Duckworth Lewis

[D/L]

Of course, the system's not perfect (none could be) but it seems to have been fair for this particular match.

The authorities have now had many years to replace it with something better. They haven't.

[DiligentDefence]

This system is useless.

New Zealand scored 271/7 (42/42 ov) but the target given to India is 297 .

http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand ... 67643.html

Seems fair enough to me given the timing of the rain.

We score 4 more runs than them and that too in 3 less balls, so why we cannot win.Also, other doubt is why they give 22 extra runs to NZL in giving us target.

New Zealand 271/7 (42/42 ov)

India 277/9 (41.3/41.3 ov, target 293)

The rain came in something like the 33rd over of the New Zealand innings, not at the start. If no adjustment is made it is blatantly unfair to the side batting first.

[meninblue]

This system is useless.

New Zealand scored 271/7 (42/42 ov) but the target given to India is 297 .

http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand ... 67643.html

Seems fair enough to me given the timing of the rain.

We score 4 more runs than them and that too in 3 less balls, so why we cannot win.Also, other doubt is why they give 22 extra runs to NZL in giving us target.

New Zealand 271/7 (42/42 ov)

India 277/9 (41.3/41.3 ov, target 293)

The rain came in something like the 33rd over of the New Zealand innings, not at the start. If no adjustment is made it is blatantly unfair to the side batting first.

How rainfall will impact the match in changing the first innings score.

[D/L]

The rain came in something like the 33rd over of the New Zealand innings, not at the start. If no adjustment is made it is blatantly unfair to the side batting first.

Yes. It's hard to see how there can be a rational complaint about the system in this case.

[Gingerfinch]

This system is useless.

New Zealand scored 271/7 (42/42 ov) but the target given to India is 297 .

http://www.espncricinfo.com/new-zealand ... 67643.html

Seems fair enough to me given the timing of the rain.

We score 4 more runs than them and that too in 3 less balls, so why we cannot win.Also, other doubt is why they give 22 extra runs to NZL in giving us target.

New Zealand 271/7 (42/42 ov)

India 277/9 (41.3/41.3 ov, target 293)

The rain came in something like the 33rd over of the New Zealand innings, not at the start. If no adjustment is made it is blatantly unfair to the side batting first.

How rainfall will impact the match in changing the first innings score.

Probably would have slogged earlier, if they knew they only had 42 overs to bat.

[meninblue]

How rainfall will impact the match in changing the first innings score.

Probably would have slogged earlier, if they knew they only had 42 overs to bat.

But slogging earlier also means few wickets would have fallen in their innings also.It is wrong that the method assumes that for example 150 runs scored cautiously without slogging will also mean wicket would not have fallen had they slogged taking risks to score 150.It is contradicting its own assumptions.

[D/L]

How rainfall will impact the match in changing the first innings score.

Probably would have slogged earlier, if they knew they only had 42 overs to bat.

But slogging earlier also means few wickets would have fallen in their innings also.It is wrong that the method assumes that for example 150 runs scored cautiously without slogging will also mean wicket would not have fallen had they slogged taking risks to score 150.It is contradicting its own assumptions.

So, perhaps we should replace Duckworth / Lewis with a system in which one or more humans judge what other humans would have done in the circumstances they faced and how successful they may have been. Best of luck to anyone who thinks they can do that and not cause ructions when it is implemented.

Duckworth / Lewis may not be perfect but at least it is dispassionate and has objectivity and, in this case, seems to have produced a fair result.

[Arthur Crabtree]

I think that is taken into account Adi, otherwise the score would be higher. The amount the total is increased is based on how many runs and wickets have occurred. So it is an extension of something that has happened. It seems a lot fairer than not adding the runs, for example.

[Dilbert]

How rainfall will impact the match in changing the first innings score.

Probably would have slogged earlier, if they knew they only had 42 overs to bat.

But slogging earlier also means few wickets would have fallen in their innings also.It is wrong that the method assumes that for example 150 runs scored cautiously without slogging will also mean wicket would not have fallen had they slogged taking risks to score 150.It is contradicting its own assumptions.

What it means is that you had 42 overs only with 10 wickets rather than 50 overs with 10 wickets. Same logic as to why a T20 has a higher scoring rate than an ODI. As the overs are reduced, you can take more risks

[meninblue]

I think that is taken into account Adi, otherwise the score would be higher. The amount the total is increased is based on how many runs and wickets have occurred. So it is an extension of something that has happened. It seems a lot fairer than not adding the runs, for example.

Suppose a team batting (Team A) first plays full 50 overs. They get 20 overs of powerplay. Rain falls during break and they decide they can play only 25 overs match.So they reduce the powerplay innings for team batting second (Team B).So team A gets 20 overs powerplay but team B's powerplay overs are reduced to about 10 .Why should Team B get 10 less overs of powerplay.

Also same with reviews.I don't think they reduce reviews proportionately.Do they.

A formula can never consider:
(1) A unbelievable catch into a equation which turns a match or a dropped catch
(2) 20+ runs overs because it goes by constants
(3) Over with 2 or 3 wickets because it in some cases will assume wicket has not fallen in previous 20 overs.
(4) A 26 ball 50 cameo or something like that
(5) The fightback spirit of both teams, which can have drastic impact on the match.
(6,7,8) etc etc . .

It is just mathematics.It assumes things will progress in a way they have progressed previously in the same match.In cricket it is not like that.First over for 15 runs according to maths will mean 50 overs for 750 runs.Also, 2 wickets in first over will not mean a team will get out in 5 overs.It is impossible to apply mathematical logic to predict a game of cricket.The 13 players on field will have to calculate all this every ball.How will they concentrate on cricket.

If there is certainity about rain then it is better to play a T20 match instead of ODI.Let both teams get something certain so that they can plan the approach and tactics well.Let a match decide the winner and loser rather than a formula deciding it.

[Gingerfinch]

Imagine going to watch a 50 over game, which changes into a t20 match because they think it might rain for an hour. I'd want my money back.

[meninblue]

Imagine going to watch a 50 over game, which changes into a t20 match because they think it might rain for an hour. I'd want my money back.

That is from the customers point of view and whether the customers want money back or not should not justify the use of this DL method.Solutions need to be found to that point as well.The ticket revenues are probably not even 5% to broadcast rights, so even if they refund full money back to ticket purchasers, it will not make much difference.The ground owners, the respective boards and ICC should find a way to share profits to cover up this loss for the grounds.

[Gingerfinch]

Imagine going to watch a 50 over game, which changes into a t20 match because they think it might rain for an hour. I'd want my money back.

That is from the customers point of view and whether the customers want money back or not should not justify the use of this DL method.Solutions need to be found to that point as well.The ticket revenues are probably not even 5% to broadcast rights, so even if they refund full money back to ticket purchasers, it will not make much difference.The ground owners, the respective boards and ICC should find a way to share profits to cover up this loss for the grounds.

It's not just about the money, although the paying public are important in all this. To change a 50 over game into a 20 over one on the premise that it might rain is illogical. one, it might not rain, two, it may do for half an hour, in which case no harm done, and three, D/L is not perfect but is a pretty fair way of deciding a match.

[meninblue]

Imagine going to watch a 50 over game, which changes into a t20 match because they think it might rain for an hour. I'd want my money back.

That is from the customers point of view and whether the customers want money back or not should not justify the use of this DL method.Solutions need to be found to that point as well.The ticket revenues are probably not even 5% to broadcast rights, so even if they refund full money back to ticket purchasers, it will not make much difference.The ground owners, the respective boards and ICC should find a way to share profits to cover up this loss for the grounds.

It's not just about the money, although the paying public are important in all this. To change a 50 over game into a 20 over one on the premise that it might rain is illogical. one, it might not rain, two, it may do for half an hour, in which case no harm done, and three, D/L is not perfect but is a pretty fair way of deciding a match.

In some cases we wont get a DL match. So it is better to go for a T20 atleast if rainfall is highly probable.I think one example of such occurrence was during CT2013 where a T20 could have been played .Sometimes we might miss the opportunity of a 50 over match, thats true.But rather than DL being used in 40 overs match, i would personally prefer a cricket match decide a result.

[Gingerfinch]

Imagine going to watch a 50 over game, which changes into a t20 match because they think it might rain for an hour. I'd want my money back.

That is from the customers point of view and whether the customers want money back or not should not justify the use of this DL method.Solutions need to be found to that point as well.The ticket revenues are probably not even 5% to broadcast rights, so even if they refund full money back to ticket purchasers, it will not make much difference.The ground owners, the respective boards and ICC should find a way to share profits to cover up this loss for the grounds.

It's not just about the money, although the paying public are important in all this. To change a 50 over game into a 20 over one on the premise that it might rain is illogical. one, it might not rain, two, it may do for half an hour, in which case no harm done, and three, D/L is not perfect but is a pretty fair way of deciding a match.

In some cases we wont get a DL match. So it is better to go for a T20 atleast if rainfall is highly probable.I think one example of such occurrence was during CT2013 where a T20 could have been played .Sometimes we might miss the opportunity of a 50 over match, thats true.But rather than DL being used in 40 overs match, i would personally prefer a cricket match decide a result.

If rain is around the corner, ie, about to rain, and likely to most of the day, then yes fair enough. But regarding the recent match between India and NZ. The right thing was done.