Duckworth/Lewis - Fair?

[biased indian]

I think everyone here is missing the real injustice of todays game. DL is fair, no probs with it. My problem is England only got 8 powerplay overs back when India got 17ish. Thats ridiculous!

I understand when the game is reduced powerplay overs reduce as well, but that should only be before the game has started. Once a side has batted - theyve used those pp overs and now they gain an advantage because the 2nd side have half the pp overs.... Whats so bad about giving england 17 pp overs today?

But the fact is that england actulay scored less in those 8 overs ..think in the last game england would have been happy had there been no power play overs at all

 

[gwo]

D\L is acknowledged by all senior mathematicians as the fairest possible system imagineable.

Yes... because making sweeping generalisations helps your argument heaps.

For all you know, all "senior" (again what the hell do you mean by this) mathematicians might not give a flying fruitcake about D/L or cricket.

But hey, making sweeping generalisations makes you sound like you know what you're talking about.

D/L is a fair system, but to try and use this as a basis of your argument for it is a load of ****.

 

[Precambrian]

Personally i prefer the pre-1971 method.

ODIs before 1971???

 

[grapedo]

Yes... because making sweeping generalisations helps your argument heaps.

For all you know, all "senior" (again what the hell do you mean by this) mathematicians might not give a flying fruitcake about D/L or cricket.

But hey, making sweeping generalisations makes you sound like you know what you're talking about.

D/L is a fair system, but to try and use this as a basis of your argument for it is a load of ****.

Yeah here here mate well said.

 

[GIMH]

ODIs before 1971???

whooooosh

 

[Magrat Garlick]

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.

You could use the Duckworth/Lewis tables to work this out, too. Turns out India would get 25.4 overs and England 18.2.

The problem with that, as Brumby pointed out - what to do when it rains in the second innings. Then you'd have to cut the target using the current method.

 

[biased indian]

You could use the Duckworth/Lewis tables to work this out, too. Turns out India would get 25.4 overs and England 18.2.

The problem with that, as Brumby pointed out - what to do when it rains in the second innings. Then you'd have to cut the target using the current method.

and for it has to be valid game it needs minimum of 20 overs

 

[Richard]

Yes... because making sweeping generalisations helps your argument heaps.

For all you know, all "senior" (again what the hell do you mean by this) mathematicians might not give a flying fruitcake about D/L or cricket.

But hey, making sweeping generalisations makes you sound like you know what you're talking about.

D/L is a fair system, but to try and use this as a basis of your argument for it is a load of ****.

Fairly obviously, I mean all senior mathematicians who have been consulted on the issue. Any fool should realise that.

Still, making brash attempted condescending statements... often... makes you sound like you know what you're talking about, and big and clever to boot. Keep it up.

 

[Precambrian]

Came across a very good article, explaining DL in dummy terms.

http://www.rediff.com/sports/1999/sep/16guest.htm

And here is the official "Calculator"

http://www.duckworth-lewis.com/Calculator/tabid/72/Default.aspx

 

[gwo]

Fairly obviously, I mean all senior mathematicians who have been consulted on the issue. Any fool should realise that.

Still, making brash attempted condescending statements... often... makes you sound like you know what you're talking about, and big and clever to boot. Keep it up.

Eh.

Care to tell me what a "Senior Mathematician" is?

Thankx.

 

[Richard]

Err - one qualified to the best levels?

Yesssssssss?

 

[krkode]

Yes... because making sweeping generalisations helps your argument heaps.

For all you know, all "senior" (again what the hell do you mean by this) mathematicians might not give a flying fruitcake about D/L or cricket.

But hey, making sweeping generalisations makes you sound like you know what you're talking about.

D/L is a fair system, but to try and use this as a basis of your argument for it is a load of ****.

I don't think the people who came up with it did it because someone asked them to or because they thought it would be "cool" to come up with a system that most people won't understand. It's actually kind of their job to come up with these things.

My guess is, a senior mathematician is someone with a math/statistics degree and uses these skills on a daily basis and not as a hobby or as a supplement to something else. Contrary to popular belief, there is math after geometry and algebra...

 

[zaremba]

D/L works amazingly well.

I am so tired of commentators (I'm thinking of Botham) wittering about how complicated and incomprehensible it is. It's complicated because it needs to be so in order to be effective. And we needn't worry about the complicated maths involved, others have worried about that for us.

I imagine that at some stage the formulae may need to be amended as the game evolves (and for all I know this may have happened already) . Skills and attitudes developed through playing T20 have changed the reality of how practicable it is to chase down targets, particularly over relatively short run-chases.

 

[Precambrian]

D/L works amazingly well.

I am so tired of commentators (I'm thinking of Botham) wittering about how complicated and incomprehensible it is. It's complicated because it needs to be so in order to be effective. And we needn't worry about the complicated maths involved, others have worried about that for us.

I imagine that at some stage the formulae may need to be amended as the game evolves (and for all I know this may have happened already) . Skills and attitudes developed through playing T20 have changed the reality of how practicable it is to chase down targets, particularly over relatively short run-chases.

Yip, it needs to have a rethink about one of its assumptions : that the average score in an ODI is 225.

 

[zaremba]

Yip, it needs to have a rethink about one of its assumptions : that the average score in an ODI is 225.

Depends whose batting - England would be pretty pleased to average 225...

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Yip, it needs to have a rethink about one of its assumptions : that the average score in an ODI is 225.

This was done five years ago (for international matches)

 

[Precambrian]

Depends whose batting - England would be pretty pleased to average 225...

Better to base that score on the ground average imho, or better, decided between the Boards prior to the match.

Not that the difference will be huge, if 250 is set instead of 225, the maximum effect maybe around 4-5 runs, but sometimes they matter.

 

[Precambrian]

This was done five years ago (for international matches)

Yeah but the first innings score have way gone up from 5 years ago right?

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Yeah but the first innings score have way gone up from 5 years ago right?

True, I suppose (by about 7 runs per innings, comparing 1997-2002 to 2003-now)

But what they did five years ago was to introduce a number of different tables based on how quickly the teams have scored thus far - thus, in a way, taking into account pitch conditions. Before 2002, they just took the average score for internationals into account.

Admittedly there may have been some different approaches which should be added to the data. I don't know whether they do this regularly or not.

 

[Athlai]

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