The rain rule.

[varunvgiri]

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.

Precisely.... That is exactly why the rain rule has to take it into account. The rain tables cannot be a universal one applicable to all sorts of pitches... It needs to have different tables for different types of pitches. Forget about variation of pitches within a match, that is not a factor that effects a great majority of ODI matches to a great extend. It comes into play considerably only when there is assistance for quick bowlers in the morning session due to moisture and when a underprepared pitch breaks up. Both these types are unsporting pitches for ODI cricket to be played on. Disregarding these extreme cases i believe all other pitches can be "quantified". Preparing different tables for different pitches could be a method for solving the anomalies of the Duckworth Lewis system.

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.

Why would there br no need for changes. After the introduction of powerp;ays the scores in ODIs have increased. We've seen three 400+ scores already.

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.

I dont understand the reason for your neurotic support for D/L system. Even you would agree that the D/L system rarely throws up strange and unusual results.That means that it is not correct 100% of the time. Any scientific system that is not perfect can be improved upon... and that is a scientific fact . I am simply giving my opinions on ways to improve the system.

Source for this "fact" please.

Dear andrew_nixon.. this is not a court of law where each and word has to be supported by evidence. It is just a platform for expressing one's opinion on the subject. You dont have to jump on each word typed by me, like a lawyer on cross-examination. If you still need a source, it would be my own observation and a study conducted by me myself.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Precisely.... That is exactly why the rain rule has to take it into account. The rain tables cannot be a universal one applicable to all sorts of pitches... It needs to have different tables for different types of pitches. Forget about variation of pitches within a match, that is not a factor that effects a great majority of ODI matches to a great extend. It comes into play considerably only when there is assistance for quick bowlers in the morning session due to moisture and when a underprepared pitch breaks up. Both these types are unsporting pitches for ODI cricket to be played on. Disregarding these extreme cases i believe all other pitches can be "quantified". Preparing different tables for different pitches could be a method for solving the anomalies of the Duckworth Lewis system.

There is absolutely no point in including the pitch conditions. Changing pitch conditions are a part of cricket.

Why would there br no need for changes. After the introduction of powerp;ays the scores in ODIs have increased. We've seen three 400+ scores already.

Four actually. Out of 170 ODIs since the introduction of powerplays. Four extreme values out of 170 cases is not suficient statistically to warrant a change to a statistical model. Besides, since powerplays there has alos been an increase in lower scores, so it averages out.

I dont understand the reason for your neurotic support for D/L system.

What's neurotic about supporting the system that time after time has shown itself to be by far the best out there?

Even you would agree that the D/L system rarely throws up strange and unusual results.

At least now you admit that it rarely throws up strange and unusual results.

That means that it is not correct 100% of the time. Any scientific system that is not perfect can be improved upon... and that is a scientific fact . I am simply giving my opinions on ways to improve the system.

No argument from me there. As I said, the D/L method is reviewed on a regular basis.

Dear andrew_nixon.. this is not a court of law where each and word has to be supported by evidence. It is just a platform for expressing one's opinion on the subject. You dont have to jump on each word typed by me, like a lawyer on cross-examination. If you still need a source, it would be my own observation and a study conducted by me myself.

When someone claims something is a fact, I, and everyone else on this forum, deserves to know what the source is of this fact. If you have conducted this study, I'd love to see it. I assume you can provide a list of the third of all the matches where Duckworh/Lewis has provided a strange and unusual result along with the full reasons why it is strange and unusal?

Didn't think so.

 

[Bigglesworth]

I don't know if I'm crazy, but this thread seems to be Indian fans unhappy at losing to the West Indies and looking for something to blame.

D?L is the fairest AND best method out. It will not be changed in the forseeable future.

 

[varunvgiri]

I agree that D/L system is the best and fairest system out there. But it is not perfect such that it cannot be improved. I am not saying D/L system should be scrapped... just that it can be improved.

Dear andrew_nixon, there is no need to be so aggressive. Try to be patient, and please try to see the point i am trying to make.

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.

Regarding the usage of the word 'fact'. Can you please give me the scientific proof for your above statement. No you cant, coz you cant read anybodys mind can you?

But i take it in the way you intended it when you typed that. It is just your opinion. You are entitled to your opinions and i am entitled to mine...No need to go aggressive, if i happened to use the wrong word somewhere. It was a mistake. I hope this ends here, and we can carry on with our own work..

 

[Sureshot]

It's got nothing to do with reading somebodys mind, he said "The simple fact of the matter is that it rarely throws up strange and unusual results" which has been proven. If it did it more often than rarely the ICC would step in.

 

[sohum]

It's got nothing to do with reading somebodys mind, he said "The simple fact of the matter is that it rarely throws up strange and unusual results" which has been proven. If it did it more often than rarely the ICC would step in.

Well you would have to quantify rarely, in that case, in which case you would be polluting the 'simple fact' with your own bias.

Can anyone provide a table of recent (maybe last 100) international matches decided by D/L?

 

[Sureshot]

I can't find anything on Google, not looked that deeply though, so I wouldn't say there is no table out there with those kind of stats. Might be a case of going through Archives individually, which would be painstaking.

My bias has got nothing to do with it, there is no better system out there, yet.

 

[rickyp]

unless someone can name a better system, this thread is just going to be bitterness at harsh losses.

D/L is superior, no one can prove otherwise

 

[sohum]

I can't find anything on Google, not looked that deeply though, so I wouldn't say there is no table out there with those kind of stats. Might be a case of going through Archives individually, which would be painstaking.

My bias has got nothing to do with it, there is no better system out there, yet.

By your bias, I did not mean your personal bias. You cannot quantify something like 'rarely'. Attempting to quantify something like that would be equivalent to putting your own bias into the situation. Besides, I did not really try and draw any connections between bias and the D/L method.

 

[varunvgiri]

unless someone can name a better system, this thread is just going to be bitterness at harsh losses.

D/L is superior, no one can prove otherwise

This is not about naming a better system. It is about improving the present system. Don't tell me there is no room for improvement...

 

[andrew_nixon]

This is not about naming a better system. It is about improving the present system. Don't tell me there is no room for improvement...

As I have said a few times in the thread, the D/L method is reviewed on a regular basis.

 

[Kev]

Ok, this thread has gone round in circles for long enough. If someone isnt able to suggest something new I am going to close it.

Just for the record. Here are all the English County Matches decided by D/L this season (Home team shown first not in innings order). If there is some stange magical problem where wierd results are thrown up surely we'll see one here. Lets face it we probably get the most D/L games in the UK.

Nottinghamshire: 191-9 ( 40.0 overs )*
Warwickshire: 123-5 ( 19.5 overs )
Warwickshire beat Nottinghamshire by 5 wickets (D/L)

Glamorgan: 158-8 ( 36.0 overs )*
Northamptonshire: 165-2 ( 32.1 overs )
Northamptonshire beat Glamorgan by 8 wickets (D/L)

Northamptonshire: 148-9 ( 36.0 overs )*
Sussex: 110 ( 26.0 overs )
Northamptonshire beat Sussex by 33 runs (D/L)

Sussex: 197-1 ( 25.0 overs )
Glamorgan: 193-6 ( 33.0 overs )*
Sussex beat Glamorgan by 3 runs (D/L)

Lancashire: 84 ( 12.0 overs )
Middlesex: 244-6 ( 40.0 overs )*
Middlesex beat Lancashire by 13 runs (D/L)

Warwickshire: 127-4 ( 28.4 overs )*
Northamptonshire: 158-6 ( 27.0 overs )
Northamptonshire beat Warwickshire by 4 wickets (D/L)

Warwickshire: 228-6 ( 40.0 overs )*
Middlesex: 162 ( 33.1 overs )
Warwickshire beat Middlesex by 65 runs (D/L)

Hampshire: 131 ( 36.1 overs )*
Worcestershire: 72-3 ( 14.4 overs )
Worcestershire beat Hampshire by 24 runs (D/L)

Gloucestershire: 114 ( 22.5 overs )
Hampshire: 226-6 ( 33.0 overs )*
Hampshire beat Gloucestershire by 90 runs (D/L)

Scotland: 161 ( 39.0 overs )*
Durham: 99-5 ( 17.5 overs )
Durham beat Scotland by 5 wickets (D/L)

Derbyshire: 189-3 ( 31.1 overs )
Worcestershire: 204-5 ( 42.2 overs )*
Derbyshire beat Worcestershire by 7 wickets (D/L)

Hampshire: 221 ( 50.0 overs )*
Gloucestershire: 147 ( 33.5 overs )
Hampshire beat Gloucestershire by 62 runs (D/L)

Kent: 194-4 ( 23.0 overs ) *
Ireland: 95-7 ( 19.5 overs )
Kent beat Ireland by 83 runs (D/L)

Northamptonshire: 219-7 ( 47.0 overs )*
Warwickshire: 66-0 ( 10.5 overs )
Warwickshire beat Northamptonshire by (D/L)

Sussex: 123-5 ( 15.2 overs )
Somerset: 158-7 ( 24.0 overs )*
Sussex beat Somerset by 5 wickets (D/L)

Yorkshire: 160-4 ( 26.5 overs )
Scotland: 212-9 ( 50.0 overs )*
Yorkshire beat Scotland by 6 wickets (D/L)

Derbyshire: 190-5 ( 43.4 overs )
Leicestershire: 188-6 ( 45.0 overs )*
Derbyshire beat Leicestershire by 1 run (D/L)

Northamptonshire: 172-9 ( 45.0 overs )*
Lancashire: 175-2 ( 38.4 overs )
Lancashire beat Northamptonshire by 8 wickets (D/L)

Leicestershire: 116-3 ( 22.4 overs )
Warwickshire: 128-9 ( 33.0 overs )*
Warwickshire beat Leicestershire by 8 runs (D/L)

Anyone see any magical strange problems then???

Edit: * Indicates batted 1st

 

[varunvgiri]

As I have said a few times in the thread, the D/L method is reviewed on a regular basis.

The current system is reviewed. I'm talking about adding more dimensions to the system.

 

[nightprowler10]

The current system is reviewed. I'm talking about adding more dimensions to the system.

Like what?

 

[sohum]

I'm a bit confused with that block of results, probably because of the order of the innings. It seems that sometimes teams end up chasing more than the original target..? I hope I'm reading it incorrectly.