|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jun 27, 2021 19:49:13 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jun 27, 2021 20:17:48 GMT
Had the game gone the full twenty overs would we have won? I think it was too early to say. If Surrey had dismissed Wright they would have strongly fancied their chances. I think one point was fair under the circumstances. I think it is absolutely ridiculous that if Team A bats for 20 overs and Team B can win by only having five overs as effectively it means if you win the toss and bat second you win the game. Under these circumstances no skill is required just luck! It would have been fairer if there was only going to be 24.5 overs if both teams have batted 12 overs.
With 24.5 overs bowled, this game became the longest-ever T20 to finish as a no-result.
|
|
|
|
Post by philh on Jun 28, 2021 4:44:01 GMT
My two thoughts this morning are:
1) Would the umpires have come off if the score was 25/1? I doubt it.
2) Did conditions change during or immediately after the ball at 4.5 was bowled? If not, the umpires were making a judgement on fairness rather than doing their job.
However, having said that, the rules are wrong. No game should be judged by Duckworth Lewis, umpires or any other method when 20 overs plays 5 overs.
Further, I don’t see how a 12 overs game could have taken place. That would require the umpires to become weather forecasters and would draw complaints if it could have gone the distance due to improving weather.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jun 28, 2021 10:57:40 GMT
Have you noticed how Adrian Harms rarely uses superlatives and probably why he is liked by the establishment.  |
|
|
|
Post by flashblade on Jun 28, 2021 11:40:15 GMT
Have you noticed how Adrian Harms rarely uses superlatives and probably why he is liked by the establishment. I tend to agree with you, WC. Whilst expressing his Sussex credentials, he provides a balanced commentary. He is not one-eyed, nor the owner of rose tinted specs. I like him. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jun 28, 2021 20:23:32 GMT
Have you noticed how Adrian Harms rarely uses superlatives and probably why he is liked by the establishment. I tend to agree with you, WC. Whilst expressing his Sussex credentials, he provides a balanced commentary. He is not one-eyed, nor the owner of rose tinted specs. I like him. Had Sussex lost a second wicket to that final ball of fifth over it would have been a tie. |
|
|
|
Post by coverpoint on Jun 28, 2021 20:26:32 GMT
My two thoughts this morning are: 1) Would the umpires have come off if the score was 25/1? I doubt it. 2) Did conditions change during or immediately after the ball at 4.5 was bowled? If not, the umpires were making a judgement on fairness rather than doing their job. However, having said that, the rules are wrong. No game should be judged by Duckworth Lewis, umpires or any other method when 20 overs plays 5 overs. Further, I don’t see how a 12 overs game could have taken place. That would require the umpires to become weather forecasters and would draw complaints if it could have gone the distance due to improving weather. If both captains agreed to it then I don't see the problem. It gets a result by proper rather than contrived means. I don't see how it is fair for one side to bat 20 overs and the second only 5 but still have 10 wickets! By D/L with a target of 176 the D/L target for 5 overs was 44/2 meaning 43-2 would have been a tie. It was clear throughout the day we were always going to struggle to get 25 overs. |
|
|
|
Post by Wicked Cricket on Jul 2, 2021 11:40:08 GMT
I have not seen this video before which shows exactly what happened when the two umpires decided to bring the players off with just one ball to bowl before Sussex would have the won the game via DLS. The commentary from Adrian Harms and Mark Church is quite revealing. As Harms says, "Wright is livid!" I am proud to say, I was one of those people booing. www.theargus.co.uk/sport/19402969.sussex-sharks-surrey-controversial-t20-finale/ |
|
