Cricinfo - Blogs - Different Strokes

Both sides’ supporters will claim that their side would have won if the game had run its full course, but the incontrovertible fact is that West Indies carefully laid out a banana skin and then demonstrated how to fall over on it without taking into account that they were doing it for real – unless, that is, they were actually bent on proving that they could equal any incompetence England had managed at Sabina Park.

And it’s West Indies as a whole, not just the coach. John Dyson honourably stood up and took the rap, but ultimately ordering players on and off the field is a captain’s prerogative and he does not escape blame simply because he delegated his responsibility to a member of the support staff.

So West Indies have gone one better than South Africa did when bundling themselves out of the 2002-3 World Cup when they too misread the Duckworth-Lewis rules, thought they didn’t need an extra run to take the win which would have kept them in the competition and blocked out the last ball.

Which, meandering further back into history, recalls the remarkable end to the semi-final of the 1983 NatWest Trophy. Middlesex had managed 222/9 off their 60 overs, and at the beginning of Somerset’s 60th over, they were 222/8 with Botham on strike on 96*. Botham was the captain, and he checked on the rules with the umpires, who confirmed that if the scores were level at the end of 60 overs, the side losing the fewer wickets were the winners. So Botham blocked out a maiden, knowing that that was all he had to do to win.

Returning to the present, there is clearly a distinct risk that several England players will be unavailable for training tomorrow, being on sick parade with sides split through laughing manically at their good fortune. They should stop laughing pretty quickly, though, for they only scraped though by the proverbial coat of varnish.

Shiv Chanderpaul came oh so close to ripping the game out of their hands with that astonishing assault on Steve Harmison. Even Kevin Pietersen must have blinked at the audacity of the sweep over fine leg for six, but the rest of the over was just as destructive. If he hadn’t been out the next ball, he would have won the game and added the Man of the Match award to his string of honours – which as of Tuesday includes Guyana’s third-highest national award, the Cacique’s Crown of Honour. (I’m most disappointed to find out that the Crown of Honour is only a medal with a crown on it: it would have been such fun to see a crowned head walk out to bat.)

But still, a win’s a win, and England’s pro tem coach Andy Flower will be much relieved; it may even get him over the embarrassment of KP revealing in a Sky TV interview that the players refer to him as ‘Petals’.

I agree with comments made elsewhere,i.e.,that it is inconceivable in any other professional sport that no one knows what the position of the game is officially when a system such as D/L has to be employed.On other matters,had the WI continued to bat in the available light,they would have surely lost;both of the last two dismissals were palpably due to bad light,which raises the absurdity of light causing the demise of Ramdin,then being offered before another ball is bowled to the next batsman.On a technicality,the umpires were also out of their jurisdiction to change a six hit to a four at the time that they did,although it was clearly the wrong call at the time.Mike,once again I think your article is pathetically myopic in its pro-England/anti-West Indian perspective,since England were clearly the "losers" in this encounter.My own preference is for a withdrawal of the appeal vs Ramdin,theeby agreeing a tie.

What should have been a nail biting finish, turned out to be a joke in the end. Somehow what happened yesterday seems to be keeping in line with the whole series. The game was won off the field by the bumbling of Dyson.Funny Dyson and Omar Khan were the one's seen calling the batsmen in, with just a blank stare from Gayle. That look however seemed to have changed in the post match interview, which seems to state the next game will be won or lost on the field. Never a fan of DL system, wondering about Dyson now, were the tactics in the last test his?
Based on what happened in the test, I would have backed the windies to win the game, jus from the momemtum and belief they gathered from the test matches, is reason for me to have this oppinion.
But as they say, oppinions are like people butt's, everyone got one!
Congrats to England!!

"..once again I think your article is pathetically myopic in its pro-England/anti-W. Indian perspective..."

Ken, what else do you expect? It's Mike Holmans. On cricinfo. The website itself is more sensationalist than informative; notice how they love to use the words "crisis" & "farce". It's no wonder cricket can't grow in appeal outside the traditional nations when you have a website like this. I can well recall that for some strange reason, when Carib ended sponsorship of the WI first-class tournament (because it couldn't pay the required sum for an extended season), the cricinfo article had a question at the end about whether readers think the WICB should resign over the matter, but when England and Sri Lanka similarly lost sponsors...nothing. No questions. No implications that the ECB or SLC should resign. And of course cricinfo don't know the difference between Dominica and the Dom. Republic

Not that you'll probably get to see this post since it may not be to Holmans' liking

How absurd was that: England celebrating after being declared winners after a prolonged period of confusion. It was as if by default because of the idiocy of accepting bad light when one would end up losing. Come on people! Cricket has not done itself any favors. It's already hard to comprehend the game if you're an outsider, we don't have to let a match end like this: in utter confusion and farce! There's got to be obvious transparent rules which btw should be secondary to actually playing the game to the end. Why couldn't the officials step in and say let's turn on the lights and play to the end like gentlemen?
Why would you celebrate after being "given" a win like this? Earn it! Play to the end! Surely even English fans with any common sense who stayed up to watch this game couldn't be that thrilled with a "victory" in this match (and I use that term very losely) when there was an exciting nail-bitting finish in the offing...True fans of the game must be furious at this result!

I'm sorry but all these comments I'm hearing along the lines of D/L is too difficult to figure out are just misguided.

You get a sheet with wickets down as the headings for the columns and each row represents the number of balls bowled. You pick the right column, go down the rows until you get to the number of balls bowled and in that box is the number of runs for a tie. Not hard, a five year old could do it.

The bigger question is should the batsman be given the *choice* of coming off for bad light in an ODI. Obviously they are going to do so on the basis of whether or not they are ahead. Given that light would otherwise probably be offered 3 or 4 times. This seems terribly unfair on the fielding team in a close match.

Since Michael Vaughan's tearfilled resignation in August '08 the story of English cricket seems to have been scripted by soap writers, beginning with KP's ODI victories against his old country(normally England don't come within a country mile of beating SA in ODO's), through the returm to India after the terrorists and continuing via 51 all out and the Sir Viv Richards' stadium farce on Fri 13th to yesterday as JD misread the Duckworth Lewis numbers and Strauss's mile wide smile.What with the behind scenes ructions within ECB and WICB and the pre Ashes fallout over hiring Aussies it has all been sensational stuff. But not quite cricket. Perhaps Sir Allen Stanford has his own writers scripting our dull and respectable game, and Giles Clark is really an American soap actor. I am left wondering what next. The theft of Ashes urn perhaps and its discovery in Left Luggage at Victoria Station three months later.

As another poster said - they should have been playing football rather than the D/L game. Shame on the WI team and lets stop bashing England - is it their fault that they were handed victory. Yet again, a big slap is required to both boards for not agreeing to use floodlights in these situations (which they are allowed to do), although very few do. Ever wondered why? After all, the only people they are cheating is us (the paying public). Whether via bums on seats tickets or TV sofas we are paying for this and yet receiving very little respect, whether it be from the boards (old boys clubs all) or the cheating players (not all, obviously).

Don't blame D/L by the way, people. It's only trying to get the best possible 'result' from a bad situation. Would we really rather have no result to these games or a ridiculous one where one side has no chance of winning, ie the team batting first? Don't be silly, people.

I cannot see the reason for all this controversy on such a simple matter as this.
First, what happened on Friday was a simple mistake by the coach. For those who wish to bash him for that, go ahead. No team in world cricket who face with a similar situation - bad light with two fast bowlers on and two tailenders at the crease - and who thought they were ahead in the match who would not accept the light and walk off. Think, suppose West Indies had really being ahead as they thought, had rejected the bad light offer and had being bowled out by the next over because they REALLY could not see the ball? What would we be saying of the well paid Australian coach now?
Finally, for those who are bent on attacking Gayle. Suppose it was Gayle who had called off the players, would it have made it any easier to take? Or are you saying that Gayle could not have made a similar mistake. In the heat of the battle things like these happen. Best for everyone to move on.