Duckworth/Lewis - Fair?

[Neil Pickup]

Fair enough. I couldn't remember OTTOMH when the batting powerplay came in - it will be interesting to see how it plays out, and it's certainly the sort of thing that should affect the way D/L works.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Batting powerplay came in well before 2008, was with the introduction of the super sub tbh, mid-2005 or so I think.

Anyways, came in here to post about our weekend's game, relating to D/L and just general rules. We had a shocker, and got bowled out for 94. The rain then came, and the rules state that 25 overs are required to constitute a game, however, they also cater for a side to come out and and use less than that to chase down the target, which our opposition decided to do.

So they ended up chasing 30 to win from 4 overs. However, each time we took a wicket, they needed to make extra runs, i.e. when we took a wicket, their target became 34. This is complete rubbish, isn't it?

And is 94 off 50 overs the equivalent in D/L to 29 off 25?

 

[Prince EWS]

However, each time we took a wicket, they needed to make extra runs, i.e. when we took a wicket, their target became 34. This is complete rubbish, isn't it?

That's weird. Doesn't seem consistent with how D/L works at all; wickets only matter before a rain delay as to set a team a target to chase with their remaining resources. Your target doesn't change if you lose wickets unless there's more lost play afterwards.

It sounds like the playing conditions are just a little confused as a result of this thing:

they also cater for a side to come out and and use less than that to chase down the target

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, I'm sure it's been a total **** up.

Like, my understanding of the less than 25 overs thing is that D/L works out what the total should be off 25, and you can choose to chase it with whatever overs are remaining till compulsory finish time. So therefore it's basically a 25 over innings, so we should have bowled all four of our overs in a powerplay. But there were no bowling restrictions, etc.

EDIT: also, what should have the target off 25 been?

 

[Prince EWS]

Yeah, I'm sure it's been a total **** up.

Like, my understanding of the less than 25 overs thing is that D/L works out what the total should be off 25, and you can choose to chase it with whatever overs are remaining till compulsory finish time. So therefore it's basically a 25 over innings, so we should have bowled all four of our overs in a powerplay. But there were no bowling restrictions, etc.

EDIT: also, what should have the target off 25 been?

Yeah, I get the feeling the umpires at your game just completely misinterpreted how it was supposed to work.

I went to duckworth-lewis.com and it seems to think that if your opposition actually did have 25 overs to chase your score they'd have been set 63 to win. I don't know where they got the target of 30 from at all.

 

[Prince EWS]

If the opposition actually thought they had a full 50 overs to chase your 94 and then it rained after 25 overs, they'd need to be:

32/0
34/1
38/2
42/3

etc

So that (or something really similar to that) is probably what's been applied. If so, that is a huge ****-up by whoever was involved, as it makes no sense to apply it like that at all.

 

[Dan]

If the opposition actually thought they had a full 50 overs to chase your 94 and then it rained after 25 overs, they'd need to be:

32/0
34/1
38/2
42/3

etc

So that (or something really similar to that) is probably what's been applied. If so, that is a huge ****-up by whoever was involved, as it makes no sense to apply it like that at all.

Yeah, I was going to say it sounds like the target if rain shortens the innings while in progress, not if the overs were reduced prior to the innings starting.

 

[vic_orthdox]

If the opposition actually thought they had a full 50 overs to chase your 94 and then it rained after 25 overs, they'd need to be:

32/0
34/1
38/2
42/3

etc

So that (or something really similar to that) is probably what's been applied. If so, that is a huge ****-up by whoever was involved, as it makes no sense to apply it like that at all.

Hmm, wondering if that G50 factor at the top might change for grade cricket to play around with the results.

We were given some sort of printout, with those details, and that's what they went by I think, with the 0/29 at 25 overs being used as their total target or something.

 

[Prince EWS]

Hmm, wondering if that G50 factor at the top might change for grade cricket to play around with the results.

We were given some sort of printout, with those details, and that's what they went by I think, with the 0/29 at 25 overs being used as their total target or something.

Yeah, I think that's what happened. Genuine goof, tbh, as the only way the playing conditions actually make sense if they were to be set 63 (or something close to that if grade cricket has a different agreed par score as suspected) to win off however many overs they could get in short of 25.

Did they end up winning?

 

[vic_orthdox]

Nah, they got to 2/29 off their four overs, and because we took two wickets they (supposedly, etc. etc.) had to be 37 to win.

The thing was, if the target was that 60-odd instead of 29, we wouldn't have waited around all day to give those guys a chance of getting it; played in pretty unsafe conditions to give them the chance to win. Umpires left their common sense at home, again.

 

[morgieb]

While D/L isn't that great, it's better than the other alternatives.

 

[uvelocity]

Are you sure you were definitely playing under duckworth-lewis? depending on what grade it is, some just have a sliding scale in the back of the rule book.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Yeah, we play Duckworth Lewis. 2nd grade downwards have another rule.

 

[Dexter Morgan]

V. Jayadevan came up with an alternative to the Duckworth Lewis method including "scoring range" as an additional parameter [0]. It fares at least as good as D/L method in all situations and fares better than D/L in certain tricky situations [1]. Cricinfo did a nice comparison between the two.


[0] http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/feb252004/515.pdf
[1] rediff.com: cricket channel: Is Jayadevan's proposed method better than the Duckworth/Lewis method?
[2] Numbers Game : Numbers Game: A comparison of two rain rules | Cricinfo Magazine | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[NUFAN]

Afghanistan made 8/184 in 20 overs and when rain hit Ireland were 2/65 from 6.1 overs and the par score was 2/53 when it started to rain.

The game was reduced to 11 overs and the target was now 111 to win. I feel like 58 runs above the target from just 29 balls (12 per over) seems too high.

 

[weldone]

I thought 53/2 after 6.1 was too low a par while chasing 185.
...not sure if that means DLS does not take powerplay into account correctly (which shouldn't be the case - because DLS tables are based on historical data, and that means powerplay is considered automatically)
[or it can also mean cricinfo didn't make their calculations correctly - and came up with the 53/2 number without any official confirmation]

I more-or-less agreed with the eventual target btw.

 

[NUFAN]

The eventual target did seem quite fair but I feel like this might be because 111 from 11 seems a neat target. I guess as you've said my beef was more with the par score to end target.

 

[S.Kennedy]

If it is the best system, it could certainly use some fine tuning.

 

[Compton]

I don't think it needs changing tbh.

The system gets 'smarter' the more games are played, so the only time it's really out of date is when there's a sudden change in how the game is played (the increase in prominence and quality of lower order sloggers a few years back as an example).

Sometimes it just needs a while to catch up.

 

[marc71178]

Definitely the best system around, doesn't work as well for T20 but I suspect that is more the nature of T20 being such a short game.