D/L Method is the real spoilsport

[b555]

bloody bashtards duckworth and lewis might as well done something else for living ***ing dickheads

[Mariyam]

DL has changed a lot since then. You won't be finding entirely ridiculous scenarios as that game you mentioned. I think its a fair enough method to decide the games. Though the losing team will always feel cheated if they don't get to play after the rain interruption' date= denying them the chance to make a comeback into the game.

NOT JUST THE LOSING TEAM. Even the fans who have paid and are spending their time to watch a game of cricket and not to watch some algebraic/ geometric equation get solved. I would have my team play and lose rather than them win based on D/L system.

[Guest Hiten.]

DL has changed a lot since then. You won't be finding entirely ridiculous scenarios as that game you mentioned. I think its a fair enough method to decide the games. Though the losing team will always feel cheated if they don't get to play after the rain interruption' date=' denying them the chance to make a comeback into the game.[/quote'] As I said, D/L method predicts the result of the game considering the trend for majority of the game. Any team that has upper hand for say about 60-70 overs (in the game), D/L awards that particular team the victory completely eliminating the fact that the game can be won in the next 30 overs too. I don't like the concept of prediction and hence you let the teams decide for themselves who deserves to win (by resuming the play) and not ****ing calculators.

[nikred]

As I said' date=' D/L method predicts the result of the game considering the trend for majority of the game. Any team that has upper hand for say about 60-70 overs (in the game), D/L awards that particular team the victory completely eliminating the fact that the game can be won in the next 30 overs too[b']. I don't like the concept of prediction and hence you let the teams decide for themselves who deserves to win (by resuming the play) and not ****ing calculators.

Since they can't decide which team deserves to win till the finish, they are deciding which team deserves to win till that point of time. Based upon the performance till that point of time, SAF did look like the deserving winners. I know its not even close to the most ideal way of deciding matches. But what is ideal in this world? I feel its a good enough tool to use in tightly scheduled tournaments.

[dr_tooley]

If it wasn't for the rain we would have won 4th ODI We were perfectly placed. 130 off around 110 balls. Kohli playing the dream continuity innings. Bhajji at the wicket. Certainly the way I saw it panning out was smith bringing Steyn and Morkel back but as there was no swing Bhajji would have hit them out of the park and out of the attack. They would have probably taken it down to 50 off 35. Kohli would have played to the end and brought us home with a combination of Munaf, Zaheer and Nehra. The Saffers were pretty lucky and will try to spin that they had this won, but they didn't. Just got lucky. Saved by the rain.

[Guest Hiten.]

Since they can't decide which team deserves to win till the finish' date=' they are deciding which team deserves to win till that point of time. Based upon the performance till that point of time, SAF did look like the deserving winners. I know its not even close to the most ideal way of deciding matches. But what is ideal in this world? I feel its a good enough tool to use in tightly scheduled tournaments.[/quote'] On what basis can you guarantee me that RSA would've wrapped up this match as convincingly you or D/L put it up for me ? SA messed up their chances two in two, so it tells me that SA are poor finishers OR India are good at finishing games. Tight scheduling is no reason to use D/L and get the result of the match based on predictions, just for the sake of a result :dontknow:

[Sooda]

DL has changed a lot since then. You won't be finding entirely ridiculous scenarios as that game you mentioned. I think its a fair enough method to decide the games. Though the losing team will always feel cheated if they don't get to play after the rain interruption' date=' denying them the chance to make a comeback into the game.[/quote'] That was the 92 WC England vs Saf I think she is referring to, Saf ended up needing 22 runs off 1 ball... but yeah tthe rules have changed since. That scenario will not be repeated

[b555]

well i would even say with good amount of overs left with their lead bowlers, bhajii sure owuldnt have stayed till the end come on man its 100+ runs we are talking about here

[akshayxyz]

I think - that 1992 reference is wrong - it was not due to D/L method. At that time it was like remove the worst overs ( overs scored least) from the fielding team's score. Without considering the loss of wickets etc. It was situations like those which gave birth to D/L method. And it has not performed that bad. In fact, i think, in all the matches with rain forecast team's come prepared with pre-calculated chart about what is going to be D/L target at every stage. Resuming/replaying the match next day, is most unfair option - esp when one innings has been played completely ( remember it can be one team putting best bowling and other team putting best batting effort + the toss factor). So - for now, is best bet for continuing the play is - retractable roof - ( even some teams might find it as unfair change in conditions). and second best is D/L method, perhaps with more adjustments to calculations based on recent past and other factors ( I am sure they do that). As for yesterday's match - I am sure, by the time Indian innings started they must have had some information about weather forecast - they should have played accordingly to keep up with the D/L targets - If they fell short by 40-50 runs - Either the rain was completely unexpected, which is highly unlikely...(for a possible rain in 3-4 hours- even w/o satellite images common people can predict with fair amount of accuracy). So - before blaming ICC, they are the people who has most at stake, money wise and the amount of effort players put in - so trust them to make it most fair (possible). e.g. - for an ODI, they wont abandon a match if each team does not get to play certain minimum # of matches. - overs are not deducted, unless loss of play is more than 1 hour or so. So, when you start a crib-post about existing methods, try keep it constructive by making better suggestions. As of now the suggestions that I see in this thread - most of them are 'arm-chair' suggestions, and there is no way ICC management or every other common people can not think of that. So, if they are not in place, there has to be some reason ( brainstorming session) behind it. And for critics of D/L method - D/L guys came up with when they found glaring flaws in system's preceding them and made it better than previous one, and ICC accepted that. So why do not you come up with better method, and which is so good that, if not ICC, at least you convince BCCI to try it out! (if it is good BCCI will ensure further progress). The reason for existence of such posts is more due to - it is easy to write suggestions like - replay/abandon the match, make roofs all over.. than to try to decipher how D/L works and can be improved. I really hope some good stuff comes out of this/such discussion(s) than just stating/restating and arguing about the obvious.

[nikred]

On what basis can you guarantee me that RSA would've wrapped up this match as convincingly you or D/L put it up for me ? SA messed up their chances two in two' date=' so it tells me that SA are poor finishers OR India are good at finishing games. Tight scheduling is no reason to use D/L and get the result of the match based on predictions, just for the sake of a result :dontknow:[/quote'] I would want that result, rather than being declared draw, if its a rain interrupted WC match between India and Netherlands. :nervous:

[dr_tooley]

well i would even say with good amount of overs left with their lead bowlers, bhajii sure owuldnt have stayed till the end come on man its 100+ runs we are talking about here

You didn't see Bhajji smack Kemar Roach round the park in the IPL last year. Or the two centuries against NZ. Or indeed the six over Morkel's head in the previous ODI. If the ball was swinging around I agree SA would have had the upper hand. But this was not happening and they were in for a beating.

[Sachin=GOD]

Some of my suggestions: 1) Have those retractable roofs like basketball/football stadiums. 2) Have a detailed whether forecast the night before. I presume in this digital age, we can get accurate forecasts. Adjust the game accordingly before it begins. For example, if we know its going to rain at 10 pm on a game that starts at 3 pm, make it a 35 over each game, instead of having one team bat 50 overs and the other use D/L system. 3) Just play in the damn rain. Why is that such a big deal??? 4) Worst case scenario, play the game again entirely. I remember reading, that in a WC South African Republic were comfortably winning against the Kiwis and suddenly there was this deluge. After the pitch had been cleared off rain water , the South Africans come on to bat and find that they have to score 22 runs from 1 delivery or something, thanks to Duck Worth Lewis. At least the people whose brain child the D/L system was weren't too full of their creation. They named it aptly. Duck worth Lewis system, coz thats what its worth anyways. :P My entire complaint is against the excessive use of mathematics in cricket. Thas the real thing killing cricket, not T-20 as the purists claim. If it looks like its going to rain, what is a batsman supposed to do? Risk his wicket and try winning the game, or keep D/L in mind and play slowly and safely. Who will solve the difficult equations for him and tell him how much to score. Most cricketers are dunces. Can't expect that of them. Out with the D/L I say. :hatsoff:

1. Those retractable roofs are very expensive so you can't expect countries like Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or West Indies or Pak or even most stadiums in India to have such expensive roofs made. Also, most of the stadiums are simply not designed in a manner to have a roof and will therefore need major alterations to accommodate a roof. 2. IMO even in this digital age the weather forecasts are usually off target, so depending on them may not solve the problem entirely. 3. Playing cricket in mild rain is not a problem but when it gets heavy then its pretty dangerous and even if we somehow remove/ignore the danger element then there is the other matter of the visibility of the ball in heavy rain - the batsmen, bowlers and fielders (and even the umpires) have great difficulty in seeing the ball in heavy rain.

[nikred]

That was the 92 WC England vs Saf I think she is referring to' date=' Saf ended up needing 22 runs off 1 ball... but yeah tthe rules have changed since. That scenario will not be repeated[/quote'] I know that, I have seen the match live. abcdxyz is right though, it wasn't D\L used back then. Based on what wiki says, the target would have been 5 runs from 1 ball if D\L was used. Pretty reasonable i think.

[thongale]

I remember reading, that in a WC South African Republic were comfortably winning against the Kiwis and suddenly there was this deluge. After the pitch had been cleared off rain water , the South Africans come on to bat and find that they have to score 22 runs from 1 delivery or something, thanks to Duck Worth Lewis.

It was not according to D&L. It was first used in 96/97.

[fineleg]

If it wasn't for the rain we would have won 4th ODI .

:hysterical:

[b555]

:hehe:

[King Tendulkar]

Agree with OP. I have similar feelings about WC semi against SL. Kambli would have got us home and then after that glorius victory, that would have pushed him on to be one of the greatest players ever. Clive Lyold basically stopped Kambli becoming an all time great!

[fineleg]

^ Thats like your Nohit Sharma prediction :haha:

[b555]

^ :rotfl:

[Bumblebee]

Well the same could have happened with saffers if they batted second! it is a rule for both the teams! The only thing which i am not sure is that, does Duckworthlewis takes the batting power play into the equation? Saffers had the advantage of taking both there batting powerplays whereas India only took one! does anyone know, if duckworthlewis calculations take powerplay into the consideration? if not they might have to somehow include it bcause it would really unfair for the team batting second then!