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 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 94

Thread: Duckworth/Lewis - Fair?

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Rahmaniverse
    Posts
    7,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Average score in the first innings in matches involving the top 9 ODI nations since the start of this year is 238.44

    Without Bangladesh involved 237.53

    Past 2 years including Bangladesh 241.85

    Without Bangladesh involved 245.04
    Country-wide there could be fluctuations. Like India and Pakistan where 300+ scores have become the norm than exception.

  2. #62
    JJD Heads Athlai's Avatar
    Duck Hunt Champion! Plops Champion!
    Tournaments Won: 2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    ksfls;fsl:lsFJg/s
    Posts
    27,475
    Last two years all ODI teams in 1st innings
    Asia 257.09
    Africa 232.10
    Americas 238.13
    Europe 196.47
    Oceania 226.70
    Last edited by Athlai; 03-12-2008 at 05:39 AM.
    Direbirds FTW!

    Quote Originally Posted by Athlai View Post
    Wellington will win the whole thing next year. Mark my words.
    Quote Originally Posted by Flem274* View Post
    I'll offer up my avatar to Athlai forever if Wellington wins the Champions League.
    President of T.I.T.S
    Tamim Is Talented Society

  3. #63
    International Vice-Captain Redbacks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    NT
    Posts
    4,150
    Perhaps the 1992 system would have been fairer to chop off the median overs.

    The majority of mathematical models for pricing etc. are aimed at determining the 'indifference' value at the present time. This seams to be the crux of the D/L system. Both teams should be indifferent to the revised target as they have been given a 'best fit' present value that is equivalent to the initial situation.

  4. #64
    Cricketer Of The Year zaremba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Rolling right Inuit
    Posts
    8,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Redbacks View Post
    Perhaps the 1992 system would have been fairer to chop off the median overs.

    The majority of mathematical models for pricing etc. are aimed at determining the 'indifference' value at the present time. This seams to be the crux of the D/L system. Both teams should be indifferent to the revised target as they have been given a 'best fit' present value that is equivalent to the initial situation.
    This is the beauty of D/L. Time after time I've seen a rain delay, seen the revised target and thought, "fair enough"


  5. #65
    U19 Cricketer
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Tasmania, Australia
    Posts
    490

    Duckworth Lewis Discussion thread

    Given the recent D/L situations in the Australia/New Zealand series, I think it would be interesting to have a bit of discussion regarding this 'score prediction' series.

    In the 2nd ODI of the series, the NZ's total was reduced by 5 overs and 8 runs. In the 4th ODI, Australia's chase was reduced by 16 overs and 34 runs.

    I have no idea how the system works. I have looked it up on Wikipedia and tried to make sense of it, but it is certainly not simple. Looking at the above reductions, they appear pretty unfair to the chasing side. What do you guys reckon?

    I can see that it is somewhat reasonable in that chasing a score at a high run rate is easier over 20 overs than a score at a moderate run rate over 50 (if that makes sense), however I can't see how 5 overs for 8 runs really makes sense.


    I would be interested to hear what the CW community thinks of the D/L system, if it is a bad system, what would be better?

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    4,793
    Hi Alan as I was guessing a quick search revealed the following link

    http://www.cricketweb.net/forum/cric...thod-fair.html

    there is a pretty good discussion in that.

    cheers.

  7. #67
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,071
    Thanks for digging that up, Sir Alex. I'll merge it in a second.

    WRT AlanJLegend, I think it reflects the fact that teams are getting better at chasing, and that with a known target one can better structure their innings. They can also afford to take more risks, as the loss of wickets may not be as important with less overs available to score.

  8. #68
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Nowhere
    Posts
    4,793
    Np mate.

    Yes I think it is the fairest system available in the given cirucmstances. The fact that it is a bit boring to comprehend doesn't mean it is a wack job. It gives value to wickets held in hand at the time of cut off which I believe is a fantastic concept as compared to the silly maiden overs chop that existed during the 1992 World Cup.

  9. #69
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,379
    Quote Originally Posted by AlanJLegend View Post
    I can see that it is somewhat reasonable in that chasing a score at a high run rate is easier over 20 overs than a score at a moderate run rate over 50 (if that makes sense), however I can't see how 5 overs for 8 runs really makes sense.
    The 5 overs for 8 runs thing occurred because New Zealand had lost early wickets. Obviously losing early wickets is less relevant in a shorter chase as you have less time in which to use your resources, but they lost they wickets when they were still expecting to have 50 overs to play with, so the value of them had to be adjusted to fully reflect what had gone on. On the face of it, it does seem odd, but it does make sense.

    It's hard to get your head around at first but once you fully understand how it works and why, you'll realise it's by far the best method and is generally very fair to both sides.
    ~ Cribbage

    Quote Originally Posted by Riggins View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by simonlee48 View Post
    Sanga has done well but Murali has done better. In my opinion, Murali is simply the best off spinner in history of cricket and I can't make that kind of statement for Sanga.
    Sanga isn't the best off spinner in the history of cricket? News to me.

  10. #70
    Cricket Web Staff Member / Global Moderator Neil Pickup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Oxford, England
    Posts
    26,839
    I think the 40-over and 50-over leagues that have played out in the UK over the last few years indicate the difference between innings of that length is negligible - par scores in the Pro40 have been virtually identical to the FP Trophy matches. Innings structure with wickets in hand, here at least, results in very similar end totals.

    If we look at ODI v T20, a "good" first innings score (i.e. one you expect to win more often than not is, I'd imagine, 250). In a T20, you're probably feeling about the same for 160. That's a decrease of 30 overs (60%) vs a decrease of 90 runs (36% less). Someone else who doesn't need to go referee in three minutes can dig through Statsguru and find the exact 50-50 win-loss first innings scores, I'm sure, but I'd imagine they'll be in that range.
    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

  11. #71
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,476
    Quote Originally Posted by Neil Pickup View Post
    I think the 40-over and 50-over leagues that have played out in the UK over the last few years indicate the difference between innings of that length is negligible - par scores in the Pro40 have been virtually identical to the FP Trophy matches. Innings structure with wickets in hand, here at least, results in very similar end totals.

    If we look at ODI v T20, a "good" first innings score (i.e. one you expect to win more often than not is, I'd imagine, 250). In a T20, you're probably feeling about the same for 160. That's a decrease of 30 overs (60%) vs a decrease of 90 runs (36% less). Someone else who doesn't need to go referee in three minutes can dig through Statsguru and find the exact 50-50 win-loss first innings scores, I'm sure, but I'd imagine they'll be in that range.
    Resisting the temptation to dig into Statsguru, I'd suggest that a 'good' first innings total (not the same as a par score) at a top-level ODI (i.e. between two test-playing nations) is closer to 280. The batting powerplay in particular has seen a massive upsurge in 300+ scores.

    Varies heavily based on conditions though, obvz.
    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.

  12. #72
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,476
    Just to put that into perspective, when New Zealand hit 245 in the third ODI, did anyone think they'd got a good total?

  13. #73
    Hall of Fame Member Marcuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Above you
    Posts
    15,446
    Probably duffed up this statsguru search but....

    Records since ODIs began : Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
    5.15*50 = 257.5

    Last decade : Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
    5.51*50 = 275.5

    In the last two years : Team records | One-Day Internationals | Cricinfo Statsguru | Cricinfo.com
    5.90*50 = 295

  14. #74
    State Vice-Captain slugger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    1,053
    The system of the DL could actually be scraped to point if the ODI structure was slightly adjusted if the game was broken down into quarters. (25-25-25-25)

    example:
    if it rained in the 1st quarter lets say for 4 overs.
    the 1st quarter and the second quarter are both reduced by two overs 23-23-25-25

    if it rains in the second you adjust the second and the third
    if it rains in the third you adjust the third and the forth.

    if it rains in the forth this is the only time you use the DL system because the team the batter first has already batted out their 50 complete overs.

    NB only 10 wickets as per normal ODI.

  15. #75
    International Coach KiWiNiNjA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    In the kitchen
    Posts
    10,592
    Nah, might as well play Baseball.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 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
  •