-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Duckworth/Lewis Method
- Thread starter Mr Mxyzptlk
- Start date
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
My final thought on DL is this :
a) It's better than 'drop the least-productive overs'
b) It's better than 'Team B just need to beat the total that Team A set' because it does try to take account of how many overs are left, how many wickets have fallen.
c) It's NOT a crystal ball.
Sure, we've all been 'surprised' by dramatic collapses (I can remember Kent losing their last 9 wickets for a handful of runs - from 150-1 chasing 170, they were bowled out by Derbyshire in pre-Corky days - I suspect it may have been Dev, Ole Mortensen and Newman or even 'Whispering Death' doing the damage - sorry, Derek, grandson of God)
and of course DL is based on probabilities so it can never allow for this kind of occurrence.
That's not to say, of course, that it cannot be improved on.
a) It's better than 'drop the least-productive overs'
b) It's better than 'Team B just need to beat the total that Team A set' because it does try to take account of how many overs are left, how many wickets have fallen.
c) It's NOT a crystal ball.
Sure, we've all been 'surprised' by dramatic collapses (I can remember Kent losing their last 9 wickets for a handful of runs - from 150-1 chasing 170, they were bowled out by Derbyshire in pre-Corky days - I suspect it may have been Dev, Ole Mortensen and Newman or even 'Whispering Death' doing the damage - sorry, Derek, grandson of God)
and of course DL is based on probabilities so it can never allow for this kind of occurrence.
That's not to say, of course, that it cannot be improved on.
Bazza
International 12th Man
Maybe but in the old days it was always an advantage to bat 2nd when rain was involved. If a teams first innings gets cut short at 200-2 off 40, they would have got 280 most of the time.
If the team batting second is set 201 from 40 overs that is an easy target, whereas 281 from 50 is much harder.
D/L counteracts this. Sometimes it seems a bit strange but I think it is invaluable.
If the team batting second is set 201 from 40 overs that is an easy target, whereas 281 from 50 is much harder.
D/L counteracts this. Sometimes it seems a bit strange but I think it is invaluable.
marc71178
Eyes not spreadsheets
Run rate alone is not good.
Consider this - After 30 overs rain comes, reducing it to a 30 over game.
In the first scenario the team is 160-9.
In the second scenario the team is 135-1.
Which side is more likely to score big?
If you use run rate, the first scenario is better for the team batting first, but D-L counteracts it, by considering wickets as well.
My only real gripe and wickets is it fails to take into account if a team has just lost a few quick wickets, or lost the wickets early on and has 2 settled players together.
Consider this - After 30 overs rain comes, reducing it to a 30 over game.
In the first scenario the team is 160-9.
In the second scenario the team is 135-1.
Which side is more likely to score big?
If you use run rate, the first scenario is better for the team batting first, but D-L counteracts it, by considering wickets as well.
My only real gripe and wickets is it fails to take into account if a team has just lost a few quick wickets, or lost the wickets early on and has 2 settled players together.
Neil Pickup
Cricket Web Moderator
Marc answered pretty much word for word what I would have put.Rik said:
With reference to the England-Australia ODI - the calculation tables have been updated since then as the early-over hitting played a larger and larger role in ODIs.
But think about it, ten wickets to conserve over 44 overs is a lot easier than ten over 50.
And as for "they might have collapsed"... :rolleyes: Why don't we just create a random total for the second team ("it might have happened") - what must be done is the most likely event.