Fair Play or No way

The idea of Duckworth Lewis is so far fetched and complex that I'm sure Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis are the only ones that fully understand the mathematical formulation.

The idea of D/L is to calculate the target score for the team batting second in a limitless overs match due to interruptions such as weather or other circumstances. The basic principle is that the Duckworth Lewis should re-evaluate the target score set by the first batting team and adjust it to make it a fair match.

1. "For each team's innings
   (a) from the table note the resource percentage the team had available at the start of their innings;
   (b) using the table, calculate the resource percentage lost by each interruption;
   (c) hence calculate the resource percentage available.
2. If Team 2 have less resources available than Team 1, then calculate the ratio of the resources available to the two teams. Team 2's revised target is obtained by scaling down Team 1's score by this ratio.
3. If Team 2 have more resources available than Team 1, then calculate the amount by which Team 2's resource percentage exceeds Team 1's. Work out this excess as a percentage of 225 [the average 50 over score in ECB matches and one-day internationals (ODIs)] and this gives the extra runs to add on to Team 1's score to give Team 2's target." (http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ABOUT_CRICKET/RAIN_RULES/DUCKWORTH_LEWIS.html) 

Although this is supposed to be the most fair method, is it, is it really? there has been many a time where the result has said to be "unfair" or "not the right outcome" such as recently England v New Zeland in the T20 World Cup or another England T20 game against West Indies. There have also been a number of players, past and present, that have scrutinised the way that the D/L method works such as Paul Collingwood. 

But if the Duckworth Lewis method is a flop and isn't working to the teams advantage then who is going to be the next "genius" that will work out a new method of what to do if rain stops play or other unfortunate circumstances that stop the game, because I assure you it will not be any of the players. 

If the games are being played in a major competition like a World Cup or in the IPL should both sides just be given a point. Some may think this is unfair as there may be a clear winning side, however when looking at T20 games is there ever a clear winner, in some cases such as the recent World Cup the West Indies were able to double their score in the last 5 overs so anything is possible?! 

To Broad Or Not To Broad

Is Stuart Broad the man for the job? This is the question that is on everyone's lips.

Looking at the recent T20 world cup outcome and the horrendous winter that England have had the answer is no. The 27 year old must take the blame for what can only be described as an abomination. Firstly we need to discuss how predictable England's plans have become. "Moeen Ali will start the bowling for one over. Jade Dernbach will then bowl a few overs and will bowl in the power play attempting to bowl a few Yorkers that will end up becoming a full toss. Bopara will probably bowl one over if any but yet has the lowest economy and then will be take off for the rest of the game. Tim Bresnan will then bowl here and there. Broad will come on whenever he chooses. Jade Dernbach will then most likely close the bowling."

Firstly hardly anyone can pick what Ravi Bopara is going to bowl, not even Amla SO LET HIM BOWL MORE. Broad is supposedly our "main bowler" so why is he not bowling at the most crucial stages like in the power play. Is this because he wants to keep his bowling figures down? Most likely.
Next Broad should take responsibility as captain and take the new ball at the beginning of the game and then allow Jade Dernbach to come in later and bring his variation in.

It seems to me like our batting line up is basically sorted now and ready for anything, its the bowling that is very confusing. 7 bowlers in a T20 match is not needed. As Englishmen and Women we are a very arrogant country which then makes me think, are England trying to out smart the other teams. In T20 matches a lot of the game is luck! You do not need to have a set strategy for everything. Look at Dhoni for example, during a match if something is not happening his way he'll change his plans depending on what is happening during the game. When it comes to Broad it doesn't matter whether they are loosing or winning he will simply keep the same play every single game!

Looking at the lack of success in the recent attempts for England we can safely say that Stuart Broad is not the man for the job. I'm definitely not disputing the talent that Broad has shown over the years for Nottinghamshire and England but in this case I think he needs to concentrate on his bowling rather than looking at the rest of the team.

So who is the man that should be helping and controlling the rest of the team? A lot of the team are still fairly young and inexperienced such as Joe Root, Alex Hales and Chris Jordan. The man that I would give the role to would be none other than Eoin Morgan. He is experienced, clever, laid back and a respected member of the team.

Looking at Eoin Morgan the thing that benefits him the most is that he's a batsman, so when the lads are bowling he's able to sit back and watch rather than trying to figure out when he should go on to bowl.

Morgan would have an unbiased role in the team and is experienced and respected enough to have the big role of being the skipper. He has already captained the boys before so why not make it permanent and give Broad a break to concentrate on his bowling.

So To Broad Or Not To Broad.