Duckworth/Lewis - Fair?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Prince EWS]

rest assured

 

[Lillian Thomson]

The folly of the 1992 World Cup regulations were best highlighted in the Group Match between Pakistan and England. Pakistan set England a target of 75 from 50 overs before the rain came. The England target was reduced to 11 less runs in 34 less overs (64 off 16).
As for the poor old South African, these days Wessels would probably cop a six month ban for his gamesmanship.

 

[albo97056]

I think everyone here is missing the real injustice of todays game. DL is fair, no probs with it. My problem is England only got 8 powerplay overs back when India got 17ish. Thats ridiculous!

I understand when the game is reduced powerplay overs reduce as well, but that should only be before the game has started. Once a side has batted - theyve used those pp overs and now they gain an advantage because the 2nd side have half the pp overs.... Whats so bad about giving england 17 pp overs today?

 

[Richard]

Umm... so it'd have been fair for England to have 17 out of 22 overs as Powerplay when they knew they only had 22 overs to face?

No.

India played their Powerplays as if they were batting 50 (or for 3 overs' worth, 43) overs. That's completely different to knowing that Powerplay will be in force for the vast majority of your innings.

Mind, given that England's batsmen performed infinitely better in the just-concluded game with non-Powerplay in place than Powerplay, such an outcome might well have seen England knocked-over far more cheaply than they were.

 

[albo97056]

What im saying is that given dl takes into account everything to do with how many overs you think you would have gotten etc, why do we then have to make another adjustment? The whole point of dl is to balance the chase perfectly so 22 overs india got is equivalent to the 22 overs england are going to get, but then once we get that new number... they screw around with the power plays! Making it all very uneven again.

IF we were chasing the same total or a run rate adjusted total like the old days then having 17 pp overs would be unfair, but with those extra 30 odd runs youve already balanced the whole thing statistically... theres no need to reduce pp. UNLESS dl takes into account pp, which from my recollection it doesnt.

EDIT long story short.. everything dl doesnt consider should be exactly the same

 

[Langeveldt]

Its the fairest system anyone has come up with.. Rarely do you get a result or target where you think, no thats unfair to a certain side.. It may be confusing but it always seems fair and understandable as to how the targets are achieved

 

[_Ed_]

Haha, knew there'd be a thread like this as soon as I saw the result of that game.

 

[Richard]

What im saying is that given dl takes into account everything to do with how many overs you think you would have gotten etc, why do we then have to make another adjustment? The whole point of dl is to balance the chase perfectly so 22 overs india got is equivalent to the 22 overs england are going to get, but then once we get that new number... they screw around with the power plays! Making it all very uneven again.

IF we were chasing the same total or a run rate adjusted total like the old days then having 17 pp overs would be unfair, but with those extra 30 odd runs youve already balanced the whole thing statistically... theres no need to reduce pp. UNLESS dl takes into account pp, which from my recollection it doesnt.

EDIT long story short.. everything dl doesnt consider should be exactly the same

IIRR, D\L has been adjusted to some degree to take into account Powerplays, though obviously there's only 3 years' worth of data so far.

However, there is simply no way you can set a team out knowing that 17\22nds of their innings will be Powerplay. Just not fair.

 

[morgieb]

He will punish you, rest assured.

 

[grapedo]

They should have just calculated india's target after 20 overs and turned into a 20 20 where they would have been more familiar. The game should still be counted as an odi though. Too Bad for England their have been plenty of other incidents where teams have been screwd over and you guys don't care it's only when it happens to your team.