Tuesday, February 13, 2007

SOMEONE has to show some Journalistic Integrity...

...and for once that person is me. Kinda. Well, not really. What I'm getting at here is this:

Superb England stun Aussies

What? Yes, yes, it's to do with the cricket. I'm sorry but this really is too much to bear.

Andrew Flintoff's side secured England's first major overseas one-day tournament victory since 1997 as they won the best-of-three tri-nations series final by a 2-0 scoreline.

That sentence can be taken the wrong way. It suggests, though innocently, that the Poms beat us in a whitewash. They didn't. The actual series is more like a 'best-of-thirty' because some guy thought having three teams play each other endlessly with no clear winner until the last minute would be entertaining. Really, I suspect the reason is that you can have one of those damned upset victories, which of course they have now.

Of course, the Poms did actually win the game. It's a damned shame, and it's only because our team couldn't get to a score of 319 runs.

But wait Jared, those of you who know cricket will say That's an incredible score in ODI cricket! You can't begrudge the English a victory when they played that well.

That's true. 318 would be a jaw-droppingly amazing score for the Poms to get. However, Paul 'Sodding' Collingwood and the assorted chinless wonders of the English batting line up actually accrued the considerably less impressive total of 248.

But you said-

I know what I said, bitch!

Jesus, calm down!

Sorry, but this series has been driving me crazy. So, you ask, why the hell would our team have to score a full 70 more points than our hideously inbred and condescending competition? Believe it or not, it's all in the name of 'fairness'. See, when it rains during a match of cricket the match can't last as long, which means it all has to be played in a shorter time. In this case, 33 overs. Now, you may think "Okay... divide the English score by fifty and multiply by 33 and you'll get a score to reach".

Yes, you do. 170. And that's how it used to work. But now there's something called "The Duckworth-Lewis System" that comes into play when the match is interrupted by rain/sleet/terrorist attack/Nigel Verkoff. Allow me to explain how it works:

IT DOESN'T

Hahaha. In all seriousness, though it works like this:

The team that is clearly better talented and more able to score runs will be assured a humiliating defeat when they are given a run score to reach by a statiscian who is snorting Ecstasy and red-bull cocktails. This allows us to piss all over all concepts of good-sportsmanship and provides and off-chance that we could be allowed a dubious 'victory' which is really the only kind that we can get. - extract from the proposal of Sir Francis T. "Ratfaced" Duckworth-Lewis-Ponsomby-Creed, 12th viscount Stuckupbastardington

But Jared-

God, what NOW?

You done interrupting me? Good. But surely if this is part of the rules you can't complain?

Well, actually I can in the first place because I'm a complete hypocrite. But more importantly this is a recently introduced 'rule' to the game. As the font of all knowledge, wiki-freakin'-pedia tells us:

The best-scoring overs method, used in the 1992 Cricket World Cup, left the South African cricket team requiring 22 runs from one ball – where the maximum score from any one ball is six runs – without considering that their batting, on the whole, had been superior to their opponents in several measurable ways, a position widely felt to be very unfair. These flaws are not present, or at least effectively normalised, by the D/L method.

I'm confused about how exactly their batting could be better than the other team's yet be short by that margin. I'm guessing the system back then was pretty retarded, too. But, c'mon, we were given a score of 211 to reach. And, as I said, if you times that run-rate across all 50 overs you reach the real total we were chasing you 19. That score is almost high enough to make into the top 100 scores in the history of the sport.

Basically, what I'm trying to say by means of a rant that is constricting itself by wallowing in "who-gives-a-shit" statistics that sound like I've pulled them out of my (or possibly wikipedia's) arse, is that you'll read a lot of crap about how we were 'thrashed' by the poms. When, using a different set of stats, the case for our victory is just as valid. Just because the sport happens to use the Fuckwitts-Blewitt system (Ha! See what I did there?) is no reason to take its figures unquestioningly.

What to take away from this? Nobody wins when it rains over the cricket.

Of course, the English haven't won any form of One Day competition, even in their own home counties playing against themselves, since the very invention of the game. So they'll celebrate anything. And if you're reading this England, I just want to say... well, I want to say that...

YOU ARE THE WEAKEST, MOST PATHETIC DOGS I HAVE EVER SEEN! IF I EVER MEET YOU, I WILL DESTROY YOU! YOU MAKE ME SICK!!!

DOUBLE THE FIST!





Endnote: Oh and if anyone thinks I'm over reacting here, why don't we take a look at a typical English performance from this series. Hmm. Scintillating.

3 comments:

Youth of Australia said...

Steve Foxx is brilliant.

I'm glad the show's back for a new series.

Jared "No Nickname" Hansen said...

As are all true Australians, my friend.

Any idea when it's on?

Youth of Australia said...

In a perfect world? Right after Doctor Who.

Nah, I got nothing.