2019 Cricket

fundy said:
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 :)
Click to expand...

I can see both sides of the argument for this issue. One thing is certain though: the ECB have again made a mess of a situation and again are looking a shambles of a governing body.
 
Mudball said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
MetalMickie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
fundy said:
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
Click to expand...

And if the players behaved like adults there would be even fewer issues.
 
MetalMickie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tongo said:
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.
Click to expand...

New man at the top is, perhaps, less tolerant of adolescent behaviour than his predecessor who had been responsible for the softer rules/penalties.
 
Harry Brook looks like one for the future, seems to have plenty of time, decent balance and very quick hands, be interesting to see how he and a few others from the U19 squad develop
 
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?
 
3offTheTee said:
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?
Click to expand...

Its 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
 
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.
 
MetalMickie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
fundy said:
Its 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
Click to expand...
Cheers F. Nearly added your name when I did the original post. Highly knowledgeable response
 
fundy said:
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)
Click to expand...

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.
 
MetalMickie said:
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.
Click to expand...


if they didnt take that into account the targets set would be an awful lot lower, it has a bad perception but its rarely far off being fair these days, works pretty well in most scenarios (certainly better than its predecessor!)
 
Wow even for the ECB this takes the biscuit, not happy with killing the domestic 50 over comp next year, theyve decided to try and ensure no one watches this years final by scheduling an England v Australia WC warm up game the same day, both on sky!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

virtuocity
  • Locked
GM Forum Matchplay Championship
5 6 7
Replies
136
Views
23K
chris661
chris661
Atticus_Finch
Primary School Football Rules!
Replies
1
Views
2K
Region3
Region3
Top