On The Front Foot: Duckworth defends his wickets but it doesn't add up to us

After England were dumped out of the World Twenty20 it seemed unfair. It was not that West Indies had a target of 80 in nine overs under the fabled Duckworth-Lewis method after England made 161 in 20. It was that they started with 10 wickets in hand, a point made by the losing captain, Paul Collingwood. He is not a whingeing Pom (lads from Co Durham are not like that), he was merely suggesting that taking 10 wickets in so few overs was nigh impossible. The subject of amending the number of wickets has since occupied column inches and air time – and the resounding response from the legendary Frank Duckworth, co-deviser of the method, is that such an idea is nonsense. Frank is a man who deals in the hard currency of statistics, not the flabby coinage of sentimental commonsense. He would probably say that statistics are commonsense (though not sentimental). "We mentioned this to the cricket authorities in our first discussions, and they said it was unthinkable because cricket teams had 10 wickets and we concurred," he said. "It would be impractical." Frank is not for turning and referred to the DL regulations on the International Cricket Council website. "Faq," he said and for a moment OTFF thought he had had enough of its impertinence. But Faq is the acronym for frequently asked questions, one of which is: "Why don't you take away wickets as well as overs to balance up teams' resources?" The answer is that it would be difficult to apportion wickets bearing in mind the rate of deduction, the fact that earlier wickets are more valuable than later ones, and spectators might be dissatisfied if some batsmen were not allowed to bat. This is all statistically sound, of course, but it does not feel right.

Ashes boys boxing clever

Three of England's finest will prepare for the Ashes by going into the ring with Olympic middleweight champion James DeGale. On hearing this the heart sank. Would the sledging turn so nasty that the team sponsor Vodafone felt compelled to ensure the boys could protect themselves? It seems, however, that the team often box to improve cardiovascular fitness and it is intended that DeGale will pass on a few hints at the session in Essex on Thursday. The venue is more appropriate than the sponsors know, for it was Essex whence came the great Johnny Douglas. He was an Ashes-winning captain of England in 1911-12 (and a 5-0 loser in 1920-21) and a predecessor of DeGale as Olympic middleweight champ, beating Reginald 'Snowy' Baker of Australia in London in 1908. Wonder if Douglas thought it improved his cardiovascular fitness for cricket?

Put your shirt on... anyone

Seen at The Oval on Monday, an Asian fan wearing a Pakistan cricket shirt. Plenty of those about. But barely had Pakistan beaten Ireland than he took it off to reveal underneath, ready for the next game, an England replica top.

Fidel-sticks, it's not Lotte

To show how women's cricket is now simply part of the zeitgeist, it was a lead item on Ceefax on Thursday. The headline said: "Edwards injury doubt for semi-final." Oh no, thought OTFF, not the blessed Charlotte. Sadly, it turned out not to be about women's cricket after all but about Fidel Edwards not being fit for the men's semi-final. Happily, Charlotte was fine.

s.brenkley@independent.co.uk