Duckworth/Lewis - Fair?

[Mard]

I still dont understand how this method is fair.

i mean india scored 166 in 22 overs and then England needed 198 in the same amount of overs. Just does not make sense to me at all.

[Prince EWS]

India would have scored more if they knew they only had 22 overs from the start of the innings. The fact that they played some of the innings assuming they had to stay in for 50 overs and some of their innings assuming they had to stay in for 44 meant their score was reduced, as such, and this is taken into account.

If the game had started 22 overs a side, England would be chasing whatever India scored, but that wasn't the case.

[Precambrian]

I still dont understand how this method is fair.

i mean india scored 166 in 22 overs and then England needed 198 in the same amount of overs. Just does not make sense to me at all.

Because India initially started planning for a full game. And in between rain intervened. So the overs were reduced. Hence, India could argue that had they known that the game would be only 22 overs, they'd have accelerated from the start itself. So as compensation, the required runs for England is increased.

And I think, with all the difficulty associated with it, it is fairest system available.

[GGG]

Its not fair, and it is not improbable that India would of scored less if it was 22 overs from the start which often happens when the slog is on.

[Precambrian]

Or India could have scored much more. Same probability both ways.

An analysis of India's last 5 overs revealed they scored 60 runs for 3 wickets. Projecting it to the full game, would exceed 200.

[weldone]

India would have scored more if they knew they only had 22 overs from the start of the innings. The fact that they played some of the innings assuming they had to stay in for 50 overs and some of their innings assuming they had to stay in for 44 meant their score was reduced, as such, and this is taken into account.

If the game had started 22 overs a side, England would be chasing whatever India scored, but that wasn't the case.

Exactly...That is the precise reason why England had to chase more than what India scored...

I always found Duckworth Lewis system to be very fair to both the teams, not only in this match but in all circumstances...This is so because the underlying understanding of 'resources' in very sound. According to Duckworth Lewis, the resource of a batting team is comprised of both number of overs remaining as well as number of wickets remaining, the premise that is so common-sensical yet it's a pity that it was never thought of before the mid 90's...Even now who don't understand (and probably hence don't like) DL, my suggestion will be to go through this article http://www.daa.com.au/analytical-ideas/cricket/ ... The more one'll know about DL, the more one'll like it...

[weldone]

Its not fair, and it is not improbable that India would of scored less if it was 22 overs from the start which often happens when the slog is on.

DL is always fair...And it is not improbable that India would of scored more if it was 22 overs from the start which often happens when the slog is on...

I suggest all those who hate DL to first gain understanding about the system... The following can be a good starting point http://www.daa.com.au/analytical-ideas/cricket/ ... Duckworth Lewis has a strong statistical basis and the more you know about it, I am sure the more you'll love it...

[Richard]

Its not fair

It's no less fair than the fact that one side bats without knowing what they're chasing and another side bats knowing exactly what they're chasing. And this happens every game.

D\L is acknowledged by all senior mathematicians as the fairest possible system imagineable. It's certainly infinitely fairer than the nonsense old scoring-rate system, as well as an impossible amount fairer than the system whereby England would've been chasing 167 in 22 overs in this game.

Unfathomable to non-senior-mathematicians it may be. Less fair than any other plausible system for resolving reduced-overs games it is not.

The only alternative is to say that once 3 overs are lost from a game, the game's abandoned as a n\r, or to just play a ODI until all the overs are completed even if this takes 4 days.

Personally I'd be hugely in favour of a reserve day or two for all ODIs (as well as a 450-over minimum for all Tests however many days that took) but obviously that's completely impossible with the current overcrowded calendar.

[Goughy]

It is counterintuitive and it is possibly against the natural order of sport.

but in its defense

it promotes a better contest.

[Uppercut]

It is counterintuitive and it is possibly against the natural order of sport.

but in its defense

it promotes a better contest.

Agree, it's the fairest possible method but still absolutely absurd. Imagine if they did it in football.

"****, the floodlights have failed and it's only half time!"
"Well Chelsea were 1-0 up. If both teams continued to score at that rate, Chelsea would win 2-0. Therefore we'll award this match as a 2-0 win for Chelsea."

[Richard]

Once you play limited-overs cricket, D\L is a must.

Now personally, while I prefer four\five-day cricket to any form of limited-overs stuff, I do enjoy limited-overs stuff to an extent (provided the number of overs isn't too low). So therefore, D\L is neccessary. And TBH, it doesn't detract from the game for me at all. While, as I say, I'd prefer every ODI to be scheduled for and played over 50 overs, that isn't possible at the current time so I don't particularly mind D\L.

Limited-overs cricket isn't the same as football. In football, a game always lasts 90 minutes. In cricket, it lasts until the team batting last is bowled-out.

Although, yeah, if I was 4-0 up after 60 minutes and the floodlights failed, I'd be mightily pissed-off if I had to replay the game.

[Uppercut]

Once you play limited-overs cricket, D\L is a must.

Now personally, while I prefer four\five-day cricket to any form of limited-overs stuff, I do enjoy limited-overs stuff to an extent (provided the number of overs isn't too low). So therefore, D\L is neccessary. And TBH, it doesn't detract from the game for me at all. While, as I say, I'd prefer every ODI to be scheduled for and played over 50 overs, that isn't possible at the current time so I don't particularly mind D\L.

Oh yeah, it's part and parcel of ODI cricket. Once you've accepted that ODI cricket is here to stay, D/L is here to stay too, and i've no issue with that.

Doesn't make the concept any less of a joke though.

[BoyBrumby]

As I believe Churchill said of democracy:

"It's the worst system apart from all the others that've been tried"

[Uppercut]

As I believe Churchill said of democracy:

"It's the worst system apart from all the others that've been tried"

Personally i prefer the pre-1971 method.

[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.