Duckworth Lewis discussion thread

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

Just to show how much those two overs before the break - quite justly, given the ridiculously short length of the game - actually changed things, the West Indies would've needed 73 to win off their 6 overs rather than the 60 they ended up chasing if the rain delay happened in the innings break and they never actually batted those 2.2 overs.

Uh on second thoughts, nothing wrong with what you said. It's the 2.2 overs of wicketless batting that helped Wi.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

I played around with the online calculator. Could've stuffed it up though.

But yeah, it does take into account the resources available, but it also takes into account how many runs are actually left to win. It's assumed that they'd have scored more quickly if they knew the innings was shorter, so the later the break is, the smaller the target becomes.

As I said in the other thread - imagine chasing 250 in an ODI, going off after 19 overs at 0/100 and then coming back on and being told that you needed to score 46 to win off one over because that's the 20 over equivalent of a 50-over 250. What you've already scored is taken into account.

True. In your example, the DL par score at the 20 over mark would be 80odd, and having outscored it already, the team chasing would be declared winners by run differential between the Revised Target and actual total, and not wickets.

What am saying is the 100 already scored by them had no relevance in determining the 80odd revised Target, which was the point I was contesting in the other thread. Ie, Wi's score of 30odd had no role in determining the 60 they were set off 6.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

If anything, I think it's just shown that 6 overs just isn't a game of cricket, particularly when it's divided into two different parts chasing different totals. The D/L calculation was fine - people are blaming it, essentially, for putting such a big emphasis on 2.2 overs, but that's what happens if you play a six over contest. Cricket in any sense isn't supposed to be defined so wholly by such small sample sizes. If they can't make it to 15 overs they should just call it off IMO.

I think you've nailed it here. They should just introduce reserve days or play through the rain. Duckworth Lewis fails at T20. It's only a matter of time before a major final is decided in this manner and the world once again collectively facepalms at cricket.

[zaremba]

Originally Posted by King Pietersen

Suppose that's what you get for organising games in Guyana over the rainy season.

I've just posted something similar in the match thread. Crazy stuff by the people who make these decisions.

[maxtop123]

Well the entire Caribbean including Guyana has been experiencing a drought.The drought in Guyana continued until the T20 competition actually began. Go figure. If you want rain in Guyana put three sticks in the ground for international cricket.Works like a charm most of the time.

[zaremba]

Yeah there's bad luck involved but these competitions get planned months in advance and there's an obvious risk that Guyana in the rainy season is likely to be, well, rainy

[Top_Cat]

Maybe scrap D/L for use in T20's full stop? Play it like tennis in Wimbeldon, if there's a rain break, keep trying to play the full overs and if you can't, play the rest tomorrow. It's a 3-hour game, much like your average 5-setter so it's a possibility.

[maxtop123]

Originally Posted by zaremba

Yeah there's bad luck involved but these competitions get planned months in advance and there's an obvious risk that Guyana in the rainy season is likely to be, well, rainy

Yeah, because you know it NEVER rains in England. No siree.Never. That country DOES NOT have a reputation for being rainy. I mean it's not like rain HAD any impact at that wonderful, perfect tournament in that country last year. So let's only have tournaments in countries not known for being rainy because it's not like South Africa is known for rain either. Nope. Not all.

[GraemeSmith]

ICC has to act upon this rain in T20 nonsense. Ireland was robbed today. It's only a matter of time before a big powerhouse like Australia or India get knocked out of a tournament due to these stupid rain rules and then ICC will have to scramble and do damage control. Why don't they get ahead of the problem? They are either super lazy or just don't care.

As I posted in the other thread T20 matches should be played on artificial pitches allowing the game to continue during rain. It would be exciting to watch a match played in pouring rain

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by GraemeSmith

As I posted in the other thread T20 matches should be played on artificial pitches allowing the game to continue during rain. It would be exciting to watch a match played in pouring rain

Don't think that'll change anything. Playing on matting in kicks would actually be more hazardous for the bowlers than playing on turf in spikes. This is aside from how the ball will behave, etc.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Don't think that'll change anything. Playing on matting in kicks would actually be more hazardous for the bowlers than playing on turf in spikes. This is aside from how the ball will behave, etc.

Ha really. Unless it's Womens T20i.

[biased indian]

they have to change the min overs to 10

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by maxtop123

Yeah, because you know it NEVER rains in England. No siree.Never. That country DOES NOT have a reputation for being rainy. I mean it's not like rain HAD any impact at that wonderful, perfect tournament in that country last year. So let's only have tournaments in countries not known for being rainy because it's not like South Africa is known for rain either. Nope. Not all.

His point was that logically the tournament could have been scheduled at a time of the year when it's not extremely likely to rain in Guyana. You might have noticed that if you hadn't been spending your time being snide instead.

[Sir Alex]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

His point was that logically the tournament could have been scheduled at a time of the year when it's not extremely likely to rain in Guyana. You might have noticed that if you hadn't been spending your time being snide instead.

So they should not conduct any ICC events in England during summer because it's known to be fairly rainy?

[andyc]

Originally Posted by Sir Alex

So they should not conduct any ICC events in England during summer because it's known to be fairly rainy?

There's a difference between a spot of rain here and there, and a full-on rainy season though.