31 than a T50 so more like a T20 when the run rate is higher and you have less time to lose wickets
    It's less because we were 79-7 off 25 when the rain came i.e. the calculation takes into account the fact we were unlikely to see out 50 overs or post a meaningful target even if we had done so. Had we been 79-0, for example, then the target would have been more than 131. 
    ah ok
    DLS is a very clever (and fair) algorithm.

    Hmmm. I know that the S enhanced the DL method
  • Sponsored links:



  • Zulu
    Zulu Posts: 94
    Rained off.
  • Zulu
    Zulu Posts: 94
    PrincessFiona said:
    Zulu said:
    PrincessFiona said:
    Addick Addict said:
    PrincessFiona said:
    Addick Addict said:
    133-9 (31) with 54 runs scored off those 6 overs. Waiting for confirmation of Pakistan's target but it's probably going to be 20 or so runs less than our total.

    The one area of concern might be the ability to grip the ball especially for the spinners. Pakistan's certainly struggled to land it in the right place post the break for rain.
    Why is it less? It's more like a T31 than a T50 so more like a T20 when the run rate is higher and you have less time to lose wickets
    It's less because we were 79-7 off 25 when the rain came i.e. the calculation takes into account the fact we were unlikely to see out 50 overs or post a meaningful target even if we had done so. Had we been 79-0, for example, then the target would have been more than 131. 
    ah ok
    DLS is a very clever (and fair) algorithm.

    Hmmm. I know that the S enhanced the DL method
    The S is Stern who updated and improved the DL method in 2014.
  • PrincessFiona
    PrincessFiona Posts: 5,447
    Zulu said:
    PrincessFiona said:
    Zulu said:
    PrincessFiona said:
    Addick Addict said:
    PrincessFiona said:
    Addick Addict said:
    133-9 (31) with 54 runs scored off those 6 overs. Waiting for confirmation of Pakistan's target but it's probably going to be 20 or so runs less than our total.

    The one area of concern might be the ability to grip the ball especially for the spinners. Pakistan's certainly struggled to land it in the right place post the break for rain.
    Why is it less? It's more like a T31 than a T50 so more like a T20 when the run rate is higher and you have less time to lose wickets
    It's less because we were 79-7 off 25 when the rain came i.e. the calculation takes into account the fact we were unlikely to see out 50 overs or post a meaningful target even if we had done so. Had we been 79-0, for example, then the target would have been more than 131. 
    ah ok
    DLS is a very clever (and fair) algorithm.

    Hmmm. I know that the S enhanced the DL method
    The S is Stern who updated and improved the DL method in 2014.
    Yep, aware of that and the change happening, just not up to speed with the algorithm - I was just being lazy and using just the initials and not the full names!
  • Zulu
    Zulu Posts: 94
    BAN v AUS today - BAN 73-1 off 17 yet AUS havnt moved from 1.04 all day !

Categories

“Marketplace”