England squad
PD Collingwood*, JM Anderson, RS Bopara, SCJ Broad, JS Foster, RWT Key, AD Mascarenhas, EJG Morgan, GR Napier, KP Pietersen, AU Rashid, OA Shah, RJ Sidebottom, GP Swann, LJ Wright
West Indies squad
CH Gayle*, D Ramdin, LS Baker, SJ Benn, DE Bernard, DJ Bravo, S Chanderpaul, FH Edwards, ADS Fletcher, XM Marshall, KA Pollard, DJG Sammy, RR Sarwan, LMP Simmons, JE Taylor

So we keep winning the 'must win' games but our results sequence in the tournament is lose, win, lose, win, so something has to give.

Dismissing Gayle early has to be key to success - will we be brave enough to open with Swanny?

Doubt Simmons can play another innings like against the Saffers so as long as we don't lose 3 wickets in first few overs i fancy oour chances

opening with Swann might not be a mad idea, Gayle has had no problem bashing the quicks all over the shop but has struggled to do the same against the slower bowlers. If you get Gayle out early then the chances of winning the match are greater, the windies will be saying the same thing about KP though.

Don't look like anyone's bothered on here but we lost on the D and L lottery, will Rashid be available tomorrow now for our game.

He'd better be. He bowled one over and didn't bat.

but he did go off the field after slipping on the wet outfield

i suspect he will be 'mentally drained' after the T20 tournament so not ready to play for us today. Shame as with Wainwright injured I would have picked him as second spinner alongside Rafiq to give our attack variety.

Sadly the only bit of Englands innings i saw was overs 10-18 or so (as we sat in the bar watching the rain come down to wash out my sons junior match last night). I don't think england hit one boundary during this period - no doubt influenced by the risks of losing a wicket and affecting the D/L total. So once again when it came to taking a risk we went for the easy option and with hindsight it backfired.

I think they must also have the same policy as we do at Yorkshire when it comes to the batting order - why is Broad below Foster and Swann in a T20 slogfest?

I was quite enjoying our involvement. Given that they were already playing under lights, why was it necessary to reduce the game and use D/L? I would have fancied our chances over 20 overs.

why is there total of 80 in 9 overs the same irrespective of how many wickets they lose?

Should D/L not adjust the total as they lose wickets as presumably the 80 set is based on how many wickets England had lost - judging by the overly cautious way we batted in second half of the innings.

I think our squad selection also showed some limitations.

If Key was not going to skipper or open then he should not have been picked as he is not a middle order slogger nor an asset in the field.

We will never know how good Napier is as they never played him but some of the situations seemed ready made for him (or Mascarenhas who did not live up to his reputation).

And Morgan was picked with no past experience and seemed to carry the can for the Dutch defeat.

Shahs fielding was also a weakness from the bits I saw

Totally agree with Steve C about the number of overs ... as the lights were on why couldn't they just 40-50 minutes finish later & let Enlgnad bowl 20 overs?

I'm guessing that why the lights were not used in order to play a full game is due to one of two reasons with the first reason being the more likely.

I'd guess that the local council has given Surrey permission to use lights with a licence for only so many days and with a cut off time stipulated. Most of our grounds are in built-up area's and some locals complain about the use of lights. The odd minute may not matter here or there but fines/repercussions for future use if an extra hour were pinched might have been severe. Public transport and getting people home might also have been taken into consideration. Thousands of people missing the last bus home might have caused problems, as would catching the last bus home but not knowing the score.

The only other reason I can think of is tv wanting it finished within a time slot. May not even have been Sky but foreign networks. Extra satellite costs etc might all come in to play.

When the D/L method was introduced some ten years ago to decide the result of weather -affected one day matches,it was certainly a great improvement on the previous crude and unsatisfactory method in use.
It was based on recsources available to both sides,and the statistics and tables used were based on previous 40 and 50 over games over a long period.
It has proved very effective.
However we find it does not transfer so successfully to the shorter form of the game 20/20,one reason being that data relating to this form of the game was of course never previously available.
Last night was a prime example of how the method strongly favours the side batting second in a reduced match,and not for the first time.
England scored 161 in their innings at a run-rate of 8.05,whilst W.Indies with only nine overs to bat were asked to score at amere 8.88 an over to win.
Clearly unsatisfactory,as was reflected in the dramatic change of odds once the target was announced.
What wa effectively being said to The W.Indies was,we'll give you a start of 82-0 in the unbowled overs and all you need to do is get another 80 with all your wickets in hand ,and oh by the way you've still got three overs of power play to use.
So despite a great effort by England they were always likely to lose.
With sufficient data now available it should be possible for Messrs Duckworth and Lewis to re-calculate target figures for 20/20 matches alone as opposed to the longer form of the game.
Not sour grapes at all,England have benefitted in similar circumstances before,and most would agree that a target of at least 90,perhaps as much as 100,considering all the resscources available to the batting side would have been much fairer and made for a better contest.


I've unsuccessfully tried to post this message as a new thread,perhaps the moderator could do so and we can discuss there.

Another reason why, if you win the toss in a T20, you should always bat second. I've made over £2,000 this season alone betting on the team batting second in T20 matches.

Nothing to do with England's T20 campaign but it saves starting a new thread, why hasn't Sachin been playing for India?

Injured?
Playing Tests only nowadays?
Slogathon not his strength?
Any other reason?

Sachin didn't play in the last twenty/20 world cup either. Not sure he's ever played a twenty/20 international. Chooses to let others have a go in the slogathon events.

According to Cricinfo (which means it's not neccesarily correct) the DL duo are going to see if the formulae need to be adjusted to take account of Twenty20 requirements as opposed to longer versions of one-day cricket. I presume the loss of wickets will be one area for consideration.

i would like to thank the cricketing authorities for listening to my comments posted above....

i agree D/L needs to adjust second innings targets based on loss of wickets as this applies when setting the target at the outset based on number of wickets fell in the first teams innings.

Clearly, loss of wickets in shorter formats of the game has less material impact on the ability to score a big total. Most sides (apart from Yorkshire perhaps?) are unlikley to be all out in 9 overs as opposed to 50 overs and the limitations of lower order batsmen are less influential

i wonder which delightfully named duo are going to come up with the new method to replace Duckworth-Lewis?

Collier - Clarke?
Boycott - Agnew?

Heard either Duckworth or Lewis interviewed the other day. They are going to reveiw 20/20s ... but wont be using wickets forthe 'chasing' team. If you say you can only have x batsmen who loses out? There has to be a 'winning total'

Just as interesting Sunnil Gavasgar was on the BBC comentaty team & said that some Indians have worked out an alternaitve method of calculating targets in reduced over games. As the BCCI are trying to take over the game they could adopt it ... at least it would remove the untalked about 'Yorkshire factor' in D/L ... we always appear to get the worst .... remember that both D & L are from 'the other side' (of the Pennines)

we could state a case in Yorkshire for the second innings total being adjusted for the grass growing between first and second innings as this affects the number of boundaries the team batting second could hit.

Or we could also state a case for the second innings total being downwardly adjusted to allow for the increased number of stoppages caused by drunken spectators trying to cross the field of play

D/L may not appear a perfect solution, even more so in 20/20 but Ive yet to see a better way of setting a fair target in weather reduced games. The old average score method favoured the batting 2nd side way too much. Australia tried a method or removing the lowest scoring overs from the equation and left South Africa needind 22 runs from one ball.
I wait with baited breath to see the new Indian idea of sorting such things out. Bound to be a flaw in it, such things can never be correct all the time. The only solution is to have floodlights with half a dozen back up generators and a roof at every ground.

Messrs Duckworth and Lewis are very protective of their system,and continually attempt to rubbish any suggestion that other methods may be better.
The Jayadevan method or JDV as it's sometimes been referred to,has been used in The ICL Tournament in India which is of course not an officialy regognised competition by The ICC.
This is a far more up -to -date method of calculating target scores in 20/20 as it does make use of all the available data unlike D/L.
Using that method in The England v West Indies match would have left then a target of 94,which seems a very fair target.
It's all very well Dr Duckworth becoming incensed when other methods are proposed.
At a recent cricket society meeting when I aske him about Jayadevan he became livid with rage and insisted he was not there to discuss discredited methods,an allegation he now repeats.
The truth is that by their own admission they have not adjusted the tables and figures for This very important tournament,and glaring deficiencies have been exposed.
Only now do they propose to look at it again.
Those incidentally who talk about taking into account wickets taken before calculating targets do show a basic misunderstanding of the method which is in fact based on rescources available at the time,i.e.wickets and overs still available.

you'll have to excuse me as one of those who does not understand but why does wickets available differ from wickets taken in the calculation?

Is wickets available not just (10 - wickets taken) so in effect it does matter?

All I can do is to direct you to read the rules of how The Duckworth/Lewis method works,rather than to confuse you further.
I'll just say had England lost no wickets or ten wickets in their completed total the other day,the W.Indian reduced target would not have been affected.

so why did the commentators refer to Collingwood and Bopara batting carefully so as to avoid losing another wicket and affecting the D/L score for the Windies (which was shortly followed by Bopara being given out LBW)?

Was it the same in the Sussex v Kenty T20 game when the floodlights failed and the Kent D/L total would have been the same irrespective of the number of wickets that Sussex lost in their innings?

Because those commentating on Sky ,do not understand how the method works either?
I,m unaware of the situation in the other match you refer to.
I,m only trying to be helpful,which is why I suggest you study the regulations in detail,rather than get involved in explanations from me,which might confuse you more.

I'll just try and clarify once more.
What is important is how many wickets the team batting second loses if the match is further reduced,and that's what often confuses the commentators.
Now had W.indies chasing 80 in 9 had reached 50 -5 for instance in 5 0vers and the match ended then they would then depending on 'The Par score'have probably have lost,but if they'd been 50-2 instead then they'd have won.

I doubt if I'll make a habit of this but I agree with Cleasby when he suggests that the Sky commentators may not understand how and when DL is applied.
Messrs Atherton and Ward were trying to explain to us poor inadequates and couldn't agree between themselves.The target set in the England v West Indies game definitely favoured the team batting second with all wickets intact,so surely the DL method requires fine tuning to adapt it for use in Twenty20 games.