Using D/L in 20-20 matches

[Acumen]

Most of us feel that England were given a raw deal yesterday after they scored 191 off 20 overs - a very high total.

WI were 30-0 after 2 overs and 2 balls
When they resumed there were 3 overs and 4 balls left
They needed to reach 60 which they did off last ball.

Would it be better if fielding restrictions were relaxed - or at least the same as they would have been in overs 16 to 20 rather than overs 3 to 7?

Is there any other sensible solution?

[missingleg]

'Is there any other sensible solution?'

Given that neither team actually won the game, surely a draw would be the most obvious solution? Cricket shoots itself in the foot far too often, part of the reason why I can't take one-day cricket seriously.

[Number 6]

Who cares?

20 - 20 is not cricket, it's baseball. It's only of interest to those with short attention spans and is worthy only of contempt.

I refuse, and always have refused to stand in 20 - 20 games.

[jayadevan]

First thing: In T20 matches the minimum overs for having a match should be made 8. Five is too low.

Even in T50 matches such situation can come when the number of overs left is too less when the match resumes. In T20 in could come more frequently.
Here what actually happened is; WI scored 10-12 runs more than what is normally expected in the first 2.2 overs.

The advantage of the same which would have been distributed to the remaining 17.4 overs (0.64 runs per over) if the match were played for the full quota is now distributed in 3.4 overs (3.27 runs per over). D/L system and the vjd system (which I have developed and is being used in Indian domestic for the last 3 years) does not make allowances for this.

But it can be done to a great extend using a concept "Make up factor" which I submitted to ICC three :) years back. I had posted the details of the same in this board also at that time.
You may read the modified version of the same here:

groups.google.com/group/AcumenNews/files

But the lack of interest of BCCI in such issues and over confidence of ICC on D/L stand as obstacles for me to get an opportunity to present my ideas.

Jayadevan :)

[missingleg]

Who cares? I don't as long as it doesn't damage the reputation of proper cricket. Even farcical situations with the D/L method can damage cricket as a whole.

[Number 6]

May 5, 2010 11:40:56 GMT missingleg said:

Who cares? I don't as long as it doesn't damage the reputation of proper cricket. Even farcical situations with the D/L method can damage cricket as a whole.

This is the problem, and what I tried to allude to in my previous post.

20-20 is not proper cricket, it's hardly even cricket in any sense of the word. It's so bad that, well words fail me, it's just a mockery of what cricket should be. To me, the absolute minimum for a good game is 40 overs, 50 is better.

So, I don't care what rain rules they use, or how farcical the rules make the game. I have zero interest in 20-20. It seems to pull in the "football" type crowd though so the clubs make loads of dosh selling fizzy lager to the attention-span challenged hooligans who just like to watch a small amount of crash-bang slogging whilst getting drunk. So I suppose it subsidises proper cricket. I still won't stand in a T20 game though.