Cricket Player Manager

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 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 94

Thread: Duckworth/Lewis - Fair?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Peshawar
    Posts
    213

    Duckworth/Lewis - Fair?

    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.

  2. #2
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    44,240
    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.
    ~ Cribbertarian ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since Dec '09

    Quote Originally Posted by John Singleton
    Recognition of Property Rights in material objects is the recognition of a manís right to exist; his right to pursue his own goals in his own manner at his own discretion with what is rightfully his to command. Just as the Right to Life is the right to the property of oneís own person, so the right to own material products is the right to sustain oneís life and to keep the results of oneís own efforts.


  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Rahmaniverse
    Posts
    7,358
    Quote Originally Posted by Mard View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    GGG
    GGG is offline
    International 12th Man GGG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Malta, New Zealand.
    Posts
    1,539
    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.


  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Rahmaniverse
    Posts
    7,358
    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.

  6. #6
    International Captain weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    6,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Prince EWS View Post
    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...
    "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)

  7. #7
    International Captain weldone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kolkata->Mumbai->London
    Posts
    6,846
    Quote Originally Posted by GGG View Post
    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...

  8. #8
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    Quote Originally Posted by GGG View Post
    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.
    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

  9. #9
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,236
    It is counterintuitive and it is possibly against the natural order of sport.

    but in its defense

    it promotes a better contest.
    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

  10. #10
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughy View Post
    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."
    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.

  11. #11
    Cricket Web Staff Member Richard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    2005
    Posts
    80,401
    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.

  12. #12
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,874
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard View Post
    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.

  13. #13
    Englishman BoyBrumby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Gone too soon
    Posts
    45,421
    As I believe Churchill said of democracy:

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

  14. #14
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend Uppercut's Avatar
    Tournaments Won: 1
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    .
    Posts
    23,874
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBrumby View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Hall of Fame Member Goughy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    still scratching around in the same old hole
    Posts
    15,236
    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.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... 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, 01:01 PM
  2. The ICC Fair Play Award
    By Tim in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 16-09-2004, 12:46 AM
  3. God save our Queen...Advance Australia Fair
    By Jamee999 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 26-11-2003, 02:53 AM
  4. England or Somerset?
    By jf2001 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 19-05-2003, 02:00 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
  •