Duckworth/Lewis Method

[Rik]

Find me one scorecard that backs up what you're saying here, Rik, and we will explain exactly why the D/L method is correct.

And as for unpredictability... erm, no argument here. You can't have a random variable in target setting!

Why not just toss a coin?

Yeah why not just toss a coin...it's about as exciting.

Yes there is an arguement about unpredictibility, the fact that a side can end up chasing the same number of runs off 10 less overs is quite a silly situation if you ask me...

Scorecard, maybe next week

 

[luckyeddie]

Scorecard, maybe next week

This argument has become about as meaningless as it gets.

Come on Rik - show us your statistics - instead of just rubbishing other peoples arguments with totally unsubstantiated statements.

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

IMO SA were disadvantaged by the D/L method.....they lost aboiut 80 runs to defend and 11 overs to do it in....that's a RR of around 7.3....

 

[luckyeddie]

IMO SA were disadvantaged by the D/L method.....they lost aboiut 80 runs to defend and 11 overs to do it in....that's a RR of around 7.3....

New Zealand were cruising at 6 runs per over - they'd never put their foot to the floor because they didn't have to. They were over 40 runs in advance of where South Africa were at the same state of their innings.

 

[marc71178]

The only way the DD/L method could've looked silly would've been if NZ won frombeing about 110-0 from 25 - needing 190 from 25 I wouldn't have put them favourites!

 

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

New Zealand were cruising at 6 runs per over - they'd never put their foot to the floor because they didn't have to. They were over 40 runs in advance of where South Africa were at the same state of their innings.

Cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties...

 

[Rik]

Ya win some...and ya loose some

Although I have seen some very questionable calculations come up.

 

[marc71178]

Ya win some...and ya loose some

Although I have seen some very questionable calculations come up.

And again we ask for score cards

 

[Rik]

And again we ask for score cards

I can't be bothered to look, hense my arguement not continuing...

 

[Neil Pickup]

I can't be bothered to look, hense my arguement not continuing...

ie Lost

 

[Rik]

ie Lost

No. IE not continuing. There are some odd results but frankly I'm just not bothered enough to care.

 

[Rik]

Actually I just noticed something today.

Ok Neil, here's a question.Australia vs England at Old Trafford, 5th March 2001. Australia bat first and after one short rain break reach 208-7 in the 48th over before rain finally finishes the innings. England, who have to bat under lights (a huge disadvantage over here because of the moisture in the air and the extra movement gained) are set 212 off 44 overs. They collapse to 86 all out. My question is why were England set more runs off less overs when they were already up against it because of the conditions faced when batting last? It was a murky day anyway but the difference in conditions was such that I doubt any team would have made much more than 100 in their innings if they were batting last. How do I know? I just watched the highlights I have on video...

Why were England set 212 off 4 less overs? That's 4 runs more and in 4 less overs than Australia finished with, or if you take the 216 they would have scored according to the DL Method, if they had completed their 50 overs, England would have had to score 240 from their 50 overs to win the game! Australia's innings run rate was 4.31 yet England's run rate would have needed to have been 4.81! Try telling me how that's fair.

Oh and today Australia vs Holland. Australia hit 170/2 off 36 overs before their innings was finally abandoned. Holland then had to score 198 runs off their 36 overs, prespective scores of 236 for Australia and 275 off 50 overs, run rates of 4.72 and 5.5! Again doesn't really sound fair does it?

 

[marc71178]

Oh and today Australia vs Holland. Australia hit 170/2 off 36 overs before their innings was finally abandoned. Holland then had to score 198 runs off their 36 overs, prespective scores of 236 for Australia and 275 off 50 overs, run rates of 4.72 and 5.5! Again doesn't really sound fair does it?

Starting with the easy one - Australia were going along well, with plenty of wicket's in hand - when the rain interupted their innings each time, they lost time which, had they known from the outset that they only had 36 overs, they would have pressed on a lot earlier, especially with so many wickets in hand. For that reason D/L took into account how much of their innings they lost, and set the target accordingly at more than they scored, reasoning, quite rightly, that they would have scored more runs in the time available to themselves.

Holland knew from the outset how long they had to bat, and so cold pace their innings accordingly, and so as they had more of their resources left than Australia, had the target set accordingly.

Your argument about run rates is meaningless, as Australia would've gone on to a far higher score than 275 had they had a full 50 from that position.

 

[marc71178]

My question is why were England set more runs off less overs when they were already up against it because of the conditions faced when batting last? It was a murky day anyway but the difference in conditions was such that I doubt any team would have made much more than 100 in their innings if they were batting last. How do I know? I just watched the highlights I have on video...

The conditions have NO affect on D/L, so that is no argument straight away - to include conditions would be to make the game subjective to an individual's point of view, rather than suing statistics.

Again the reasoning is very much the same - had Australia kown the 48th over was their last, they would have gone for more runs, so they lost some resources.

In contrast, the resources England lost were known in advance, and the number of overs lost doesn't impact them so much because they still had all their wickets intact - hence a higher target!

 

[Rik]

Your argument about run rates is meaningless, as Australia would've gone on to a far higher score than 275 had they had a full 50 from that position.

No it's not meaningless. They could have collapsed (however unlikely that is)

Anyway I asked Neil :P

 

[marc71178]

It is, since Australia would never have continued at less than 5 an over with 8 wickets in hand!

 

[Rik]

The conditions have NO affect on D/L, so that is no argument straight away - to include conditions would be to make the game subjective to an individual's point of view, rather than suing statistics.

I wasn't saying they affected the DL Method, I merely was mentioning them to set the scene.

Again the reasoning is very much the same - had Australia kown the 48th over was their last, they would have gone for more runs, so they lost some resources.

How many teams have scored 31 off the last 2 overs of an innings? Not many...

In contrast, the resources England lost were known in advance, and the number of overs lost doesn't impact them so much because they still had all their wickets intact - hence a higher target!

Yes but a target of way more off way less?

 

[marc71178]

It wasn't way more, and it was looking at the amount of resources lost - England didn't lose that much from the 6 overs, and the 240 you quote is flawed because it doesn't just reduce resources in a straight line.

 

[Rik]

It wasn't way more, and it was looking at the amount of resources lost - England didn't lose that much from the 6 overs, and the 240 you quote is flawed because it doesn't just reduce resources in a straight line.

That 240 I got off the commentry team in the highlights...

 

[marc71178]

Either way it's still a flawed figure as it doesn't take into account the actual resources missed.