Not pointing it out when it’s so blatant is.
You mean the six from the poorly bowled full toss?
The situation that faced the bowler was exactly that, how do I bowl defensively with 3 balls left and 13 required? If you are going to take a risk you’d better execute really well, he didn’t.
Like I said, embarrassing.
Offering another (neutral) opinion: I watched the no ball exactly once and thought “yup, that’s over waist height, fair enough”. But after watching the final wide several times at half speed, I still wasn’t convinced - it looked to me like it pitched around middle stump, then Ashwin practically stood on his stumps to make it look worse than it was. I think it could easily be given as a dot ball and/or the bowler was unlucky it moved that much off the pitch. But as no-one else has taken this view, I suspect I’m wrong.
So Bangladesh take out Netherlands (144/8 to 135/10) where the final wicket fell on the final ball. Neat that.
Then came the rain. Zimbabwe/South Africa started very late and is being played as a 9 over match. Zimb had won the toss and elected to bat before the rain.
So, for my TILAC, what’s an expected total for the chase? I would assume based on a 140-150 range for 20 overs that it would be around 55-65 (half minus a bit), but based on what I’ve seen, the scores tend to shoot up dramatically towards the end of match, so does that still hold true or do they just adjust when they start acting a little more…reckless?
FYI, it’s currently ZIM 31/4 after 5 overs.
With fewer overs to bat, the cost of losing a wicket is not nearly as great. It’s the same reason that a team with many wickets in hand will often double their output in the 2nd half of their innings in relation to the 1st half.
Well that was disappointing. ZIM ended 79/5 (9), 64/4 (8), 47/4 (7), 41/4 (6), and 31/4 (5).
SA started with 23 in the 1st over and got to 51/0 after 3. Match called for rain.
De Kock had 47 off 18!
It seems to me that since 5 overs is the minimum and SA were already over that total (and indeed over the 6 and 7 totals as well), they should have the option to declare no result or take the win.
The umpires clearly were trying to get some of the Zim players injured.
Why was there cricket in the rain for so long m.
Meh. Yes, Ashwin did that and if he has played it normally, chances are that it wouldn’t have been called.
But, since the 1990’s it’s been clear, down the leg side is a wide.
But waist high has been in “his normal position”, not “4 feet down the track at full stretch”.
I’m sure they were under pressure to get the game complete, but damn they should have come off earlier. There’s video on this BBC page that shows two Zim players slipping on the wet grass:
IRE-ENG was shaping up to be a very interesting finish - until heavy rain has stopped play, with England 5 runs short of the DLS par score. This means if no further play is possible, Ireland will (deservedly) win. Though perhaps a little harsh on England, who were just starting to fire with the bat when the rain started. Still, they knew rain was a strong possibility and would have been trying to play with that in mind.
ETA: and there it is, Ireland win. Well done to them - England will need to up their game in the remaining group matches if they want to progress.
Pakistan really messed up a quarter of a century ago when Parliament passed this Act.
Could have been used on these jokers who have failed to:
Defend 48 off 3 overs
Get 43 off 39 with 7 wickets in hand.
I know it’s T20 where anything can happen. But this bloody Zimbabwe!
Thank god I was too tied up at work to watch this. Could have been a monitor smashing situation.
I couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw the final score. I turned it off with about 6 overs remaining, as this looked like a slam dunk win for Pakistan. I have to watch the replay later to see what the heck transpired. I guess now Pakistan is in a position to have to root for India to beat SA on Sunday.
There has been a fair bit of derision sent the Poms way over their loss to Ireland. But Ireland bowled and batted well (some of their fielding was village), England bowled, batted and fielded OK. In the context of the game, it was competitive all the way through and IRE might well have won if the the full 20 overs had been played. At the point the game ended DLS merely confirmed that IRE had played the better.
This is a “better” loss for ENG than the NZ v AUS game was for AUS where the locals were outplayed and apathetic in their approach.
ENG could win the tournament with the team they fielded, AUS won’t progress unless there are substantial changes.
Three matches abandoned without a ball being bowled, and another that was abandoned without a result.
I don’t recall in all the years I’ve followed cricket that so many matches in Australia were ruined by rain.
Hopefully too many more matches will not be rained out. Would hate to see someone get into a semi final on the back of two wins from five, plus three N/Rs.
Fourth-hand from Cricinfo - apparently Melbourne has had more rain in the last week than they usually get in the whole of October, so a bit unlucky.
Any views on whether the Aus-Eng washout is worse for one side than the other? Presumably slightly worse for Aus given their NRR is so much worse - on the other hand, they have theoretically easier matches remaining compared with Eng.
The washout is slightly better for England, because it gives Aus less of a chance to improve their NRR. However, losing to Ireland may sink us yet.
It may, but (without checking) I assume England (unlike Pakistan, for example) are still in control of their fate, in terms of if they win their remaining games, they should progress, yes? If you go out after losing 2 pool matches, you don’t really get to complain that weather denied you the opportunity of getting one more point on the board.