fundy
Ryder Cup Winner
Good move and good to see the ECB taking a stance https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48090055
after they tried to cover it up as personal issues and a journo revealed it as a failed drug test? yep the good old ECB
Good move and good to see the ECB taking a stance https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/48090055
after they tried to cover it up as personal issues and a journo revealed it as a failed drug test? yep the good old ECB
after they tried to cover it up as personal issues and a journo revealed it as a failed drug test? yep the good old ECB
isnt the drug taking a personal matter? unless it is performance enhancement one? Or am i being generous..
BTW.. does not make good reading. http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_...ng-ecb-alex-hales-axing-opens-world-cup-worms
isnt the drug taking a personal matter? unless it is performance enhancement one? Or am i being generous..
BTW.. does not make good reading. http://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_...ng-ecb-alex-hales-axing-opens-world-cup-worms
Recreational drugs are still on the banned list as Alex Hales well knows.
There are also some questions over the possibility of some "recreational" drugs having an element of "performance enhancement ".
Whatever, you would hope that in light of his previous problems Hales might have shown better judgement.
For me this one is not an issue with which to bash the ECB but rather one to again question some of the current generation of players.
well it wouldnt be one to bash the ECB if they hadnt tried to brush it under the carpet, then when it was leaked by the Guardian journo, they changed their position from the previous week
if they just applied their rules consistently there wouldnt be half the issues there are
Recreational drugs are still on the banned list as Alex Hales well knows.
There are also some questions over the possibility of some "recreational" drugs having an element of "performance enhancement ".
Whatever, you would hope that in light of his previous problems Hales might have shown better judgement.
For me this one is not an issue with which to bash the ECB but rather one to again question some of the current generation of players.
The ECB bashing comes from their double standards of punishment. Their regs decree a 21 day ban for a second offence which appeared to be applied until the matter became public when a different course of action was taken. The criticism of the ECB is for their two stage actions (one only used once Hales' actions became common knowledge) rather than them actually doing something. As for the regs and whether they are appropriate, well that's a different discussion.
Duckworth/Lewis method.
Quickie as % wise it does not seem correct.
Yesterday’s 1 day game: Northants 351 from 50 overs. Yorkshire 175/5 from 24.4. Yorkshire win by 5 wickets.
However Yorkshire are just less than half the total required and used ALMOST half the overs. They have their 5 ‘worst batsmen’ to come in so the result does not seem logical.
Anybody care to comment?
There's almost certainly an award available to the first person who can explain the logic of Duckworth Lewis!
In particular if the calculation comes in early in the second innings of the match.
A target is set but the side batting second can still lose 9 wickets whereas the side batting first has had to be a little more defensive.
Cheers F. Nearly added your name when I did the original post. Highly knowledgeable responseIts done on resources remaining and what is expected from those resources based on the game to date. It used to be pretty poor (and massively favour the chasing side) its a lot lot better these days
The game from yesterday is not as clear as just those numbers. Yorkshire were 128/1 off 20.5 overs when it rained at which stage they were a couple of runs ahead on DLS. When it finally stopped raining there was time for only 4.1 more overs and DLS set them a target of an additional 47 off those 25 balls, which for me favoured them slightly compared to if the game had run its full duration
As T20 influences games more and more, short chases at the end are more likely to be successful than they were before and expect the next time DLS is updated it will be adjusted further to take this into account
FWIW the betting had Yorks winning approx 55% before the rain came and about 65% when they resumed
In a nutshell its a statistical calculation based on previous matches, the situation in the current match, the resources (overs and wickets) remaining available to the batting side to present a new target for a shortened amount of overs that gives the 2 sides the same chance of winning that they did before it rained (thats assuming they restart after the rain and overs are reduced)
I appreciate that but I never have felt that the calculation is fair when one side has batted through and then during the interval or early in their innings the second side is presented with a revised target but no restriction upon the number of wickets they may lose.
More relevant now that sides in general tend to bat deeper.
some game at the Rose Bowl today, nearly went too. Sussex were 103/5 chasing 356, Wiese and Brown then put on 230! Brown out with 20 needed off 3