Cricket......

[sampie]

I missed the game today, where can one watch our innings?

[TopFuel]

I missed the game today, where can one watch our innings?

 

http://www.supersport.com/cricket/sa-team/video/468464

[Shebeen]

I've always said that I don't like AB as 'keeper when we have a lot of decent alternatives.

 

After yesterday's masterclass i think we need to move Morne van Wyk into the squad ASAP. we can't risk AB stuffing up his back now can we?

[deanbean]

What a knock by AB, that was special

 

Thought provoking article be Martin Crowe, has the Thug been misbehaving again

http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/821891.html

['Dale]

I was at the game today. Very special.

The gees was strong on my Telly

Must've been awesome live

[GLuvsMtb]

I've always said that I don't like AB as 'keeper when we have a lot of decent alternatives.

 

After yesterday's masterclass i think we need to move Morne van Wyk into the squad ASAP. we can't risk AB stuffing up his back now can we?

I suspect that they would try to close out the series in the next game and then rest AB, # and Steyn. Van Wyk will step in at the top for # and keep, Parnell will get some game time and perhaps Abbott / Phangiso too if they rest Dale as well.

[Shebeen]

22nd Match: Pakistan v South Africa at Brisbane - Mar 8, 1992

South Africa 211/7 (50/50 ov); Pakistan 173/8 (36/36 ov, target: 194)

South Africa won by 20 runs (revised target)

Scorecard | Article index (5) | Photo index (1)

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65139.html

 

http://media.2oceansvibe.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/jonty-rhodes-5.jpg

 

Ok, now that we’ve got that out the way we can talk about the rest of the game. Yup, SA beat the final champions. But not really. RAIN, not Jonty was our best player.

We scored 211, our biggest total so far, and the first one where Peter Kirsten was not top scorer(he must have been injured as he didn’t play). Kepler got a solid 7 off 24 to get us on our way. Hudders got a 54, but Hansie and big mac held it together with 47 and 33 at a decent clip. We were helped by a generous 19 extras – 9 wides, Wasim and Waqar where not scared of spraying it. We were also helped by one of the umpires falling asleep and a 7 ball over.

 

The Pakis were doing ok, until it started raining. They were given a revised figure of 194 from 36 overs. So ja, lose 14 overs, lop 18 off the total!! The rain rule was a joke at this tournament, BUT they won the toss so chose to bowl first.

 

They got pretty close, they’re 173 comfortably ahead of what Duckworth/Lewis would have set(162). Inzi was going well, 48 off 43 balls until is it a bird, is it a plane, no it’s jonty. Incidentally, not the last time he was run out in his career.

No one could match Wasim for his 7 wides, but collectively 17 wides kept it exciting.

Edited January 20, 2015 by Shebeen

[dev null]

Yes, and that same DL- buggerup came back to haunt us in the England game (semi ?) I believe. Needing a 22 runs from one ball when it was a gettable 22 from 15 balls when rain interrupted play.  Correct me if I am wrong.  Too long ago and I am too lazy to Google.

 

After that tournament the DL system was revised to a more acceptable equation, not that DL is ever acceptable.

[Shebeen]

Yes, and that same DL- buggerup came back to haunt us in the England game (semi ?) I believe. Needing a 22 runs from one ball when it was a gettable 22 from 15 balls when rain interrupted play.  Correct me if I am wrong.  Too long ago and I am too lazy to Google.

 

After that tournament the DL system was revised to a more acceptable equation, not that DL is ever acceptable.

you steal my thunder!!

 

But here's some background reading - 

A schoolboy from Rondebosch, South Africa, has devised a formula

for calculating the revised target in a rain-interrupted limited-

overs match. Wayne Do Rego developed the formula as a high-school

maths project, and it has been enthusiastically adopted by the

United Cricket Board for all domestic limited-overs matches in

South Africa this season. If the TCCB agrees, it will also be

used in the limited-overs series against England. The UCB hopes

to have it adopted for next year's World Cup as well.

Do Rego studied one-day scores from England, varying from 40 to

60-overs innings, plotted these scores on a graph, and came up

with a table of "normal scores". To arrive at an adjusted target

score, the actual first innings score is divided by the "normal"

score for the same number of overs, and this number is then

multiplied by the "normal" score for the number of overs to be

faced in the second innings.

For example: Team A scores 225 off its 45 overs. Due to rain,

Team B can face only 30 overs. The normal score for 45 overs is

216, and for 30 overs is 171. Thus 225 is divided by 216 and the

result multiplied by 171 to get a rounded-up figure of 178,

meaning 179 is needed to win.

 

he United Cricket Board of SA have decided to abandon the Do Rego method

of calculating rain adjusted targets in OD matches.

The Do Rego method, named after Rondebosch schoolboy Wayne Do Rego who 

derived it, relied on a set of "normalised" curves from which - after the

number of remaining overs had been calculated - a target score could be

read.

The method employed by the UCB now is the "Clark" method, apparently a

refinement of the Do Rego method. Ali Bacher,the UCB's chief executive,

claims that the Clark method is superior as it provides for six different

ways in which Rain could effect a game.

The UCB has not yet announced what ruling will be applied in the forthcoming

ODI series between SA and England. Probably because the man in the street

will find it totally incomprehensible..

 

file:///C:/Users/Steve/Downloads/duckworth-lewis.pdf

and from the DL paper itself - * Parabola (PARAB). This method, by a young South

African (do Rego8), calculates a table of 'norms' y,

(reproduced in Table 1) for overs of an innings, x,

using the parabola y = 7.46x - O.059x2 to model, rather

inappropriately since it has a turning point (at about 63

overs, the 'diminishing returns' nature of the relationshiop

between average total runs scored and total number

of overs available. The method is an improvement upon

ARR but takes no account of the stage of the innings at

which the overs are lost or of the number of wickets that

have fallen. 

[Shebeen]

25th Match: South Africa v Zimbabwe at Canberra - Mar 10, 1992

Zimbabwe 163 (48.3/50 ov); South Africa 164/3 (45.1/50 ov)

South Africa won by 7 wickets (with 29 balls remaining)

Scorecard | Photo index (1

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65142.html

 

Ok, onto an ‘easier game’, (but we will learn later that you can’t underestimate Zim). This looks fairly comfortable, right. Almost the entire Zim batting lineup got a start – 7 guys into double figures, but no one past 20 (Eddo Brandes, yup, THAT guy got 20). The top scorer, EXTRAS – at 28. 13 wides, but not even White lightning to blame here, mostly Meyrick and big mac. Just to show the bizarrity, Peter Kirsten the bowler took 3 of the top 6 wickets (according to the almanac report he was touch and go with a calf strain here, which explains his absence from the paki game). Actually first time Zim didn't bat out their overs, they must have been kakking off for Donald and pringle, but forgot about the danger of cronje, big mac and kirsy's spin which took all the wickets.

 

Kepler was once again solid upfront, stroking an amazing 70 at a blistering SR of 51%. Kirsey was not out on 62, so sneaked the MotM award with his bowling too

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/db/PICTURES/CMS/120100/120112.jpg

SOLID!.

[Shebeen]

cheers to da windies 122 all out. 3-0 here we come

[Shebeen]

28th Match: England v South Africa at Melbourne - Mar 12, 1992

South Africa 236/4 (50/50 ov); England 226/7 (40.5/41 ov, target: 226)

England won by 3 wickets (with 1 ball remaining) (revised target)

Scorecard

 

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65145.html

 

Ah, the rain affected match against England (No, not that one). By now we were in the frikken groove, the side was settled and the okes had got the gist of this ODI thing. Our basic premise is to have 3 recognised bowlers and then use a combination of about 5 all rounders for the rest of the overs – bob Woolmer perfected this. We bolted out the blocks in this game, opening partnership of 150 from hudders and Kepler(who again top-scored, his 85 coming at a blistering 4 an over). A new highest score – 236/4 from our 50 overs.

 

They started like a house on fire – Botham and Alec stewart were 62/0 from 12 when the rain came down. The new target was 226 from 41, so lose 9 overs, shave off only 10 runs! (D/L would have had the target as 195) - They came back on and immediately lost three wickets. Game over, really.

 

But then Neil Fairbrother got 75 not out at a SR of 90, Chris Lewis must have smashed our death bowlers all over the show for his 22 ball 33.  They sneaked over with a ball to spare.

This was a bit of a shock really, we only bowled 1 wide the entire game, and the AMAZING jonty ran two guys out too. The MotM went to stand in captain Alec Stewart, who was also opening and keeping – a bit much really.

 

no pics from the match, so here is the lineup of captains before it all kicked off - graham gooch was injured fore the pool game.http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/51196000/jpg/_51196768_captains.jpg

[GLuvsMtb]

It seems like AB and # may take a break in the next 2 games. van Wyk is set to open in the 4th ODI and QdK may be fit for the 5th ODI.

 

Turning to a potential WC line-up, we seem to have a settled playing 11, with 1 x "All Rounder" position still in doubt. We may opt to play the extra batsman (likely to be Rossouw), opt for a genuine bowling option (Abbott or Phangiso, depending on conditions) or play one of our all rounders (Behardien / Parnell).

The line-up would then look as follow:

1. QdK

2. #

3. Faf

4. AB

5. Miller

6/7. JPD and any one of Rossouw, Abbott, Phangiso, Behardien (with Abbott and Phangiso batting lower down)

8. Steyn

9. Vern

10. Morne

11. Tahir. 

 

The situation at 6/7 may well play in our favour as this will make it more difficult to plan against our bowling attack if there are doubt as to exactly who will be in the final line-up. I prefer the outright batsman / bowler option to the all rounder option. JPD is a world class all rounder and versatile with the bat in that he can guide the tail, accelerate with one of the top order batsmen and turn over the strike with one of our big hitters in AB and Miller. 

 

We are by no means favorites to win the WC in my book (India / Aus), but we certainly have enough match winners in our team to take it deep. 

[Shebeen]

It seems like AB and # may take a break in the next 2 games. van Wyk is set to open in the 4th ODI and QdK may be fit for the 5th ODI.

 

Turning to a potential WC line-up, we seem to have a settled playing 11, with 1 x "All Rounder" position still in doubt. We may opt to play the extra batsman (likely to be Rossouw), opt for a genuine bowling option (Abbott or Phangiso, depending on conditions) or play one of our all rounders (Behardien / Parnell).

The line-up would then look as follow:

1. QdK

2. #

3. Faf

4. AB

5. Miller

6/7. JPD and any one of Rossouw, Abbott, Phangiso, Behardien (with Abbott and Phangiso batting lower down)

8. Steyn

9. Vern

10. Morne

11. Tahir. 

 

The situation at 6/7 may well play in our favour as this will make it more difficult to plan against our bowling attack if there are doubt as to exactly who will be in the final line-up. I prefer the outright batsman / bowler option to the all rounder option. JPD is a world class all rounder and versatile with the bat in that he can guide the tail, accelerate with one of the top order batsmen and turn over the strike with one of our big hitters in AB and Miller. 

 

We are by no means favorites to win the WC in my book (India / Aus), but we certainly have enough match winners in our team to take it deep. 

I agree with that side. batting side is solid, but also think vern might be the first bowler to go if we looking for extra spinner/batter.

 

 

in other news, Luke Ronchi, kiwi keeper just klapped the sri lankans for 170* - but that's sri lanka with no malinga.

[GLuvsMtb]

I agree with that side. batting side is solid, but also think vern might be the first bowler to go if we looking for extra spinner/batter.

 

 

in other news, Luke Ronchi, kiwi keeper just klapped the sri lankans for 170* - but that's sri lanka with no malinga.

I saw that. Going from 90 odd for 5 to 360 for 5. The Black Caps are my dark horse for the WC.

[dev null]

I saw that. Going from 90 odd for 5 to 360 for 5. The Black Caps are my dark horse for the WC.

 

They always seem to give us trouble in a CWC.