West Indies v England DL Question

[Dutch]

Hello All, my first post here....I have lurked around this site for a long time and have valued the discussions and reviews of cricket games. I am officially delurking! I live in New Zealand and follow passionately the England team. A real roller-coaster ride as we know. I'll often stay up during the night to follow Englands matches around the world. It was a great joy to see them live in action in New Zealand last year. What I would like to know is why West Indies were given 9 overs to get 80 runs (which I kind of understand) but were allowed to keep all 10 wickets. Surely it would have been fairer to halve the wickets if the overs had been halved. It gives the batting side such a huge advantage knowing they can go out there and just clobber with 10 wickets still in the bag. Seems very infair to me. And no I am not just a whining pom. I would like to hear other peoples opinions on this and my apologies if this is the wrong forum or way to do it or this question has already been beaten to death somewhere else!

Dutchad

 

[Skater]

Yes, duckworth/lewis needs adapting to twenty20. The two of them have announced they will be revising their methodology in October.

 

[sohum]

Unfortunately, halving the wickets wouldn't have worked. How would you determine who is allowed to bat and bowl? The classification of batsman/bowler/all-rounder is not official, so you couldn't say, "You guys can only play 3 batsmen, 1 all-rounder and 2 bowlers as your 5 wickets".

The D/L method is one that uses percentages based on how many "resources" are available to the team in question. Resources are measured in overs and wickets. Wickets are far more valuable, though, which is why losing a wicket is murder in a rain-affected match that doesn't look like it'll be completed. Finally, the D/L provides some first-innings percentages to adjust a score. For example, if Team A starts batting thinking it'll be a 50 over game but rain means that the game is re-adjusted to a 40-over per side game, even if they have played exactly 40 overs, their score will be increased because if they had known it's a 40-over game, they would have tried to accelerate given the resources they have available.

It's quite complicated and every so often the percentages are tweaked taking into account recent matches and trends in world cricket (for example, higher average scores, etc.). Of course, the Twenty20 percentages probably require a good deal of tweaking since there hasn't been a large base of international matches to use as data. I'm sure as more Twenty20 is played, the percentages will be updated to reflect the way T20 sides pace their innings.

 

[MasterBlaster76]

Hello All, my first post here....I have lurked around this site for a long time and have valued the discussions and reviews of cricket games. I am officially delurking! I live in New Zealand and follow passionately the England team. A real roller-coaster ride as we know. I'll often stay up during the night to follow Englands matches around the world. It was a great joy to see them live in action in New Zealand last year. What I would like to know is why West Indies were given 9 overs to get 80 runs (which I kind of understand) but were allowed to keep all 10 wickets. Surely it would have been fairer to halve the wickets if the overs had been halved. It gives the batting side such a huge advantage knowing they can go out there and just clobber with 10 wickets still in the bag. Seems very infair to me. And no I am not just a whining pom. I would like to hear other peoples opinions on this and my apologies if this is the wrong forum or way to do it or this question has already been beaten to death somewhere else!

Dutchad

I agree, the way it is now, the advantage is exclusively with the batsmen. Something needs to be done to even it out.

And welcome to the forums. Good first post.

 

[Skater]

Here's the article: Duckworth and Lewis plan tweaks to scoring system | Sport | The Guardian

 

[King Pietersen]

The target in the first place was off, but unlike normal D/L where the total increases as wickets are lost, it didn't on this occassion. Quite frustrating for England but I'm not too fussed tbh, we'd have lost the Semi-Final anyway.

 

[Sureshot]

Well, it did change, but because the target was so small, it would only have changed by 4 runs if they lost 3 wickets, or something stupid like that.

 

[Biggy]

Hello All, my first post here....I have lurked around this site for a long time and have valued the discussions and reviews of cricket games. I am officially delurking! I live in New Zealand and follow passionately the England team. A real roller-coaster ride as we know. I'll often stay up during the night to follow Englands matches around the world. It was a great joy to see them live in action in New Zealand last year. What I would like to know is why West Indies were given 9 overs to get 80 runs (which I kind of understand) but were allowed to keep all 10 wickets. Surely it would have been fairer to halve the wickets if the overs had been halved. It gives the batting side such a huge advantage knowing they can go out there and just clobber with 10 wickets still in the bag. Seems very infair to me. And no I am not just a whining pom. I would like to hear other peoples opinions on this and my apologies if this is the wrong forum or way to do it or this question has already been beaten to death somewhere else!

Dutchad

I have always thought in my opinion that D/L is no way to decide or adjust totals in cricket matches..

You never know what is going to happen next therefore you can't apply some mathematical equasion to try and justify it. Points should be shared or a rematch take place.

 

[sohum]

The target in the first place was off, but unlike normal D/L where the total increases as wickets are lost, it didn't on this occassion. Quite frustrating for England but I'm not too fussed tbh, we'd have lost the Semi-Final anyway.

The target doesn't increase, the par score increases at a specific number of overs. The target is set using the number of resources available (10 wickets + how many ever overs) but the par score doesn't come into play until play is stopped for good.

sohum added 2 Minutes and 44 Seconds later...

I have always thought in my opinion that D/L is no way to decide or adjust totals in cricket matches..

You never know what is going to happen next therefore you can't apply some mathematical equasion to try and justify it. Points should be shared or a rematch take place.

You can't just share points. What if it's a bilateral series? There're no points in question there. And it's not always possible to schedule rematches. Do you know how expensive it is to produce another broadcast? You're going to have to pay for using the ground, the ground staff, the production crew (cameras, cabling, etc.), commentary team. There's also the small matter of advertisements to settle. D/L is a far better way to settle a game than mandating a rematch scenario for every single game of cricket.

It's not near perfect, but it's the best system in use. D/L isn't just randomized, it uses real data from real matches to produce the percentages. And they tweak it ever so often, as well.