The rain rule.

[ZoraxDoom]

Aus did deserve to lose. India were robbed. How the hell did they come to 170 in 29 overs? India were being penalised for doing nothing wrong bowling wise! WTF! They came out to bat with rain a possiblitity, and needed 63/0 after 20 to secure a win if rain intervened at that point. Rain came in after 5 overs, when they were batting slowly and steadily. They return, and for some insane reasn their RRR was 6.5?? WTF? It is madness. Why did they need to chase 6.5 RPO? Couldn't they chase 135 off 29 overs instead, at a more manageable RRR, and one which was closer to their RRR at the beggining of the innings? India were robbed. An easy win was turned to a near-impossible one due to some insanity from the Umpires, or due to the crap and ineffective Duckworth-Lewis rule.

Why do they have to use the Duckworth-Lewis rule for the rained matches? Can't the team batting just chase a score at the same runrate? Say, 200 off 50 overs reduced to 100 off 25 overs. What is wrong with simplicity??

 

[gaurav_indian]

You posted the same comment in other thread also.

 

[manee]

This is because of many factors, like:

The fact that you have less time to conserve your wickets...

The fact of the fielding restrictions

The mental factor of having to bat for less time...

etc...etc...

 

[andrew_nixon]

See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duckworth_Lewis for a good explanation of why the D/L Method is superior to the run rate method.

To use your example, let's say the team batting second was on 101/9 from 25 overs. Do you think they'd have gone on to score 200 in 50 overs?

 

[ZoraxDoom]

A) Less time to coserve wickets - So? They also have less time to get the same RR. 5 economical overs when chasing 100 off 25 adds a lot more pressure than 5 economical overs when chasing 200 off 50 overs.

B) Fielding restricitons are also cut in half/in proprtion.

C) Bowlers have to bowl fewer overs, and fielders have to be on the field less time. Both can give it their all for a shorter period.

Any other excuses why this can't be used?

And at gaurav: I posted this in the other thread! No kidding Sherlock! I was wondering where I copied and pasted it from ???!!! :

So tell me, how is it fair that India needed to chase 170 in 29 overs, after they needed just 245 in 50? 21 overs to get the other 75 runs? Clearly something is wront with D/L.

 

[gaurav_indian]

A) Less time to coserve wickets - So? They also have less time to get the same RR. 5 economical overs when chasing 100 off 25 adds a lot more pressure than 5 economical overs when chasing 200 off 50 overs.

B) Fielding restricitons are also cut in half/in proprtion.

C) Bowlers have to bowl fewer overs, and fielders have to be on the field less time. Both can give it their all for a shorter period.

Any other excuses why this can't be used?

And at gaurav: I posted this in the other thread! No kidding Sherlock! I was wondering where I copied and pasted it from ???!!! :

So tell me, how is it fair that India needed to chase 170 in 29 overs, after they needed just 245 in 50? 21 overs to get the other 75 runs? Clearly something is wront with D/L.

I think you are overreacting mate.This is not the first time that D/L method is applied and India is not the only country who suffered a loss or an unexpected total.I bet if Aus were in a similar situation then you won't have started this thread.And coming to run rate method anyone remembers the famous WC 92 match where SAfrica needed 22 runs of 1 ball.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

The 22 off 1 ball wasn't D/L method if I remember rightly.

And I would have said this for any team. I wanted to speak out on previous instances of D/L, but this as pushed me over the edge. A game India was supposed to win with ease, and they need a ridiculous target. What would have happened if they conceded 300??

 

[andrew_nixon]

India's target was increased because they lost wickets. Simple. When you lose wickets it becomes harder to score runs. As I said if the original target was 200, let's say the team batting second was on 101/9 from 25 overs. By run rate method that team would have won the game! Is that fair?

 

[gaurav_indian]

The 22 off 1 ball wasn't D/L method if I remember rightly.

And I would have said this for any team. I wanted to speak out on previous instances of D/L, but this as pushed me over the edge. A game India was supposed to win with ease, and they need a ridiculous target. What would have happened if they conceded 300??

I don't think you have read my post.I said any one remembers the run rate method.How come there was D/L method in 1992. :

 

[andrew_nixon]

The run rate rule wasn't used in the 1992 World Cup either, it was the Highest Scoring Overs method. See: http://cricketarchive.com/Miscellaneous/Rain_Rule_Methods.html for details of most rain rules used in one day cricket at some time or another.

The Duckworth/Lewis method does throw up it's share of strange targets, but time after time it has shown itself to be by far the fairest method out there.

 

[surendar]

what i personally feel about this system is..... its just a UNFAIR RULE giving advantage for the teams batting first (comapared to team batting second) :

example 1:

in one of the matches,

New Zealand scored 212 for five in 44.1 overs before rain stopped play, and the West Indies had to score the same total in only 33 overs

example 2 :

As Gaurav told, semi final of 92 world cup for South Africa... where SA with 5 overs to go and need 36 runs to score. The result is still unforgettable going in favour of team batting first!!!

example 3 :

Todays match.


So this rule can be still revised in a fair way!!!!

 

[FreddieFan]

The way I see it, there is no method that could be completely satisfactory to decide a rain-affected game of cricket, there are far too many variables. In my opinion, Duckworth Lewis is the best available alternative.

 

[andrew_nixon]

what i personally feel about this system is..... its just a UNFAIR RULE giving advantage for the teams batting first (comapared to team batting second) :

example 1:

in one of the matches,

New Zealand scored 212 for five in 44.1 overs before rain stopped play, and the West Indies had to score the same total in only 33 overs

example 2 :

As Gaurav told, semi final of 92 world cup for South Africa... where SA with 5 overs to go and need 36 runs to score. The result is still unforgettable going in favour of team batting first!!!

So this rule can be still revised in a fair way!!!!

Well your second example was before the Duckworth/Lewis method even existed. In your first example, it was completely fair, as West Indies knew exactly how many overs they had, whilst New Zealand did not. The last 5 overs of an innings are often the most productive five overs of the innings, so it was perfectly fair that the target was revised upwards. The fact that the West Indies fell just 10 runs short of the target shows that.

 

[ZoraxDoom]

I still don't see why RRR isn't fair. Scoring 201/9 if they won is considered perfectly fair, so why can't it be the same if they scored 101/9 chasing 100?

 

[surendar]

Well your second example was before the Duckworth/Lewis method even existed. In your first example, it was completely fair, as West Indies knew exactly how many overs they had, whilst New Zealand did not. The last 5 overs of an innings are often the most productive five overs of the innings, so it was perfectly fair that the target was revised upwards. The fact that the West Indies fell just 10 runs short of the target shows that.

so do u mean to say that its fair that Windies have to chase the same total what NZ did it in 44 overs?????

well there are number of factors again coming into play....

1) NZ enjoyed full 15 overs restrictions where Windies were limited from that. ( remember Windies were given the same total and the first 15 overs restriction rule is the vital part in ODI)

2) I really dont find the balance here..... All the hard efforts Windies bowlers did is almost down the drain becos its of no use as the meaningless rule gave benefit for NZ inspite of brilliant efforts by windies bowlers!!!

3) Acording to ur point, Windies knows how many overs they had and NZ doesnt knw.....

ok if u put the same thing in different way, If the rain has interrupted after some overs (say 10) where windies might have had a steady start......

then there is no meaning for this rule, becos how can the team batting second know that rain wud come!!! :


4) And most importantly.....conditions after rain.... Thats the main thing where batsman will face difficult to bat ( may be due to the low bounce in wet conditions)...... the external conditions are ignored!!!

According to me, team getting 330 plus in normal wicket is equal to getting around 230 in a wet wicket!!!! there its not meaningful to apply DL rule and say some 280 in 35overs.... or something like that!!!

5) Again external condition.... outfield becomes slow in wet condition again against the batsman!!!!

Rules should not only theoritically suited but also shd have practical meaning!!!! Theortical rule doesnt apply everywhere.....


Thats why i told, the rule can be revised to be in a practical way!!!