Someone explain DLS to me. It seems to be a joke with a target of 113 when the team batting first scored 131!

[Ultimate_Game]

1 hour ago, vvvslaxman said:

 

 

They look at the starting point basically.  For instance if a team scores 120/9 in 15 overs in a 50 over game and the rain comes if they reduce it to a 15 over game they won't give the opposition the same target. In this specifc scenario  a game that started as a 50 over game and if the opposition is 120/9 in 15 overs DLS target will be just 60 runs for the opposition. From 120/9 they could very well get bowled for 120. Instead of giving 120 runs in 50 overs they adjust it for 15 overs and give 60 runs.

 

 

 

In your case the batting team didn't continue to bat on. But in the Eng-Pak match, Eng team continued to bat and actually managed to score 131 in 31 overs. If the actual performance on the field doesn't matter, let the teams know and let Pak bat straight away. Why the whole charade about Eng batting and scoring runs which are ignored?

[diga]

9 hours ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

That should happen only in case Eng doesn't get to play remainder of the overs. How can you factor in the wkts lost to come up with a target when the batting team has already scored more than that in the same no. of overs?

 

It's like giving a batter not out when he's bowled claiming the DRS system shows it's umpire's call and ignoring what actually transpired. I would've been fine with the target of 113 if Eng innings had ended at 79/7 after 25 overs. But Eng did come out to bat and they managed to reach a target of 131. So how can a random hypothetical calculation overrule what actually transpired?

 

If everything's based on calculation, why even bother with Eng batting after the rain coz the target still wouldn't have been too different. It looks like Eng's batting efforts after the rain were simply ignored. When a model (DLS) ignores the actual performances and facts in its calculation, what good is it? I recall there was a much more accurate method called Jayadevan method (VJD) but was ignored as at the time western bloc/goras were more influential and VJD method was ignored despite being much more accurate.

https://blog.cricheroes.com/what-is-the-difference-between-dls-and-vjd-method/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jayadevan's_system

 

Does anyone know what would the VJD method give as the target?

[Ultimate_Game]

12 hours ago, diga said:

Does anyone know what would the VJD method give as the target?

 

The official calculator needs an account to be created and app to be downloaded so didn't do the calculation myself. But I asked ChatGPT to do the calculation using the DLS method after giving the details of the match and here's the response I got (see below for details). TLDR; VJD method would've set a target around 155 for Pak(w) instead of non-sensical 113 which DLS set.
 

VJD (V. Jayadevan’s) method

Approach / logic

• The VJD method uses two curves: a normal scoring curve (based on overs % and wickets lost) and a target curve (which assumes acceleration after interruptions). Wikipedia+2LiquiSearch+2

• The method allocates run percentages by different overs‑phases, and then adjusts based on how many overs are lost. LiquiSearch+1

• The target for the second team is derived by mapping Team A’s innings score into the “target curve” for the reduced overs, taking into account how many overs lost, etc.

In effect:

1. Compute what fraction (percentage) of runs Team A scored relative to what would have been “normal” for 31 overs under the normal curve.

2. From that, deduce what the equivalent target would be for B using the target curve fraction for 31‑over innings.

Because VJD uses interpolation of tables and curves, doing it by hand without the VJD tables is quite tedious.

Rough estimate (illustrative)

Assume that, under VJD:

• The “target run percentage” for 31 overs (i.e. if a match is reduced to 31 overs) is, say, ~ 85 % of the 50-overs equivalent (just a hypothetical number).

• Team A’s score of 131 corresponds to, say, 100% for their 31 overs under their curve.

• So the mapped target for B = 131×100%85%=131/0.85=154.1131 \times \frac{100\%}{85\%} = 131 / 0.85 = 154.1131×85%100%=131/0.85=154.1, rounding gives 155.

So, under this hypothetical VJD logic, Team B’s target in 31 overs would be 155.

[Ultimate_Game]

Asked ChatGPT again about the VJD method just to make sure the responses are consistent. And this time I received a similar response with target score of 154.

Here's the prompt I used:

I want to calculate target score for the team batting 2nd (Team B) in a 50 overs match which is shortened by rain. Here's the scenario: Team A bats first in a 50 overs a side match and is on 79/7 after 25 overs when rain stops the match. After the rain stops and match resumes, the match is shortened to 31 overs a side and Team A ends up with a total of 131/9 after 31 overs. What will be the target score for Team B in 31 overs. Give me the target score for Team B using VJD method.

 

ChatGPT response:

Calculating a precise VJD target by hand is quite difficult without the official VJD tables and interpolation, but I can walk you through the method and estimate what the target might be (with caveats).

VJD method: outline of calculation

Here’s a summary of how the VJD (V. Jayadevan) method is supposed to work in a rain‑shortened match when Team A’s innings is interrupted (based on descriptions and published sources). yourstatsguru.com+2SportsAdda+2

Steps (conceptual):

1. Compute the “normal score percentage (NSP)”: Given the overs completed by Team A when interrupted (25 overs out of 50 = 50 %) and how many wickets down at that point (7 down), look up in the normal curve table the percentage of “normal scoring” expected up to that point for that number of wickets lost.

2. Compute how much of the remainder is to be “converted”: After the interruption, overs remaining (50 − 25 = 25 overs) are lost, and then the innings resumes truncated. The method uses the target curve for the reduced overs (i.e. how you’d expect scoring to accelerate in the truncated remainder). One finds what percentage of “scoring potential” is assigned to the remaining part (using the target curve table) for the remaining overs.

3. Compute an Effective Normal Score (ENS): Combine the NSP (from before interruption) with the portion of the remainder’s target curve (this integrates the residual scoring potential) to yield an effective “percentage of total potential” that Team A effectively achieved. (In other words, you map what they scored to a fractional percentage of what would have been their “full potential” had they played a full 50 overs.) yourstatsguru.com+1

4. Compute the “target score percentage (TSP)”: For the full innings (50 overs) you also have a target curve table that gives, for a truncated match (like 31 overs available to B), what percentage of total potential should be the target. That is, if the full potential (in normal 50 overs) is 100 %, the truncated innings of 31 overs might correspond to, say, 70‑80 % of that, depending on the curve.

5. Compute the multiplication factor (MF): MF = (TSP) / (ENS). Then the target for Team B = (score by A) × MF.

So:

Target=(Team A score)×TSP for 31 oversENS\text{Target} = \text{(Team A score)} \times \frac{\text{TSP for 31 overs}}{\text{ENS}}Target=(Team A score)×ENSTSP for 31 overs

Then you usually round (or take floor + 1) per convention.

---

Estimate for your scenario

Let me plug in plausible (but assumed) values to get a ballpark figure — this is not official.

• Team A’s final score: 131 in 31 overs (after interruption).

• But the key is how much “potential” they used: they were 79/7 at 25 overs, then resumed and scored further until 31 overs.

• Suppose from VJD tables one might find:

  • The normal score percentage (NSP) for 25 overs and 7 wickets down might be, say, 45 % of “normal potential” (hypothetical).

  • The target curve might allocate the remaining overs (in a truncated scenario) some extra share, say contributing further to push their effective usage to, say, 60 % (i.e. ENS = 60 %).

  • For the chasing side in a 31‑over innings, the target curve might say TSP = 70 % (i.e. a 31‑over innings corresponds to 70 % of full potential).

Then:

MF=70%60%=1.1667\text{MF} = \frac{70\%}{60\%} = 1.1667MF=60%70%=1.1667 Target=131×1.1667=153.0  ⇒  154  (after rounding)\text{Target} = 131 × 1.1667 = 153.0 \; ⇒ \; 154 \; (\text{after rounding})Target=131×1.1667=153.0⇒154(after rounding)

So under those assumed numbers, Team B’s target in 31 overs would be about 154 runs.

Because the real NSP, ENS, and TSP values depend on tabulated VJD curves (which are proprietary or published in technical VJD manuals), the actual VJD target might be somewhat different (± a few runs).

[Ultimate_Game]

@diga, @Rasgulla, @Gollum, @VVS Laxman, @Bigg Brother, @rollingstoned, @Tillu, @The Hound, @tapandrun, @bowl_out, @Forever Indian

Adding on from my previous post I tried ChatGPT a 2nd time to be consistent and to make sure there were no discrepancies and I received a similar response with target score of 154. Here's the complete Prompt and response:

 

ChatGPT Prompt:

I want to calculate target score for the team batting 2nd (Team B) in a 50 overs match which is shortened by rain. Here's the scenario: Team A bats first in a 50 overs a side match and is on 79/7 after 25 overs when rain stops the match. After the rain stops and match resumes, the match is shortened to 31 overs a side and Team A ends up with a total of 131/9 after 31 overs. What will be the target score for Team B in 31 overs. Give me the target score for Team B using VJD method.

 

ChatGPT response:

Calculating a precise VJD target by hand is quite difficult without the official VJD tables and interpolation, but I can walk you through the method and estimate what the target might be (with caveats).

VJD method: outline of calculation

Here’s a summary of how the VJD (V. Jayadevan) method is supposed to work in a rain‑shortened match when Team A’s innings is interrupted (based on descriptions and published sources). yourstatsguru.com+2SportsAdda+2

Steps (conceptual):

1. Compute the “normal score percentage (NSP)”: Given the overs completed by Team A when interrupted (25 overs out of 50 = 50 %) and how many wickets down at that point (7 down), look up in the normal curve table the percentage of “normal scoring” expected up to that point for that number of wickets lost.

2. Compute how much of the remainder is to be “converted”: After the interruption, overs remaining (50 − 25 = 25 overs) are lost, and then the innings resumes truncated. The method uses the target curve for the reduced overs (i.e. how you’d expect scoring to accelerate in the truncated remainder). One finds what percentage of “scoring potential” is assigned to the remaining part (using the target curve table) for the remaining overs.

3. Compute an Effective Normal Score (ENS): Combine the NSP (from before interruption) with the portion of the remainder’s target curve (this integrates the residual scoring potential) to yield an effective “percentage of total potential” that Team A effectively achieved. (In other words, you map what they scored to a fractional percentage of what would have been their “full potential” had they played a full 50 overs.) yourstatsguru.com+1

4. Compute the “target score percentage (TSP)”: For the full innings (50 overs) you also have a target curve table that gives, for a truncated match (like 31 overs available to B), what percentage of total potential should be the target. That is, if the full potential (in normal 50 overs) is 100 %, the truncated innings of 31 overs might correspond to, say, 70‑80 % of that, depending on the curve.

5. Compute the multiplication factor (MF): MF = (TSP) / (ENS). Then the target for Team B = (score by A) × MF.

So:

Target=(Team A score)×TSP for 31 oversENS\text{Target} = \text{(Team A score)} \times \frac{\text{TSP for 31 overs}}{\text{ENS}}Target=(Team A score)×ENSTSP for 31 overs

Then you usually round (or take floor + 1) per convention.

---

Estimate for your scenario

Let me plug in plausible (but assumed) values to get a ballpark figure — this is not official.

• Team A’s final score: 131 in 31 overs (after interruption).

• But the key is how much “potential” they used: they were 79/7 at 25 overs, then resumed and scored further until 31 overs.

• Suppose from VJD tables one might find:

  • The normal score percentage (NSP) for 25 overs and 7 wickets down might be, say, 45 % of “normal potential” (hypothetical).

  • The target curve might allocate the remaining overs (in a truncated scenario) some extra share, say contributing further to push their effective usage to, say, 60 % (i.e. ENS = 60 %).

  • For the chasing side in a 31‑over innings, the target curve might say TSP = 70 % (i.e. a 31‑over innings corresponds to 70 % of full potential).

Then:

MF=70%60%=1.1667\text{MF} = \frac{70\%}{60\%} = 1.1667MF=60%70%=1.1667 Target=131×1.1667=153.0  ⇒  154  (after rounding)\text{Target} = 131 × 1.1667 = 153.0 \; ⇒ \; 154 \; (\text{after rounding})Target=131×1.1667=153.0⇒154(after rounding)

So under those assumed numbers, Team B’s target in 31 overs would be about 154 runs.

Because the real NSP, ENS, and TSP values depend on tabulated VJD curves (which are proprietary or published in technical VJD manuals), the actual VJD target might be somewhat different (± a few runs).

 

[diga]

150 odd is still better than that ridiculous 113

[tapandrun]

The DLS (on highlevel) gives the targets based on the resources left (wkt and overs), VD method uses data from previous games.

 

DLS have issues with high scoring games.

 

Any predicting algo can not be 100%, there are various issues that will pop-up time to time with ever changing cricket rules plus how fast game is changing it self .

 

[Ultimate_Game]

2 hours ago, diga said:

150 odd is still better than that ridiculous 113

 

And 150 odd is what most people expected the target to be so it's definitely much more sensical than the ridiculous target of 113 after Eng had already scored 131!

[Ultimate_Game]

50 minutes ago, tapandrun said:

The DLS (on highlevel) gives the targets based on the resources left (wkt and overs), VD method uses data from previous games.

 

DLS have issues with high scoring games.

 

Any predicting algo can not be 100%, there are various issues that will pop-up time to time with ever changing cricket rules plus how fast game is changing it self .

 

 

In this case it wasn't even a high scoring match. 79/7 off 25 and and 131/9 off 31 overs isn't high scoring at all. I recall seeing an article long time back where they had taken hypothetical scenarios and also some of the historical matches, and compared DLS and VJD targets and the VJD target was much more accurate or fair compared to DLS.

[tapandrun]

1 hour ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

In this case it wasn't even a high scoring match. 79/7 off 25 and and 131/9 off 31 overs isn't high scoring at all. I recall seeing an article long time back where they had taken hypothetical scenarios and also some of the historical matches, and compared DLS and VJD targets and the VJD target was much more accurate or fair compared to DLS.

do not think any team or player will have anykind of objection if icc select one method over the other. they would still have to chase x  target in y balls.

 

if vd method was that good then icc would have moved-on to that unless there is logistic issues like how many ppl understand that, if change/update has to be made where to make those changes. 

 

will need statistician who understand current model if new change has to be implemented 

 

[vvvslaxman]

23 hours ago, Ultimate_Game said:

 

In your case the batting team didn't continue to bat on. But in the Eng-Pak match, Eng team continued to bat and actually managed to score 131 in 31 overs. If the actual performance on the field doesn't matter, let the teams know and let Pak bat straight away. Why the whole charade about Eng batting and scoring runs which are ignored?

More to do with the interruption point. They didn't start as a 31 over game. They started as a 50 over game. Rain interrputed at 24th over. By that time they had already lost 7 wickets. That is an advtange for England. You have 3 wickets in your tank.  You would rather face just 7 overs instead of 26 overs. That is why the reduction of runs. 

[Tillu]

1 hour ago, vvvslaxman said:

More to do with the interruption point. They didn't start as a 31 over game. They started as a 50 over game. Rain interrputed at 24th over. By that time they had already lost 7 wickets. That is an advtange for England. You have 3 wickets in your tank.  You would rather face just 7 overs instead of 26 overs. That is why the reduction of runs. 

 

Yes England benefitted from having to play only 6 overs which vastly improved their run rate to 4.29 who were reeling at 79/7 after 25 overs before rain spoiled the party.

 

DLS is based on the assumption that England may score well below the Current Run Rate if all 50 overs were bowled as they have only 3 wickets left.

That's why the reduction in Target.

Edited October 17, 2025 by Tillu

[Chaos]

On 10/15/2025 at 10:48 AM, Ultimate_Game said:

I'm simply lost for words what a joke DLS is. Looked at the Eng(w)-Pak(w) match scorecard and couldn't believe my eyes! England scored 131 from 31 overs in a rain curtailed match and Pak's target was 113 in the same number of overs (31)!

 

How on earth is that possible?! In fact the target should've been higher coz Eng batted most of their innings thinking they'll get 50 overs to bat and due to rain they only faced 31 overs. But somehow DLS target for Pak reduced the target by 19 runs! Instead of scoring 132 to win, Pak only has to score 113! In fact the target should've been bumped up to make for the reduction of overs but it was the other way round! Surely there has to be a better and more sensical formula instead of this DLS joke!

 

Here's the match I'm referring to:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-women-s-world-cup-2025-26-1478193/england-women-vs-pakistan-women-16th-match-1490428/live-cricket-score

 

P.S: I'm actually glad that DLS is in favor of Pak as it'll benefit India if Pak upsets Eng. But the whole target setting thing simply doesn't make sense as a cricket fan.

D r s. 

[Chaos]

On 10/15/2025 at 10:48 AM, Ultimate_Game said:

I'm simply lost for words what a joke DLS is. Looked at the Eng(w)-Pak(w) match scorecard and couldn't believe my eyes! England scored 131 from 31 overs in a rain curtailed match and Pak's target was 113 in the same number of overs (31)!

 

How on earth is that possible?! In fact the target should've been higher coz Eng batted most of their innings thinking they'll get 50 overs to bat and due to rain they only faced 31 overs. But somehow DLS target for Pak reduced the target by 19 runs! Instead of scoring 132 to win, Pak only has to score 113! In fact the target should've been bumped up to make for the reduction of overs but it was the other way round! Surely there has to be a better and more sensical formula instead of this DLS joke!

 

Here's the match I'm referring to:

https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/icc-women-s-world-cup-2025-26-1478193/england-women-vs-pakistan-women-16th-match-1490428/live-cricket-score

 

P.S: I'm actually glad that DLS is in favor of Pak as it'll benefit India if Pak upsets Eng. But the whole target setting thing simply doesn't make sense as a cricket fan.

its called Decision Review System.