View Poll Results: Duckworth Lewis; good or bad?

Voters
14. You may not vote on this poll
  • D/L FTW! Lets keep it.

    12 85.71%
  • D/L sucks. Lets use something better.

    2 14.29%
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 94

Thread: Duckworth/Lewis - Fair?

  1. #16
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Locked up inside my opium den, surrounded by some Chinamen
    Posts
    45,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    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?
    Cricket Web's 2013/14 Premier League Tipping Champion

    - As featured in The Independent.

    "I don't believe a word of Pietersen's book, but then I don't believe a word anyone else has said either."
    - Simon Barnes renders further comment on KP's autobiography superfluous in a sentence

  2. #17
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,704
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    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."
    Quote Originally Posted by zaremba View Post
    The Filth have comfortably the better bowling. But the Gash have the batting. Might be quite good to watch.

  3. #18
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,908
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by DingDong View Post
    gimh has now surpassed richard as the greatest cw member ever imo

    RIP Craigos. A true CW legend. You will be missed.

  4. #19
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    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.
    RD
    Appreciating cricket's greatest legend ever - HD Bird...............Funniest post (intentionally) ever.....Runner-up.....Third.....Fourth
    (Accidental) founder of Twenty20 Is Boring Society. Click and post to sign-up.
    chris.hinton: h
    FRAZ: Arshad's are a long gone stories
    RIP Fardin Qayyumi (AKA "cricket player"; "Bob"), 1/11/1990-15/4/2006


  5. #20
    Eternal Optimist / Cricket Web Staff Member GIMH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    On a trip to the moon
    Posts
    48,908
    What was the system that screwed South Africa over in the 92 WC?

  6. #21
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    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.

  7. #22
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,178
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Goughy; 23-11-2008 at 01:53 PM.
    If I only just posted the above post, please wait 5 mins before replying as there is bound to be edits

    West Robham Rabid Wolves Caedere lemma quod eat lemma

    Happy Birthday! (easier than using Birthday threads)

    Email and MSN- Goughy at cricketmail dot net

  8. #23
    International Debutant shankar's Avatar
    3 Card Poker Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    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?

  9. #24
    International Captain weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    6,140
    Quote Originally Posted by shankar View Post
    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.
    Last edited by weldone; 23-11-2008 at 01:49 PM.
    "I want to raise my hand and say one thing. Those who complain about my love for the game or commitment to the game are clueless. These are the only 2 areas where I give myself 100 out of 100."
    - Sachin Tendulkar, as told in an interview published in Bengali newspaper Anandabazar Patrika after his 100th International century (translated by weldone)

  10. #25
    State Captain krkode's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,781
    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.

  11. #26
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,857
    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.
    MSN Messenger: minardineil2000 at hotmail dot com | AAAS Chairman
    CricketWeb Black | CricketWeb XI Captain
    ClarkeWatch: We're Watching Rikki - Are You?

    Up The Grecians - Exeter City FC

    Completing the Square: My Cricket Web Blog

  12. #27
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    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.

  13. #28
    International Debutant shankar's Avatar
    3 Card Poker Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally Posted by weldone View Post
    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.

  14. #29
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,857
    Quote Originally Posted by shankar View Post
    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.

  15. #30
    International Debutant shankar's Avatar
    3 Card Poker Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    2,353
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Pickup View Post
    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.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Fair enough Freddy....I eat my words
    By Zinzan in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 27-06-2014, 12:01 PM
  2. The ICC Fair Play Award
    By Tim in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 15-09-2004, 11:46 PM
  3. God save our Queen...Advance Australia Fair
    By Jamee999 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 26-11-2003, 01:53 AM
  4. England or Somerset?
    By jf2001 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 19-05-2003, 01:00 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •