HOME < 고객서비스 < 고객게시판           새글작성 (*)표시가 있는 부분은 필수항목입니다. 글종류   비밀글  * 이름   * 비밀번호     이메일   홈페이지   html 사용   일반글 HTML HTML+<br> * 제목   * 내용 ▼  rngnvrxlz@gmail.com님의 글입니다. >In this circumstance, there are insufficient data points (balls bowled) to reasonably predict the trajectory of an innings. A fairer approach would be to set a minimum number of overs before wickets lost are taken into consideration. For example, if that minimum number of overs in T20 were 5 overs (ie 25% of the innings completed), the wickets West Indies had lost in those 14 balls would be irrelevant. The target set would assume that no balls had been bowled. The West Indian target should then have been higher. After 5 overs, and only after 5 overs, the runs already scored and wickets already lost would be taken into account. A more suitable minimum number of overs might in fact be 8 or 10 overs. The alternative would be to increase the weighting in favour of the side batting first in these circumstances. 2 The spirit of cricket argument: Anybody who has played cricket at any level knows that it is much easier to score around ten runs an over for 6 overs than it is for 20 overs, especially when 10 wickets are available in both situations. It is wrong for Duckworth to suggest otherwise. 첨부화일 #1   ※ 2 MB 이하만 업로드 가능 ※ 확장자 php,php3,ph,inc,html,htm,phtml 업로드 불가능 첨부화일 #2   ※ 2 MB 이하만 업로드 가능 ※ 확장자 php,php3,ph,inc,html,htm,phtml 업로드 불가능