Sign up with Google
DJ...
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2007
- Messages
- 70,287
Personally, I find the calculation to be pretty unfair. First of all, it doesn't take into account the strength of a batting line-up, and the relevant bowling line-up. The averages and strike rates of bowlers and batsmen should be incorporated into the calculation for it to be a fair reflection on the game. A static calculation should no longer be applicable in the modern form of the game. It also doesn't appear to take into account power-plays in the modern game, nor does it take into account that in the modern game, it is becoming a common trend to see 60 runs or more taken in the final 5 overs for example.
Another reason is that wickets hold more weight than runs for a team batting second, which works to their advantage if rain is imminent. One can score at a much lower run rate than required to protect wickets and in turn the Duckworth Lewis calculation will reward you for it.
I was going to highlight the more recent WC debacle but that was more of a misunderstanding than anything else. The one example that I will highlight though is the infamous SA vs England 1992 World Cup semi-final. Back then they used the "best scoring overs" method. This meant that when rain delayed the final few balls of the match, leaving SA with 22 runs to chase from 13 deliveries, we headed off into the dressing room with an anticipated nail-biting end. However this controversial method meant that SA walked back on to the pitch requiring 21 runs from just 1 ball - an impossible task.
Now, using the Duckworth Lewis method, SA would have required 5 runs to win from just 1 ball. That means it had to go for six. Well lets take that scenario and juxtapose it into the modern era of cricket - 22 runs from 13 balls is most certainly do-able, and doesn't require 6 from every delivery, however the D/L method indicates that that is in fact the position that we found ourselves in. That is completely unfair.
One cannot use a static calculation in a game where there are so many variables. However there is a clear need for it in the modern game where broadcasting, advertising and sponsorships are necessary. So in that case, the ICC should re-evaluate the calculation imo to fairly incorporate more of the variables, to ensure that delays do not result in unfair advantages.
Another quick example is that it only requires 20 of the 50 allotted overs for a result to be decided based on D/L. It stands to reason that the way a team bats in the first 20 overs is vastly different to the final 10 overs for instance. So a match stopped after a mere 20 overs will favour the team batting first. However you can manipulate this to your advantage as the team batting second as indicated above - by not losing wickets but then the run-rate becomes more of a moot point.
What do you think?
Another reason is that wickets hold more weight than runs for a team batting second, which works to their advantage if rain is imminent. One can score at a much lower run rate than required to protect wickets and in turn the Duckworth Lewis calculation will reward you for it.
I was going to highlight the more recent WC debacle but that was more of a misunderstanding than anything else. The one example that I will highlight though is the infamous SA vs England 1992 World Cup semi-final. Back then they used the "best scoring overs" method. This meant that when rain delayed the final few balls of the match, leaving SA with 22 runs to chase from 13 deliveries, we headed off into the dressing room with an anticipated nail-biting end. However this controversial method meant that SA walked back on to the pitch requiring 21 runs from just 1 ball - an impossible task.
Now, using the Duckworth Lewis method, SA would have required 5 runs to win from just 1 ball. That means it had to go for six. Well lets take that scenario and juxtapose it into the modern era of cricket - 22 runs from 13 balls is most certainly do-able, and doesn't require 6 from every delivery, however the D/L method indicates that that is in fact the position that we found ourselves in. That is completely unfair.
One cannot use a static calculation in a game where there are so many variables. However there is a clear need for it in the modern game where broadcasting, advertising and sponsorships are necessary. So in that case, the ICC should re-evaluate the calculation imo to fairly incorporate more of the variables, to ensure that delays do not result in unfair advantages.
Another quick example is that it only requires 20 of the 50 allotted overs for a result to be decided based on D/L. It stands to reason that the way a team bats in the first 20 overs is vastly different to the final 10 overs for instance. So a match stopped after a mere 20 overs will favour the team batting first. However you can manipulate this to your advantage as the team batting second as indicated above - by not losing wickets but then the run-rate becomes more of a moot point.
What do you think?
Last edited:
