Duckworth/Lewis - Fair?

[Prince EWS]

Originally Posted by Richard

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by Prince EWS

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.

[biased indian]

Originally Posted by 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?

But the fact is that england actulay scored less in those 8 overs ..think in the last game england would have been happy had there been no power play overs at all

[gwo]

Originally Posted by Richard

D\L is acknowledged by all senior mathematicians as the fairest possible system imagineable.

Yes... because making sweeping generalisations helps your argument heaps.

For all you know, all "senior" (again what the hell do you mean by this) mathematicians might not give a flying fruitcake about D/L or cricket.

But hey, making sweeping generalisations makes you sound like you know what you're talking about.

D/L is a fair system, but to try and use this as a basis of your argument for it is a load of ****.

[Precambrian]

Originally Posted by Uppercut

Personally i prefer the pre-1971 method.

ODIs before 1971???

[grapedo]

Originally Posted by gwo

Yes... because making sweeping generalisations helps your argument heaps.

For all you know, all "senior" (again what the hell do you mean by this) mathematicians might not give a flying fruitcake about D/L or cricket.

But hey, making sweeping generalisations makes you sound like you know what you're talking about.

D/L is a fair system, but to try and use this as a basis of your argument for it is a load of ****.

Yeah here here mate well said.

[GIMH]

Originally Posted by Precambrian

ODIs before 1971???

whooooosh