But taking no account of Somerset's infinitely superior bowlers, or the wet outfield.
We wuz robbed.
The Cricket Thread
- Thread starter TheSecondStain
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
We wuz robbed.
They did amazingly well to take it to the final ball with that 7th wicket partnership.
But Somerset still had all 10 wickets available.
It's why DL fundamentally still doesn't work in t20, when there is a mid-innings overs reduction. It generally works alright in 50 over cricket, because each over is only 2% of the innings. Losing 10 overs to rain, for example, in a 50 overs match still leaves 40 overs (and 80% of the innings) for those 10 wickets to utilise, either side of the rain break. The batting - eg speed, risk - often won't duly change that much post rain.
Losing 10 overs to rain, for example, in a 20 over match leaves just 10 overs (and 50% of the innings) for those 10 wickets to utilise. That can drastically change how the batting goes (and, more importantly, would have gone before the rain break if the reduction had been known). That's not an issue if both sides are aware of that at the start (ie it rains before a ball is bowled). But it massively screws over the side batting first, when the rain comes during the match.
Basically, a shift in the balance of resources (ie overs to bat vs wickets remaining) is much more volatile in t20. And even though DL in theory should be able to deal with that, by heavily adding on extra runs to the second innings run chase, it so often doesn't. Warks thought they had 20 overs for 11 of their 12 overs, but were only compensated with 17 extra runs once they found out that they could have batted harder. We thought we had 17 overs for 3 of our 11 overs, but were only compensated with two extra runs once we found out we could have batted harder.
Last edited:
Can't decide what I want from this match. Kent to win it, and begin to run away with a qualifying spot - but keeping Essex behind us? Or Essex win it, to keep all qualifying slots open, but increase the competition for them?
I guess I'll go Kent, just because their batting is so strong (excellent top 4 here, with Denly and Billings to join them later in the comp). They really should qualify regardless of what they do here - in which case, let them run away with it and beat everyone.
I've only just noticed they're playing Kent v Essex at The Oval.
All the Sky daily double-headers - I think there's about 5 in total - are being played at the same ground, to limit how much Sky need to move around the country etc.
One of the double-headers was at Headingley. And Yorkshire weren't in either match!
Our televised match on Thursday is a rare single game for Sky.
Ha, cheers brendy although supporting Kent is like supporting saints. So many nearly moments and lack of consistency.
Am hopeful this year though for saints and Kent. Back to the Bob Willis Trophy tomorrow?????
We were due a bit of luck, is it too much to hope that Luke Wright picks up a minor injury that makes him miss that one match?
If this us true , it means he is a cheating Aussie , but one with innovation .
https://cricketaddictor.com/cricket/sussex-mitch-claydon-hand-sanitizer/
https://cricketaddictor.com/cricket/sussex-mitch-claydon-hand-sanitizer/
First ball of the day and Currie traps Crawley lbw for a duck.
He's looking like a useful all round cricketer.
Great effort from our young bowlers this morning, Scriven should've had a third wicket as he hit the off stump but the bails stayed on!