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

[Sinbad]

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.

If it were compensating for 7 lost overs they'd add 100 runs.

 

[Sinbad]

If it were compensating for 7 lost overs they'd add 100 runs.

And then nz would have had 50 overs.

 

[Dan C]

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.

I have to agree here. Couple of years ago it was predicted that you double your score at 30 overs. Now it's more in the region of 35 overs. So yes the system is not perfect, but I'm not sure if it will change in the near future.

 

[CHURCHILL]

Other side of the coin, us as spectators and the players themselves knew about the chance of a rain delay on the day, even 20 minutes before the first ball is to be bowled, look up and check the weather.

Surely this should play a roll on your decision regarding the coin toss and how hard/fast you start your innings, knowing that DL could play a roll in the match.

 

[stefan9]

The system is poor and has always been poor the fact that its better then the previous doesn't hide the fact that it fails to take certain crucial factors into consideration.

For todays game:

1.NZ 5th bowler who was already traveling had 6 overs to, doudt we would just added 17 runs from those overs
2.The quality of the batsman and the momentum they had build. No rain and AB would have really as he has ton countless of times
3.The tournament record. SA have gone at 12 per over in the last 15 overs.

 

[Fox1]

Other side of the coin, us as spectators and the players themselves knew about the chance of a rain delay on the day, even 20 minutes before the first ball is to be bowled, look up and check the weather.

Surely this should play a roll on your decision regarding the coin toss and how hard/fast you start your innings, knowing that DL could play a roll in the match.

Good point. Surely cricket has evolved to include weather radar data which will in-turn influence team selection and tactics.

 

[stefan9]

Good point. Surely cricket has evolved to include weather radar data which will in-turn influence team selection and tactics.

SA has a very record chasing there was no way AB was going to risk it and bat second.

 

[Vis1/0N]

I could not follow the game but know that when rain stopped play we were given a certain (and sufficient) amount of overs knowing that we needed to accelerate and set a target.

I feel that D/L was decent enough...the 7 lost overs were effectively mid 30 overs. 281/43=6.5rr and our other big scores were against WI, Zim, Ireland, UAE. Hardly reasonable to use those as a benchmark of what we might have got in full 50 overs.

If play had stopped at 43 overs without us resuming to accelerate the final overs then there might have been more motivation for higher D/L target.

 

[bokka1]

Before Duckworth Lewis would NZ not only would have had to match our score in the same amount of balls?

 

[broloks]

The D/L method uses wickets in hand and overs remaining as the resources available to a team when the calculations are done. Therefore the batting style in terms of higher strike rates in the modern era should not affect the calculations. Also, the D/L method was split into a standard edition and a professional edition in around 2003, with the professional edition more suited to high scoring matches.

 

[WaxLyrical]

We still had our full power plays?

NZ were docked an over or 2.

 

[Sinbad]

We still had our full power plays?

NZ were docked an over or 2.

No we didn't.

 

[Vis1/0N]

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

We were given those last overs. 6w 17 20 7 15w.

The system is poor...
1.NZ 5th bowler who was already traveling
2.The quality of the batsman
3.The tournament record. SA have gone at 12 per over in the last 15 overs.

Point 3 forgets the issue of quality of opposition in our previous games. Still we achieved 13/over and lost 2 wickets.

 

[Wall]

DL makes all the sense in the world statistically, I've seen and read about it extensively a few years ago but it's math on a cricket field and that's why its a **** system.

 

[Picard]

Also, the D/L method was split into a standard edition and a professional edition in around 2003, with the professional edition more suited to high scoring matches.

Uhm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


15 runs in 7 ****ing overs?????????????????????????????????


EDIT: I'm trying real hard to stay composed here ... and to not lash out violently against ridiculous comments.

My gripe is ... to remind everyone again ... not against the technicalities of the D/L system but rather the foolish underlying technical principles of the D/L system.

 

[Fulcrum29]

I see the Indian online media pretty much shares Picard's sentiment. This is the 4th time that the D/L hurdled SA's success in a world cup.

This one comment:

http://www.hindustantimes.com/crick...up-pain-on-south-africa/article1-1330065.aspx

the knowledge that you have to only play 43 overs is worth more than the paltry 17 runs that were added to the total. Duckworth Lewis always tends to help the team batting second. The target should have been closer to 320 considering what South Africa might have posted if they had foreknowledge of having to play only 43 overs with the number of wickets they had left.

 

[AfricanTech]

Uhm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


15 runs in 7 ****ing overs?????????????????????????????????


EDIT: I'm trying real hard to stay composed here ... and to not lash out violently against ridiculous comments.

My gripe is ... to remind everyone again ... not against the technicalities of the D/L system but rather the foolish underlying technical principles of the D/L system.

You sir are absolutely correct. 17 runs was a travesty.

All said and done, a full 50 and we walk this game.

 

[mak2000]

I think any reduction in overs always benefits the chasing team, doesn't matter how many "fair" runs you add. To me they should also reduce the wickets that the batting sides have if overs are reduced. Typically, the teams lose wickets when trying to post at high run rates in the final overs and D/L does not cater for that.

In this case, I would have required SA to take 8 wickets to get NZ all out. That would have added pressure.

 

[Suspect99]

Uhm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


15 runs in 7 ****ing overs?????????????????????????????????


EDIT: I'm trying real hard to stay composed here ... and to not lash out violently against ridiculous comments.

My gripe is ... to remind everyone again ... not against the technicalities of the D/L system but rather the foolish underlying technical principles of the D/L system.

But they didn't add 15 runs and let NZ bat the full 50. They docked the overs from them. So they had the same amount of overs as us but had to make 15 extra runs.
They just had the advantage of knowing beforehand.

Even if we made 350 they still would of had 50 overs to chase it down instead of 43

 

[OzzieCapie]

Uhm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


15 runs in 7 ****ing overs?????????????????????????????????


EDIT: I'm trying real hard to stay composed here ... and to not lash out violently against ridiculous comments.

My gripe is ... to remind everyone again ... not against the technicalities of the D/L system but rather the foolish underlying technical principles of the D/L system.

For Pete's sake, I know you got up at 'sparrow's fart' yesterday, but please wake up now

They did not add 17 runs for the 7 overs, enough people have explained that here. They added 17 runs to penalise NZ for knowing that they had 43 overs from outset.
Stop complaining if there isnt a better system to use.

If McCullum didnt klap Steyn et al in the fisrt 5 overs for 71, and then bowl a **** last over ,it would have been a different story and you would be singing the praises of DL