Group D (England, Ireland, West Indies) - 10th Match Ireland v England

[sifter132]

Well that was a bit of a farce. D/L really does need to be sorted out for 20/20

Well there's 2 problems to start with even before you get to redesigning the charts:
A) Making a short game even shorter is going to give you some stupid results. You either think that is OK and start designing some rules to accomodate that, or you don't shorten the games at all.
B) The minimum innings is only 5 OVERS??!! That is ridiculous. Compare it to the 20 over minimum in an ODI. For starters that's a good 120 balls to tell how a team's going in the chase and it's also 40% of the full length innings. A shortened T20 gives you a mere 30 balls and 25% of the full length - let me say again...RIDICULOUS!! One bad over in your 5 and you're down the toilet basically. I'd argue the shortened innings should be at the very least 10 overs, preferably 15. If that means more games called draws I don't care, I'd rather that happen than see a contrived, empty feeling finish like we saw in this game.

 

[Dare]

But it does nothing for WI cricket, which is what you said.

It does give them momentum and give the kids something to look up to and say we want to do the same for the West Indies when we grow up. I would say West Indies haven't had that since the mid 80s when the last generation of the great WI players was making their debuts and and winning matches on a regular basis. So in the end it does something for West Indies cricket opposite of what you say. Does it turn the team from 15 years of losing to world beaters for the next 15 years, no it doesn't but the people have been waiting for a big West Indies win for many years. I don't know if you watched the last England tour of the Caribbean but the crowds that showed up for those matches were great because of the great win in Jamaica. Every win for them does good for them, in a 20/20 format a few wins means nothing but possibly getting into the finals and winning the tournament will certainly do good for the team even if its in a format like this. Small steps are needed and winning this thing would be the first step of improvement and hopefully after that they can continue and do well in the South Africa series at the end of this month. There is a strong West Indies A team going to Bangladesh for a tri series that includes South Africa A team and this is the first time in god knows how long that a team like that is going overseas to play some matches. First the WICB and domestic system needs to be organized and built up properly and the product on the field will improve.

 

[TumTum]

First the WICB and domestic system needs to be organized and built up properly and the product on the field will improve.

That is ultimately what will have the biggest impact for WI cricket. Future generations might be influenced by a win today but that won't yield results for 10 more years. In which time losses can reverse this.

 

[Dare]

That is ultimately what will have the biggest impact for WI cricket. Future generations might be influenced by a win today but that won't yield results for 10 more years. In which time losses can reverse this.

It will make a difference for this team also, give them confidence that they can beat "better teams". With the South Africa series so close they will need some momentum.

 

[angryangy]

Well there's 2 problems to start with even before you get to redesigning the charts:
A) Making a short game even shorter is going to give you some stupid results. You either think that is OK and start designing some rules to accomodate that, or you don't shorten the games at all.
B) The minimum innings is only 5 OVERS??!! That is ridiculous. Compare it to the 20 over minimum in an ODI. For starters that's a good 120 balls to tell how a team's going in the chase and it's also 40% of the full length innings. A shortened T20 gives you a mere 30 balls and 25% of the full length - let me say again...RIDICULOUS!! One bad over in your 5 and you're down the toilet basically. I'd argue the shortened innings should be at the very least 10 overs, preferably 15. If that means more games called draws I don't care, I'd rather that happen than see a contrived, empty feeling finish like we saw in this game.

I've thought about this before. All they really need is to allow games to run over by an hour. That would allow you to lose 50 minutes in both innings and still get 75% of the overs in. There's surely enough time in a day or even a night to run two games with an extra hour between.

As the captains agreed after the match, it is not just the actual gameplay that is hurt by 5 over games, but also DLM. It clearly wasn't meant for that. England really hadn't gained much of an advantage by scoring 191, because the 6 over target wasn't even a run per over greater. It was less than a 5% increase in run rate over the 20 over target. That difference amounted to less than a single boundary.

However, I have to admit, Gayle was in control of the game from the toss. He bowled first because of the rain; it looked like a risky call when England got through their innings without any breaks, but in the end, it proved that he had read the situation perfectly. Even if that did mean the game was severely weighted in his favour, we saw in the match before exactly how not to play that situation.

 

[Owzat]

That sucked both matches cut to a 20/5 game, hate seeing a match decided off 5 overs. Unlucky for England, you look to be a much better T20 side this competition and not much can be read from this on the 2nd innings front.

I didn't think they'd play enough overs, but how can anyone call a five over innings a "game" ? Sure the windies got off to a flier, but they would still have needed 132 off 85 balls with eight wickets in hand had it gone the full distance, that not even factoring in the fact they had their sights set on a much shorter target of just 60.

Perhaps they should just do it a la boxing and have a panel of five neutral judges who consider various factors and conclude who they think would have won. There is a distinct advantage for batting sides with D/L anyway, knowing how many runs are needed and some berk giving them little ball-by-ball guides with the runs/wickets equation. Sure the bowling side have the same info, but they can't just take a wicket at will, batsmen can play bigger shots and more shots to increase the runs, at a risk, but they can control their own destiny whereas bowlers can't make batsmen miss, play on, edge or run themselves out

 

[Dare]

lol classic.

Chris, from Australia, is still marvelling at his own wit: "Maybe im stuck in IPL mode but... good to see an Irishman included in England's four overseas players"

 

[angryangy]

What are you doing with a slip, Ireland, that was just plain cheating.

 

[MUFC1987]

We haven't even got Anderson to save us with the ball, due to this obsession with Ryan Sidebottom. We'd do well to take 5 Irish wickets with this bowling attack.

 

[WubbaLubbaDubDub]

I am hoping some kind of upset here :doh

 

[Themer]

This pitch looks rather hard to bat on but I think we could be doing a little better than this. The run rate at the moment is getting seriously low.

130 par?

 

[pcfan123]

Not worried, Ireland barely got 60 runs against a weakened Windies attack.

 

[angryangy]

Yeah generally 130 would be your regulation safe total for dodgy wickets, but it's hard to say. It seems like that would be excruciatingly tough to achieve. I think Morgan is the key.

 

[Paki007]

Irish are really giving a hard time to England i hope eoin will do something

 

[pcfan123]

Can Morgan save England from the Irish