mas cambios
Active Member
Duckworth/Lewis - T20 revamp needed?
Following on from here...http://www.bigcricket.com/forum/t76352/
I'm not overly bothered about England losing to the Windies (after all, rules are the same for both sides; seems Gayle just played the game better by choosing to bat second and going for it from the off) but it does seem that the D/L method may need some tweaking for the shorter format.
Take the game on Monday, if West Indies had batted 20 overs then they would have needed 9.56 per over. The rain reduced total had them needing 60 off 36 balls or 10 over.
It seems the problem is not so much the total but the wickets left in which to get them. I'm sure most here will agree that chasing 60 off 6 overs with 10 wickets in hand is a lot easier than chasing 192 off 20. Simply put you can throw more caution to the wind.
So, should the D/L method be tweaked to make it fairer or is it fine as it is? Should wickets be removed as well as overs when calculating reduced totals?
Following on from here...http://www.bigcricket.com/forum/t76352/
I'm not overly bothered about England losing to the Windies (after all, rules are the same for both sides; seems Gayle just played the game better by choosing to bat second and going for it from the off) but it does seem that the D/L method may need some tweaking for the shorter format.
Take the game on Monday, if West Indies had batted 20 overs then they would have needed 9.56 per over. The rain reduced total had them needing 60 off 36 balls or 10 over.
It seems the problem is not so much the total but the wickets left in which to get them. I'm sure most here will agree that chasing 60 off 6 overs with 10 wickets in hand is a lot easier than chasing 192 off 20. Simply put you can throw more caution to the wind.
So, should the D/L method be tweaked to make it fairer or is it fine as it is? Should wickets be removed as well as overs when calculating reduced totals?