Duckworth Lewis Madness

[Sureshot]

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.

It doesn't take into account what the resources are.

It's the fairest system available, the only other thing would be to have some kind of gentleman's agreement, but that wouldn't work as I doubt you'd get amicable agreements.

 

[SciD]

It doesn't take into account what the resources are.

Thats the problem. For D/L Sachin Tendulkar = Courtney Walsh.

 

[Sureshot]

Sachin opens, Walsh was a Number 11. The chances of a comparable situation arising would be almost non-existant.

I challenge someone to find a better system, one that could actually be used in International Cricket.

 

[SciD]

Im not challenging the system. Its best we have untill some statician comes up with other option. But all Im saying is that resources in hut are not measured on their strength. Last 5 batsmen of Bangladesh will always score less than last 5 batsmen of Australia. To compare both sides in similar position is not possible.

 

[angryangy]

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.

In this sense, wickets are only relevant while there are overs left.

Once you reach 50 overs, you have used all your resources regardless of how many wickets you have left. Full length games are thus unified with the D/L method.

I will agree, there are plenty of situations where it appears inadvisable to use every last wicket to achieve more runs. However, in these situations, the game is incomplete and so the method still gives a reasonable estimate of the degree of completion of the game.

To test D/L, I'd figure the best way would be to take games where the second innings has been cut to 20 overs and compare them against Twenty20 results. Or if you are pro enough to have the full table, simply calculate for yourself a few 20 over D/L target and compare against T20. It would interesting to see a study like this.

 

[SciD]

All I can say is Stats is not my forte. Better leave it to Mr. Duckworth and Mr. Lewis for calculations. I will say just play in rain. Its so much fun from what I have experienced.

 

[vaibhav mehta]

Just Play in Rain...lol..Sid you are too Much..But ICC should think about your new proposal and should be called as S/D Method(Sid Method)..

 

[wolf]

I challenge someone to find a better system, one that could actually be used in International Cricket.

If the match, according to D/L, was close when it started raining, come back the next day. If it wasn't close, and the result would have been beyond reasonable doubt, award the match to the team that was wining, as per D/L.

 

[Kev]

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.

If wickets lost determines the result of a tied game or not would be a playing condition rather than a law, as Law 21 makes no reference to it. However ICC ODI playing conditions do include this condition as an addition to law 21 (Law 21.4.1) I would guess that they included this addition to standardise results as it would be unfair for wickets lost to count on one tour and not another with regards to the ratings.

For the record my opinion on D/L is and always has been that it is fair and generally you only see people moaning about it when their team has collapsed or generally made a balls up. It can be a bit frustrating understanding how the required total is worked out (it isn't worked out using a simple formula anymore, it used to be but it is much more complex now) but it is displayed on the scoreboard for everyone to see, regardless of if a match is rain delayed or not.

If you are unconvinced by D/L as a method I suggest you watch the D/L par score on non-rain effected matches, you will find that it does follow the pattern of the match.

 

[volvonut]

D/L is good enuf said

 

[barmyarmy]

I think it's a least-worst thing and I agree that it's desireable to have some system that gets results.
A question I have is whether a team can be set a higher total from less overs as a result of losing wickets? So for example team A scores 250/9 from 50 overs. Team B are 240/0 after 48 overs. If the match finishes after 49 overs (and they lose wickets in over 49) could they concievably be set a target of greater than 250 due to losing late wickets?

 

[Kev]

I don't think they would be set a larger target in that case Colin, but I can't be sure as I don't own a set of D/L lookup tables. Mind you, they bloody well deserve to lose, going off for one over - Bunch of pansies!

If anything, its the other end of the scale where it gets a bit freaky, when D/L is used when a team haven't had many overs. For example there were some very silly totals required when D/L was applied to a number of domestic T20 games last season. One thing that also bugs me about it, is it doesn't account for the makeup of the team. If you bat all the way down you are a bit disadvantaged if you lose early wickets, especially if the other team has a tail as long as the queue behind Stevie in Greggs.

 

[zimrahil]

One thing that also bugs me about it, is it doesn't account for the makeup of the team. If you bat all the way down you are a bit disadvantaged if you lose early wickets, especially if the other team has a tail as long as the queue behind Stevie in Greggs.

But it can't though can it. How can you bring such subjectiveness into mathematical formulae?

I cannot see how any system could even remotely accurately take into account the make up of a team, as for one, people's opinions are so varied and two, how would anyone expect it to work, honestly?

 

[smssia0112]

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.

Give us an example of where that would be a problem then? Why would they send Lee in ahead of Symonds?

 

[barmyarmy]

But it can't though can it. How can you bring such subjectiveness into mathematical formulae?

I cannot see how any system could even remotely accurately take into account the amount of pasties Stevie eats, how would anyone expect it to work, honestly?

Can't disagree with this. A succinct assessment as usual.