Duckworth-Lewis

[Doug Sob]

I understand that India had no 'resources' left at the end of their innings but why was there only one run added to their score? Surely being able to pace your innings in an entirely different way would be worth more than the 1 run they were given?

 

[Neil Pickup]

It would have been if they hadn't have been six-down at the time the rain came. There is a good, short article on Cricinfo here explaining it.

 

[Josh]

Maths was my worst subject so I'm assuming I won't understand much.

 

[Top_Cat]

Like anything scientific, to our human eyes sometimes it won't be perfect but it's definitely the best attempt by a million miles to make the system of determining targets in the event of rain to be fair. Also bear in mind it's a statistical system so the more data added to the model, the more accurate it becomes. Also, it's forced people to re-asses what is 'fair' I think.

 

[Slow Love™]

I don't fully understand the mathematics of the system at all times (but I am terrible when it comes to mathematics, so that's no surprise), but in what the system tries to account for in terms of available resources, I think Duckworth/Lewis, in its current incarnation is excellent.

When we think of some of the laughable screw-ups we used to have in the early days, it's a great effort.

 

[sirdj]

What about the fact that the Indians had to face 10 overs from Brett Lee while the max overs that any of their bowler could bowl is only 4!!

 

[Slow Love™]

What about the fact that the Indians had to face 10 overs from Brett Lee while the max overs that any of their bowler could bowl is only 4!!

No pleasing some people - last tour you'd have been thankful for that. For accuracy's sake though, Lee only got 9.

It is a fair point though, TBF. I suppose I was more thinking about run targets and results. Not a whole lot you can do about the team batting first in an innings less affected by the rain.

 

[Dan]

What really annoyde me was that Australia bowled the full 20 overs of Powerplays, whilst the Indians would only have had to bowl 16 (for the 43 overs segment). They say that extra runs are given because they didn't know they were batting for 5 overs, the bowlers get nothing and they didn't know they were bowling for 45 overs either...

 

[howardj]

Massive fan of Duckworth/Lewis.

It's the best all purpose formula you will find.

Can't recall it throwing up too many anomalous targets.

 

[Richard]

What about the fact that the Indians had to face 10 overs from Brett Lee while the max overs that any of their bowler could bowl is only 4!!

That's nothing to do with Duckworth\Lewis, that's purely caused by the ridiculous concept of reducing the length of a ODI after the game has started.

 

[western_warrior]

brett lee was only allowed to bowl 9 overs champ.... he had bowled 8 before the rain, when play resumed they had set the match to 45 overs and reduced the bowlers to 9 overs each lee bowled the last over giving him 9. and Duckworth-Lewis is the best we have but still can never account on one side facing a solid clean ball and fast outfeild, to the chasing team facing a slick pitch, humid conditions, and damp ball and outfield. it only takes into consideration the mathamatical aspect. and we cant ask for much more i must admit, i feel i will always shake my head to a rain affected match, no matter who wins..
it sucks. we will take the two points
queensland the sunshine state my ass

 

[western_warrior]

sorry slow love hadnt noticed you had corrected him, thought i was the only one....quess not,

 

[Richard]

It is a fair point though, TBF. I suppose I was more thinking about run targets and results. Not a whole lot you can do about the team batting first in an innings less affected by the rain.

'Course there is, you just set aside a reserve day for ODIs, and don't reduce overs once the game has started.

ODIs always used to have reserve days, until fairly recently, it's only the absurd fixture overload that's meant once it rains on the first day there's only an hour in hand.

 

[Swervy]

'Course there is, you just set aside a reserve day for ODIs, and don't reduce overs once the game has started.

ODIs always used to have reserve days, until fairly recently, it's only the absurd fixture overload that's meant once it rains on the first day there's only an hour in hand.

The clue is in the name though..One day Internationals!!!!

Reserve days always used to annoy me. Conditions change, no-one turns up for the second day, its all a bit of an anti-climax

 

[Richard]

Conditions change over one day plenty often enough too, especially in day\night matches.

"One-day" is actually an inaccurate title, the correct one is of course "Limited-overs international". It's just "owdeyi" slips off the tongue far better than "ellowiy" so that's come to be the "slang" used.

Reserve days annoy anyone, but it's even worse when the game gets ruined by rain. Unless you've some way to fix rain, I can't fathom how you'd prefer no reserve day to a reserve day.

 

[silentstriker]

IMO the Duckworth-Lewis is about as good a system as you can hope for.

 

[Top_Cat]

Reserve days annoy anyone, but it's even worse when the game gets ruined by rain. Unless you've some way to fix rain, I can't fathom how you'd prefer no reserve day to a reserve day.

Money. It costs more to allow for a reserve day because they'd still have to pay a license fee, public liability insurance, etc. for the ground for the non-days and can't imagine this'd be any different anywhere else. There's also the cost of TV networks having to allow for the extra day. They do reserve days in big tournaments like the WC because there's a greater amount of revenue generated by the event so the cost can be recovered. It's really quite simple why reserve days in ODI's don't happen.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

I can't remember too many details and can't be bothered to research it but there was a ODI match that had a reserve day a few years ago and even though one team completed their innings on the first day, they started a new match on the reserve day.

 

[Richard]

Yes, sometimes "reserve" days involve the match being completely re-started. That's pretty ludicrous too, really. Think it's actually happened a fair few times, but the most famous instance of it being invoked was the Champions Trophy final of 2002 where two attempts to get a game in failed, the match being virtually action-replayed down to the time the rains arrived.

Money. It costs more to allow for a reserve day because they'd still have to pay a license fee, public liability insurance, etc. for the ground for the non-days and can't imagine this'd be any different anywhere else. There's also the cost of TV networks having to allow for the extra day. They do reserve days in big tournaments like the WC because there's a greater amount of revenue generated by the event so the cost can be recovered. It's really quite simple why reserve days in ODI's don't happen.

Well TV doesn't have to cover it - the game could be blacked-out if it meant it happened rather than didn't happen.

You're right about things like public liability insurance, but surely those sorts of things could be taken-out on a provisional basis?

 

[andyc]

sorry slow love hadnt noticed you had corrected him, thought i was the only one....quess not,

The keys aren't even close to each other.