The treatment of Powerplays in matches decided by D/L method
spadma...@blgcanada.com
figure out exactly how it is all set up but in any event, a few
questions based on India's last two matches in the DLF cup:
1. If it is known that a team's innings will be shortened, how do they
treat powerplays? For example, once India's innings was restricted to
29 overs against OZ, could OZ simply have played out the first 10 over
powerplay and not have taken the other two powerplays?
2. Why did Dravid take the second and third powerplays in the match
against the Windies with rain imminent? In point of fact, I would have
thought that at 78 for 1 after 10 overs, he should have not implemented
the second powerplay at the start of the 11th over even if it was
perfect weather. Why not try and stem the flow of runs, maybe grab a
wicket and then take the powerplay in the 13th or 14th over? And given
imminent rain, I would have thought it a no brainer not to take the
powerpaly when over number 11 started. Protect the boundaries. It's
not like you will be forced to take the powerplays in overs 40 to 50
because chances are that you are not going to have to bowl more than 40
overs.
3. Before the start of the second innings against Oz, Tony Greig and
Arun Lal were saying that if the match were to be called off after
India had batted 20 overs (like the Windies in the other match),
winning scores would be stuff like 60 for no loss, 70 for 1, 80 for 2,
90 For 3 and so on. One would think that India would have won it in a
canter. But then, the match gets shortened to a 29 over innings in
advance. That is, it's not as if the match got stopped at 29 overs
unexpectedly but it was known by all parties that 29 overs would be the
maximum - suddenly, that makes the target 170 odd in 29 overs. It's no
longer a canter for India. In fact, one would have to say that OZ was
clearly in the driver's seat (even though they had posted a very
ordinary 243)
I don't get it.
4. In the India v. Windies match, if there had been a big rain delay
right after the Indian innings and the Windies innings was shortened in
advance to 20 overs, would the Windies target have been less than or
greater than the 141 that they ended up getting? What would their
target have been if they were alloted 30 overs when they started the
innings. Recall that India's score was 309 for 5.
Andrew Dunford
<spadma...@blgcanada.com> wrote in message
news:1158549987.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> I really don't get this D/L method. I suppose I need to google it and
> figure out exactly how it is all set up but in any event, a few
> questions based on India's last two matches in the DLF cup:
>
> 1. If it is known that a team's innings will be shortened, how do they
> treat powerplays? For example, once India's innings was restricted to
> 29 overs against OZ, could OZ simply have played out the first 10 over
> powerplay and not have taken the other two powerplays?
There is a table for calculating how many 'Fielding Restriction Overs'
(FROs) should be bowled within an innings of reduced length. For an innings
of 29 overs, 12 FROs should be bowled i.e. the first ten overs of the
innings plus a block of two at a time chosen by the fielding captain.
Clearly there is ample opportunity for the 'powerplay' rules to be made to
look stupid by rain interruptions. A couple of examples:
1. Team A bat for 50 overs without weather interruption, then goes into the
field. Team A uses its powerplays consecutively for the first 20 overs of
Team B's innings. After 20 overs rain falls and the players leave the
field. The weather improves enough for play to later resume, but it is now
calculated that Team B's innings can last for a maximum of 45 overs. Team A
is thus required to deliver only 18 powerplay overs, but has already bowled
20.
2. Team A bats for 50 overs without weather interruption, then goes into the
field. Team A delivers the mandatory ten powerplay overs during overs 1-10
of Team B's innings, but does not take a further powerplay at over 11. The
second innings continues uninterrupted by weather until 40 overs have been
bowled, of which only 10 were powerplay overs i.e. the final ten overs from
41-50 will also be powerplay overs. At this point rain falls and the
players leave the field. The weather improves enough for play later to
resume, but it is now calculated that Team B's innings can last for a
maximum of 45 overs. Team A is thus required to deliver 18 powerplay overs,
but can only bowl 15 because there are now only 5 overs left in the match.
> 2. Why did Dravid take the second and third powerplays in the match
> against the Windies with rain imminent? In point of fact, I would have
> thought that at 78 for 1 after 10 overs, he should have not implemented
> the second powerplay at the start of the 11th over even if it was
> perfect weather. Why not try and stem the flow of runs, maybe grab a
> wicket and then take the powerplay in the 13th or 14th over? And given
> imminent rain, I would have thought it a no brainer not to take the
> powerpaly when over number 11 started. Protect the boundaries. It's
> not like you will be forced to take the powerplays in overs 40 to 50
> because chances are that you are not going to have to bowl more than 40
> overs.
The examples I have given above clearly show that if rain is considered
likely to interrupt the second innings of the match, the side fielding
second receives best advantage by not implementing the second and third
powerplays at the earliest opportunity. In other words, the tactics you
have outlined are good advice.
The obvious accompanying question is: "does the D/L method take account of
powerplay overs?" To which there is a very short answer: "no".
<snip>
Andrew
dp
>
> There is a table for calculating how many 'Fielding Restriction Overs'
> (FROs) should be bowled within an innings of reduced length. For an innings
> of 29 overs, 12 FROs should be bowled i.e. the first ten overs of the
> innings plus a block of two at a time chosen by the fielding captain.
>
> Clearly there is ample opportunity for the 'powerplay' rules to be made to
> look stupid by rain interruptions. A couple of examples:
>
> 1. Team A bat for 50 overs without weather interruption, then goes into the
> field. Team A uses its powerplays consecutively for the first 20 overs of
> Team B's innings.
hmm.. All these days I was under the impression that the batting team
decides when to use these powerplays. But then, I don't think I have
watched any odi's after these rules came into force...
> After 20 overs rain falls and the players leave the
> field. The weather improves enough for play to later resume, but it is now
> calculated that Team B's innings can last for a maximum of 45 overs. Team A
> is thus required to deliver only 18 powerplay overs, but has already bowled
> 20.
Simple. In those remaining overs, they will have to deliver 2
Underpowerplay overs to compensate for the extra powerplay overs they
have bowled. During those 2 overs, they can have 13 men on the field,
with no field restrictions.
> players leave the field. The weather improves enough for play later to
> resume, but it is now calculated that Team B's innings can last for a
> maximum of 45 overs. Team A is thus required to deliver 18 powerplay overs,
> but can only bowl 15 because there are now only 5 overs left in the match.
In this case, they will have to bowl 2 Superpowerplay overs - no
fielder outside the 30 yard circle.
dp
Andrew Dunford
"dp" <dpus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158556269.2...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
And presumably only nine fieldsmen?
I think all of this is worth implementing, if only so that the marvellous
term 'underpowerplay' gains official recognition.
Andrew
Calvin
"Andrew Dunford" <adun...@artifax.net> wrote in message
news:4n6ln6F...@individual.net...
> The examples I have given above clearly show that if rain is considered
> likely to interrupt the second innings of the match, the side fielding
> second receives best advantage by not implementing the second and third
> powerplays at the earliest opportunity. In other words, the tactics you
> have outlined are good advice.
>
> The obvious accompanying question is: "does the D/L method take account of
> powerplay overs?" To which there is a very short answer: "no".
The obvious follow-up question is "Did the ICC think this through?". Answers
of one word or less should be directed to Malcolm Speed.
cheers,
clavin
dp
> > In this case, they will have to bowl 2 Superpowerplay overs - no
> > fielder outside the 30 yard circle.
>
> And presumably only nine fieldsmen?
Ofcourse.
> I think all of this is worth implementing, if only so that the marvellous
> term 'underpowerplay' gains official recognition.
Suggestions welcome as to how the umpires should signal these different
levels of powerplay overs. Keep in mind that there might be multiple
levels of these - you have to bowl 5 Superpowerplay overs and rain cuts
down couple of overs, and now you have to bowl Superduperpowerplay etc.
dp [who had to google to find out the signal for powerplay - obviously
I haven't watched any match with this provision]
R. Bharat Rao
spadma...@blgcanada.com wrote:
> I really don't get this D/L method. I suppose I need to google it and
> figure out exactly how it is all set up but in any event, a few
> questions based on India's last two matches in the DLF cup:
>
> against the Windies with rain imminent? In point of fact, I would have
> thought that at 78 for 1 after 10 overs, he should have not implemented
> the second powerplay at the start of the 11th over even if it was
> perfect weather. Why not try and stem the flow of runs, maybe grab a
> wicket and then take the powerplay in the 13th or 14th over? And given
> imminent rain, I would have thought it a no brainer not to take the
> powerpaly when over number 11 started. Protect the boundaries. It's
> not like you will be forced to take the powerplays in overs 40 to 50
> because chances are that you are not going to have to bowl more than 40
> overs.
Absolutely -- I think captains just take the powerplay by rote -- you
need to
look at the situation -- who is batting; for instance, if Gilchrist is
on a rampage,
don't take the powerplay overs. OTOH, if a batsman who primarily
accumulates
by singles and nudges is at the crease, take the powerplay overs, and
try to
plug the gaps...
My bias, in general would be to wait for later until sooner. If you
can get the top
order bats early, then chances are that you can bowl to the tailenders
with the
restrictions, who may find it harder to take advantage of the
restrictions..
Bharat
PS: Here is a situation that actually occurred -- not power play
related but similar.
We put on a pretty modest 138 in 40 overs, and even worse, as we began
fielding,
our best bowler -- a spinner - broke a finger dropping a skier -- so we
had exactly
4 bowlers (more like 2 of our top bowlers, plus our #4 and #5 bowlers).
Usually,
we'd have quite a few additional guys who would turn their arms over in
the nets
and get the occasional over or 3 in a game, but here you have at your
disposal,
an assortment of dibbly-dobbers, who only bowled to tail-enders at
nets, and
usually didn't bowl in games unless they were laughers either way...
What's the right strategy?
Use the "normal" strategy of squeezing in your less-good bowlers
(normally, bowlers
1-3 would bowl the first 10 and last 5-10 overs, with the two others
getting their
8 over spells in the middle, with help if any of the other
semi-regulars were there
in getting their 16 overs in) -- basically, pick a dibbly dobbler or 4,
and treat them
as the 5th bowler).
or something else, like bowling out your best 4 bowlers, and hoping
they were in
trouble for the last 8.
What if you were all out for a fairly decent 180 (big ground, heavy
outfield) -- would
your choice be different? What if it were a largely undefensible
sub-100 total? Or
a mammoth 240? I think it should..
In the actual instance, I chose to bowl our 4 key bowlers out, and at
110/8 at the
30th over, things looked good. But a couple of sharp chances were
spilled, and the
assortment of full-tosses and long hops were duly dispatched and they
won by 2
wickets with 3 overs to spare). Its amazing how quickly one goes from
sharp
tactician to stupid goat :-)
Bharat
I think the answer would depend on the strength of the opposition
battig lineup