The three-game Twenty20 series between South Africa and Australia has been devastated by rain, with no alternative date.
The first in Port Elizabeth was abandoned without a ball being bowled, the second a seven-over baseball game.
South Africa flogged 1-80, Australia replied with 5-82 with David Warner smashing 40 off 16 with five fours and two sixes, and veteran Brad Hodge an unbeaten 21 off just eight deliveries with a four and two sixes.
Farcical. What did this game achieve?
Nothing
This series has always been a vital warm-up for the World Twenty20 in Bangladesh, but the ICC has never learned from the ultimate farce during the 1992 World Cup in Australia between England and South Africa for a place in the final.
To cut a long story short, persistent rain meant South Africa had to score 22 runs off one ball to win.
Brian McMillan pushed a single to mid-wicket and England clinched a place in the final, only to lose to Pakistan at the MCG,
Having to score 22 off one ball will remain one of the ICC’s most embarrassing moments, with no alternative date slated to accommodate for the weather.
To add to the confusion and the mess, host broadcaster Channel 9 insisted the game had to finish that day.
It wasn’t until 1999 that the Duckworth-Lewis method surfaced, but even that should be superseded by an alternative playing date to decide any game that has been severely interrupted by rain.
The third game is scheduled for Centurion tomorrow, with ample time to set an alternate date if the rain in South Africa continues.
South Africa have a World Cup practice game scheduled against Bangladesh at Fatullah on March 18, while the Australians will meet the Kiwis the next day on the same ground.
But it would be fair to say a genuine South Africa-Australia game at Centurion squad be more beneficial and meaningful at this stage than a practice game in Bangladesh.
South Africa’s World Cup campaign opens with Sri Lanka on March 22 at Chittagong, Australia’s against Pakistan the next day at Mirpur.
I must agree with Shane Watson that this Australian side is better balanced than the usual T20 sides. In the past Australia has never treated the format with the respect it deserves.
Now they have their priorities right, Australia can give this tournament a shake.
The run-getteres are all goers – Warne, Aaron Finch, Cam White, George Bailey, Hodge, Brad Haddin and Glenn Maxwell.
The attack has plenty if sting and spin with Mitchell Johnson, Mitchell Starc, James Faulkner, Watson, Brad Hogg, and James Muirhead.
I expect the 20-year-old leggie Muirhead to be one of the leading lights, he has the control and the temperament, despite his limited experience, to buy his wickets cheaply.
And in George Bailey, Australia has a crack captain. With Cam White by his side, the on and off-field executive is in the very best of hands.
denny
Guest
http://gopaidweekly.com/?ref=88995
JGK
Roar Guru
That Saf - England game (which I was at by the way) was the catalyst for DL and the need for something more scientific. IT was a while ago but I think the Saf target went from needing 22 off 13 balls to 22 off 7 and then 22 off 1. DL is clearly the best system out there.
ozinsa
Guest
David, for a bloke who knows a thing or two about professionalism in sports and thus must be aware of the need to entertain the paying public, this article is extremely naive. There were a bunch of punters in the ground licqoured up and looking for some cricket. That they got 7 overs didn't seem to matter to them - they were happy and sometimes this is the primary goal and an honourable one at that. Cricket in SA right now has competition from Super Rugby (a total mismatch for the hearts of the fans) and it needs to do what it can to keep them happy and hopefully returning. I also know Warner is still in nick, Tsotsobe is overweight and overrated, de Kock can play, Hoggy's still got it and Hodge can still close the deal.
JohnB
Guest
1992 had nothing to do with Duckworth Lewis which as David says wasn't around then. Don't quote me on the actual figures, but the issue was (because of the poorly thought through adjustment process then used - dropping off the lowest scoring overs from the innings of the team batting first or something like that) that SA went from needing 22 at a very comfortable rate to needing 22 off one ball. Under DL they would I suspect have won at a canter. Duckworth and Lewis were/are maths brains of course. Their method isn't perfect (for example, I think the approach to batting in the last few overs and the ability of teams to score at high rates has changed with more 20/20 experience, and this skews the figures in short chases) but it's a lot better than any alternatives I'm aware of.
I agree David, the ame was a complete farce, however I think Af learnt a few things. Don't send Amla to open when it is a reduced match, play your stroke makers, it is like you are going to be bowled out in 7 overs. And also think about your bowlers more carefully
Simon
Roar Guru
Not often I agree with Mr. Lord (who does?) but certainly in this case he is spot-on. That farce in 1992 was simply incredible. I watched highlights from that game on Youtube recently and the South African's deliberately had a slow over-rate because the Eng innings had to finish at a certain time - perhaps 6pm - so they only got 46 overs in. Perhaps it came back to bite the Saffa's -- not for the first time in ICC events, mind you. Mr. Duckworth and Lewis have haunted RSA more than any other team over it's duration. There must be a better system out there? Come on Maths brains, get to work!
Firsttimer
Guest
Blah blah blah it's not real cricket ,,, blah blah blah it's not entertainment ,,, blah blah blah blahblahblah ,,,, move on kids if you don't like it don't watch it like any of the multitude of other junk on TV ... And yes David you would hope that the finals of the WC would have reserve days allocated but sadly there will more than likely be some disappointed fans who watch their team unfairly go out the backdoor having been asked to score 200 off an impossible six and a half overs ..a slight exaggeration of course !!!! .
Ryan Ranger
Roar Rookie
It's a shame that they no longer have reserve days - or the flexibility to reschedule - but thanks to broadcasters, and a packed international schedule, that's cricket in the 21st Century for you. Until all matches are played in indoor stadiums (or in those with a retractable roof), then you're going to get games where - thanks to rain - teams are going to win games they don't exactly deserve to win, and teams are going to be bundled out of tournaments or lose finals. It's just not cricket... but that's cricket. Last night's game highlighted one of the big oddities of T20. Had the game started on the scheduled time, the Proteas batted their 20 overs AND THEN play stopped due to rain, Australia would have had a higher total to chase down. But good luck finding a new formula or that will please everyone for games that are affected by rain at the start, middle or end of a game.
Radelaide
Guest
It's more a game for the television stations with a format like BBL or IPL
Jitterry
Roar Rookie
Agreed, deserves little to no respect. Too much cricket already and this format is boring. Just slogging a ball isn't entertainment.
ak
Roar Guru
It reminds me of the five over double wicket tournaments.
bryan
Guest
I suspect the logistics of having to move a professional team around the world will trump any rescheduling ability. Its not just 12 players that need flights anymore. I remember reading an article on the Queensland Reds in South Africa and the their issues. It was fascinating to discover just what is involved in the modern day.
formeropenside
Guest
Au contraire, T20 is not a format that demands respect.