Duckworth/Lewis - Fair?

[BoyBrumby]

Originally Posted by Goughy

It is absurd that a team batting 2nd has to score 20 more runs than the team batting first.

Just doesnt sit well in sport.

Just thinking about it

A fairer system maybe to give (in this case) a team batting 1st 24 overs and the team batting 2nd 20 overs.

The overs would be unbalanced which isnt ideal but it would mean teams chased the same targets and the team batting first wouldnt be penalized for thinking they were getting 50 overs.

What happens if the team batting second has their chase further interrupted by rain then? Just lop another couple of overs off?

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Goughy

It is absurd that a team batting 2nd has to score 20 more runs than the team batting first.

Just doesnt sit well in sport.

Just thinking about it

A fairer system maybe to give (in this case) a team batting 1st 24 overs and the team batting 2nd 20 overs.

The overs would be unbalanced which isnt ideal but it would mean teams chased the same targets and the team batting first wouldnt be penalized for thinking they were getting 50 overs.

At least both teams knew what they had to do though. It pisses me off most when it starts raining with an hour of the game still to play. And they say, "oh, well uh, i reckon India were probably going to win, so we'll count it as a victory for them."

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by BoyBrumby

What happens if the team batting second has their chase further interrupted by rain then? Just lop another couple of overs off?

Award the match to England. We need the win.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Goughy

It is absurd that a team batting 2nd has to score 20 more runs than the team batting first.

Just doesnt sit well in sport.

Just thinking about it

A fairer system maybe to give (in this case) a team batting 1st 24 overs and the team batting 2nd 20 overs.

The overs would be unbalanced which isnt ideal but it would mean teams chased the same targets and the team batting first wouldnt be penalized for thinking they were getting 50 overs.

More easily comprehensible but less fair. In the end, fewer are going to be turned off the sport by the fact they can't understand the method for resolving rain-interrupted games than are going to be by the thought that a system was used which favoured the team batting be it first or second, if that was their team.

As I say, if you don't want D\L, you've one alternatative (apart from play only limitless-over cricket) - once a game has started, it has to be finished or there's no result.

[GIMH]

What was the system that screwed South Africa over in the 92 WC?

[Richard]

Don't have a clue, but whatever it was, it demonstrated the need for a system like D\L. I'm not even sure there was a system of any real proper scheming.

Though we should emphasise as we always do that in part the SAfrican screwing-over was done by themselves, bowling their overs far too slowly.

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Richard

Don't have a clue, but whatever it was, it demonstrated the need for a system like D\L. I'm not even sure there was a system of any real proper scheming.

You make it sound like 1992 was the dark ages of cricket. Of course there was a system.

Actually it was a pretty decent on for setting innings targets but a poor one for reassessing innings targets once they had started.

If one team batted a full 50 overs and the 2nd team were allocated 30 overs, then the target was the total of the 30 highest scoring overs from the first innings. Basically the maidens and low scoring overs would be ignored.

Thats what happened in the SA-Eng semi final. IIRC SA lost 2 overs dues to rain. Therefore 2 lowest overs were ignored. The target went down by 1 but the balls decreased by 2 overs.

Tough when only 19 balls left.

[shankar]

Originally Posted by Goughy

You make it sound like 1992 was the dark ages of cricket. Of course there was a system.

Actually it was a pretty decent on for setting innings targets but a poor one for reassessing innings targets once they had started.

If one team batted a full 50 overs and the 2nd team were allocated 30 overs, then the target was the total of the 30 highest scoring overs from the first inings. Basically the maidens and low scoring overs would be ignored.

Thats what happened in the SA-Eng semi final. IIRC SA lost 2 overs dues to rain. Therefore 2 lowest overs were ignored. The target went down by 1 but the balls decreased by 2 overs.

Tough when only 19 balls left.

Has anyone tried working out wat SA's target would have been if D-L had been used in that game?

[weldone]

Originally Posted by shankar

Has anyone tried working out wat SA's target would have been if D-L had been used in that game?

252*(0.95-0.068)/0.95 = 233.9

So, par score would have been 233, score needed to win would have been 234.

[krkode]

D/L is VOODOO AND SHOULD BE BANNED!



j/k In all seriousness, though, I think a fair point was brought up before. There is a clear statistical basis to it. Just because you or I may not understand what it is, or why it works doesn't mean it's not fair. It just means we don't understand it.

Unfortunately, when unpredictable things happen, predictive measures have to be taken and that's basically what D/L is doing - using a mathematical model to adjust the score so the game can be finished in a certain amount of remaining time. Just like any model it may not have happened as was predicted. Or it may have. We have no way of knowing, so either we cancel the game, use a reserve day, or we agree to use a mathematical model to set a target and that's what international teams seem to have done. Sometimes it will work against you and sometimes it will work for you.

[Neil Pickup]

As said above, perfectly fair - whether the tables need analysis & assessment and some specialisation by subcontinental venue (I believe the ICL/IPL is using the Jayadevan tables - a virtually identical system with different % resources) is up for debate, but if anyone seriously thinks England should have been set 167 today then they need to donate their brain to medical science in for the same reason that dead siamese twins get chopped up an investigated.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Goughy

You make it sound like 1992 was the dark ages of cricket.

That certainly wasn't my intention, rest assured.

If one team batted a full 50 overs and the 2nd team were allocated 30 overs, then the target was the total of the 30 highest scoring overs from the first innings. Basically the maidens and low scoring overs would be ignored.

However, this system strikes me as pretty terrible really. How on Earth no-one could have foreseen the pitfalls is beyond me.

[shankar]

Originally Posted by weldone

252*(0.95-0.068)/0.95 = 233.9

So, par score would have been 233, score needed to win would have been 234.

Interesting, thanks.

[Neil Pickup]

Originally Posted by shankar

Interesting, thanks.

However that doesn't take into account the fact that England would not have been prevented from facing their last few overs, and more likely than not scored loads.

[shankar]

Originally Posted by Neil Pickup

However that doesn't take into account the fact that England would not have been prevented from facing their last few overs, and more likely than not scored loads.

Yeah I just saw that on the cricinfo scorecard page for that match : 'A Duckworth/Lewis calculation under the rules in 2006 would have first set South Africa a target of 273 in 45 overs, and then reduced this to 257 from 43 overs.' But obviously we dont know how SA would have batted if they'd known this target of 273 before their innings.