andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
That would be just plain stupid.prarara said:
The rain rule.
- Thread starter ZoraxDoom
- Start date
People that are thinking there is a perfect system out there are deluded, for the simple reason that Cricket isn't predictable. For that reason alone there is no perfect system, D/L is the best. I don't ever remember watching a game on Sky that has had D/L influenced (A fair bit on our domestic List A comps 
) and thinking, "What, that's totally unfair."
) and thinking, "What, that's totally unfair."
aussie1st said:
Well hypothetically, what if there is some deal worked out where those that have paid for the match get to rebuy it for a reduced or free deal?
Though I'm sure your pejoratives may seem useful, even droll at some times, they aren't.
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
I'm being completely serious. Not having any sort of rain rule is indeed completely stupiud.prarara said:
Well, yes, I suppose; a rain rule that inculcates having a replacement is complete rediculous.andrew_nixon said:
Anyway, I give up; it's pointless to keep volleying the same argument back and forth.
Last edited:
puddleduck
Chairman of Selectors
Then there is hiring all the equipment, the camera men, the pundits. All of which would have be booked even if not needed in the end. Do you pay the match fees twice? Do fans who have taken a day off to go see a game, or travelled a fair distance really want the prospect of poor weather to have to come back tomorrow? Or would they rather that everything possible is done to have a game of cricket? Would it lead to emptier grounds when there could be rain?
I could go on for a long time on this but needless to say financially reserve days are a massive hassle for just about everyone involved.
I could go on for a long time on this but needless to say financially reserve days are a massive hassle for just about everyone involved.
smssia0112
Chairman of Selectors
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
We're not listening? You're not listening! I will repeatZoraxDoom said:
Australia scores 250 in 50 overs (RR is 5)
South Africa are 9/150 after 20 overs when it starts to rain (RR is over 7)
Who do you think should win? Should we forget wickets and let South Africa win on RR? Or should we use a system which takes into account ALL factors and give the match to Australia, who may have needed less tahn an over to finish the match, with tailenders in?
If you still say that RR is better, then maybe you would like cricket to scrap wickets and just have each team pick 2 batsman and let them bat the whole 50 overs, losing 5 runs if they get a wicket, but with no limits.
.::Stevo::.
International Coach
Does anybody actualy understand the Duckworth-Lewis system??
lol...
andrew_nixon said:
lol...
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
The basics of it are quite simple. It's all to do with how teams can score quicker the more wickets they have intact..::Stevo::. said:
But we don't need to understand it fully. As I said in an earlier post, you don't need to know exactly how a plane works to put your trust in it to get you to your destination.
nightprowler10
Executive member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2004
- Location
- Madhouse on Madison
- Online Cricket Games Owned
- Don Bradman Cricket 14 - PS3
Also, people seem to keep forgetting that the D/L method was agreed on by all the major test nations IIRC.
sohum
Executive member
Reserve days actually are not that much of a hassle because it has been done in the past. In fact, for the recent series in Sri Lanka, there were reserve days scheduled in for every game. The main financial burden comes from the organizers of the tournament and if in fact BCCI was responsible from this one, financial considerations are really moot point.puddleduck said:
Secondly, I would rather watch a full game of cricket rather than a rain interrupted one decided by D/L. I'm sure organizers will refund at least some amount of money to the spectators who cannot make it to the next game. So if you look at it, it's only really a hassle if you don't want to do some thinking and organize it fairly, and properly.
varunvgiri
Club Cricketer
No rule is perfect. D/L system maybe good, but the fact that it throws up strange results in atleast 1/3 rd of the cases aplied, shows that there is plenty of room for improvement. I t is just a set of tables. When the table is throwing up unrequired or not desired results the codes have to be rechecked n updated regularly. The D/L system is simply not updated regularly with the new tendencies and rules of ODI cricket. I doubt it has been updated after the introduction of powerplays. Besides it has to take the pitch into account which i highly doubt it does. Taking the pitch into consideration, 245 off 50 overs, and 179 of 29 overs were certainly not equivalent on the pitch as it had some assistance for the bowlers. As cricket is sport where the condition of the pitch plays such an important role, targets cannot be revised purely on the basis of overs,runs scored and wickets as is the case now. Any system for revising targets has to take the pitch into account...
Last edited:
andrew_nixon
Chairman of Selectors
Source for this "fact" please.varunvgiri said:
It is reviewed on a regular basis. The last review came approximately a year after the introduction of power plays and saw no need for a change.varunvgiri said:
The simple fact of the matter is that it rarely throws up strange and unusual results, except in the minds of the fans of a team that has been on the wrong end of a D/L result.
In that case then, targets would be adjusted even in cases when there was no rain in the entire match, as the pitch conditions change throughout a match.varunvgiri said:
The pitch condition is a vairable that is impossible to quantify. The condition of the pitch is something that has always affected the result of cricket matches. No rain rule needs to take it into consideration.
