England v NZ, World T20, Group 1, Chittagong March 22, 2014

New Zealand take rain-hit game

  shares 161

Play 01:28
'McCullum's quick thinking won it for NZ'

New Zealand 52 for 1 (Williamson 24*, B McCullum 16*) beat England 172 for 6 (Moeen 36, Lumb 33, Buttler 32, Anderson 2-32) by 9 runs (D/L method)
Scorecard and ball-by-ball details

Brendon McCullum is such a master of the dark arts of Twenty20 that it seemed entirely appropriate that he should bat to a backdrop of thunder and lightning. But the storm in Chittagong was not a theatrical prop, it was real, and as the rain soon tippled down upon New Zealand's captain it also drenched him in a premature victory that left England awash with frustration.

New Zealand needed to bat for five overs, in reply to England's challenging but far from secure total of 172 for 6, to bring rain calculations into play in the event of a washed out match. When the first fork of lightning lit up the sky behind the bowler's arm, and caused McCullum to pull away from the crease with Stuart Broad about to enter his delivery stride, they still had to face two balls to make the match valid.

Unbeknown to the players, who do not carry laminated, rain-proofed D/L tables around their necks, not yet anyway, New Zealand needed one more run from the last two balls of Broad's over to claim victory if rain proved to wash out the rest of the game. There was nobody better to be at the crease in such a scenario than McCullum, a bullish batsman on the brink of becoming the first batsman to 2,000 T20I runs, a table he leads by a considerable margin.

McCullum gingerly blocked the next, as if fearing further meteorological intervention, then charged the last ball and whacked a full toss straight for six. It is the sort of thing he does anyway, but it was ideally timed. Broad's only over had cost 16 and, as the players left the field two balls into the next over, persistent rain wiped away any chance of a resumption, with New Zealand ultimately nine ahead of the Duckworth-Lewis target.

England would have had a par of around 180 in mind after watching the first match and adding on another 15 or 20 runs for the way in which evening dew had put some spice in the pitch and tipped the balance a little closer towards the batsmen.

They did not quite achieve it, but one indicator at midway held promise for them: their 172 for 6 was the highest total ever seen in Chittagong. They had set a challenging target and New Zealand had never beaten England on three previous occasions when batting second.

Such are the low expectations around England's challenge that there will have been a few cynical grunts from TV watchers when they launched their part in the tournament with a second-ball duck - it belonged to Alex Hales, who failed to work Kyle Mills' slower ball into the leg side and fell to one of two splendid catches by Corey Anderson, back pedalling at mid-off.

From that point, though, every England batsmen made some sort of contribution. They had unearthed a team batting display after a dreadful run of limited-overs form when they most needed one, although nobody managed to push on for the major score which would have made their position stronger. The least they deserved was a match played to a conclusion. Instead, their recent T20 record remains worse than every other nation bar Bangladesh.

New Zealand had also twice been whitewashed in recent times in one-day series in Bangladesh, but this was not about containing the opposition on low, suffocating tracks. New Zealand's pace bowlers, Tim Southee especially, became a little over-excited with the juice in the pitch and bowled too short, his first over going for 17.

The chief beneficiary was Moeen Ali. England kept faith with him at No 3, even though his first five limited-overs matches in the West Indies had suggested a county batsman initially struggling to make the transition to international level: his selection is very much a hunch, the sort of hunch that selectors always say they are planning to avoid, but to which they invariably resort. This was his best England innings, powered by several lofted leg side blows, one of which produced his downfall as he deposited Corey Anderson to deep midwicket.

The sight of hessian sacks being pulled around the outfield to minimise evening dew had been an indicator of the slippery ball that might inhibit the spin bowlers in particular. England relied upon four pace bowlers and omitted the left-arm spinner Stephen Parry; New Zealand also left out a left-arm spinner, Anton Devcich, as well as Ronnie Hira.

By the time Anderson took his second catch, a diving effort on the cover boundary to dismiss Michael Lumb for 33, England had set up a reasonable platform - 76 for 3 off 8.4 - for their two most destructive T20 batsman, Eoin Morgan and Jos Buttler. But Morgan, deceived by Southee's slower ball, departed to a curious walking shot, as if he was creeping from around a bush to dry his hands in a headwind.

Mitchell McClenaghan proved to be New Zealand's most resourceful bowler, but a tricksy contribution from Buttler, ended when he dragged on against Anderson, kept England in touch. Then came McCullum, the thunder and lightning, and gathering despair in the England dressing room.

David Hopps is the UK editor of ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | March 27, 2014, 6:50 GMT

    @JG2704:

    I have responded & rebutted to each & every point made by you but you keep re-introducing those same points. What a lovely style.

    All the 'new' points I have made should be readily recalled by someone who is often seen on these pages. Yet you can't seem to recall them. Selective Amnesia is a wonderful thing, right :-)

    I have responded & rebutted enough.

    Take care.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 26, 2014, 15:10 GMT

    ESPN Please publish - nothing of offence

    @Harmony - re fans comms.You put

    "Talking about credit, when was the last time we heard a wholesome word of praise from an Eng/Aussie/SA/SL fan here for India? "

    So I gave examples but now a word of praise must become an essay?In those threads I've not noticed one Eng poster posting anything anti Indian.

    I'll apologise for my tone as you're always so cordial to myself and so many others on here and to CM who always speaks candidly/ impartially about cricket in general and always gives other teams praise when it is due. Still don't get the Cook thing but if it's something Cook said - well I'm probably as likely to disagree with it as agree with it.Because a player/fan is English I don't necessarily agree with he says.

    Re WC2011 SF - no I don't remember and

    1 - I probably wasnt on Cricinfo at the time so dont know what was said

    and

    2 - I think I have the ability to let such things - that far back go.

    End of conversation

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 26, 2014, 15:08 GMT

    @H111 - To be honest I cant be bothered any more. I have posted something that ESPN for whatever seems unfit to publish and that was the nice version of what I truly wanted to say. I've given examples of threads where words of praise for Indian cricket by English threads were made by English fans when you said

    "Talking about credit, when was the last time we heard a wholesome word of praise from an Eng/Aussie/SA/SL fan here for India? "

    And then you say they are just a line or 2 when significantly you asked for "Words" of praise and nothing more and equally significantly there are no anti posts (regardless of size) from Eng fans on that thread.

    You rarely respond to points I make and instead bring in new points and to be honest life is too short to spend time typing posts which don't get published. I'll try once more but am not confident of success.

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | March 26, 2014, 12:42 GMT

    @JG2704:

    I've shown you exactly what was wrong in your comment yet you are unable to see it. If CM's country wasn't imp to you then why at all did you say "not so ok" for the current world champions (btw that is CM's home team).

    Having a heated/cold debate with someone is not the moot point. Pls don't use that as a shield. The moot point is, you objected to CM's "Ok" remark but yourself used "not so ok" for India. And then you say you find nothing contemptuous in your comment !!!

    If you now want to say it wasn't 'baseless' then CM wasn't baseless either when he said 'ok team' for NZ or when he criticized DLM. So either way, you did something you yourself had objected to.

    What saddens me more is not your tone but that it was 'your' tone.

    But like I had said, I have said what I had to say & I don't need to say anything more. So let's end it here. Have a nice WT20 & a new financial year.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 26, 2014, 10:39 GMT

    @Harmony - PS - Hopefully they'll publish my other post but regardless re anything else my comms are not showing baseless contempt towards India or any country. I'll agree/disagree with a commenter based on what he says and not what country he is from. I have healthy and maybe at times heated debates with people on here from all countries including my own and that doesn't make me in contempt of every country.

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | March 26, 2014, 6:24 GMT

    @JG2704:

    On one hand you find faults with CM saying "OK team that will get found out" for NZ and then you yourself use words like "Not so ok" for the current world champions. I don't need to say anything else.

    It is sad to see the few remaining relatively sane guys getting consumed by the rapidly spreading poison of pathological & often baseless contempt towards India.

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | March 26, 2014, 6:23 GMT

    @JG2704:

    You have produced 4 comments by 3 posters 2 of which are one-liners and the other 2 aren't much larger. OTOH, there are n number of posters who routinely post full 1000 char multiple comments saying this or that against India on the most illogical grounds. What you posted hardly negates what the norm here is. Of course, you can deny it all and say it doesn't happen but that would not be honesty on your part.

  • POSTED BY 22many on | March 26, 2014, 3:25 GMT

    @ hockiepokie The first one I would rid the team of would be the opening bowler Mills.

    To slow and even slower in the field.

    Time for him to move and before the wc in NZ next year.

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | March 25, 2014, 20:03 GMT

    @JG2704:

    It was your tone in that comment that was nasty. CM was clearly sympathetic towards Eng in his comment so I don't know why you had to use words like "not so ok" & we know for whom you used that phrase.

    As far as NZ go, I think "OK side" is quite an apt term for them. They have often punched above their weight but that's it. They have hardly ever been favorites in any tournament or bi-series. So if CM says that he expects NZ to be soon back to their regression line, he is not much wrong. NZ deserve respect but let there be no illusions.

    By that Cook reference I wanted to say that CM's "DLM is ridiculous" is nothing to take objection of if the former was never objected to and if the former template is repeated each time India do well. If not the umpire then the curator or even the ICC itself is described as "being in the pockets of BCCI". Don't you remember ppl saying that India had manipulated DRS in the WC2011 SF for SRT's lbw? CM's DLM remark is nothing compared to these.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 25, 2014, 11:44 GMT

    @Harmony111 - Once again , I don't believe anything I said to CM on this thread was nasty or untrue. If CM just said that the true test for NZ would come vs SA/SL then that would be just but he goes on to say "Will get found out" are an "OK side" - inferring they are not that good

    If I said anything which was nasty, out of order then please point this out.

    I genuinely don't want to know where your going with your Cook reference but that's nothing to do with this particular debate. My point is that you criticise me and others for suggesting ways to improve DL but you conveniently pass on having a go at the person who says DL is ridiculous without any constructive alternatives for the system. I'm not against the DL system (win or lose) but my suggestions of having to be significantly above/below would just mean that the result is less controversial although I buy the fact that there would be more no results which folk don't want Please publish - nothing of offence

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | March 27, 2014, 6:50 GMT

    @JG2704:

    I have responded & rebutted to each & every point made by you but you keep re-introducing those same points. What a lovely style.

    All the 'new' points I have made should be readily recalled by someone who is often seen on these pages. Yet you can't seem to recall them. Selective Amnesia is a wonderful thing, right :-)

    I have responded & rebutted enough.

    Take care.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 26, 2014, 15:10 GMT

    ESPN Please publish - nothing of offence

    @Harmony - re fans comms.You put

    "Talking about credit, when was the last time we heard a wholesome word of praise from an Eng/Aussie/SA/SL fan here for India? "

    So I gave examples but now a word of praise must become an essay?In those threads I've not noticed one Eng poster posting anything anti Indian.

    I'll apologise for my tone as you're always so cordial to myself and so many others on here and to CM who always speaks candidly/ impartially about cricket in general and always gives other teams praise when it is due. Still don't get the Cook thing but if it's something Cook said - well I'm probably as likely to disagree with it as agree with it.Because a player/fan is English I don't necessarily agree with he says.

    Re WC2011 SF - no I don't remember and

    1 - I probably wasnt on Cricinfo at the time so dont know what was said

    and

    2 - I think I have the ability to let such things - that far back go.

    End of conversation

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 26, 2014, 15:08 GMT

    @H111 - To be honest I cant be bothered any more. I have posted something that ESPN for whatever seems unfit to publish and that was the nice version of what I truly wanted to say. I've given examples of threads where words of praise for Indian cricket by English threads were made by English fans when you said

    "Talking about credit, when was the last time we heard a wholesome word of praise from an Eng/Aussie/SA/SL fan here for India? "

    And then you say they are just a line or 2 when significantly you asked for "Words" of praise and nothing more and equally significantly there are no anti posts (regardless of size) from Eng fans on that thread.

    You rarely respond to points I make and instead bring in new points and to be honest life is too short to spend time typing posts which don't get published. I'll try once more but am not confident of success.

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | March 26, 2014, 12:42 GMT

    @JG2704:

    I've shown you exactly what was wrong in your comment yet you are unable to see it. If CM's country wasn't imp to you then why at all did you say "not so ok" for the current world champions (btw that is CM's home team).

    Having a heated/cold debate with someone is not the moot point. Pls don't use that as a shield. The moot point is, you objected to CM's "Ok" remark but yourself used "not so ok" for India. And then you say you find nothing contemptuous in your comment !!!

    If you now want to say it wasn't 'baseless' then CM wasn't baseless either when he said 'ok team' for NZ or when he criticized DLM. So either way, you did something you yourself had objected to.

    What saddens me more is not your tone but that it was 'your' tone.

    But like I had said, I have said what I had to say & I don't need to say anything more. So let's end it here. Have a nice WT20 & a new financial year.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 26, 2014, 10:39 GMT

    @Harmony - PS - Hopefully they'll publish my other post but regardless re anything else my comms are not showing baseless contempt towards India or any country. I'll agree/disagree with a commenter based on what he says and not what country he is from. I have healthy and maybe at times heated debates with people on here from all countries including my own and that doesn't make me in contempt of every country.

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | March 26, 2014, 6:24 GMT

    @JG2704:

    On one hand you find faults with CM saying "OK team that will get found out" for NZ and then you yourself use words like "Not so ok" for the current world champions. I don't need to say anything else.

    It is sad to see the few remaining relatively sane guys getting consumed by the rapidly spreading poison of pathological & often baseless contempt towards India.

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | March 26, 2014, 6:23 GMT

    @JG2704:

    You have produced 4 comments by 3 posters 2 of which are one-liners and the other 2 aren't much larger. OTOH, there are n number of posters who routinely post full 1000 char multiple comments saying this or that against India on the most illogical grounds. What you posted hardly negates what the norm here is. Of course, you can deny it all and say it doesn't happen but that would not be honesty on your part.

  • POSTED BY 22many on | March 26, 2014, 3:25 GMT

    @ hockiepokie The first one I would rid the team of would be the opening bowler Mills.

    To slow and even slower in the field.

    Time for him to move and before the wc in NZ next year.

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | March 25, 2014, 20:03 GMT

    @JG2704:

    It was your tone in that comment that was nasty. CM was clearly sympathetic towards Eng in his comment so I don't know why you had to use words like "not so ok" & we know for whom you used that phrase.

    As far as NZ go, I think "OK side" is quite an apt term for them. They have often punched above their weight but that's it. They have hardly ever been favorites in any tournament or bi-series. So if CM says that he expects NZ to be soon back to their regression line, he is not much wrong. NZ deserve respect but let there be no illusions.

    By that Cook reference I wanted to say that CM's "DLM is ridiculous" is nothing to take objection of if the former was never objected to and if the former template is repeated each time India do well. If not the umpire then the curator or even the ICC itself is described as "being in the pockets of BCCI". Don't you remember ppl saying that India had manipulated DRS in the WC2011 SF for SRT's lbw? CM's DLM remark is nothing compared to these.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 25, 2014, 11:44 GMT

    @Harmony111 - Once again , I don't believe anything I said to CM on this thread was nasty or untrue. If CM just said that the true test for NZ would come vs SA/SL then that would be just but he goes on to say "Will get found out" are an "OK side" - inferring they are not that good

    If I said anything which was nasty, out of order then please point this out.

    I genuinely don't want to know where your going with your Cook reference but that's nothing to do with this particular debate. My point is that you criticise me and others for suggesting ways to improve DL but you conveniently pass on having a go at the person who says DL is ridiculous without any constructive alternatives for the system. I'm not against the DL system (win or lose) but my suggestions of having to be significantly above/below would just mean that the result is less controversial although I buy the fact that there would be more no results which folk don't want Please publish - nothing of offence

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | March 24, 2014, 19:38 GMT

    @JG2704:

    I see you as among the few saner posters here along with Dunger.bob. Yet you got nasty with CM. That is bad.

    Look, you too know that you are clutching at straws here. If I say that --- though SL thrashed Holland today but their true test would be against NZ/Eng/SA etc---, am I being critical of SL or am I being matter-of-fact? You decide. Saying 'found out' is very common here, esp for India eg India may have won the WC at home but they would be 'found out' in Eng during the Champions Trophy. You see, everything has a start and it wasn't started by CM or an Indian fan.

    Saying DL is ridiculous is many times less worse than saying "that umpire gave Cook lbw cos he was bought by …". Once again, we didn't start it.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 24, 2014, 13:21 GMT

    @Harmony - ctd

    I'm not saying that anti India comms don't happen but re

    "Talking about credit, when was the last time we heard a wholesome word of praise from an Eng/Aussie/SA/SL fan here for India?"

    on the 2 WC matches on reports on the 2 WC group matches I have only noticed comms from

    jb633 on (March 23, 2014, 14:14 GMT) R_U_4_REAL_NICK on (March 23, 2014, 19:59 GMT) JG2704 on (March 23, 2014, 22:50 GMT) - (somehow featured comment) and vs Pakistan jb633 on (March 21, 2014, 22:32 GMT)

    who are definite England commenters and I don't see anything in any of those comms that can be termed as non constructive anti India and all 4 comms have words of praise of some sort in them. I genuinely haven't seen anything from any other Eng fan even commenting on those games. So there's your answer - with dates and times

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 24, 2014, 12:53 GMT

    @Harmony Re the comment "NZ will be found out in their remaining games. They are an 'okay' team but their test will come against SA and SL" Sorry but that looks a little like a criticism on NZ to me And apologies but also I feel folk could actually suggest an alternative for the "ridiculous DL rule" (not my words) rather than just say it's ridiculous but then I'm one of those posters who like to say why I think things are bad (whether it be rules/players/tactics) and offer alternatives and I prefer those posters who are likewise minded. Funny that it was the person who I responded to who says about the ridiculous DL rule and yet I (and others) get the flack when you say

    "Why do you guys have problems with systems only when you lose?"

    Despite the fact that those of us who have suggested alts are not saying DL is bad - just ways of improving it and the person on this topic who is most animated about T20 games being decided in 5 overs is called KIWICRICKETNUT and NZ won

  • POSTED BY indicricket on | March 24, 2014, 12:44 GMT

    In the history of Cricket so far, England is the first team to be hard done by rain

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | March 24, 2014, 11:06 GMT

    @JG2704:

    If you could do away with your bias you would have seen that actually CM had criticized no team in his comment. He said Eng were unlucky, he said NZ were an 'ok' side which is not much off the mark. A few wins here & there doesn't make them a Top side, does it? He said SL & SA would be tough teams to beat. He said the group is tougher than most ppl believe. How exactly was he over-critical or not giving credit?

    Talking about credit, when was the last time we heard a wholesome word of praise from an Eng/Aussie/SA/SL fan here for India? India chase 360 in 44 overs but all we hear is it was a flat track. India win in Eng & we are told the wickets were doctored to suit India. Some people have lost all their ethics. The dislike for India has now become hatred & has consumed some right down to their spleen.

    Is it mandatory to give inputs while criticizing a system? Why do you expect CM to be the epitome of virtuosity when the conduct of others here is nearly diabolical?

  • POSTED BY Rowayton on | March 24, 2014, 10:02 GMT

    Amused by the people who say NZ were cruising to victory. Yeah, just like Australia were in the 12th over against Pakistan. Oh hang on, we lost didn't we?

  • POSTED BY kiwicricketnut on | March 24, 2014, 9:59 GMT

    @JG2704 yes i'd have to concede in certain senario's there would definately be a clear winner on the cards before rain interveined but the other night was certainly not one of them, maybe the 15th over would be a fair gauge where your system would work better and its definatly better than duckworth lewis on its own so well done for thinking outside the square, its certainly the best idea on the issue i've seen, most just complain without any construstive idea on how to fix it so you get my vote.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 24, 2014, 8:55 GMT

    @ Harmony111 - ctd And no I don't have a problem with a system just because we lose. It's just my views on how the system could be improved. CM says it's a ridiculous system but comes up with no ideas for improving it. And agree that we know the system which is why Broad maybe should have come off when Bmac pulled away and the game would have been a draw

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 24, 2014, 8:54 GMT

    @ Harmony111 -I didnt anything nasty and everything I said was true.- if I did say anything nasty then please tell me exactly what it was? Yes I was referring to the Indian series purely as a retort to a commenter on here who NEVER gives any team credit unless it's his own. If one team beats another it's ALWAYS about how bad the other team is rather than anything good the winning team is. Yes the post starts off with Eng being unlucky but that's the only positive thing that was said re either side. I'm sorry if you deem it as anti Indian and yes you can mention Eng's embarrassing defeats but I'm not one to pretend we are head and shoulders above anyone. And no I don't have a problem with a system just because we lose. It's just my views on how the system could be improved. CM says it's a ridiculous system but comes up with no ideas for improving it. And agree that we know the system which is why Broad maybe should have come off when Bmac pulled away and the game would h

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 24, 2014, 8:51 GMT

    @ kiwicricketnut -Yeah certainly understand your point of view. The thing which I would question re your theory is that if there genuinely is no result possible but for example a team chasing 115 is 73-2 after 9 overs would you be ok with it being declared a draw? You say about it being OK for DL to come into play in a 50 overs game after 20 overs but would there (if there genuinely was no play possible to complete the game) be a number of overs you'd be ok with to produce a result? If the game was 15 overs old with a team neading say 25 off the last 5 with 7 wickets remaining would you still call that a draw? My theory would just ensure that the predicted winner would be MORE accurate if they needed to be significantly ahead of the par score. Obviously if we can somehow outhussle SL and beat SA then our destiny is in our hands still but I dont even rate our planning to be able to outhussle a side who are better skilled than us , so failing that I hope your guys lift the trophy

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | March 24, 2014, 5:45 GMT

    The attitude that some Eng/Aus fans routinely show here means it is virtually impossible to have any sort of improvement between them and the Indian fans. These Eng/Aus fans have too many and too much depravities in their thinking that would never allow any reconciliation. Every single time a conflict has risen, it has been started by a non-Indian fan. And on most times such conflicts have been based on a complete lack of respect for the other side. Then these people cry when Indian fans pay them back in the same coin. We still remember chaps like Si Baker who would slyly talk ill of Indians but would complain when Ind fans would respond in kind.

    I won't use the R word just yet, at least not on Cricinfo but on other fora I have seen the way some Eng/Aussies talk about India & things Indian. Cricket is doomed with such low thinkers.

  • POSTED BY kiwicricketnut on | March 24, 2014, 4:01 GMT

    @ JG2704, its a better idea than whats there thats for sure but still to many grey areas and ultimately it still comes down to a mathmatical equation to find the winner which i don't like, it works fine in one dayers as long as the team chasing has a minimum of 20 overs, anything less than that and its too unpredictable for even einstein to work out a suitable equation, they have allready made there money out of tv rights so just finish the game the next day if need be or start it again its only 3hours long, they dont need to televise it again despite fan dissapointment if tv rights are the problem, but why not televise it and play it 3hours before that days scheduled game the pitch wont be affected much by a t20, it would be played at a better hour anyway with night time dew no longer a factor, this can only work for t20 of coarse but surely they can do this even if only for world cups, nobody should win it on the back of a matmatical equation, thats not sport.

  • POSTED BY Lali1234 on | March 23, 2014, 22:32 GMT

    i feel that both teams should have been given equal points on this because the first thing is...this is a world cup tournament and specially its t20...a format in which anything could happen at anytime...if you look at today's match aus vs pak...australia were asserting their dominance over pakistan in the first 10 overs...if the same situation(Nz vs Eng) would have taken place in this match and they have to decide it with D/L then obviously Aus would have won this match...they cannot just depend on D/L method in t20...i am being neutral in this and giving out my opinion thats all...

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 23, 2014, 22:13 GMT

    There is no easy solution re deciding shortened games . My suggestion of a team needing to be significantly up or down on the DL par score would mean that the winner would be deemed less controversial - even if they did it for overs 5-10 0nly.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 23, 2014, 21:59 GMT

    @ R_U_4_REAL_NICK - Problem is I think that would be too complex because you would also have to bear in mind what overs from which bowlers the fielding side has in the tank. So in this instance NZ can say argue they still had Mccullam at the crease and guys like Taylor and Anderson to bat while we could argue that we had still not bowled an over of Bopara and Bres. When you think of the latter - we won the game beyond all doubt lol

    @CodandChips - I'd say no - re considering lengths of batting line ups because (as above) you'd then have to equate to the overs left to individual bowlers. EG if a team needed 100 off the last 10 vs us and Bopara and Tredwell still had half there overs left you'd fancy our chances a whole lot more than if they were mostly divided between Bres,Broad and Dernbach. A more savvy team (which we obviously are not) could consider bowling more of their most economical bowlers overs or putting their faster scorers up the order to get significantly ahead

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 23, 2014, 21:45 GMT

    @Harmony111 - I'm not against any ideas but what I was suggesting primarily is (as an example) , if a game is a certain number of overs old (maybe less than 10 for example) then a team must be significantly ahead of the par score to get the result. It's just an idea to eliminate one team getting a result when the game is effectively on a knife edge. I'm not against DL and I'm sure it's a whole lot different from the farce that happened in 1992 and I'm sure any system which decided which team wins a game after 5 overs when the game is so closely contested would cause controversy. The margin idea (a team has to be significantly up or down on the par score) means the result is more obvious. When I say sliding scale , I mean that a team must be more sigificantly ahead after over 5 (for example) than over 15 as (while much can still happen from over 15) the par score is more likely to be accurate at that stage than after 5 overs. Sorry , I know what I mean but it's harder to explain

  • POSTED BY RandyOZ on | March 23, 2014, 19:50 GMT

    RednWhiteArmy - welcome back, haven't heard from you since last English summer. Why is that again?

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | March 23, 2014, 17:55 GMT

    @JG2704:

    Cpt.Meanster says Eng were unlucky but you still have to say something nasty to him ---- this is your natural bitterness coming out. Some ppl won't ever improve. Each time I meet you after a gap and hope your bitterness would've gone down I am disappointed.

    NZ had lost comprehensively to BD, of all teams so on what basis you call them an OK side beats me. OTOH you call the reigning World Champs + the ICC-CT holders a less than OK side !!! Btw, last time, this less than ok side humiliated Eng on a super flat track for a score of 70, rem that?

    Not being a fan of a team is one thing but being totally illogical is something very few people can do. The two antipodal peoples are prime examples of this.

    Why do you guys have problems with systems only when you lose? Be it DLM or DRS, you guys first praise it so much but when it goes against you, you start moaning & bemoaning.

    This is the system and the rules. Learn to play by them. Don't complain.

  • POSTED BY Pelham_Barton on | March 23, 2014, 17:52 GMT

    @CodandChips on (March 23, 2014, 17:12 GMT): The idea behind my scheme would be to encourage meaningful cricket when a draw is inevitable. This must of course be offset against a strong incentive to go for a win when that is possible.

  • POSTED BY CodandChips on | March 23, 2014, 17:12 GMT

    @Pelham_Barton only issue is that in County Cricket if we have the fraction system in a wet summer they would have too much importance perhaps? Also it county championship matches there is the danger of encouraging negative tactics (like imo the current system does at the moment).

  • POSTED BY Pelham_Barton on | March 23, 2014, 16:12 GMT

    @CodandChips on (March 23, 2014, 14:51 GMT) I completely accept your point about use of fractions in tournaments where a very small number of matches are rain affected. It might be of more use in the ECB domestic T20 competition. Even then I would not recommend it because (as I said earlier) it would mean different rain rules for group matches and knock out matches. Where the scheme really belongs is the purpose for which I originally devised it about 15 years ago, which is to allocate points for drawn County Championship matches, and I worked out a complete sample points table. But that is taking us away from the current article, and even there the scheme has major problems of acceptability.

  • POSTED BY CodandChips on | March 23, 2014, 14:51 GMT

    @JG2704 interesting suggestion re sliding scale. You've obviously thought this idea through.

    Just one point to note I remember a T20 cup game that got reduced to 5 overs before the start. Hants scored 70 odd for 1 and Kent only made 50 odd I think for not many wickets. Wickets in hand was barely an issue here.

    Also with batting lineups having varying lengths surely the D/L effectiveness at indicating how well a team is going is limited. If one team bats to 7, and another 9, the loss of each wicket has a much greater affect on the first team. D/L doesnt consider this, but should it? Obviously though this would be hard to quantify, and requires too much interpretation.

    @those suggesting partial points I don't think it would work except when many games are rain-affected. And perhaps then it would cause too much controversy. Also in tournaments with only one rain-affected game, there would be no real difference if winning team gets 1.55 or 1.95

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2014, 14:38 GMT

    @njr1330 your comment made my day regarding lightning and rain.

  • POSTED BY R_U_4_REAL_NICK on | March 23, 2014, 14:32 GMT

    @JG2704 (post on March 23, 2014, 13:19 GMT): I still think more complex maths would need to be considered that takes into consideration things like 'values of batsmen left' vs. 'effectiveness of bowlers left'. As a starting point at least, I agree with what you're saying. Maybe it would be best to have the players hold umbrellas? Plastic of course, if there's lightning around...

  • POSTED BY jb633 on | March 23, 2014, 14:25 GMT

    @cot.meanster, more amazing insight from Mr. Omniscient. Can't wait for more instalments.

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | March 23, 2014, 13:53 GMT

    @ JG2704:

    Haven't read all the comments here. Are you saying that based on that sliding scale, teams should be given points partially? Like 1.5 for the leading team and 0.5 for the trailing team?

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 23, 2014, 13:19 GMT

    @Pelham_Barton - Indeed your suggestions are worth bearing in mind.

    AND

    CodandChips/ R_U_4_REAL_NICK - Just to elaborate more on what could happen. You could have a sliding scale of where a team needs to be above the par score to get the points. EG between 5 and 8 (inc) overs the team batting 2nd needs to be (eg) 20-25% above the par score to get the win and the team fielding needs to have a similar advantage to get the win. Anything in between and it becomes a draw. For 9-11 (inc) the team needs to be (eg) 12%)above/below the par score to get the win. For 12-15 inc ( above/below 10% of the par score and for overs 16 onwards a 5% advantage either way. If a side was chasing a modest total of say 110 and wer 40-0 they would still get the win but would mean that there would be no situations where a team is ahead/behind by a few runs so early on and with the game in the balance don't feel aggrieved. Reserve days are best but are not always feasible as already pointed out.

  • POSTED BY njr1330 on | March 23, 2014, 12:51 GMT

    Two little-known but useful facts:

    1. Lightning will kill you

    2. Rain won't

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 23, 2014, 12:50 GMT

    @Paul Rone-Clarke on (March 22, 2014, 19:39 GMT) Lol - however I think other teams have shown an interest in him but got any joy. Maybe he is one of those rarities who wants to show loyalty to a club where he is happy?

    @Shah343 on (March 22, 2014, 19:53 GMT) I think DL particularly favours a side batting 2nd when they have a revised target which doesn't equate wickets fallen. On this occasion , no one knew and while there were rain delays expected it wasn't expected to curtail the game altogether. Had BM's 2nd 6 which looked a little miscued gone to a fielder the outcome would have gone the other way. So in rain affected games where a side batting 2nd doesn't have a set revised target they also have to think about wickets falling affecting the target

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 23, 2014, 12:50 GMT

    @kiwicricketnut on (March 23, 2014, 4:30 GMT) Balanced comms as expected. Have to be honest I think I'd have been happy to get the result but in the cold light of day it would have felt slightly hollow. Just wonder what you think of my suggestion (March 22, 2014, 23:28 GMT) re (in games which are rain affected) one team has to be clearly in front to get the result - otherwise it becomes a draw

    @Jono Makim on (March 22, 2014, 19:10 GMT) I think one of our biggest problems is that England still believe that Bres and Broad are our 2 best SF bowlers

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 23, 2014, 12:49 GMT

    @Cpt.Meanster on (March 22, 2014, 20:00 GMT) I see you've braved coming back on here after your post the other day when you predicted 3 teams from the other group would make it to the semis. NZ are (on current form) as good as anyone and have as dangerous players as any team up and down their batting order and as for an OK team - didn't they give your boys a lesson across all 3 formats fairly recently? Re the result - yes it's not ideal but sometimes you have to take it on the chin. Didn't notice any constructive suggestions on how to rectify these situations. NZ are an OK side who I geuss gave a less than OK side a thrashing over the 3 formats in their last set of home series

  • POSTED BY Pelham_Barton on | March 23, 2014, 12:19 GMT

    @JG2704 on (March 23, 2014, 10:39 GMT): For group stages of tournaments, I like your idea in principle. Some years ago, I thought of something which takes your idea a step further, and would, for example, allow for a 75%-25% share of points where a team has a strong, but not decisive, advantage. After all, in a group stage, it is a disadvantage to have an outright winner in every match. Compared to my idea, yours has the advantage of being more easily understood. However, there are serious practical issues to consider in making the method adapt to different types of stoppages and repeated stoppages. The great strength of D/L as it stands is that it adapts seamlessly to different patterns of interruptions. Also, the methods would not be suitable for knockout matches. Although there is a strong case for more "slack time" in knockout matches, there would be considerable opposition to having different rain rules for group and knockout matches.

  • POSTED BY Monjur_Elahi on | March 23, 2014, 12:09 GMT

    @Shane Bond All team deserves respect and also criticism when they do not play well - focuses on blaming other factors rather than improving themselves when they are on the slide. We hear a lot of moaning and cry if a weaker team is going through the 'bad patch'. IRE is definitely a better side thank ENG in T20 and they could have made this round more attractive if they were playing instead of ENG.

  • POSTED BY CodandChips on | March 23, 2014, 11:52 GMT

    @JG2704 (hoping I am a " balanced poster") I like the idea of only awarding a team the win if they clearly have the advantage. However I see it as potentially problematic because it is difficult to quantify this, and I can see many petty arguments resulting from it. But if a game were to finish inside the runs that neither team has a clear advantage, what would happen? A no result? Personally I'd prefer that to reserve days, except with finals, and games where a result is essential, such as semi-finals. But tbh I don't see too much of a problem with D/L in ODIs/List A matches. But my only issue with your system is that it requires interpretation, which assumes that everybody on this planet can think rationally and accept fair decisions.

    However I'd like to make it clear that I believe that New Zealand would have won. Easily.

  • POSTED BY Madpashcrickers on | March 23, 2014, 11:40 GMT

    Clearly it was Zeus hurling thunderbolts to show displeasure with England.

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2014, 11:36 GMT

    OK lightening. But England are a weak side at the moment, particularly in the bowling. While they have many bowlers as Broad said, he himself is the only one that I true international class. Bresnan runs hot and cold and has not been the same bowler he was before his operation. He is still 6-8 clicks down on pace. The rest are makeshift to fair. Having lots of them doesn't improve the quality of them.

    England could change the bowler... but not the quality of the bowling.

    Without Anderson, Swann and a firing Finn, England's bowling compared to NZ this time last year looks very weak. When those three all played, and played well 12 months ago England looked a short form threat. They don't any more.

    Morgan? What's happened to him? Hales number one in the world? Really?. Steady starts from Ali and Lumb and the hope that Buttler will come off 1 in 3 times seems England's plan at he moment. That might therefore win 1 in 3 games... at best.

  • POSTED BY R_U_4_REAL_NICK on | March 23, 2014, 11:20 GMT

    @JG2704 (post on March 23, 2014, 10:39 GMT): I like your suggestion; however, how long is a piece of string? I would much rather (and I don't believe there isn't the budget to make it feasible) that they simply reschedule the incompleted innings/whole game if need-be. Spin-bowlers can really choke the runs in T20's, so DL in T20's is never going to work in my opinion. Much too volatile/variable format for that nonesense.

  • POSTED BY R_U_4_REAL_NICK on | March 23, 2014, 10:43 GMT

    @ ru4real (post on March 23, 2014, 0:28 GMT): A post that is as is as much without sense and accuracy as your name you hide behind is without imagination nor respect. Rest assured @Shane Bond, this is certainly no alias of mine; Mills is one of my favourite short-format bowlers.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 23, 2014, 10:39 GMT

    I wonder what the balanced posters think of my suggestion (March 22, 2014, 23:28 GMT) re weather affected games. It would mean that a team would only get a win in rain affected games if they are clearly winning.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 23, 2014, 10:39 GMT

    I think we have to take this on the chin. In the last year we have had plenty of luck with weather . Vs Australia we were down and out and totally rescued by the weather in one of the tests and vs NZ in one of the home tests (due to our arrogance in ignoring the weather forecast) we were lucky to get the time to beat NZ and in NZ (not weather affected) we were lucky to get the draw - and this not even going back as far as 1992 which was farcical.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 23, 2014, 9:33 GMT

    @Monjur Elahi As a NZ supporter but an admirer of game I would lile to say, show respect to England. Remember, they are having a turbulent time and it's easy to bash them all ends up. Without them, no cricket. As simple as that.

  • POSTED BY seesaw on | March 23, 2014, 9:23 GMT

    Would it not be advisable to retire the entire team and bring them back to England. Certainly save a great deal of money as well as a great deal of embarrassment??

    Oh, how the mighty are humbled!

  • POSTED BY Harmony111 on | March 23, 2014, 9:14 GMT

    Well this wasn't an ideal way to get a result. Anyone who says that NZ were 'clearly' ahead when rain came doesn't know the game. I think Eng too, at the same stage were 50/1, and they were batting first !!!

    One major weakness with DLM is that it takes into account the prev matches to work out a new target. The past matches give you only a basic indication, it need not necessarily be close to the present situations. Extrapolating 75% on the basis of 25% seems mathematically a very weak system. Had 10 overs been bowled or may be 8 or 12, then we might have that feeling which team is ahead.

    5 overs is way too small to say NZ would have won + they were barely ahead of Eng Over-on-Over.

    But Eng fans, this is where the past, of a diff kind comes back to hurt you. The WC 1992 SF vs SA is going to be talked about each time Eng are disadvantaged by any sort of rain-rule. I understand your sorrow but this is what the others are going to raise.

  • POSTED BY Pelham_Barton on | March 23, 2014, 8:55 GMT

    @godshand on (March 23, 2014, 8:02 GMT) and Green_Hornet on (March 23, 2014, 7:27 GMT): How many more times do we have to say it? The rule used in 1992 was NOT Duckworth/Lewis.

  • POSTED BY Monjur_Elahi on | March 23, 2014, 8:48 GMT

    England would've lost anyway. The Rain saved them from being humiliated. They are the weakest team in this round. Lucky for them they didn't have to play the qualifier. They would've lost to even ZIM, Ireland, Holland and Nepal even!

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 23, 2014, 8:26 GMT

    Australia will have difficulty to face the spinner in Bangladesh

  • POSTED BY lolt20underH2O on | March 23, 2014, 8:21 GMT

    The game was poised nicely, shame about the weather, but I imagine there will be a whole lot more DL calculations in this tournament, given Bangladesh has an average rainfall over 1.6 meters in most places. Surely the ICC could've chosen a location to hold the tournament where they'd be more likely to be able complete games. Weather data's available to all freely.

  • POSTED BY RednWhiteArmy on | March 23, 2014, 8:19 GMT

    No complaints from the mighty, mighty RednWhiteArmy. England were maybe abit unlucky but thats cricket, innit? Take it on the chin. Maybe some of the rest of you could take a leaf out of the book of RednWhiteArmy, what a fantastic read.

  • POSTED BY RednWhiteArmy on | March 23, 2014, 8:09 GMT

    Its funny how the usual aussie anglophobe's are saying "NZ would have won after 15 overs" when England had just scored the highest T20 total at the ground ever. But never let the facts get in the way of a good ol' anti-England whinge, yea.

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2014, 8:07 GMT

    Perhaps DL needs to be updated, since it's inception T20 has transformed the game, and the powerplay effects should be taken into consideration in the calculations. However! the result was fair, had England taken another wicket they would have wanted to stay on to the end of the 5th! and as has been pointed out perhaps 8 overs would be a more realistic point to bring in DL

  • POSTED BY godshand on | March 23, 2014, 8:02 GMT

    It's time to correct the shortcomings of D/L !!! History would have changed drastically esp in 1992 WC when SA were by far the best team.

  • POSTED BY notimeforcricket on | March 23, 2014, 7:33 GMT

    a real shame. the game could have gone either way. England's total was actually quite decent. New Zealand knew that the game would most probably get washed out so could swing from the hip and try to get ahead of the run rate. Most teams would get 52 off 10 overs but not many would have got 172 off 20. that said, England can again blame themselves..... surely it is possible to know exactly what run target is at each stage and try to stick within it.

  • POSTED BY Green_Hornet on | March 23, 2014, 7:27 GMT

    22nd March, 1992. World Cup Semifinal: England beat S Africa, who were clearly winning, under D/L method.

    22nd March, 2014. World T20: NZ beat England, who weren't winning anyways, under D/L method.

    Why are the English fans complanin about?

  • POSTED BY Hishon on | March 23, 2014, 7:22 GMT

    im confused as to why people are saying new zealand would have lost.. new zealand had it in the bag, england had a very small chance of winning

  • POSTED BY CodandChips on | March 23, 2014, 7:11 GMT

    New Zealand still on course to fulfil my prediction and win the tournament. I think they'll struggle to beat Sri Lanka in the group stage though.

    For England, I wouldn't change too much for next match (unless the squad can be reselected). From the squad, this is the best batting line up we have. Bell is not a T20I player and hasn't played cricket in a while. Kieswetter looked uncomfortable at international level and I have always felt his batting's destructiveness has been overstated, but an excellent FLT20suggests improvement. But I'd still stick with the current batsmen and hope our best 2 (Morgan & Hales) can actually deliver.

    Bowlers is an interesting one. I have long been calling for the heads of Bresnan & Dernbach, but tbh they might have to stay. Dernbach bowled well yesterday, and Bresnan batted well.Woakes for Bresnan is a possibility, but Woakes' recent white-ball England performances have seen him get whacked. More a test candidate. Parry could come in if more spin needed.

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2014, 6:58 GMT

    I think ,if it didn't rain England could have won the match .It is quite disappointed correctness of D/L so early. If the ICC use this method incorrectly ,some deserved team will lose matches .

    I feel ,it is difficult to guess the winning team early from DL method . This should be changed ,

  • POSTED BY CodandChips on | March 23, 2014, 6:56 GMT

    Unlike many I don't actually think this result was unfair. New Zealand were cruising to victory.

    However 5 overs is so different to 20 overs that perhaps this needs to be reconsidered in the future. For me DuckworthLewis is a bigger problem when a revised target is set. While I believe that a par score for an interruption is usually pretty fair (because it's usually a good indicator for how well you're going in your chase), when revised targets a set, there is usually an obvious imbalance because the team batting second have a lot more license than the first (less overs to lose wickets) which isn't often reflected in the calculated score.

    Also DuckworthLewis is currently the best we have. Reserve days wouldn't work because there would be a backlog of matches. Any incomplete match would have to be continued on the next day.

    Perhaps a new system needs to be considered but for now we have to stick with it. I liked @JG2704's suggestion of only have a result if a team has clear advantag

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2014, 6:52 GMT

    Very sad for the D\L system decision . NZ would have never achieved the target , if they play the full 20 over match . The rain was sure to disturb the match . Why the committee did not reduced the whole match to 12 or 10 overs each from the start of the play with equal chances to both party . Today both matches facing same position. Will the authorities will take any note ??????

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2014, 6:17 GMT

    if Mccullum had been bowled out instead of smashing a six england would have won by the Duckworth lewis system would this have been fair? just wondering

  • POSTED BY dunger.bob on | March 23, 2014, 5:59 GMT

    I forgot to mention in my prev post that making it 8 overs before a match is declared also gives the bowling side a couple of overs without that bloody power-play stuff in force. With 5 overs, it's wall to wall power-play which isn't quite fair imo.

  • POSTED BY dunger.bob on | March 23, 2014, 5:55 GMT

    It should be 8 overs before a match is declared. You need 20 overs in ODI's which is 40% of the potential max. That seems ok so why not apply the same thing to T20?

    If you don't get to the end of the 8th over in the return innings, share the points.

  • POSTED BY Iceman29 on | March 23, 2014, 5:22 GMT

    Feel sorry for the English fans...its cruel that the rain gods has to decide even a T20 result, they played well to post 170 which is a very good total in these kind of pitches...However I dont think going with all pace attack is going to help NZ in every match, this is subcontinent and you will get punished if you keep on bowling fast, without a good spinner you wont be able to win some matches.... will see how far the NZ luck runs in this tournament...

  • POSTED BY shrastogi on | March 23, 2014, 5:00 GMT

    While England may consider themselves unlucky my feeling is that NZ would have anyway won the match had it gone the distance given the sort of start they had. Kapil Dev termed them as dark horse the other night on TV and I would agree. They are indeed dark horse in this group where many would think SL & SA would be the teams to qualify for SF. England have their work cutout if they want to challenge other teams in the group.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 23, 2014, 4:37 GMT

    @ru4real So you want to drop our most consistent short form bowler mate? Have a look, pitch was flat and he bowled well enough to get a wicket of world's no 5 t20 batsman. And even if we drop him, who'll replace? Mitch didn't bowl at death. T20 is cruel on bowlers. Trent Boult can't handle the white bowl swing and is a better red ball bowler (but can improve vastly). Matt Henry, Adam Milne, Bevan Small, Douglas Bracewell all don't have any record to show on subcontinent but Mills has. P.S Remember Australia warmup? Only Mills bowled well, 4-0-21-2.

  • POSTED BY kiwicricketnut on | March 23, 2014, 4:30 GMT

    farcical result you just cant abreiviate an allready shortened version of the game without it looking like a complete joke, unlike some of my countrymen here i can easily see english fans frustration and had it been nz on the receiving end of a crazy equation, i would have been pretty pissed off too. LUCKY for us we were on the right side of it today but i can't stress the lucky part enough because when you incorprate duckworth lewis in t20 cricket it becomes a lottery, england had a good score and could quite easily of won that game despite us being in the box seat, it was shaping to be a cracker, this is a world cup, they need reserve days so games are played out in full to get the fairest results, with no arguements and a true champion, duckworth lewis just doesn't work in this format.

  • POSTED BY NALINWIJ on | March 23, 2014, 3:34 GMT

    Duckworth Lewis has stood the test of time in 50 over cricket and defined a minimum 20 overs for qualification. Hence the cut down version of Duckworth Lewis is not what the mathematicians intended. I also do not believe the super over makes any sense. NZ were hit hard by the super over in the last T20 WC but this match was too close to call and I feel this loss has plummeted England's chance of qualifying for semis down to 25%

  • POSTED BY Naked_Cricket on | March 23, 2014, 3:29 GMT

    For the fast few years we witness the DL system not suite for t20 and importance of umpire/decision review system . Because this game can change in 3 ball or even less, modification of DL required and bring URS/DRS.

    Good luck for NZ for aggressive batting .

  • POSTED BY DontMessWithZohan on | March 23, 2014, 3:27 GMT

    Rules for deciding a rain-hit match is necessary, but, i think it should be must to have both teams bat for at least 10 overs. 50 runs in 5 overs is much easily achievable than 200 runs in 20 overs. I am not a fan of both ENG and NZ - but as a keen follower of the tournament, the result is a disappointment for me.

  • POSTED BY jmcilhinney on | March 23, 2014, 3:06 GMT

    It's never ideal when a game gets affected by rain part way through and one team will almost always feel aggrieved, quite justifiably too I think. That said, in the it will most likely even out as I'm sure that England have had the better of a D/L result. I'd say that NZ were probably the favourite to win the game any way but, considering that England were 50/1 at the same point in their innings, England were still in with a decent shout. I'd say that what little chance England had of advancing has just gone out the window with this loss.

  • POSTED BY the_evil_weevil on | March 23, 2014, 2:46 GMT

    @RichardMLindsay- ha! Big Three only in the board's eyes. The average England fan I would hope knows better.

  • POSTED BY Vikum72 on | March 23, 2014, 2:42 GMT

    I don't believe D/L method is suitable for this format. NZ clearly got an unfair advantage. The match should have been considered as a draw.

  • POSTED BY wapuser on | March 23, 2014, 1:57 GMT

    I agree with adrian. This seems to be a joke. As this is a global event and there should be a reserve day as icc should know that this is a rainy season in bangladesh.

  • POSTED BY BARFI on | March 23, 2014, 1:48 GMT

    D/L is a joke. Can it predict a situation like NZ losing remaining wickets for 23 runs like BD?

  • POSTED BY bobbo2 on | March 23, 2014, 1:21 GMT

    England were no hard done by. They should have made 200 plus after that start and NZ would have won anyway as they bat deep. They made 197 against Australia the other day and should have won that practice game too. If Jessie Ryder was in the team they would be even stronger.

  • POSTED BY whofriggincares on | March 23, 2014, 1:20 GMT

    @ Adrian Thomas, Surely you realize how hard it is logistically to make a tournament like this happen. To have reserve days is impossible , how many do you have , which games get precedence? Weather is and has always been a factor in our sport , deal with it. The Kiwis would have got those runs in a canter anyway against England's pop gun attack. The bookies would have had them finishing it at around the 18 over mark.

  • POSTED BY Nik84 on | March 23, 2014, 1:17 GMT

    hahaha so funny that these international cricket matches getting end up in only 5 overs, even the kids in parks play 10 overs a side.What a waste of talent with invention of this format, anyways its entertaining but has no respect.Technically sound players like kallis , clarke,sachin,ponting don't play these ones internationally. ICC should have some respect for cricket after all this is a world cup and one side is playing 5 overs and winning.Shame. anyways enjoy

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2014, 1:08 GMT

    Respect to all the English players for venting their anger on DWL and not taking anything away from NZ, I wanted new Zealand to win but not in this way very unfortunate for England. Kane Williamson start looked very promising indeed i'm keen to see him in the next 20/20's and Mccullum as always a machine.

  • POSTED BY electric_loco_WAP4 on | March 23, 2014, 1:03 GMT

    1 of game's delicious ironies-Eng supporters feeling 'robbed' by rain.Eng are prob. 1 team benefitted most by rain thoughout history.Think '92 wc-rain rule-vs SA,in Ashes-few times recently in Eng leg last year-,some others too.Hope NZ's NRR's not hit.

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2014, 1:01 GMT

    Could not say "Hail Hales!"; before that he left. All was well when Ali was well, as his batting gave you confidence. Lumb gave me a lump of joy in my throat, when he started stroking well. Morgan, all of a sudden, seems to need more guns in his arsenal (He's no arsenal fan, I presume). In the absence of Cook, many a loyal Buttler drops his pretentious pomp (fortunately ,not any catch in 32 balls, in the NZ innings), confidently troops into the kitchen, and cooks up something worthwhile...

    Oh No...Lightning... Thunder...Rains... Oh no!

    I have to stop, since rains came. I can not swim like a Duck. It was Worth ducking under even a small umbrella like a humongous ground official with a duck-walk did. It was Worth it , no Louis? (Assuming Louis is a New Zealander). But, not for England who did a Worthwhile job in the first innings; but alas got drained in the rain. I do understand the pain, England's fans. I am with you on this.

    As James Bond said, "Live for another day"!

  • POSTED BY electric_loco_WAP4 on | March 23, 2014, 0:49 GMT

    Congrats NZ-resounding win.On exptd. lines too-unfancied Eng was always going to be easy job for much superior NZ.But will be hard done by rain-net run rate?Cruising to target with 50 in 5 overs,Brendon smashing it all over-would've chased it in 15 overs.

  • POSTED BY on | March 23, 2014, 0:40 GMT

    Board's over cost the match and only one over of spin is not sign of good captaincy when Kiwi's are known to be weak against spin.

  • POSTED BY dogandbone on | March 23, 2014, 0:28 GMT

    if NZ want to keep progressing they need to rid themselves of Mills...he is becoming the draught horse of world cricket....sadly he goes missing in the field and if someone takes to him he seems to loose his line and length....time to bring in Bolt and if not him bring in Neesham... Still rather see McCullum open the innings if there is going to be rain around.

  • POSTED BY wapuser on | March 23, 2014, 0:16 GMT

    I noticed Southee kept bowling no balls as his back foot cuts and crosses the side line when he bowls from wider on the crease. Just wondering why umpires seem to disregard the rule.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 23, 2014, 0:15 GMT

    Adrian Thomas. I agree with you. Even if my team got the right end of this stick, I wouldnt want it. Its unacceptable.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 22, 2014, 23:47 GMT

    Eng still have qualification in their own hands but prob need to win all 3 remaining matches to do so. We stylistically have our hardest match (vs SL) next

    SL have few weaknesses.They probably have the best SF pacer in the world as well as decent slower options and loads of batting talent. However I think they lack athleticism in the field.On several occasions I saw that they were slow to the ball inc a couple of times when they seemed to almost escort the ball to the boandary. I have said that aggressive running is something we majorly need to improve on and no more than in a game where the opponents fielders aren't the tightest. Also noticed that aggressive running also leads to bowling/fielding mistakes I think in the long run this could reap more rewards than trying to hit big and is less risky.

  • POSTED BY darsh127 on | March 22, 2014, 23:37 GMT

    @Adrian Thomas , Javed - " if nz made 80 runs in 4 overs they will get a draw but 50 runs in 5 overs giving them a win...ridiculous" This was worked because 5 overs is required to get a game in. In 4 overs, if nz had 80, they are definately going to win the game but if rain interfered, it would be a draw as 5 overs werent in. Now since the 5 overs were in and nz were at 52, they got the win.

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 23:29 GMT

    Those saying the two sixes won it for NZ obviously didn't watch the game. He only needed 42 runs at 5 overs.. He could have scored 1 run off the last two deliveries of the 5th over, and still would have won.

    Yes I think 5 overs shouldnt constitute a game, it should be at least 50 percent of the overs. Ie ten overs. There should be a reserve day, but their isnt due to the scope and size of the tournament and the fact 20/20 is meant to be fast paced and a wee bit hit and giggle.

    To be honest with McCullum and Williamson easily hitting boundaries at will from the best England bowlers, and 9 wickets remaining I really can't see that England would have won, so perhaps people should just get over it and realise it is what it is.. the rules.

    England knows the rules before they played the game. They are very clear.

    On top of this Broad didn't seem keen on going off when the lightning started, it was McCullum who seemed to want to go off. Broad seemed to want his last two balls.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 22, 2014, 23:28 GMT

    Re DL etc - unfortunately it worked against us here.

    I'm wondering if they could try something out here.

    My suggestion would be to still have a DL system but have in place a system whereby one side has to be clearly on top to get the result. For example in this game I think the DL par score after 5 overs - having lost one wicket was something like 45. So in this instance you could say that if NZ are 30 or below then England are awarded the game and if NZ are on 60 or above then NZ are awarded the game and anything in between and the game is a draw. When a team wins/loses by literally a few runs on DL when the inns is only 25% complete the defeated side will always feel hard done by. NZ were favourites at the time they went off but I wouldnt call it a cakewalk as one expert says. Eng still had 8 overs of their most consistent 2 SF bowlers of the last year or so to use up. Tredwell and Bopara have often dried up the runs and NZ still needed 120

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 23:13 GMT

    This was a nonsense no game. How can you decide on an important match using DL method - just five overs. SL were at the receiving end in SA and WI during two WC ODI matches. This has to stop. If you cannot play the game or if the conditions are so dependent on dew factor it cannot be fair to the two teams. Blow day night matches. Just play them during the day when conditions are fair to both teams.

    Come on England we can catch up.

  • POSTED BY JG2704 on | March 22, 2014, 23:11 GMT

    Obviously as an Englishman I'm disappointed but congratulations NZ. With the bat they all made contributions (bar Hales). Morgan looked scratchy. Bres (despite his efforts with the bat) was again woeful with the ball as was Broad.

    I was worried beforehand when Broad was talking about the bounce in the wicket being a real plus which indicates to me that bowling short is more part of their plans than bowling full despite the consistent poor results when bowling such lengths on these pitches. Broad was also bad despite looking like he was getting his lengths right in his previous short spell vs India. It's starting to look that bowling short is part of their plans rather than indiscipline which is particularly worrying. Maybe the annalysts they have on board are somehow missing what's actually happening in the game.

  • POSTED BY cricketlover80 on | March 22, 2014, 23:03 GMT

    D/L shouldn't be applied for T20. Its ridiculous. Each team should have shared the point. If they cant get rid of it, either a minimum of 15 overs or D/L should start to apply after 5th wicket is down for team batting second at any over.

  • POSTED BY Snambidi on | March 22, 2014, 22:58 GMT

    Duckworth Lewis Target had badly hit England with the interference of Rain combined with the Expert approach of Brendon MaCullum. It was indeed a greatBlessing in disguise for Newzealand. But rather a pity for England who had a reasonablly good score though not enough in a T20 game to beat a team like Newzealand.

    England Cricket all of a sudden seems to have plunged into darkness ,of late,as is obvious from this & recent past games they had played. But in this match the method of determining a game was too cruel to them that it seems necessary for ICC to reconsider doing away with this D/Wmethod.

    As far as the shortest version is concerned which is always played in the after noon of the day extending to Night,there is enough room to replay the match next day instead of applying this method..Just 5 overs to decide the game is so cruel that there does not appear to have any justice in applying such method. A serious thinking to provide time in the next day would be necessary.

  • POSTED BY yuvi_gladiator on | March 22, 2014, 22:55 GMT

    England really unlucky IMO. could have been a close game

  • POSTED BY disco_bob on | March 22, 2014, 22:52 GMT

    You would have backed NZ to chase down this slightly under par total, especially as England were on course for near 200. However I can't see that a 5 over minimum for D/L in T20 is fair given the volatile nature of the game, witness Netherlands coming from last to first.

    Having said all that one really finds it difficult to fell sorry for England who have often been caught praying for rain to save them from certain Test defeats. As they say, live by the raindrop, die by the raindrop.

  • POSTED BY Bishop on | March 22, 2014, 22:48 GMT

    I think the 50 over game gets it about right - 20 overs is the minimum length of time for a cricket match to be decided on skills, and not fortune (though I think even 20 overs is a little short...30 would be better). 5 overs is a fiasco and I think England can count themselves unlucky.

    However, it is nothing that hasn't happened before to every other side, and NZ were in front when the rain hit. Nice for them to get a win on the board. Go NZ!

  • POSTED BY shillingsworth on | March 22, 2014, 22:22 GMT

    @India_ANY_track_bully - Leaving aside the silly national jibes, D/L gave NZ the match on the basis that they were ahead of the required run rate and had only lost one wicket. That seems logical to me and I note that you have neither proposed an alternative method nor explained your reasoning for rejecting the D/L. Perhaps you prefer the rain rules which applied at the 1992 World Cup - the 21 off 1 ball moment. It's true that using D/L for an innings of 5.2 overs is pretty farcical but that is hardly the fault of its inventors - try the ICC.

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 22:18 GMT

    Duckworth - worth a duck only! Its high time this useless rule is taken out of International cricket. ICC should adopt the other better method at least now onwards!

  • POSTED BY espncricinfomobile on | March 22, 2014, 21:52 GMT

    New Zealand should take that because luck goes for you and against you sometimes. They would have won the first test of the summer against West Indies when they only needed 20 odd to win when the heavens opened in Dunedin. Any way, nice two points to start off with. The bowling has to improve though. The blackcaps batting is strong but in the past three games (today and the two warm ups) the bowling has put the batting under severe pressure. If the blackcaps are to reach the latter stages, the bowling has to improve

  • POSTED BY kc69 on | March 22, 2014, 21:43 GMT

    I believe this decision based on D/L is quite unfair.Atleast there should be a law that should implement D/L with minimum 50% of the overs in the innings bowled(10 for T20 and 25 for ODI), else should be called as No Result (rematch on reserve day if needed).

  • POSTED BY stevenz on | March 22, 2014, 21:10 GMT

    Don't get too excited my English friends, New Zealand were marching to victory chasing a too-low total on this pitch

  • POSTED BY Pelham_Barton on | March 22, 2014, 21:05 GMT

    Let us get this clear please. The minimum of 5 overs for a result in a T20 international is NOT part of the Duckworth/Lewis method, but part of the basic playing conditions. The playing conditions create the problem, to which the D/L method is the nearest thing available to a fair and workable solution. ---@Javed Ahmed on (March 22, 2014, 18:17 GMT) What is essentially your point is discussed on pages 136-138 of the book that Messrs Duckworth and Lewis published in 2011 and they recommend a change to the playing conditions which would remove the anomaly you highlight.

  • POSTED BY R_U_4_REAL_NICK on | March 22, 2014, 20:47 GMT

    'Electrifying' performance there from England; what a shame such a 'shocking', farcical result should ensue. It's just not going England's way these days. They just need to try and 'keep their heads above water' and treat this as 'a flash in the pan'... 'Storm in a teacup' even. "Thunderbolts and lightning" Ashley Fraser Giles must be screaming...

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 20:33 GMT

    Does seem to be farcical but hey nz seems to be on a roll go kiwis

  • POSTED BY goafghanistan on | March 22, 2014, 20:30 GMT

    Terrible win, I think nz would of still won if it was a full 20overs considering their batting lineup but still this should of been a no result

  • POSTED BY ManuDonald on | March 22, 2014, 20:20 GMT

    The the real travesty is this game being played at 2:30am NZDT. Lets schedule the next one for midday local time so that we in NZ can settle in to watch at the reasonable time of 7pm. Wet balls!!! No wonder the sport has such a weak following here.

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 20:10 GMT

    i think d/L method shouldn't be used at least in the world cups why can't they play the game next day or reschedule it according to weather

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 20:07 GMT

    To all the English whining and complaining... Surely you realize a loss in such a frustrating manner is a gift from the Gods? Now you get to be yourselves! Whingers. Also a draw is a horrible result in a tournament layout where each team needs to thrash the minnow and win 2 of 3 to get 6 points out of 8 to make the finals. If we both got 1 point, it would be like we both lost. We would both then need to beat both of SA and SL - potentially!! Trust me. Worked it out... used paper and everything! LOLZ! So.... be thankful the team that can go deepest into the competition won and now wish us well as we try and beat those upstart South Africans, who will be desperate... oh oh!! Bring it on!!!

  • POSTED BY Cpt.Meanster on | March 22, 2014, 20:00 GMT

    England were simply unlucky. Well I guess KARMA finally caught up with the English. Messrs Duckworth and Lewis would certainly not be happy to know that their ridiculous rule has cost England the game. NZ will be found out in their remaining games. They are an 'okay' team but their test will come against SA and SL. This group is not an easy one as some people claim it to be.

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 19:58 GMT

    Typical, New Zealand win by this back door method. Robbed and shame on the umpires.

  • POSTED BY krishna_IND on | March 22, 2014, 19:58 GMT

    @bobbo2 hey buddy I think now you got the reason why they opt to bowl first

  • POSTED BY Shah343 on | March 22, 2014, 19:53 GMT

    If a the Batting second team knows it is going to rain soon than they would play aggressively for the first five overs.Since the rain happened at the end, new Zealand played all 5 of their overs in power play making it easy for them to get ahead of the D/L score. New Zealand would have probably won anyway so its OK but the D/L score should take this into account.

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 19:44 GMT

    Relax folks, this is just the 20-20 smash-a-thon. Who actually cares. It's not like test cricket or anything.

  • POSTED BY sumit1982 on | March 22, 2014, 19:41 GMT

    How can 50 over D/L rule apply in T20 I couldn't understand.

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 19:39 GMT

    But the BIG question is. Now that Ali has done pretty for England - when will Surrey poach him from Worcestershire? My money is next Tuesday at the latest.

  • POSTED BY British_North_America on | March 22, 2014, 19:25 GMT

    If anyone to beat Sl from Group A, it has to be NZ.

  • POSTED BY Jeremy72 on | March 22, 2014, 19:23 GMT

    If the lights can stay on all night, why not allow way more time for the rain to clear? Day games are even nuttier, because they have all day and all evening to get a result but they still have this arbitrary cut-off time.

  • POSTED BY zakar12 on | March 22, 2014, 19:19 GMT

    England need more suffers to win.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 22, 2014, 19:11 GMT

    bad luck for England

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 19:10 GMT

    Harsh on England, that result, even more so when you consider the resulting NRR. Still, it is T20, a lottery at the best of times. Just thinking though, that England must have known the storm was coming and may just have used their best bowlers a little more up front. I don't really understand why they don't give Jordan the new ball, he seems to be the one guy that might swing it away for England early on and there is probably only ten balls where that is even a possibility, given the dew factor. Just my two cents.

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 19:05 GMT

    Javed I don't know how you work that out mate, but in the end you're right, the D/L method is fine for unimportant random ODI series around the world. But this is cricket's show-piece.

    I'm English, and support England, but I would feel the same way had we won under the same circumstances.

    This was an utter farce. there must be reserve days set aside for such situations, and if it costs the ICC money then so be it. They seem to think they have a bottomless pit of it looking at the recent 'restructuring'.

    Get a grip ICC, and give the World Cup the respect, and the funding, it deserves.

  • POSTED BY RichardMLindsay on | March 22, 2014, 19:02 GMT

    Nice to get another win over a self-proclaimed Big Three team.

  • POSTED BY alesana85 on | March 22, 2014, 18:50 GMT

    Happy to see NZ win this morning...Until I read how. Five Overs constitutes a match, really? Can't blame the players for this debacle. Cheap rain affected victories diminishes the prestige of winning such a tournament, in other words people won't care who wins. Good luck NZ, T20 is a lottery may the luckiest team win, for me it's back to super rugby & NRL until real cricket comes back.

  • POSTED BY espncricinfomobile on | March 22, 2014, 18:46 GMT

    Unlucky result for England as the game was set to be tight. Positives can be taken from our batting display however but still lacking a batsmen who can stick around and set a big total.

    NZ fielded well but bowled far too short today, think their big hitters would have seen them through regardless.

    Good luck to both teams.

  • POSTED BY IndiaNumeroUno on | March 22, 2014, 18:25 GMT

    I love it so much when England are on the wrong side of D/L method, as both Duckworth and Lewis were English statisticians who gave the cricketing world such a "wonderful" gift :))... It will be nice to see stats showing which team has lost/won how man D/L affected matches. Anyone?

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 22, 2014, 18:17 GMT

    what a foolish law of D/s..suppose if nz made 80 runs in 4 overs they will get a draw but 50 runs in 5 overs giving them a win...ridiculous...

  • POSTED BY ramz30380 on | March 22, 2014, 18:16 GMT

    For the first time I have seen Eng in a good position for quite a while now - they cud've made a match out of it if it was to have lasted the full 20 overs. Even the rain gods arent favoring the Eng team these days!

    Good thinking from Mc Cullum - if not for those 2 sixes NZ wudnt have won - he acted smartly - excellent work! All the best both teams!

  • POSTED BY pksonker on | March 22, 2014, 18:05 GMT

    Needham should play the game OK I am a nz fan.go nz go

  • POSTED BY StevieS on | March 22, 2014, 18:04 GMT

    FAB_ALI what are you on about it is +1.688 to New Zealand. Look at the table on this site.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 22, 2014, 18:01 GMT

    unfair if your a England supporter. you cant say what the result would be in a t20. today lot of people thought south africa would have easily walked over sl score.but end of the 20 overs the story was different. this d.l method does not work please get rid of it and have a reserved day for such big tournament.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 22, 2014, 17:57 GMT

    jus one over from brod turned the game

  • POSTED BY shortsquareleg on | March 22, 2014, 17:55 GMT

    And the losers are(yet again) the the paying spectators. Too many matches in all forms of cricket are decided by the weather.There is always financial pressure on the umpires to make sure that the minimum overs are completed, in order that the organizers do not have to refund entry fees! Please publish the minimum and maximum entrance fees for each cricket match reported on ESPN. Thank you!

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 17:53 GMT

    I'm not happy the way result is, ICC should put reserve day to hold the game on and make the most of saving the match. England's worst day and Kiwis luckiest we can say at last, but still i can say that England has a chance of qualifying with the way the team is playing with some good spin and bowling attack

  • POSTED BY FAB_ALI on | March 22, 2014, 17:45 GMT

    Shocked to see the points table!!!!! NZ have got the 2 points but a NRR of -22.500, really shocking. It should be 52/5.2 against 172/20...which should be around +1.500 something. How can it be 52/5.2 against 172/5.2?????? And England despite losing the game has a NRR of +22.500, must be joking.

  • POSTED BY Hira1 on | March 22, 2014, 17:33 GMT

    this World cup will all spoil by rain.........how come ICC didn't have a reserve day on such big tournaments......every day we expect atleast one game to suffer due to weather conditions in Bang during these months

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 22, 2014, 17:28 GMT

    exactly after 22 years duckworth -lewis broke up with England

  • POSTED BY StevieS on | March 22, 2014, 17:21 GMT

    Would of cake walked the total anyway, what 120 off 15 with 9 batsman left and a lot of big hitters to come and Williamson well set. Easy win.

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 17:15 GMT

    Duckworth Lewis mehtod is spoiling these cricket matches, its time they get rid of this stupid rule, if matche doesnt go ahead as planned, either have the extra game played later or end it as a draw.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 22, 2014, 17:14 GMT

    New Zealand look strong for the Competition. They will be tested against Sri Lanka and South Africa ... Then they could go onto be possible Champions.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 22, 2014, 17:12 GMT

    unfortunately England is defeated by New Zealand....by D/L method. just rain helps New Zealand today.... bad luck for England.

  • POSTED BY bobbo2 on | March 22, 2014, 17:09 GMT

    Well done NZ to pull back a good start. England should have made 200 plus with that start. McCullum did well to get us above the D/L rate.

  • POSTED BY AlvinJoe on | March 22, 2014, 17:07 GMT

    New Zealand win!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 17:05 GMT

    Well we (NZ) won... just... but very disappointed in team selection today which read way too much into too little from Munro in the warm-ups and I still think playing Williamson when he does not bowl (or they do not bowl him) is questionable. There is no logic in not playing the hitting power and bowling variety of Neesham. I assume the dew - which is chronic in Chittagong admittedly at night - was why we played three samey quicks and no Devich... while Neesham could open if Kane doesn't have to bowl... It's just not justifiable to omit him. For the nest match, certainly if slower pitch, one of those three pacemen should drop out for Neesham's variety and extra bat. Munro is leading a charmed life in my opinion as an out and out batter and upsetting balance too. Hope change team even though won.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 22, 2014, 15:56 GMT

    McCullum stepping out to broad - six of the tournament. Only McCullum can beat himself. Stepping out to a quick as though he was playing a slow left armer.

  • POSTED BY CodandChips on | March 22, 2014, 15:44 GMT

    Not a bad score. Many players did their bit. Shame nobody could push on.

    I backed New Zealand to win this tournament. While their bowling wasn't great, I'm sure their classy and explosive batting line-up will make mincemeat of this total against the likes of Dernbach and Bresnan in particular.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 22, 2014, 15:24 GMT

    can't believe England scored so many runs, poor bowling effort from black caps. no chance to win from here. just acknowled you are punching above your weight

  • POSTED BY cric_passion on | March 22, 2014, 14:42 GMT

    It is still anybody's match considering the batting lineup of NZ. But Eng has given themselves a great chance courtesy couple of good knocks at the top of the order.

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 14:36 GMT

    England must persist with morgan and butler for the remaining of overs

  • POSTED BY bobbo2 on | March 22, 2014, 14:15 GMT

    NZ why did you put them into bat? Dew is there already so no great advantage. Should always bat first unless there Is a very good reason night to.

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 13:59 GMT

    Now i feel proud to have Moeen Ali's signature.Come on Moeen Ali.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 22, 2014, 13:54 GMT

    we want gud match!!

  • POSTED BY jb633 on | March 22, 2014, 13:45 GMT

    Holland are waiting to get us. New Zeland should win this at a canter. They are a far better cricketing outfit (all 3 departments).

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • POSTED BY jb633 on | March 22, 2014, 13:45 GMT

    Holland are waiting to get us. New Zeland should win this at a canter. They are a far better cricketing outfit (all 3 departments).

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 22, 2014, 13:54 GMT

    we want gud match!!

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 13:59 GMT

    Now i feel proud to have Moeen Ali's signature.Come on Moeen Ali.

  • POSTED BY bobbo2 on | March 22, 2014, 14:15 GMT

    NZ why did you put them into bat? Dew is there already so no great advantage. Should always bat first unless there Is a very good reason night to.

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 14:36 GMT

    England must persist with morgan and butler for the remaining of overs

  • POSTED BY cric_passion on | March 22, 2014, 14:42 GMT

    It is still anybody's match considering the batting lineup of NZ. But Eng has given themselves a great chance courtesy couple of good knocks at the top of the order.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 22, 2014, 15:24 GMT

    can't believe England scored so many runs, poor bowling effort from black caps. no chance to win from here. just acknowled you are punching above your weight

  • POSTED BY CodandChips on | March 22, 2014, 15:44 GMT

    Not a bad score. Many players did their bit. Shame nobody could push on.

    I backed New Zealand to win this tournament. While their bowling wasn't great, I'm sure their classy and explosive batting line-up will make mincemeat of this total against the likes of Dernbach and Bresnan in particular.

  • POSTED BY android_user on | March 22, 2014, 15:56 GMT

    McCullum stepping out to broad - six of the tournament. Only McCullum can beat himself. Stepping out to a quick as though he was playing a slow left armer.

  • POSTED BY on | March 22, 2014, 17:05 GMT

    Well we (NZ) won... just... but very disappointed in team selection today which read way too much into too little from Munro in the warm-ups and I still think playing Williamson when he does not bowl (or they do not bowl him) is questionable. There is no logic in not playing the hitting power and bowling variety of Neesham. I assume the dew - which is chronic in Chittagong admittedly at night - was why we played three samey quicks and no Devich... while Neesham could open if Kane doesn't have to bowl... It's just not justifiable to omit him. For the nest match, certainly if slower pitch, one of those three pacemen should drop out for Neesham's variety and extra bat. Munro is leading a charmed life in my opinion as an out and out batter and upsetting balance too. Hope change team even though won.