Duckworth/Lewis

[steds]

Isn't it great?

It means England can win by 49 runs when it was really 156! (errm...right? )


It also means Harmy and Freddie only have to bowl half their alotted overs and then rest whilst the rain falls

It should rain more often!!


(I wonder, how many of you will take me seriously?? )

 

[biased indian]

Isn't it great?

It means England can win by 49 runs when it was really 156! (errm...right? )


It also means Harmy and Freddie only have to bowl half their alotted overs and then rest whilst the rain falls

It should rain more often!!


(I wonder, how many of you will take me seriously?? )

 

[luckyeddie]

(I wonder, how many of you will take me seriously?? )

1

 

[JASON]

Isn't it great?

It means England can win by 49 runs when it was really 156! (errm...right? )


It also means Harmy and Freddie only have to bowl half their alotted overs and then rest whilst the rain falls

It should rain more often!!


(I wonder, how many of you will take me seriously?? )

You cannot be serious (Mc Enroe)

 

[Stephen Waugh]

The Merits of the Duckworth-Lewis Method

I believe that the only thing inhibiting the Duckworth-Lewis method is the lack of understanding by the general public. From my twenty or so years of playing cricket at the highest level, I believe that it is the fairest possible way of measuring whether a team wins or not.

An example is the system used in the early days of limited overs cricket - how South Africa went from needing about a run a ball to needing more than twenty off the last ball. The Duckworth-Lewis method ensures that this does not occur. Now, here is the confusion.

In the original post, it was stated that: It means England can win by 49 runs when it was really 156!

As a matter of fact, the Sri Lankans only batted for half the time the English players did. So, this is a fair and equitable system. I don't personally see the viability for comment on that aspect.

Which reminds me, I really must change my details...I'm no longer playing, after all.

 

[Waughney]

I think that it is the best method for the moment.
PS: Wouldn't it be great if Steve Waugh actually became a member....

 

[cbuts]

its deffinatly the bestmethod ever used in cricket. im sure every one remebers the 1992 semi fiasco. its pretty fair as it takes in alot o f variables.

 

[Richard]

Anyone seriously doubting D\L needs their head examined IMO.
The 1992-semi is a never-will-again, thank God.