The rain rule.

[andrew_nixon]

I was reffereing to the team batting second...
You guys just aren't understanding me!!

Team A scores 200
Nixon says 100 of 25 is achieved often, so a reduced target of that isn't fair
But then again, the beggining target was small to start with
The team batting second doesn't need 50 overs to chase it, they could do it in 35
The same way they could easily chase 100 in 25. The RRR is the same.
If the target was, 280 off 50, 140 off 25 would be fair enough.

Get me now???? If you don't, then please don't argue with me. It is wasting my time.

And James, I have been bitter with D/L for a long time now, the India thing has just pushed me over the edge...

Chasing 140 in 25 overs is easier than chasing 280 in 50. Look at how easy 140 is to chase in a Twenty20 match! The stats show this, and that is why D/L would have a higher target to get in 25 overs. It is based on previous results, and was devised by two highly competent statisticians (from Cambridge University if memory serves me well) and was originally published in a peer-reviewed statistical journal, meaning that it was reviewed and found to be a good method by numerous other statisticians.

Again, the run rate method is based on the complete falacy that a team scores at a contstant run rate throughout their innings.

 

[sohum]

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) what ZD is trying to say is that the target shouldn't keep changing as the factors change...?

I believe there's a LOT wrong with the D/L method, but it's still the best we have. As for the general public issue, would you rather see your team win after a method that doesn't make sense to you or a full, competitive game of cricket? And as for the reserve day argument, if my memory serves me correctly, this tournament is being organized by the BCCI? It is up to the organizers to have reserve days or not--like in the washed Sri Lanka series, there was a reserve they set up for every game. If this tournament was sponsored by BCCI and they had significant prior knowledge of stormy conditions, it was their fault that they didn't set up reserve days, because they have more than enough money to take care of that.

 

[rickyp]

heres a situation for you, in which game do they score faster in, 20twenty or one day???? cmon zorax I thought you were better than this, imagine if a games second innings was reduced to 20 overs and they needed 120 instead of 300 both with 10 wickets in hand, youve pretty much given the match to the 2nd innings team.

PS: This thread makes me laugh

 

[prarara]

We've already explained what is wrong with the run rate rain rule, but you seem to be ignoring us.

Let's see now......

TV companies have paid money to broadcast the match.
The general public have paid money to watch the match and see a result.

You're right, no problem at all.

It seems like, in most cases where the DL method decides a said scoreline to determine if a team has won or lost, the match will not be broadcast in the full. Furthermore, if another match has been called up, then the TV companies could very well gain more revenue by broadcasting said match, (contractual notings would have to be set aside for this, but that is beside the point.) The general public may've paid money for a match that was abandoned, but there could be some sort of deal where the people could see the match later on for a reduced rater or for free. IMHO, the Cricketing world could gain more money from having matches played again rather than losing money.

 

[sohum]

It seems like, in most cases where the DL method decides a said scoreline to determine if a team has won or lost, the match will not be broadcast in the full. Furthermore, if another match has been called up, then the TV companies could very well gain more revenue by broadcasting said match, (contractual notings would have to be set aside for this, but that is beside the point.) The general public may've paid money for a match that was abandoned, but there could be some sort of deal where the people could see the match later on for a reduced rater or for free. IMHO, the Cricketing world could gain more money from having matches played again rather than losing money.

It's not so much about gaining more money than having a match that is more or less accepted by everyone. In my memory, very few games recently have been determined by D/L, and most of those that have have been pretty controversial.

 

[Kev]

I cant believe this thread is in its 5th page

I've seen quite a few D/L settled matches at county level and its not difficult to follow at all. You may not understand the maths behind it but all you need to do is look at the scoreboard and it tells you the par total for the over anyway. Thats the beauty of the system. I think its a fair system, certainly fairer than anything else anyone has come up with. Personally I would prefer it to a reserve day, even if I would be given free entry.

 

[andrew_nixon]

As for the general public issue, would you rather see your team win after a method that doesn't make sense to you or a full, competitive game of cricket?

The "D/L doesn't make sense to me" argument is a falacy. You don't need to know exactly how a plane works, but you still put your trust in it to get you to your destination.

It's not so much about gaining more money than having a match that is more or less accepted by everyone. In my memory, very few games recently have been determined by D/L, and most of those that have have been pretty controversial.

The D/L method is accepted by pretty much everyone involved in cricket, and there is not controversy except that whipped up by fans who's team has been on the wrong end of a D/L defeat.

We've explained why the D/L method is by far the fairest out there. We've told you why the run rate method is rubbish. We've told you that the D/L method was designed by two top statisticians, reviewed by their peers, found to be more than acceptable and is regularly updated following trends in scoring.

So stop going on about how the D/L method is unfair. Come up with a better method, or shut up.

I cant believe this thread is in its 5th page

I've seen quite a few D/L settled matches at county level and its not difficult to follow at all. You may not understand the maths behind it but all you need to do is look at the scoreboard and it tells you the par total for the over anyway. Thats the beauty of the system. I think its a fair system, certainly fairer than anything else anyone has come up with. Personally I would prefer it to a reserve day, even if I would be given free entry.

Agreed Kev. Having the par score on the scoreboard also gives the fans, and the players an idea of whos ahead in the match, wether it's going to rain or not.

If there is time for a reserve day, by all means use it. And use it properly, as an extension to the game, and not as a replay of the game.

 

[Sureshot]

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) what ZD is trying to say is that the target shouldn't keep changing as the factors change...?

I believe there's a LOT wrong with the D/L method, but it's still the best we have. As for the general public issue, would you rather see your team win after a method that doesn't make sense to you or a full, competitive game of cricket? And as for the reserve day argument, if my memory serves me correctly, this tournament is being organized by the BCCI? It is up to the organizers to have reserve days or not--like in the washed Sri Lanka series, there was a reserve they set up for every game. If this tournament was sponsored by BCCI and they had significant prior knowledge of stormy conditions, it was their fault that they didn't set up reserve days, because they have more than enough money to take care of that.

If you have reserve days you'd have to replay the whole game on that day.

Otherwise you could have one team batting 50 overs in overcast windy conditions at Headingley, then the next day a team batting (less than 50 overs to get a total) in a sunny Headingley.

D/L is the best available and that's the happiest the players and coaches are with.

 

[andrew_nixon]

If you have reserve days you'd have to replay the whole game on that day.

Otherwise you could have one team batting 50 overs in overcast windy conditions at Headingley, then the next day a team batting (less than 50 overs to get a total) in a sunny Headingley.

That can happen all in one day anyway, so what's the problem? If you don't continue the game you get a dumb situation like in the Champions Trophy final in 2002, where they replayed the game and neither finished although had they continued the game, they'd have got in a full 50 overs for each side.

 

[sohum]

The "D/L doesn't make sense to me" argument is a falacy. You don't need to know exactly how a plane works, but you still put your trust in it to get you to your destination.

Oh, please. You are hardly making a strong argument when you compare a cricket game to something like planes. I am sure a lot more research has gone into the flying of planes than into a system like Duckworth-Lewis. Two mathematicians of appreciable pedigree coming up with a system like that at the oh-so-great Cambridge University makes it far from perfect. It is stupid it to accept it as God's word especially when it has come up with unrealistic results so many times.

The D/L method is accepted by pretty much everyone involved in cricket, and there is not controversy except that whipped up by fans who's team has been on the wrong end of a D/L defeat.

Guess what, it is not completely accepted by the general, paying public. Which is exactly why we are having this discussion in the first place. How often have we seen a match that has ended up being decided 'fairly' by D/L. There are people who have pulled out stats out of their ass and said "1 in 20 D/L games are decided unfairly." I think that is bullsh!t. Get some concrete stats and if you can't, then there is already reason to believe that something else has to be thought of. Besides, if the ICC aren't looking at other ways to decide rain-affected matches with some of their resources, they are a failure to international cricket. Oh wait, they are that anyway.

We've explained why the D/L method is by far the fairest out there. We've told you why the run rate method is rubbish. We've told you that the D/L method was designed by two top statisticians, reviewed by their peers, found to be more than acceptable and is regularly updated following trends in scoring.

I don't advocate the run-rate method. What other methods are out there? Surely science and statistics didn't just stop researching when Duckworth and Lewis came up with their method? Trends on scoring is obviously not the only thing that is flawed with the system. When you're trying to apply so much rigidity to a random game like cricket, you are going to have flaws. It is your responsibility as the ICC to continue to think of different ways to solve rain-affected matches.

So stop going on about how the D/L method is unfair. Come up with a better method, or shut up.

With all due respect, the "come up with something better yourself" is one of the weakest arguments I have seen in my short life. Every person has their own place in society. If you hate the Google search engine, I wouldn't tell you to "design your own search engine or shut up." There are people involved in cricket who have the relevant background to design other methods to solve rain-affected matches. That is not my responsibility and neither is it yours. So why should we stop expressing our views about a system that may be the best out there, but is still pretty crappy?

If there is time for a reserve day, by all means use it. And use it properly, as an extension to the game, and not as a replay of the game.

What if you won the toss, saw conditions were ideal for batting and put in the opposition because you thought you could chase anything down. You came in the next day, after rain, to find that conditions were overcast and ideal for swing bowling. You got skittled out.

I would rather a ONE DAY game finish in ONE DAY. We have first class and test cricket to see how teams compete as conditions change from day-to-day. The ICC Miniworld Cup finals were frustrating, especially since India would have probably won both, but I still think there is merit to the argument that matches should be restarted (I agree that continuing matches should be on the cards, in some cases).

 

[andrew_nixon]

Oh, please. You are hardly making a strong argument when you compare a cricket game to something like planes. I am sure a lot more research has gone into the flying of planes than into a system like Duckworth-Lewis. Two mathematicians of appreciable pedigree coming up with a system like that at the oh-so-great Cambridge University makes it far from perfect. It is stupid it to accept it as God's word especially when it has come up with unrealistic results so many times.

You miss the point of the comparison. You don't need to to know how something works to be able to use, and accept it. Yes it comes up with the occaisonal unrelalistic result, but no where near is it "many times", more like "hardly ever".

Guess what, it is not completely accepted by the general, paying public. Which is exactly why we are having this discussion in the first place. How often have we seen a match that has ended up being decided 'fairly' by D/L. There are people who have pulled out stats out of their ass and said "1 in 20 D/L games are decided unfairly." I think that is bullsh!t. Get some concrete stats and if you can't, then there is already reason to believe that something else has to be thought of. Besides, if the ICC aren't looking at other ways to decide rain-affected matches with some of their resources, they are a failure to international cricket. Oh wait, they are that anyway.

There is no controversey amongst the players and administrators, all of whom accept it as by fair the fairest way to decide games. The sole controversy is whipped up by fans of teams that are on the wrong side of D/L results.

I don't advocate the run-rate method. What other methods are out there? Surely science and statistics didn't just stop researching when Duckworth and Lewis came up with their method? Trends on scoring is obviously not the only thing that is flawed with the system. When you're trying to apply so much rigidity to a random game like cricket, you are going to have flaws. It is your responsibility as the ICC to continue to think of different ways to solve rain-affected matches.

Statisticians have attempted to come up with better methods. One was even trialled in low level Indian club cricket. None have come close to matching D/L on fairness and accuracy.

With all due respect, the "come up with something better yourself" is one of the weakest arguments I have seen in my short life. Every person has their own place in society. If you hate the Google search engine, I wouldn't tell you to "design your own search engine or shut up." There are people involved in cricket who have the relevant background to design other methods to solve rain-affected matches. That is not my responsibility and neither is it yours. So why should we stop expressing our views about a system that may be the best out there, but is still pretty crappy?

People say "the D/L method is crappy", but frequently fail to come up with any argument beyond "it's so unfair". That's the point of the "come up with something better yourself" argument. If they can't point out any flaws in the D/L system, they should try and come up with a different system.

Again, the players are fine with it, the administrators are fine with it, the statisticians are fine with it. It's mainly fans of teams on the wrong end of D/L results and people who don't understand the basis of the system who have a problem with it.

 

[prarara]

You miss the point of the comparison. You don't need to to know how something works to be able to use, and accept it. Yes it comes up with the occaisonal unrelalistic result, but no where near is it "many times", more like "hardly ever".

There is no controversey amongst the players and administrators, all of whom accept it as by fair the fairest way to decide games. The sole controversy is whipped up by fans of teams that are on the wrong side of D/L results.


Statisticians have attempted to come up with better methods. One was even trialled in low level Indian club cricket. None have come close to matching D/L on fairness and accuracy.

People say "the D/L method is crappy", but frequently fail to come up with any argument beyond "it's so unfair". That's the point of the "come up with something better yourself" argument. If they can't point out any flaws in the D/L system, they should try and come up with a different system.

Again, the players are fine with it, the administrators are fine with it, the statisticians are fine with it. It's mainly fans of teams on the wrong end of D/L results and people who don't understand the basis of the system who have a problem with it.

Why should we even employ a system that assumes results based on trends. Why not hold such matches on reserve days, or on other days; issues with monetary concerns could very well be dealt with through innovation and thrifty management of the money.

 

[zimrahil]

Why should we even employ a system that assumes results based on trends. Why not hold such matches on reserve days, or on other days; issues with monetary concerns could very well be dealt with through innovation and thrifty management of the money.

Care to provide some substance to the sentance "issues with monetary concerns could very well be dealt with through innovation and thrifty management of the money". This on the surface appears like a throw away comment to back up your support of having reserve days?

 

[andrew_nixon]

Why should we even employ a system that assumes results based on trends.

Because that's the best system! One which takes into account how games go from a certain situation!

 

[prarara]

Care to provide some substance to the sentance "issues with monetary concerns could very well be dealt with through innovation and thrifty management of the money". This on the surface appears like a throw away comment to back up your support of having reserve days?

No, not really. Simply put, the Cricket Management system could very well use these reserve days as ways to earn additional revenue from the whole 'shabang'' of hosting another match.

Because that's the best system! One which takes into account how games go from a certain situation!

How about no system?