Curse you Duckworth and Lewis!
Pity about the result, but another cracker of a game between Australia and New Zealand on Saturday.
The Chappell–Hadlee is the best one-day trophy competition. No question.
The tally of series wins currently stands at 2 Aus wins, 1 NZ win and 2 ties (the second of which should have been an NZ win but for that pesky Queensland rain), with a total of 8 games apiece. It is a very closely fought trophy.
A look at the individual results shows just how close. Apart from a few exceptions (such as the whole of the 07/08 series), victory comes down to the last 20 or so runs or the last 10 or so balls. And the results summary just doesn’t do justice to the drama and record breaking feats that have gone into those victories.
Cricinfo’s statisticians have found out why the trophy is so good – New Zealand seriously lifts for Chappell–Hadlee matches. Compared with non-C–H matches against Australia since the beginning of 2004 (the year the C–H trophy kicked off), NZ batsmen’s averages have been about 7 runs higher. Whereas the Australian averages are down by about the same amount, largely accounted for by the improvement in the NZ bowlers’ averages.
There is something special about this trophy.
(The Cricinfo article also reveals a sorry fact, that apart from the 8 against 8 wins in the C–H, NZ has had no further wins against Aus since the start of 2004.)
March 9th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Is that title being serious?
March 9th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
Is that title being serious?
It’s a reference to the harshness of the D–L adjustment on Saturday’s game. But no, obviously not a serious curse on Messrs D and L.
March 10th, 2010 at 1:21 am
Well, the reason for the harshness of DL adjustment was that NZ were careless enough to lose 3 wickets in the first 8 overs of the innings.
Games 2 and 3 were lost because of two age-old problems: 1) Insufficient contributions from the top three and 2) The inability of our batsmen to bat out time, something all too apparent at the test level. In both games, a healthy run rate was maintained throughout but there was no killer partnership, and too many soft dismissals when the player was well-set. Had NZ actually batted out the full quota of overs, they would no doubt have chase successfully in Auckland, and set a fairly imposing target in Hamilton.
March 10th, 2010 at 2:30 am
I agree with Suhas, but other factors play a role as well. Mitch finds his form back and manages to take energy from the hostility of the crowd. Harris is obviously still underestimated. And I also think the loss of the second ODI triggered a sort of serial implosion. Let’s hope you guys can get your spirits back up. And stop getting distracted by….
••• Bingle’s bingles ••• [don't click if under 18]
March 12th, 2010 at 11:58 am
Totally agree with Suhas re the DL calculation.
If you lose 3 wickets in 1/6th of your chase you deserve to get pinged.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Totally agree with Suhas re the DL calculation.
If you lose 3 wickets in 1/6th of your chase you deserve to get pinged.
Of course, the loss of wickets is a ping in itself. To cut the target by just 3% when you’ve cut the number of overs by 10% is harsh when you have to deal with the fact that you’ve already lost half your top order. With a couple of overs of power play also lost, which I doubt is factored into the D–L calculation.
The whole D–L is screwed. And yet it is the best solution we have to rain interrupted ODIs.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
I agree with Suhas, but other factors play a role as well. Mitch finds his form back and manages to take energy from the hostility of the crowd. Harris is obviously still underestimated. And I also think the loss of the second ODI triggered a sort of serial implosion.
Oh yeah, the Australians. I forgot they were involved.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
@Ben,
One of the concepts behind D-L is that sides play anticipating rain. So a team that loses 3 wickets in 8 overs is clearly anticipating a shortened run chase (Yes, I know; NZ can do that anyway)
So it is not a double punishment.
March 12th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
One of the concepts behind D-L is that sides play anticipating rain. So a team that loses 3 wickets in 8 overs is clearly anticipating a shortened run chase (Yes, I know; NZ can do that anyway)
So it is not a double punishment.
Consider the example of Haddin’s wicket last night. If it had come before the rain it would have effected the target, though last night it didn’t because it came after the rain. That is screwed.
And what you are saying is D–L assumes that a team will play the same way anticipating rain as they would chasing a revised target, so a wicket falling either before or after rain should have the same effect on the target.