Revise Duckworth-Lewis system for T20, demands an angry Collingwood

[Feed]

Angry and frustrated after the Duckworth-Lewis system cost them a win over West Indies in the Twenty20 World Cup here, England captain Paul Collingwood has demanded that rain rules be revised for the shortest format of the game. More... Revise Duckworth-Lewis system for T20, demands an angry Collingwood PTITuesday, May 4, 2010 Providence (Guyana): Angry and frustrated after the Duckworth-Lewis system cost them a win over West Indies in the Twenty20 World Cup here, England captain Paul Collingwood has demanded that rain rules be revised for the shortest format of the game. "There's a major problem with Duckworth-Lewis in this form of the game," Collingwood said after the eight-wicket loss to the hosts. England had set a mammoth 192-run target for Chris Gayle's men but a rain disruption, that washed out over an hour of the match, led to the target being revised to 60 in six overs which the hosts chased down easily. "I've got no problem with it in one-dayers, and I know it's made me very frustrated because I've come off the losing captain, but it's certainly got to be revised in this form," Collingwood said. "95%of the time when you get 191 runs on the board you are going to win the game. Unfortunately Duckworth-Lewis seems to have other ideas and brings the equation completely the other way and makes it very difficult," he fumed. The man who benefitted from the system too agreed with Collingwood. West Indies captain Chris Gayle said one team cannot be disadvantaged the way England were last night due to rain. "I think it's something they're going to have to look into," he said. "I would support what Collingwood just said. I could have been in the same position as well. It's something that can be addressed so it can be even stevens for both teams in the future. I'm happy but it's just unfortunate for England," he added. But that was hardly a consolation for Collingwood for whom the result is yet to sink in. "I'm trying to take the emotion out of that defeat to be honest with you," he said. "It's the second time it's happened to us against West Indies so it's very frustrating for the boys because we've played a near-perfect game and still lost," he added. Collingwood said he has no clue how the system can be adjusted to Twenty20 but it has to at the earliest or else teams would continue to suffer. "I'm not a mathematician, I don't really know what the equation should be, but your backs are certainly against the wall when it's like that."

[Feed]

A must-win game for England against Ireland today England are praying for a rain-free match against Ireland as they try to turn their Duckworth-Lewis frustration into another perfect performance at the Guyana National Stadium. More... Tuesday 4th May 2010 A must-win game for England today England are praying for a rain-free match against Ireland as they try to turn their Duckworth-Lewis frustration into another perfect performance at the Guyana National Stadium. Captain Paul Collingwood last night called for urgent attention to be turned on the D/L method in Twenty20 cricket, after his team had ended up eight-wicket losers against West Indies. They therefore need to beat Ireland at the same venue tonight - or progress via a washout - to join the Windies as the Group D qualifiers for the ICC World Twenty20 Super Eight stage. There was little England could be criticised for yesterday, after Eoin Morgan (55) and Luke Wright (45no) had helped them set a testing target of 191 for five. But home captain Chris Gayle had chosen to field first, in anticipation of rain and probable favour from D/L recalculations. So it turned out as the West Indies scraped to a revised target of 60 in six overs, with one ball to spare. Collingwood's team must therefore train their sights on beating Ireland, and the captain is simply hoping rain does not intervene again. "We don't know what's going to happen with the weather. But we pray for a 20-over game. We hope if we get that we can win," he said. Collingwood believes there will have to be some amendments to current D/L formulae for the shortest format. "There's a major problem with this Duckworth-Lewis in this form of the game. "I've got no problems with it in the 50-over form. But I know it's made us very frustrated here. "It certainly has to be revised for this form of the game. "I'm no mathematician; I really don't know what the equation should be. But you're certainly backs against the wall when it works out like that. "We played a near perfect game, and lost. The only thing we are frustrated about is the Duckworth-Lewis equation." The outcome means England face a series of 'finals' to stay in with a chance of winning an International Cricket Council tournament for the first time. "I guess it puts a little bit of added pressure on us," added Collingwood. "We know what we've got to do. If we win six games now, we win a World Cup. Gayle, meanwhile, can be satisfied his team are through to the next stage of their own competition after back-to-back group wins. He sympathised with England but confirmed he had got his team's tactics spot on. "We knew that the weather was going to play a part -so the first five overs, obviously, can determine the game," he said. "So we decided to go out and see what we could get out of the first five overs. The target was actually 43, I think, at one stage - and the updated calculation went in our favour. "After the rain, we knew we were most likely to win the game from there on." England and Ireland meet for the first time in ICC World Twenty20 ICC World Twenty20 Played Won Lost Winning % Ireland - overall 6 1 5 16.66 England - overall 10 3 7 30.00 Ireland's only win in ICC World Twenty20 is against Bangladesh by six wickets at Trent Bridge, Nottingham on June 8, 2009. Approaching milestones: - Kevin Pietersen (663) needs 37 runs to become the first English player to complete 700 runs in Twenty20 Internationals. - Paul Collingwood (475) requires 25 runs to become the second English player to complete 500 runs in Twenty20 Internationals. - Kevin Pietersen (332) requires 68 runs to become the first Englsh player to complete 400 runs in ICC World Twenty20.

[Lord]

Angry and frustrated after the Duckworth-Lewis system cost them victory over the West Indies [ Images ] in the Twenty20 [ Images ] World Cup in Guyana on Monday, England [ Images ] captain Paul Collingwood [ Images ] has demanded that rain rules be revised for the shortest format of the game. - Scorecard Certainly, he is justified, as England had set a mammoth 192-run target for Chris Gayle's [ Images ] men, but a rain disruption that washed out over an hour of the match led to the target being revised to 60 in six overs, which the hosts chased down easily and won by eight wickets. The defeat raises some questions about the rain rule. Srinivas Bhogle examines them, and comes up with some suggestions: What is the probability that you'll win a T20 match after scoring 191 batting first? I'd agree with Paul Collingwood. It must be something like 95%, especially with long boundaries and a sluggish outfield. So why did England lose? Because it rained, the Duckworth-Lewis (D/L) method had to be used, and D/L said West Indies (WI) only needed to reach 60/2 in 6 overs to win. Isn't that kind of low? It is. And I heard commentators saying that the West Indies would win at 43/0 in 5 overs or even at 46/1 after 5 overs. This seems blatantly unfair It is. No wonder Chris Gayle gleefully opted to field after winning the toss. The side batting second therefore has a distinct advantage It does. In fact we're back to the good old (pre-1990) days when ODI targets were decided only based on run rates, without considering wickets lost, and every captain winning the toss chose to field first on a cloudy day. But isn't that the raison d'être of D/L ... that D/L considers both 'overs remaining' and 'wickets lost'? Yes, indeed. In fact D/L also claims that their method is toss-invariant and fair to both teams at all times in the match. And to be fair it is ... certainly in ODI games. So what's going wrong? They're trying to force-fit a 50-over model for a 20-over game and it isn't working! Why is no one complaining? I thought Paul Collingwood spoke tough after Monday's game, but D/L has now attained a hallowed status ... so everyone is shy to say that this T20 emperor has no clothes. Do you really believe that this emperor is prancing around naked? Frankly, yes. I know that everyone's saying that D/L needs more T20 data to fine-tune their model. But we now have enough data! We've played 175 IPL matches now and that's a reasonable amount of data. So why aren't we seeing a new D/L format adapted for T20? I can only guess that it's not working out! T20 may be a different sort of animal. Perhaps Duckworth and Lewis just can't find those ten 'well-behaved' curves that need to drop rapidly from a resource percentage of 100 (or less) to 0 in just 120 steps, instead of 300. I'm sure I didn't understand that! But are you saying that the D/L rationale itself may not work in T20? Yes. So far the D/L horse is proving to be rather unruly with T20. Why flog it into submission and put up with tantrums that deny England an almost certain win? Why not try some other way? You mean dump D/L? And replace with what?! With the method that D/L itself replaced around 1992: the 'most productive overs' (MPO) method, apparently devised by Richie Benaud. We first arrange the runs scored per over in descending order. In the Sri Lanka [ Images ] 20-over innings against Zimbabwe, e.g., the order was: 16,14,13,13,11,10,10... 6,6,6,5,4,4. Now if Zimbabwe can bat only 5 overs, the rule will require them to score 16+14+13+13+11 = 67, plus 1, i.e. 68 to win. If Zimbabwe have 6 overs then it will be 16+14+13+13+11+10 = 77, plus 1, i.e. 78 to win This seems much more reasonable than the 43 or something that Zimbabwe had to score in 5 overs using D/L (which they foolishly didn't attempt). What would have been the WI target in the other match? 85 in 5 overs, which is admittedly very high. But remember that England had a few massive overs, including an over with 27 runs and two overs at 16 runs apiece. That's pretty unusual. But at the end of the day if England could score 84 in some five overs, WI too should have to replicate or better that score to win. And this method doesn't consider wickets lost, etc.? No it openly acknowledges that only runs matter in T20, not wickets. Are you comfortable with that? Look, the biggest D/L anomaly is that it sets ridiculously low targets for 5 or 6 or 7 over innings. The big challenge is to correct that. Could we be replacing one monster by another equally deadly monster? Possibly. But my gut feeling is that we'll get to a happier place in T20 by tweaking the MPO method instead of the D/L method.

[Gunner_Mania]

The problem with the second method is assuming the team batting first get bowled out within 12 overs for 90 allout. If team batting second only has 6 overs, they might need to score 70 to win in 6 overs, because team batting first scored bulk of their runs in few overs and got bowled out in the rest. Now that would be unfair because in theory they would have had 20 overs to score 91. If 20 overs (50/2.5) constitues a one day match then shouldn't it be 8 overs (20/2.5) that should constiture a T20 match .Why is it 5 overs??

[f2000560]

Dude MPO is definatley not the way out there wasa method used in ICL but even that came in for some criticism. D/L doesn't have enough data in T 20 even with 175 IPL matches it is probably not a significant sample to D/L with a 1000+ internationals played by the time it was implemented. One solution is if you cannot have a 15 over match split points or if its an eliminator go directly into the super over. but i still believe the principle of D/L applies to t 20 but wickets as a resource is a lot cheaper than balls so maybe some external adjustment for the same rather than simply relying on run rate graphs could be a solution

[Lord]

The problem with the second method is assuming the team batting first get bowled out within 12 overs for 90 allout. If team batting second only has 6 overs, they might need to score 70 to win in 6 overs, because team batting first scored bulk of their runs in few overs and got bowled out in the rest. Now that would be unfair because in theory they would have had 20 overs to score 91. If 20 overs (50/2.5) constitues a one day match then shouldn't it be 8 overs (20/2.5) that should constiture a T20 match .Why is it 5 overs??

agree MPO wont work in such situations.i was wondering if both can be used an average target be arrived at,for example,according to D/L,WI needed 60 n according to MPO they needed 85,an average of that i.e.73 should be the target imo.that should work in most situations

[The Outsider]

Oh hai Paul and Bhogle :hello: http://www.indiancricketfans.com/showthread.php?t=104594

[Karan114]

If 20 overs (50/2.5) constitues a one day match then shouldn't it be 8 overs (20/2.5) that should constiture a T20 match .Why is it 5 overs??

Good point. Not that even eight overs is adequate for the result of a cricket match, but at least it would be consistent with ODIs then.

[The Outsider]

If 20 overs (50/2.5) constitues a one day match then shouldn't it be 8 overs (20/2.5) that should constiture a T20 match .Why is it 5 overs??

On the contrary, even 1 over or less should constitute a result. The entire philosophy behind these kind of cut offs is to get results in all possible scenarios and avoid a stalemate, following on from American sports and the latest fad that has taken over cricket about the necessity of a result in a cricket game under all circumstances. If a match can be condensed to 5 overs, I don't see anything wrong in it being done so to 1 over. We have Super Overs anyway. It's not that you are going to get any cricket over 5 overs but not over 1 over. At that point, cricket is the lowest on the list of priority and a result is the highest.

[Zelig]

Everyone complains about super over:hitler: I wud like to hear their take on sudden death in field hockey and football.

[The Outsider]

^ It's not an accurate analogy. I know T20 fans crave for high thrill 'results' so my point would be lost on them, but here goes anyway. Penalty strokes and penalties in hockey and football are part of the game and have been so since the games began. If the opponent commits a foul, under certain circumstances your team is entitled to a penalty. It's this integral concept to the game which is then extended to break a tie. In normal cricket, a Super Over is not part of the mainstream game. It's a tag on, for the sole purpose of achieving a 'result' as was the Bowl Out. If your opponent fouls you during a game, it does not entitle a team to have a bowl at empty stumps or an over where you have to slog as many runs as you can for one wicket. Extending concepts from different sports has to be done with a bit of thought and not just randomly, because 'results' have to be achieved. And in extension, the ICC has missed to extend the good part - the concept of extra time before going into penalties.

[Lord]

^ It's not an accurate analogy. I know T20 fans crave for high thrill 'results' so my point would be lost on them, but here goes anyway. Penalty strokes and penalties in hockey and football are part of the game and have been so since the games began. If the opponent commits a foul, under certain circumstances your team is entitled to a penalty. It's this integral concept to the game which is then extended to break a tie. In normal cricket, a Super Over is not part of the mainstream game. It's a tag on, for the sole purpose of achieving a 'result' as was the Bowl Out. If your opponent fouls you during a game, it does not entitle a team to have a bowl at empty stumps or an over where you have to slog as many runs as you can for one wicket. Extending concepts from different sports has to be done with a bit of thought and not just randomly, because 'results' have to be achieved. And in extension, the ICC has missed to extend the good part - the concept of extra time before going into penalties.

Free hit?:dontknow:

[Zelig]

^^ It is still same as putting a ball on the spot and striking/hitting it towards the goal. It barely requires any skills like dribbling past the defenders, selling a dummy or passing the ball. It's just equivalent to slogging - striking the ball with utmost force plus some accuracy.

[The Outsider]

Free hit?:dontknow:

That's another new gimmick.

^^ It is still same as putting a ball on the spot and striking/hitting it towards the goal. It barely requires any skills like dribbling past the defenders, selling a dummy or passing the ball. It's just equivalent to slogging - striking the ball with utmost force plus some accuracy.

Hockey and Football have penalties only in knockout matches and after extra time. Have that in T20 and I would still be fine with it. As things stand it's just an extension of the American obsession for there to be a winner always. So why have the 5 over restriction on Duckworth Lewis applicability?

[b555]

Hockey and Football have penalties only in knockout matches and after extra time. Have that in T20 and I would still be fine with it. As things stand it's just an extension of the American obsession for there to be a winner always. So why have the 5 over restriction on Duckworth Lewis applicability?

++

[hari504504]

Yup..Duckworth lewis can;t be applied into T20...if matches are rained out..they should just split the points..

[Ripper]

When you are implementing a game @ international level and you are playing world cup for this, won't all possible condtions/results are carefully analysed, scrutinized before? This is sheer nonsense!

[Mamu]

Play the damn game again !! It is 3 friggin hours -- not 5 days. After all it is just a slog fest anyways!

[Zelig]

That's another new gimmick. Hockey and Football have penalties only in knockout matches and after extra time. Have that in T20 and I would still be fine with it. As things stand it's just an extension of the American obsession for there to be a winner always. So why have the 5 over restriction on Duckworth Lewis applicability?

Agree:hatsoff:

[f2000560]

That's another new gimmick. Don't agree there free hit has considerably reduced no ball excesses . so in a way it worked.