The Duckworth-Lewis system ... can someone please explain to me ...

P

Picard

Guest
... why we only gained 17 runs after we lost 7 overs.

We got 281 in 43 overs but only had 17 runs added to our total. The projected score for NZ was 298 which they only got by the skin of their teeth.

Had we got something more realistic we would have won easily.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinbad

Sinbad

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
81,150
They figured that if we'd known it was a 43 over game from the beginning, we would have made 297 in those 43 overs.
 
Fulcrum29

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
55,031
They once said that it is the most correct and controversial statistical calculator ever invented in sports.
 
Nerfherder

Nerfherder

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
29,703
Picard said:
... why we only gained 17 runs after we lost 7 overs.

We got 281 in 43 overs but only had 17 runs added to our total. The projected score for NZ was 298 which they only got by the skin of their teeth.

Had we got something more realistic we would have won easily.
Click to expand...

Because we had lost 5 wickets.

Remember they also faced 43 overs


The system does not allow for our maxed out last overs that we often deliver.
 
Pitbull

Pitbull

Verboten
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
64,307
There is no excuse.

Lets say at worse 2 hours of game play was missed with a second day set aside for a result. They could have just played out the full 50 overs each side.

I agree that it works in situations where a result will not be forth coming. But this is the CWC ffs... What is a couple of hours? Yes I know things like broadcasting rights and so on as well as broadcasting schedules that needs to be kept. We're in the 21st century ffs. Stream what can't be viewed live if need be or what ever. There is no excuse.
 
P

Picard

Guest
Nerfherder said:
Remember they also faced 43 overs
Click to expand...

But we didn't know until about 3 or 4 overs before the rain started that we were going to be limited.

They knew it from the start. And hence batted accordingly. Knowing that they only had to bat for 43 overs ... not 50 ... with 10 wickets in hand.


The D/L system doesn't factor in this knowledge that the second batting team has.
 
Sinbad

Sinbad

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
81,150
Picard said:
But we didn't know until about 3 or 4 overs before the rain started that we were going to be limited.

They knew it from the start. And hence batted accordingly. Knowing that they only had to bat for 43 overs ... not 50 ... with 10 wickets in hand.


The D/L system doesn't factor in this knowledge that the second batting team has.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. That's why the target was increased.
 
P

Picard

Guest
Sinbad said:
Yes it does. That's why the target was increased.
Click to expand...


With just 17 runs?
in 7 overs?
with 5 good wickets in hand?
with the NZ knowing what they have to do?
...and with we not knowing when the rain would start falling?

SA's "gameplan" (if there is such a thing) was for 50 overs.
NZ's gameplan was just for 43 overs.

The added runs is not proportional. I say again ... 17 runs for 7 overs lost!!???!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinbad

Sinbad

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
81,150
Yup. Not saying it was accurate but that's the basis for it.
Remember it's not compensating for 7 lost overs worth of runs. Just for the difference in tactics between having to bat for 43 vs 50 overs.
 
P

Picard

Guest
Sinbad said:
Yup. Not saying it was accurate but that's the basis for it.
Remember it's not compensating for 7 lost overs worth of runs. Just for the difference in tactics between having to bat for 43 vs 50 overs.
Click to expand...

I would have preferred it if you hadn't added those last 2 sentences because those last 2 sentences do very little in convincing me.
 
T

themba990

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
3,991
Sinbad said:
Yup. Not saying it was accurate but that's the basis for it.
Remember it's not compensating for 7 lost overs worth of runs. Just for the difference in tactics between having to bat for 43 vs 50 overs.
Click to expand...

It actually is, that's kinda the whole point.
Anyway the two drivers of the number of runs that get added on are wickets in-hand and overs lost. The higher these two 'resources' the more runs you get. It's not linear and it's not team dependent. So two teams with different batting lineups would still get the same number of runs for an equal number of wickets in hand.
 
P

Picard

Guest
themba990 said:
It actually is, that's kinda the whole point.
Anyway the two drivers of the number of runs that get added on are wickets in-hand and overs lost. The higher these two 'resources' the more runs you get. It's not linear and it's not team dependent. So two teams with different batting lineups would still get the same number of runs for an equal number of wickets in hand.
Click to expand...

But my point is the formula is wrong. The game of cricket is not the same as it was when the D/L system was formulated. It has evolved to a much different scoring rate and structure.

The other day when AB de V set the world record some WI commentator remarked that people like Viv Richards and the greats of old didn't set such records because the style of batting was much different than it is today.

Another factor is that the tail-ends of teams are also much different than it is compared to 10 years ago. Dudes can actually score some runs even at number 8 and 9.

Even the batting equipment is different. Yonks ago professional cricketers had bats that lasted them years. Nowadays you have thick bats that can club the ball miles, but it weighs a pinch. And they use it for only a season or two ... if that long.

Hence my argument that the current D/L system is WRONG!!!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top