Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

D/L wrote:I know what you mean, gollygosh, but they do impose restrictions on the fielding side. Yesterday, however, The Windies were restricted for 30% of the time they bowled and England 33%..

but.....the WI required nearly 9 runs an over when in a normal 20 over game they would have only required 8 runs an over. It makes little sense to complain about one aspect without looking at the innings as a whole. So WI were restricted for 30% and England for 33% - a difference of 3%. However WI were required to score at a rate 110% that of England's own scoring rate (8.89/8.05 = 1.10) - a difference of 10%.

Albondiga wrote:

D/L wrote:I know what you mean, gollygosh, but they do impose restrictions on the fielding side. Yesterday, however, The Windies were restricted for 30% of the time they bowled and England 33%.

The effects of interruptions to play on runs and wickets should probably be left to Duckworth/Lewis, unless a better system comes along, but the ICC could quite easily make power plays fairer in these circumstances. Yesterday, the power play would have ended with the 4th ball of the 3rd over. I don’t see any problem with this when field placings are changed almost every ball anyway.

For anything to be "fair" the odds must be the same - the players,wicket,umpiring decisions, weather cannot be guaranteed to be so ; the laws of cricket are the same for both sides and the playing conditions as laid down in a rain interrupted game should also be the same. Your point is therefore right and I, for one, could not argue the fairness or logic you put forward

Which is along the lines of what I had discussed with wulliem in that thread for the ODI series in the Caribbean where a number of matches were affected by weather/light. Either they should use the current system entirely as it is or they should simply reduce everything associated with the game by a proportional amount (taking into account that a team would need enough resources to meet a bowling quota and that the number of batsmen must equal the number of fielders). What would be a mistake would be tinkering with one little aspect of it (such as the power-plays being 33% as opposed to 30%) and leaving the rest unchanged.

So if a 50 over match is reduced to 20 overs then a the number of wickets should probably be reduced from 10 to 4. However that would mean 5 batsmen and 5 fielders. With 5 fielders including a captain and a keeper it would leave at most 4 people to bowl and then it would mean every bowler would go over the 20% limitation on the max number of overs they can bowl out of a total innings. So a reduction from 50 overs to 20 overs should then see 6 fielders (hopefully the skipper isn't just there for his batting in which case perhaps both teams could agree to 7 fielders and 7 batsmen/6 wickets). Then use Duckworth-Lewis to determine the score taking into account these reductions as well as what happened in the first innings (resources used or lost or resources squandered etc) and then have the power-plays determined by these reductions as well as any change in the score on a proportion-wise basis. For 50-over ODI cricket any reduction beyond 20 overs would probably be unfeasible with this rough proportional reduction since ultimately we would end up with a innings that was little different from the Super Over.

Likewise a reduction of a 20 over match a 5 over match should see similar reductions.

ChrisQ wrote:but.....the WI required nearly 9 runs an over when in a normal 20 over game they would have only required 8 runs an over. It makes little sense to complain about one aspect without looking at the innings as a whole. So WI were restricted for 30% and England for 33% - a difference of 3%. However WI were required to score at a rate 110% that of England's own scoring rate (8.89/8.05 = 1.10) - a difference of 10%.

That suggests that issues over the Duckworth/Lewis system and the calculation of power-play are inextricably linked. They are not and nor do two wrongs make a right.

It should be obvious, and not only to the ICC, that it would be fairer to for both sides to bowl, as near as possible, the same proportion of deliveries under power-play conditions. This is something the ICC could put right immediately, irrespective of Duckworth/Lewis, if they had the collective nous to recognise the problem.

By the way, between 16 power-play deliveries (the number England would have bowled under a fairer calculation) and 18 deliveries (the number they actually bowled), there is a 12.5% difference.

They are going to take a look at the system and how it works for 20/20:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ju ... d-twenty20

D/L wrote:That suggests that issues over the Duckworth/Lewis system and the calculation of power-play are inextricably linked.

Odd, I could have sworn power-plays were now a permanent part of limited overs cricket along the lines of bowling restrictions and that like the bowling restrictions had to be linked with any D/L reduction in the game. And like bowling restrictions any reduction calculations are rounded off, so that instead of having bowlers only bowling 1.8 overs maximum they are allowed to bowl 2 overs maximum off 9 overs - again just another example of an artifact of mathematics. If the percentages were really stuck to completely then we would Anderson, SiBo, Broad etc having to bowl 1 over and 5 balls (really 4.8 balls) and then have the last ball of their second overs being bowled by someone else.

They are not and nor do two wrongs make a right.

So what you are saying then is that the power plays should have been exactly 30% of the restrictions and the target should have been 100% of what the first-innings run-rate would have produced in a reduced number of overs?

It should be obvious, and not only to the ICC, that it would be fairer to for both sides to bowl, as near as possible, the same proportion of deliveries under power-play conditions. This is something the ICC could put right immediately, irrespective of Duckworth/Lewis, if they had the collective nous to recognise the problem.

Your only looking at the bowling. What about the batting? Surely if the rules are going to have both sides bowling as near as possible the same proportion of deliveries under power-play conditions then the rules must allow the both sides to aim for the same proportion of runs in total.

The key though is what you already said: "for both sides to bowl, as near as possible, the same proportion...". That's the whole point of rounding off - to make it practical, not exact. Something cannot be exact and also be "as near as possible"; it's either one or the other.

By the way, between 16 power-play deliveries (the number England would have bowled under a fairer calculation) and 18 deliveries (the number they actually bowled), there is a 12.5% difference.

And as pointed out earlier, the entire use of percentages is misleading because of the nature of numbers/maths. There is simply no way you are going to replicate 100% of the conditions in 9 overs as in 20 overs or 50 overs or 5 days and referring to percentages is pretty meaningless and pointless in that instance.

Again, for example you have a 20 over match with the following conditions:

- 11 players a side
- 10 wickets
- no bowler being allowed to bowl more than 1/5th of the total overs (4 overs)
- power-plays taking up approximately a third of the overs (6 overs)

If you reduce that match to 5 overs (the minimum amount needed for a match to be considered complete) and kept the reductions of the other conditions proportional to the percentage reduction in the number of overs we would get:

- 2.75 players a side
- 2.5 wickets
- no bowler being allowed to bowl more than 1/5th of the total overs (1 over)
- power-plays taking up approximately a third of the overs (1.5 overs)

Obviously a reduction on that scale would require at least one of those features to be adjusted. Either there would have to be more players to ensure the bowling restrictions are complied with or the bowling restrictions would have to be abandoned. Likewise they are not going to get 3/4ths of a person to field or bat.

So, again, looking at specific percentages is meaningless since somewhere, somehow there is going to have be some kind of rounding off. They round off the powerplays and the max number of deliveries that each bowler is allowed. If they stuck hard and fast with one without rounding off the other, it would never be fair.

I'm surprised that nobody has questioned that a minmum of five overs is required to reach a result . It is a nonsense to have a five over game between two sides of international crickers regardless of the mathematics and for me this just about sums up 20/20;

To be fair the side batting second after rain should have been able to bowl one bowler for 5 overs and the other 4 overs if they had wanted to do so. It is after all what the side bowling first could do.

Albondiga wrote:I'm surprised that nobody has questioned that a minmum of five overs is required to reach a result . It is a nonsense to have a five over game between two sides of international crickers regardless of the mathematics and for me this just about sums up 20/20;

To be fair the side batting second after rain should have been able to bowl one bowler for 5 overs and the other 4 overs if they had wanted to do so. It is after all what the side bowling first could do.

Well that's another question entirely Albondiga, isn't it? Why are 5-overs considered the minimum amount necessary for a result? In all fairness they should probably only use the minimum amount of overs in which all conditions can be proportionally replicated to determine a result. If that would mean that any reduction past 19 overs is out of the picture then just give the fans a refund or reschedule with a reserve day or reserve time. Same thing with a 50 over match. I think the minimum there is somewhere between 15 and 25 overs but they should probably use only the minimum in which conditions can be replicated without running into conflict with the laws (otherwise what is the point of the laws? May as well just go back to the really old days when you could XXII v XI not being considered unusual).

To be fair the side batting second after rain should have been able to bowl one bowler for 5 overs and the other 4 overs if they had wanted to do so. It is after all what the side bowling first could do

True, it is what the first bowling side could do, but then that is what the first bowling side could do under full 20-over conditions. I'm sure that suggestion would require a change in the rules, possibly the laws, governing the bowling restrictions in limited overs cricket, since any one bowler who bowls 5 overs out of 9 overs would be way over the 1/5th restriction.

ChrisQ wrote:

Albondiga wrote:I'm surprised that nobody has questioned that a minmum of five overs is required to reach a result . It is a nonsense to have a five over game between two sides of international crickers regardless of the mathematics and for me this just about sums up 20/20;

To be fair the side batting second after rain should have been able to bowl one bowler for 5 overs and the other 4 overs if they had wanted to do so. It is after all what the side bowling first could do.

Well that's another question entirely Albondiga, isn't it? Why are 5-overs considered the minimum amount necessary for a result? In all fairness they should probably only use the minimum amount of overs in which all conditions can be proportionally replicated to determine a result. If that would mean that any reduction past 19 overs is out of the picture then just give the fans a refund or reschedule with a reserve day or reserve time. Same thing with a 50 over match. I think the minimum there is somewhere between 15 and 25 overs but they should probably use only the minimum in which conditions can be replicated without running into conflict with the laws (otherwise what is the point of the laws? May as well just go back to the really old days when you could XXII v XI not being considered unusual).


If we must play this game then it should be a minimum 2nd innings of 10 overs in my opinion or a non result and a split of the spoils. With a 50 over game minimum 25 overs for the side batting second. Restriction on bowlers should not be one fifth but a max of 4 or 10overs. The side batting first will have an average runs per over total -- the side batting second should have its available overs multiplied by that average rounded up; the advantage to the batting side is redressed by the new advantage of bowlers bowling their full allotment.

Power plays as far as I'm concerned are a complete nonsense.

ADVANTAGE -- Not complicated and everyone would understand (even the WI coach) and no D/L which is also a nonsense.
DISADVANTAGE -- Just my opinion.

I am heartily fed up with administrators ruining this game. If you go back 100 years or so the county championship was 1 POINT for a win - nothing for the draw - a deduction of 1 POINT for losing and the best side invariably won the competition.

Albondiga wrote: If we must play this game then it should be a minimum 2nd innings of 10 overs in my opinion or a non result and a split of the spoils. With a 50 over game minimum 25 overs for the side batting second. Restriction on bowlers should not be one fifth but a max of 4 or 10overs. The side batting first will have an average runs per over total -- the side batting second should have its available overs multiplied by that average rounded up; the advantage to the batting side is redressed by the new advantage of bowlers bowling their full allotment...

Well, now that seems fair - give something to both sides.


Much better than other suggestions I've seen. I've even seen one where it was suggested that during the chase the batting's side total should increase with the fall of each wicket. Naturally that's nonsense since that never happens in any cricket match. The person must have been mixing up the par score after each ball or over with the actual total. I can't imagine any team would want to bat if whenever they lost a wicket the total increased. At the very least they would be looking at an increase of 9 runs over the course of an innings and more likely something much higher than that - which would make the entire idea of chasing a fixed total pointless. It would even make it possible for a team to require even more runs after a few wickets down than the entire total was when they started.

No system for dealing with rain-affected matches can be perfect, but opportunities to make improvements, especially obvious and easy ones like how the duration of power-plays is calculated, should be taken.

Nobody is suggesting any changes to any other aspect such as aiming for the same proportion of runs in total, whatever that means.

Surely, it is obvious that rounding to the nearest ball (unless, as may happen occasionally, the answer is divisible by 6, resulting in no discrepancy), will always create a more level playing field at least on this one facet of the problem.

D/L calculation

http://static.espncricinfo.com/db/ABOUT ... LEWIS.html

D/L app for Android devices

https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... calc&hl=en

https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... ewis&hl=en

Pollard should download that app....

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

clubcricketeradi wrote: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.

DiligentDefence wrote:

clubcricketeradi wrote: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)