The rain rule.

[sohum]

The tables were updated in 2004, and are reviewed on an annual basis taking into account results from the previous year. The latest review (which came just under a year after the introduction of powerplays) saw no need for change.

Okay, nice to know that.

 

[aussie1st]

You same guys were saying that it's much easier chasing a total in 25 overs rather than 50 overs. Well same case applies here. If we used the run rate method then the Windies still would have won the 1st match.

Also the total only seemed big because India were going so slow at 3.2 RPO. The total in 29 overs only required 5.83 rpo which is more than fair enough given it's only being chased in 29 overs. If India had got 30 runs in 5 overs the RPO would have decreased to 5.79.

 

[rickyp]

You miss my point.

Let me rephrase my example.

Team A bat first and score 199. This gives team B a target of 200 in their 50 overs.

After 25 overs, Team B are 101/9, and it starts raining and the game is abandoned. The run rate calcualation method is used, and as Team B are ahead of the required rate, they are awarded the game. Now, I put it to you, that it is highly unlikely team B would have gone from 101/9 to 200. So how is the run rate rule fair in that case?

Exactly perfectly correctly correct
you cant phrase it better

Zorax, if you have a problem with the D/L not being perfect, lets see you suggest something thats better

 

[prarara]

Crucify me for saying this, but IMHO, abandoning the match seems like a better proposition.

Perhaps we should play cricket in a completely sterile environment where the factors can be modeled to be completely similar for both sides.

 

[Left_Hander]

Then we might as well play indoors!

D/L sounds like a good method to me. It depends how fast you score before it rains. If they had scored faster then the revised target would have been easier.

 

[surendar]

Then we might as well play indoors!

well there are closed stadiums in Australia... but its too difficult to implement them in all the countries considering the cost and other factors!!!


i feel there are some possibilities exist,

1) ICC should shedule the matches correctly according to the season there....its of no meaning playing a series in a country during rainy season or where rain is frequent!!!!

2) Reserve day for every match should be kept.... Even they can continue from the same state from where the match was interrupted!!!

3) In worst case, match should be drawn giving points to both the teams!!!

this will give both the teams(batting and bowling) to play a complete match rather than a partial match and also both the teams are treated equally!!!


Becos in Cricket, Uncertainity exists especially in ODIS...

for example, If the first match bw Aussies and Windies was interrupted by rain when they were around 195/3 or 170/1...definitely it wud have gone in favour of Windies!!!!

other similar example occured in champions trophy match between India and SA where SA were on comfortable platform...And Gibbs retired hurt suddenly changed the match in India's favour!!!


So the game should be either played full 50 overs or drawn otherwise!!!

Listen Cambridge University mathematicians have proved D/L method is the best way to predict results of a match

Also i said many number of times, all the theories doesnt suit all the practical issues everytime...... :

its not possible to predict where the term "Uncertainity" exists !!!

 

[zimrahil]

Zorax, if you have a problem with the D/L not being perfect, lets see you suggest something thats better

I open this to all members who do not like the D/L method - what do you suggest instead then ?

 

[nightprowler10]

1) ICC should shedule the matches correctly according to the season there....its of no meaning playing a series in a country during rainy season or where rain is frequent!!!!

I agree with that point. I still remember the series held in Amsterdam two years ago, it was held when it is almost always rainy weather over there. Not exactly great planning on the ICC's part.

I open this to all members who do not like the D/L method - what do you suggest instead then ?

Better yet, if it is a more effective system than the Duckworth/Lewis method, send it to the ICC and see what they have to say about it.

 

[Bigglesworth]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Duckworth/lewis mode, it is the fairest way to resolve rain affected game.

Everybody gets so annoyed because they can't understand it.

say you were batting first, scored 70-0 off 20 overs,a slow start, but you were building up to batting the whole 50 overs and still ahd 10 wickets left. Then it rains, and the other team has 20 overs (for simplicities sake). They couldn't be expected to chase 70, it would be unfair, as they would know how to pace the innings, and have all 10 wickets left for those 20 overs, whereas team a was conserving them for a later slog. Team B now chases 100, say which takes in to account all of that.

If you can find a fault with that, I want to hear it, and not just Indians complaining because they lost to the West Indies.

 

[smssia0112]

Agreeded. D/L is insane. If it rains in the second innings, abandon the match, cause there is no way of knowing what the resutl could end up (There could always be a dramatic collapse). However, if it can be resumed and the overs reduced, just set the target according to the Run rate. Perfectly fair.

It's not fair because it doesn't take anything other than RR into account, D/L takes as much as it possibly can into account. You don't seem to listen, a team winning on higher RR is stupid because they may have been one ball away from all out. 9/109 is not going to get them to 9/209, 100 run last wicket stands just don't happen, especially in ODIs. While 1/109 could have a collapse, how many number 11 batsmen keep a solid run rate goin without getting out for half an innings? Name one.

well there are closed stadiums in Australia... but its too difficult to implement them in all the countries considering the cost and other factors!!!

There is one and it isn't used for cricket while the MCG stands in the same city. The Telstra Dome was used last year because the MCG was bein redeveloped. As for your point about reserve days, you are doubling the time tours would take. Would you like it if your players played every day? They would require longer breaks and wouldn't be able to make it through the tours, and would probably get injured more. This would make tours double in time for extra rest days in between backup days.

So I can't believe you guys would prefer these ridiculous systems over one that makes sense!

 

[ZoraxDoom]

Ok, you aren't listening.
A) Team A scores 200 in 50 overs. Regardless of their 20 over/ 25 over/ whatever score, their overall runrate at the end of the innings is 4, and that is the runrate Team B has to chase.
B) If the second innings is rained off an no play is possible, but 20 overs have been bowled, abandon the game anyways. Make the minimum overs like 35, and let the umpires/match refree(he doesn't do much anyways, this could increase his importance) decided who is going to win, if both the skippers agree that they want a result.
C) But if the second innings is just reduced, they have to just chase the same RR that they had to even if they were batting 50 overs. The field restrictions are reduced accordingly in proportion, and the match can resume.

What is wrong with this, I ask you??

And you may think that it will lead to several games being abandoned with no result. Good I say, players are getting way too overworked anyways, tis might make the cricketing giants re-think about fixing up matches in rainy seasons.

And the D/L method overhypes the importance of wickets in hand. If the Windies vs. Aus match was rained out when WI were 170/1, do you think D/L would have them lose? Having wickets in hand can allow you to do bloody anything. 100/0 at 20 overs is equal to gettin 300, it is insane.

 

[Adarsh]

B) If the second innings is rained off an no play is possible, but 20 overs have been bowled, abandon the game anyways. Make the minimum overs like 35, and let the umpires/match refree(he doesn't do much anyways, this could increase his importance) decided who is going to win, if both the skippers agree that they want a result.

I can't believe that you think this is actually possible. Just imagine the debates that can happen if the match referee gives a decision either way. It's not plausible. The system needs to be objective, independant of what the umpires or match referee think because they can be wrong. And trust me, it isn't a pretty sight when the official gets it wrong.

Also, think to yourself why everyone is against your run rate idea. Maybe you are barking under the wrong tree?

 

[Sureshot]

D/L is fair because it is the best method which favours the team with most resources at it's disposure, (Ie, wickets in hand, comparitive run rate).

Give me a percentage of controversial/silly results by D/L method of all games involving D/L. It'll be almost certainly under 5% (1 in 20)

D/L isn't perfect but then Cricket isn't predictable which means that there will never be a completely perfect method.

As many have said before, Players and Admin are happy.

 

[andrew_nixon]

Ok, you aren't listening.
A) Team A scores 200 in 50 overs. Regardless of their 20 over/ 25 over/ whatever score, their overall runrate at the end of the innings is 4, and that is the runrate Team B has to chase.
B) If the second innings is rained off an no play is possible, but 20 overs have been bowled, abandon the game anyways. Make the minimum overs like 35, and let the umpires/match refree(he doesn't do much anyways, this could increase his importance) decided who is going to win, if both the skippers agree that they want a result.
C) But if the second innings is just reduced, they have to just chase the same RR that they had to even if they were batting 50 overs. The field restrictions are reduced accordingly in proportion, and the match can resume.

What is wrong with this, I ask you??

We've already told you what is wrong with it, if you chose to ignore it, that's your choice.

 

[gaurav_indian]

There is no point in arguing whether D/L is right or wrong.I think D/L currently is the best method we can't say what method they will be using in the future.I bet ICC also wants to improve this system so wants to work on it but until they can't found anything which is more useful than D/L they have to use it.