Duckworth Lewis, lower target for side batting second

[Cowboy111]

Hiya, is there anyone out there that can explain this to me.

So, we just had a T20 game on Friday, WI vs NZ, where the WI batting first in a rain interupted, reduced to 16 overs match, scored 180/5. Yet when NZ came out to bat, their target was DL 176 off 16 overs, i.e. lower! How is this possible?

Surely the side batting second, with full knowledge that they only have 16 overs, not 20, would be able to deploy their resources (wickets) more intensively and therefore should always be chasing a higher score?

 

[weeman27bob]

Someone else can probably explain this better, but I believe it's because WI were in a position where when the interruption happened they "gained" from having the number of overs reduced because of how many wickets they'd lost when the rain happened.

 

[_Ed_]

Plus they had six powerplay overs, rather than five.

 

[weldone]

Hiya, is there anyone out there that can explain this to me.

So, we just had a T20 game on Friday, WI vs NZ, where the WI batting first in a rain interupted, reduced to 16 overs match, scored 180/5. Yet when NZ came out to bat, their target was DL 176 off 16 overs, i.e. lower! How is this possible?

Surely the side batting second, with full knowledge that they only have 16 overs, not 20, would be able to deploy their resources (wickets) more intensively and therefore should always be chasing a higher score?

In short: Interruption happened after 10 overs of the first innings. WI had already lost 5 wickets by then - so a slightly tricky situation for them. So, (historical data suggests) reduction of overs actually helped them rather than harming them i.e. you'd prefer to play 6 overs with last 5 wickets in hand than 10 overs.

 

[honestbharani]

Agreed but I also think the PP over counted as well. They had 1 more over of field restrictions than the other side. Ideally, the 6 overs with 5 wickets will be balanced by the fact that they were always prepping for a 20 over inning till the halfway stage. I think it was the extra PP over that made the difference but even then, I thought it would just be easier to give 6 overs of PP to NZ and let them chase the score Windies made.

 

[stephen]

Some allowance has to be made for the 5 wickets.

For the first 10 overs you can basically say they were batting in an attempt to maximise for score over the fill 20 overs. They lost half their batting resources in the process.

From there they batted to maximise their last 6 overs knowing they still had 5 wickets in hand. The algorithm had to take into account that they only had to make their batting resources last for 60% of the time that they otherwise would have. Whether they lost zero or five wickets after that inflection point is irrelevant, the algorithm had to penalise them for having lost five wickets at what should have been the half way point.

But then the algorithm also had to punish NZ for only needing to bat 16 overs. The punishments were different and in this case the punishment for the West Indies was greater than the punishment for New Zealand. Which makes sense. If the rain continued and the West Indies didn't get to bat again, who do you think was on top at that point in the game?

 

[Cowboy111]

Some allowance has to be made for the 5 wickets.

For the first 10 overs you can basically say they were batting in an attempt to maximise for score over the fill 20 overs. They lost half their batting resources in the process.

From there they batted to maximise their last 6 overs knowing they still had 5 wickets in hand. The algorithm had to take into account that they only had to make their batting resources last for 60% of the time that they otherwise would have. Whether they lost zero or five wickets after that inflection point is irrelevant, the algorithm had to penalise them for having lost five wickets at what should have been the half way point.

But then the algorithm also had to punish NZ for only needing to bat 16 overs. The punishments were different and in this case the punishment for the West Indies was greater than the punishment for New Zealand. Which makes sense. If the rain continued and the West Indies didn't get to bat again, who do you think was on top at that point in the game?

That certainly makes sense. I guess you're right, if the game had been reduced to 10 overs aside then the target score would have to reflect the wi loss of 5w but that nz had 10w in hand to score the same. In that case the target would likely be 10-20 runs ahead of what the wi got? But maybe not 20-30 runs ahead of the wi if they still have had 8-9w in hand like they did just a few overs earlier.

In that context it's a fair adjustment.