NZ vs SA 5th one dayer

[wittyz chick]

kyle mills!!!!

what can you say?

i believe Kallis hit a 4 off the last ball?
well i'll say this i wouldve :lol: :lol: :lol: had it've been a no-ball because that wouldve ment 2 off the last ball which Kallis couldve hit...but people can dream cant they

 

[JTR]

meh! if they hadn't lost all the wickets they had prior to the rain interruption, it would have been more in their favour

only got themselves to blame

 

[Kiwi]

Kiwis saved by d/l system. How you manage to have the target only reduced by 16 runs when 4 overs are taken off is rediculous.

Pffft everyone plays under the same rules, and we managed to beat the D/L system against SA in the world cup chasing a much larger total.

 

[Dr Crane]

i wanna see you play them in SA then it would be a good series

You mean like that World Cup game?

Kiwis saved by d/l system. How you manage to have the target only reduced by 16 runs when 4 overs are taken off is rediculous

You wouldn't go on about it if it was Australia. :roll:

 

[salivor]

Kiwis saved by d/l system. How you manage to have the target only reduced by 16 runs when 4 overs are taken off is rediculous.

It's the same formula as used in all games, I don't like the system either but it's worked for and against all teams in the past, it's about the first bit of luck we've been given in this series to date. I also think why so few runs were taken off is that the d/l goes by the theory that SA had been using their overs to conserve resources.

 

[wittyz chick]

only got themselves to blame

no not really...the Kiwis took the wickets so really its the Kiwis fault :lol: :roll:

 

[El Diablo]

Kiwis saved by d/l system. How you manage to have the target only reduced by 16 runs when 4 overs are taken off is rediculous

You wouldn't go on about it if it was Australia. :roll:

Eeeen, you would be going on about it if it was the other way around.

 

[El Diablo]

Kiwis saved by d/l system. How you manage to have the target only reduced by 16 runs when 4 overs are taken off is rediculous.

It's the same formula as used in all games, I don't like the system either but it's worked for and against all teams in the past, it's about the first bit of luck we've been given in this series to date. I also think why so few runs were taken off is that the d/l goes by the theory that SA had been using their overs to conserve resources.

It's still mind boggling to figure out how it works. It practically always favours the team that bats first.

 

[Dr Crane]

Its a rule of cricket, like no balls and wides. I would have accepted it and looked forward to Napier....

 

[Kiwi]

Kiwis saved by d/l system. How you manage to have the target only reduced by 16 runs when 4 overs are taken off is rediculous

You wouldn't go on about it if it was Australia. :roll:

Eeeen, you would be going on about it if it was the other way around.

None of us have the right sort of degree or super computer to work out the D/L system, sometimes it seems to really suck for the chasing team, others it sucks for the bowling team, then there are times it's pretty good. Every team plays under the rules, every team has won and lost games under the D/L system. And they don't seem to be looking at changing it.

THe D/L system is here to stay and I think it works.

 

[Kiwi]

Kiwis saved by d/l system. How you manage to have the target only reduced by 16 runs when 4 overs are taken off is rediculous.

It's the same formula as used in all games, I don't like the system either but it's worked for and against all teams in the past, it's about the first bit of luck we've been given in this series to date. I also think why so few runs were taken off is that the d/l goes by the theory that SA had been using their overs to conserve resources.

It's still mind boggling to figure out how it works. It practically always favours the team that bats first.

Not always. It favours the team that has either taken the wickets or not lost many wickets. Look at SA in todays game, they had lost what, 4 or 5 wickets before the delay, they had alreay started to struggle chasing the total set in 33 overs, so there for the target was made just as hard. Taking to many runs off with the overs would have been the equivalent to them having 20 odd more runs on the board for the loss of 5 at the same stage. Hardly fair to the Kiwi's who had taken 5 wickets and restriced the Boks runs.

 

[Anonymous]

Kiwis saved by d/l system. How you manage to have the target only reduced by 16 runs when 4 overs are taken off is rediculous.

Makes perfect sense. Obviously if they have fewer overs to bat the run rate required should increase. It's a very basic principle that the shorter a run chase, the less time the batsman have to get all out, hence the faster they should be able to score. It's why 60 off 10 isn't onerous but 300 off 300 is.

 

[Kiwi]

Kiwis saved by d/l system. How you manage to have the target only reduced by 16 runs when 4 overs are taken off is rediculous.

Makes perfect sense. Obviously if they have fewer overs to bat the run rate required should increase. It's a very basic principle that the shorter a run chase, the less time the batsman have to get all out, hence the faster they should be able to score. It's why 60 off 10 isn't onerous but 300 off 300 is.

Well said.

With 5 wickets in hand, most teams would back themselves to get 80 - 90 off the last 10 overs, which is pretty close to what SA had to do today.

 

[Anonymous]

The overall run rate required was less than six anyway, so at most the runs reduced could've been 23 off 4. Therefore, even if you were completely ignorant of basic cricketing principles (like some people I know), you could have only possibly reduced the total by 7.

 

[El Diablo]

Its a rule of cricket, like no balls and wides. I would have accepted it and looked forward to Napier....

No, it's a formula, not a rule.

 

[El Diablo]

Kiwis saved by d/l system. How you manage to have the target only reduced by 16 runs when 4 overs are taken off is rediculous.

Makes perfect sense. Obviously if they have fewer overs to bat the run rate required should increase. It's a very basic principle that the shorter a run chase, the less time the batsman have to get all out, hence the faster they should be able to score. It's why 60 off 10 isn't onerous but 300 off 300 is.

Well said.

With 5 wickets in hand, most teams would back themselves to get 80 - 90 off the last 10 overs, which is pretty close to what SA had to do today.

Yes they may if it wasn't a rain effected match.

 

[salivor]

Ricky Ponting said to the media it was a good system after Australia bet India chasing 300 which was reduced under the d/l system so stop complaining El.

 

[El Diablo]

Ricky Ponting said to the media it was a good system after Australia bet India chasing 300 which was reduced under the d/l system so stop complaining El.

I couldn't give a toss what Ponting thinks of it. I think it sucks.

 

[ozbash]

never mind,, a great win by a great team with the greatest captain.

a couple of points,,,

i would love to see pollock captain the boks for the napier game,, smith is good but mr flemming (sir) has it all over him and that upsets our man smiffy.

napier will be the game of the season i reckon,, flem will want to rub the boks nose in it and the sth africans will want some pride ahead of the test series.

isnt mills a beaut ?

 

[wittyz chick]

i cant help but wonder this
NZ selectors drop Harris but when he comes back for this match get MOTM and helps you wrap the series up...why did you drop him :lol: