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

[Gunner_Mania]

agree MPO wont work in such situations.i was wondering if both can be used an average target be arrived at' date='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[/quote'] Zim-NZ match today perfect example of what I said. Zim have scored 54 runs in first and 20 in remaining 8 (as I write this post). Now asuming they score another 10 runs and lose the last wicket. NZ will need to score 84 in 20 overs. MPO would mean they would need to score 54 in 6 overs.

[coffee_rules]

Now that it happened to a English team, ICC would be very quick to revise the rules.

[Jersey #10]

Duckworth defends D/L method for T20 The statistician Frank Duckworth has launched a robust defence of the eponymous formula that he devised, in partnership with Tony Lewis, to recalculate run-chases in rain-affected one-day games, and believes that the current criticism of his calculations stems entirely from Paul Collingwood's frustrations, following England's failure to beat West Indies in their opening contest of the World Twenty20 in Guyana. The Duckworth-Lewis system was devised in the 1990s and formally adopted by the ICC in 2001, and is widely regarded as the fairest means of resolving rain-shortened contests in 50-over cricket, even if the workings of the formula are a mystery to all but the most mathematically gifted. However, for the second time in consecutive World Twenty20 contests against West Indies, Collingwood was left feeling aggrieved following defeats that he believed might not have occurred had the matches been played out over their full distance. At The Oval in June 2009, West Indies progressed to the semi-finals by chasing 80 in nine overs after England had posted an imposing 161 for 6, while Monday's discrepancy seemed even more stark - England made 191 for 5, but West Indies were left needing 60 in six overs, thanks to an early onslaught from their captain, Chris Gayle, who admitted he had chosen to bat second in the contest precisely because he anticipated D/L would be a factor. "There's a major problem with Duckworth-Lewis in this form of the game," Collingwood told reporters after the match. "I've got no problem with it in one-dayers ... but it's certainly got to be revised in this form. Ninety-five percent 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." However, when asked if he accepted that a recalibration was required to reflect the higher tempo of Twenty20 cricket, Duckworth was emphatic in his rebuttal. "No I don't, quite frankly," he told Cricinfo's Switch Hit podcast. "Remember that there have been a total of about 70 matches decided by Duckworth-Lewis since Twenty20 was invented in 2002, and there's only been two instances where any dissent has been expressed, and both of those were by Paul Collingwood and the England team, as a result of failing to win against West Indies. "That revised target of 60 from six overs was set because, before the rain interruption, West Indies had faced 14 balls and scored a massive 30 runs without losing any wickets," Duckworth added. "They were 11 runs ahead of the D/L par, and if the match hadn't been able to restart, and if for the sake of argument you allowed a match to be valid with only 2.2 overs bowled, then West Indies would have won by 11 runs. They were winning easily when the rain came." Remember that there have been a total of about 70 matches decided by Duckworth-Lewis since Twenty20 was invented in 2002, and there's only been two instances where any dissent has been expressed, and both of those were by Paul Collingwood and the England team, as a result of failing to win against West Indies Nevertheless, that winning position was largely due to the exploits of Gayle, who cracked 15 runs off Ryan Sidebottom's first over of the reply en route to 25 from 12 balls. He was eventually dismissed seven balls after the resumption, at 41 for 1 after 3.3 overs, although by that stage of the recalculated run-chase, West Indies required just 19 more runs to win from 15 balls, whereas in a full 20-over innings, the figure would have been a more daunting 151 from 99. Duckworth, however, insisted that his maths still added up. "We don't know what would have happened [in a full contest]," he said. "I've seen Gayle score a Twenty20 century in absolutely no time, so you've no idea. His dismissal didn't affect the situation at that stage. If he'd got out before the rain, when there were still ostensibly 20 overs still to face, that would have been important because it would have significantly affected the run-scoring capability. "Wickets start to diminish in importance the shorter the game," he added. "The fact that the match had been reduced to a further 3.4 overs only meant that his wicket was fairly immaterial. The only thing that was lost was the momentum [that his innings had generated], but there are plenty other good West Indians who could come in and pick up the mantle." On another day, one of those men might have been Kieron Pollard, but as Duckworth himself conceded, his usual dismissal - stumped off a leg-side wide for 0 - actually worked in West Indies' favour on this occasion, because they earned a run for the extra, without using up any deliveries. However, he did not accept that such anomalies ought to be factored into future Twenty20 scenarios, with sides permitted to lose only, say, three or four wickets in the case of a six-over chase. "It would have made no difference," he said. "When the target was revised, the resources [we factored in] were whatever wickets are left and the fewer overs. We only alter the overs. The consideration of losing wickets came in over ten years ago, right at the start, and there are very good reasons why this would be totally impractical." Duckworth did, however, confirm that small alterations to the formula are made from time to time, as came to light during a CB40 fixture between Leicestershire and Durham on Monday, when it transpired that the scorers at Grace Road had been using the 2009 calculations to set Leicester a chase of 176 in 26 overs, when the 2010 figure ought to have been 181. "We do recalibrate quite regularly," he said. "We review the data every four years, and last summer as part of a series of regular reviews, we did reanalyse all the data that existed, and this for the first time included an extremely large pot of Twenty20 data. "We reached two important conclusions. The first was that the scoring patterns in Twenty20 matches fitted in absolutely perfectly with the formula that we'd always used satisfactorily with 50-over games. Secondly, however, there were one or two small changes needed to the numbers going into our formula, so that the tables and the targets would be ever so slightly different. But the changes were very small, and were accepted by the ICC in an independent assessment by their statistical advisors." Source? Cricinfo

[b555]

:reddy:

[Feed]

Colly acknowedges rain helped against Ireland England captain Paul Collingwood had cause to be grateful for rain as his side advanced to the World T20 Super Eight stage after a no-result to their shoot-out with Ireland. More... Wednesday 5th May 2010 Colly acknowedges rain helped England captain Paul Collingwood had cause to be grateful for rain as his side advanced to the World T20 Super Eight stage after a no-result to their shoot-out with Ireland. England could only reach 120 for eight on a difficult pitch, after being put in to bat at the Guyana National Stadium. Collingwood had questioned the Duckworth-Lewis method in its current form as a means to determine rain-affected matches having lost to the West Indies yesterday but Ireland's reply was halted twice as they reached 14 for one from 3.3 overs and when the 5pm local time cut-off arrived, with five overs of their innings yet to be completed, a no-result was declared. That meant England progressed alongside group winners West Indies on a superior run rate having hit 191 for five against the hosts, while Ireland had been bowled out by them for 68. "I guess the rain's come around today at a time that's got us through to the next stage," Collingwood said. "It didn't help us yesterday but today I guess it's helped us a little bit." Collingwood said he had been satisfied with the target his side had set Ireland. "We were pretty confident once we got up to 120. I think it was a 130 wicket and you'd have been really happy with that; 140 and you'd have been really confident of protecting that score. "It could have got quite close today. There was certainly a bit of turn out there and it was seaming around as well and a lot different to the wicket we played on the other day." Collingwood also praised Dublin-born England batsman Eoin Morgan who top-scored against his native country with 45 from 37, a day after hitting 55 from 35 against West Indies. "He's a very versatile player. He's got the power, he can play all the shots but he's also got a good mind and that's what you need in the middle order. "You've got to adjust to the situation, and he seems to be reading it pretty well. "We wanted to get to the 15th over and then get our shots away but it was hard on that wicket and a lot of credit to the Irish bowlers as well. That wicket seemed to suit them quite well today, unfortunately, but I'm absolutely delighted the way Morgs is going and progressing as a player." Ireland captain William Porterfield was instead the one to feel denied that his batsmen were not given the chance to chase what he felt was a vulnerable target. "If the rain hadn't come we were pretty confident chasing down 120 that we could knock it off. But it's just one of those things," Porterfield said. "The attitude we took out into the field there was brilliant. "We just want to get into Super Eights and beat the big teams in there. We came with our sights set on that, and showed glimpses in our performance that we could do that. "The way we came out today, after Friday's disappointment, was great. "If we can take that into every game, we'll go places." Of facing former team-mate Morgan, Porterfield added: "I've played against him a few times, but it is a bit different when he's out in the middle in a big game like that. "Especially over the last six to eight months, he's kicked on big time."

[vvvslaxman]

120 could have been defended on this wicket. 9 more balls Collie might not be saying this.

[Ranjha]

colly collly.....bolna band kar.

[mastana]

Unlucky Ireland and lucky Importland.