Duckworth Lewis Madness

[bowser]

This is supposed to be the great leveller in the event of rain. The only thing that I have seen it do is greatly advantage one side or the other. Generally it is the side batting second but in the case of the Ford Ranger cup final in Australia it appears to have advantaged the team that batted first. I am not from either state involved so have no personal preferences either way.

As I see it in this game Tasmania bowled out the Vic?s in 37.3 overs without any rain delays. The second innings was rain affected and Tasmania, who, having bowled the opposition out and should expect an easy ride to victory, were set a target only slightly less then the Vic?s scored in substantially fewer then the 50 overs. This put great pressure on them to chase runs and made the game close. The fact that the Vic?s were bowled out in 37.3 overs doesn?t seem to have been taken into account in this case. I would have thought that you should be rewarded for doing this not penalised.

 

[Cricketman]

D/L is stupid.


/end thread.

 

[bowser]

DL does have problems, but it can still be discussed. Why would you end the thread?

 

[Cricketman]

DL does have problems, but it can still be discussed. Why would you end the thread?

its kind of a figure of speech lol

 

[Cricketdude]

Yeah all those people saying Vic were robbed were wrong

 

[angryangy]

This is supposed to be the great leveller in the event of rain. The only thing that I have seen it do is greatly advantage one side or the other. Generally it is the side batting second but in the case of the Ford Ranger cup final in Australia it appears to have advantaged the team that batted first. I am not from either state involved so have no personal preferences either way.

As I see it in this game Tasmania bowled out the Vic?s in 37.3 overs without any rain delays. The second innings was rain affected and Tasmania, who, having bowled the opposition out and should expect an easy ride to victory, were set a target only slightly less then the Vic?s scored in substantially fewer then the 50 overs. This put great pressure on them to chase runs and made the game close. The fact that the Vic?s were bowled out in 37.3 overs doesn?t seem to have been taken into account in this case. I would have thought that you should be rewarded for doing this not penalised.

The game didn't magically become close as a result of rain. The first break only culled 3 overs, while Tasmania had 8 wickets remaining. By the major rain break, Tassie were 5 wickets down. It was their own damn fault that they had lost half their wickets chasing a small total. After the downpour, the target was a terrifying 131 in 31 overs. The RRR had climbed from 3.2 to 4.2, but the game had advanced to the death and Victoria had lost the ability to bowl its pace attack to completion.

It's not an illogical principle. The scoring rates in a T20 are far higher than in a 50 over game. 20 overs does not equal 40% of the score.

Also, you might note that Tasmania were ahead on D/L for almost the entire innings, meaning that they were advantaged in spite of their collapse.

 

[smssia0112]

The Duckworth Lewis is much better than any alternative we have, it takes into account a lot of factors that are very hard to understand.

 

[sohum]

Wickets are prime in D/L. The reason most people (including me) dislike it is because it is a result of the aggregation of many different factors mathematically, which is why it is not exactly intuitive.

 

[RoboRocks]

Wickets are prime in D/L. The reason most people (including me) dislike it is because it is a result of the aggregation of many different factors mathematically, which is why it is not exactly intuitive.

As Dean said though, It is the best system we have. You do need to take all factors into account. D/L needs all of that information if its going to give any sort of actual game situation.

 

[sohum]

As Dean said though, It is the best system we have. You do need to take all factors into account. D/L needs all of that information if its going to give any sort of actual game situation.

It is unfortunately the best system we have. But the point I was making is that most people don't like it because they don't understand it.

 

[RoboRocks]

It is unfortunately the best system we have. But the point I was making is that most people don't like it because they don't understand it.

Indeed, Even experts have trouble explaining it.

Wikipedia seem to explain it quite well through a chart.

 

[sohum]

Indeed, Even experts have trouble explaining it.

Wikipedia seem to explain it quite well through a chart.

The one qualm I have is that no one seems to have the whole chart. Apparently you need to buy the book for that.

 

[barmyarmy]

Here's my concern. D/L takes account of wickets but non-DL matches don't. So when England and NZ both scored the same it was a tie despite England losing less wickets. Why was that rule changed?
Either wickets are important or they're not.

 

[sohum]

Here's my concern. D/L takes account of wickets but non-DL matches don't. So when England and NZ both scored the same it was a tie despite England losing less wickets. Why was that rule changed?
Either wickets are important or they're not.

Point. I have to say I'm not a fan of deciding a tie based on wickets because they don't necessarily dictate which team played the better game. On the other hand, from what I understand, D/L uses wickets as a resource (along with overs) to compute a target based on the likelihood of the chasing team reaching it, based on past statistics.

 

[SciD]

D/L takes into account the number of resources (wickets). But does it take into account what resources are left. If for example Australia sends Hopes and Lee for pinch hitting and that pushes no. 3 and no.4 down the order. That means Symonds and Hussey would be batting at no.8 and no.9. what are odds of Australia loosing then.