Duckworth-Lewis February 7, 2012

Someone, please explain the D/L method

I'm no mathematician. Messrs Duckworth & Lewis clearly have brains vastly superior to mine
108

I'm no mathematician. Messrs Duckworth & Lewis clearly have brains vastly superior to mine. Until yesterday, I have largely agreed with their complex system of making a rain-affected target a fair outcome for both teams. Looking at it from a pure layman's perspective though, I cannot understand how India's target the other night at the MCG remained unchanged. Someone, educate me....please.

When the rain came, Australia were struggling at 2 for 35 off 11 overs. India had already benefited from their skill at this point of the game, taking two key wickets at roughly 3 runs-per-over. Australia then batted superbly to score at almost 9 an over, losing only three more wickets in the process. I would have thought (clearly mistakenly) that the brilliance of their post-rain innings would have resulted in a target that was more than the 216 they eventually posted. India had already taken two wickets, so by getting rid of David Warner and Ricky Ponting, they had effectively reduced Australia's firepower. Sadly for them, and great credit to Matthew Wade and the Hussey brothers, Australia were able to recover from this poor start and stage an impressive comeback. Where was the reward for that great recovery?

From a commonsense viewpoint, it seemed to me that India would need to have chased at least 10-15 runs more to compensate for the fact that they knew all along that it was only 32 overs. They could afford to play shots from the very outset because they didn't have to try to bat 50 overs, which is what Warner and Ponting thought they were doing at the start, hence the cautious approach (and some fine bowling from the Kumar duo).

In the end it didn't matter because India were realistically never in the hunt after they lost early wickets. It was the sort of chase that needed a Virender Sehwag or Yuvraj Singh presence. MS Dhoni may have been able to score at that pace but on a big Australian ground, it was always going to be tough to hit sixes at will. I was surprised at Dhoni's reticence to go for the big shot, I must confess. I know he favours the approach of getting within striking distance and then trying to win it in a mad dash but I don't think that works in Australia. The boundaries are too big and you generally won't get too many overs of spin bowled at you at the death. Pakistan batsmen love this approach and they're pretty good at it too but I think Dhoni is making a serious miscalculation by letting the run rate drift too high before launching his assault. He doesn't have the lower-order support to be able to do that over an extended target.

Perth might be one of the few grounds where you can hit sixes straight down the ground and score at 10 an over at the end of a game. Homebush in Sydney, where the first Twenty20 game was played last Wednesday has similar potential for a late flourish. But if India keep choosing to chase runs and adopt a strategy of waiting for the last five overs before they go ballistic, I don't think that strategy will work in this country. Even if Duckworth-Lewis doesn't hurt them in the way I expected it to on Sunday night.

Looking forward to your thoughts on whether Duckworth-Lewis got it right on this occasion.

Michael Jeh is an Oxford Blue who played first-class cricket, and a Playing Member of the MCC. He lives in Brisbane

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • silverpie on March 21, 2012, 13:20 GMT

    Four down with 21 overs to go is 45.8% resource, with only six to go it is 18.8%, so Team B has lost 27.0% of its resources and has 73.0% to work with. 73.0% of 238 is 174, so under D/L, you wouldn't even need to resume--you'd already have won. (In fact, the match would have been decided when three overs were lost, as that would have brought the target to 229.)

    How any method could possibly increase the target for an interruption in the second team's innings, when the first team had already laid down its mark, is beyond me.

  • Anonymous on March 18, 2012, 3:16 GMT

    i hv a situation...Team A -238/9 (50 overs) whn rain interrupted play Team B was 231/4 in 29 ovrs .when resuming the target had to be set for 35 overs.What would that be according to the D/L method? pls tell me the target,because the target which was actually given was 258(in a local match)

  • anon on March 13, 2012, 6:40 GMT

    In actual fact, it is more complex, with batting/bowling power plays, team composition, size of ground, wheather etc. It is partly luck, partly logic - the amount varies based on situation. It is basically luck again,like the toss result. If you accepted it,then dont complain. You cant have this 100% - it is the beauty of uncertainty

  • MondoTV on February 20, 2012, 5:30 GMT

    Overcomplicating such a simple thing - look at that Australia might have been on target to get in 50 overs (that is what DL is a statistical method based on historical games), then look at what they did get - if they got more than they might have under those conditions then their score won't go up except by a small compensation factor for being interrupted. If they got a lot more than what they would have their score won't change much at all. Which is what happened - very simple. Whatever happens you can only revise a target down if the team batting second has to face less overs - that wasn't the case here. In an interrupted first innings the team batting second nearly always has the advantage but in this case that was offset by other factors - the end result seemed fair enough.

  • prashant on February 17, 2012, 7:40 GMT

    I am just putting my nose into it but in my opinion if Australia's 2 wickets have not been fallen then probably target for India would have increased

  • crikkfan on February 12, 2012, 7:04 GMT

    Wonder what target the Jayadevan method would have come up with! anyone else?

  • Castor on February 12, 2012, 2:13 GMT

    Cannot believe the number of people discussing powerplays, etc. clearly 1/3 of Australia's game was played under the impression of 50 overs. Cricket (golf for example) are very much mind games - 1/3 of Australias game was played under the wrong impression. Tell how come Australia's 'game' was so different after the rain delay: because prior to the rain delay (1/3 of Australia's game) was played with the view of 50 overs. If it was all just a matter of India's 'great bowling' then what happened to it after the rain delay??

  • Castor on February 12, 2012, 2:04 GMT

    In the end Australia played ONE THIRD of their match under the impression it was 50 overs. India played ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of their match knowing it was 50 overs. D/L is a mess.

  • Castor on February 12, 2012, 2:01 GMT

    D/L has always appeared to be the most consistent method up until the other night. The fact Australia won convincingly means this is not a whinge (cos we lost, we didn't). D/L has now proved itself completely useless.

  • Sarthak on February 11, 2012, 12:50 GMT

    I disagree some what. Although i don't understand D/L method but what i thought that India was at receiving end this time. As u see Australia got first 10 overs of power play although they dint utilize it well but for Indian side two bowlers who were bowling well that time had finished 5 of their 7 over quota. If Dhoni would have known it before he would have shuffled them well.

  • silverpie on March 21, 2012, 13:20 GMT

    Four down with 21 overs to go is 45.8% resource, with only six to go it is 18.8%, so Team B has lost 27.0% of its resources and has 73.0% to work with. 73.0% of 238 is 174, so under D/L, you wouldn't even need to resume--you'd already have won. (In fact, the match would have been decided when three overs were lost, as that would have brought the target to 229.)

    How any method could possibly increase the target for an interruption in the second team's innings, when the first team had already laid down its mark, is beyond me.

  • Anonymous on March 18, 2012, 3:16 GMT

    i hv a situation...Team A -238/9 (50 overs) whn rain interrupted play Team B was 231/4 in 29 ovrs .when resuming the target had to be set for 35 overs.What would that be according to the D/L method? pls tell me the target,because the target which was actually given was 258(in a local match)

  • anon on March 13, 2012, 6:40 GMT

    In actual fact, it is more complex, with batting/bowling power plays, team composition, size of ground, wheather etc. It is partly luck, partly logic - the amount varies based on situation. It is basically luck again,like the toss result. If you accepted it,then dont complain. You cant have this 100% - it is the beauty of uncertainty

  • MondoTV on February 20, 2012, 5:30 GMT

    Overcomplicating such a simple thing - look at that Australia might have been on target to get in 50 overs (that is what DL is a statistical method based on historical games), then look at what they did get - if they got more than they might have under those conditions then their score won't go up except by a small compensation factor for being interrupted. If they got a lot more than what they would have their score won't change much at all. Which is what happened - very simple. Whatever happens you can only revise a target down if the team batting second has to face less overs - that wasn't the case here. In an interrupted first innings the team batting second nearly always has the advantage but in this case that was offset by other factors - the end result seemed fair enough.

  • prashant on February 17, 2012, 7:40 GMT

    I am just putting my nose into it but in my opinion if Australia's 2 wickets have not been fallen then probably target for India would have increased

  • crikkfan on February 12, 2012, 7:04 GMT

    Wonder what target the Jayadevan method would have come up with! anyone else?

  • Castor on February 12, 2012, 2:13 GMT

    Cannot believe the number of people discussing powerplays, etc. clearly 1/3 of Australia's game was played under the impression of 50 overs. Cricket (golf for example) are very much mind games - 1/3 of Australias game was played under the wrong impression. Tell how come Australia's 'game' was so different after the rain delay: because prior to the rain delay (1/3 of Australia's game) was played with the view of 50 overs. If it was all just a matter of India's 'great bowling' then what happened to it after the rain delay??

  • Castor on February 12, 2012, 2:04 GMT

    In the end Australia played ONE THIRD of their match under the impression it was 50 overs. India played ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of their match knowing it was 50 overs. D/L is a mess.

  • Castor on February 12, 2012, 2:01 GMT

    D/L has always appeared to be the most consistent method up until the other night. The fact Australia won convincingly means this is not a whinge (cos we lost, we didn't). D/L has now proved itself completely useless.

  • Sarthak on February 11, 2012, 12:50 GMT

    I disagree some what. Although i don't understand D/L method but what i thought that India was at receiving end this time. As u see Australia got first 10 overs of power play although they dint utilize it well but for Indian side two bowlers who were bowling well that time had finished 5 of their 7 over quota. If Dhoni would have known it before he would have shuffled them well.

  • RM on February 11, 2012, 11:25 GMT

    This D/L method is completely flawed and the lawmaker (Former Master who has also caused misery around the world bt creating SLAVERY) would never make any rules that would NOT BENEFIT himself, so D/L has clearly been created to give one team (AT THE TIME RELEVANT!!) a clear advantage. Get rid of this D/L method once forever and replace it with something that is EQUAL to both the teams. The spirit of cricket is based on Fairness and D/L method takes that away the fairness!! My name is Raj

  • Ejaz on February 11, 2012, 8:58 GMT

    To all those saying India got only 7 powerplay overs whereas Aus got 10.. Aus got only 3 more overs of powerplay after the rain delay.. so effectively 13 overs of powerplay..while India got 7 overs of PP!, 3overs PP2 and 3 overs PP3.. adding upto 13overs..

  • IshaqMalik on February 11, 2012, 6:47 GMT

    The author’s point of view is biased and so is of some of the commenters who are favoring India too much. — a) If Australia knew it was going to bat 32 overs game, they would have batted aggressively from the start. — b) If India knew they were going to bowl 32 overs, I don’t think they would have done anything better than this. They *were* in a strong position, but by no means it was *extremely* strong position if it was going to be 50 overs of Aus batting. One thing dhoni would probably have done is to use his pacers better. ——— the issue here is too many "ifs", and those ifs are hard to answer by science because we are expecting it to tell us of alternate future that could have existed. ——— Having said that, D/L should be open to discussion, and should be improved. ——— and I do think Australia were given a life by reducing the game to 32 overs, they might have been under pressure in full 50 overs. they played the reduced overs (roughly 20 overs) like T20 with 8 wickets.

  • sport on February 11, 2012, 3:57 GMT

    In some cases, as we see, where the match has been stopped with a team ahead by D/L sometimes ends up losing and vice versa. (BTW the 100% correct argument in matters like DRS gets exposed in this way; and its endorsers are among the worst things that happened to cricket.)ODIs are altogether an outdated format. T20 raises hopes to do away with it; don't forget Tennis is surviving without such imaginary yet not quite imaginative, interpretations.

  • Anonymous on February 10, 2012, 19:08 GMT

    I don't agree with what a lot of people have been commenting here regarding Australia having a disadvantage of not knowing that the game would be reduced to 32 overs and hence batted cautiously in the first 10 overs. Cricket is about two resources- runs and wickets, with runs more 'precious' than wickets. Hence the parabolic relation. Therefore, only one thing should have been on Australia's mind- to score runs and yet, not play like in T20s. Since there is no upper bound on how many runs a team can score, the logic that "since we have 50 overs, we can afford to score slowly" doesn't apply. Hence, the penalty in the D/L method against Australia. On a lighter note, I'm sure both teams read the weather report in the morning in the newspaper.

  • Nads H on February 10, 2012, 18:27 GMT

    I think the only solution for the rains is to convert the match in to twenty 20.

  • SIDDHARTHA on February 10, 2012, 14:29 GMT

    NO WHAT EVER WAS DONE WAS RIGHT BECAUSE PRAVEEN KUMAR WAS LEFT WITH ONLY ONE OVER AFTER THE RAIN,AND ALL STRIKE BOWLERS OVERS WERE NEARLY FINISHED DUE TO THAT RAIN,THATS WHY THE REVISED TARGET WAS SET RIGHT

  • David on February 10, 2012, 10:33 GMT

    I like the version of D/L they're using in the England v England Lions game ... The Lions' 50 over total of 96 (all out in the 29th) has been revised up to a target of 230!

  • Nirbhay on February 10, 2012, 9:44 GMT

    D/L is not a reward program!! If it was, it would still reward for both the sides. Australian cautios approach for the first 11 overs can also be due to indian bowlers getting two wickets and a tidy spell - equal weightage for both sides !!

  • Siddhesh on February 10, 2012, 3:17 GMT

    Do consider two factors that went against india

    1) Australia had the full first 10 over powerplay quota, India never did.

    2) India too were under the assumption that it was a 50 over game. The resumption left them with 3 overs of pace bowling, compared to the 9 before if it had been a 50 over game.

    A 15 + run addition? I don't think so, considering that its a 32 over game, the dynamics would vary waaaaaaaaay too much with 15 extra runs.

  • chris on February 9, 2012, 17:22 GMT

    Roger D wins the argument. unless of course he was last to answer then i will have to away 2 points for already knowing what was said earlier in the innings.

  • Dulan on February 9, 2012, 13:35 GMT

    The writer only thinks about the 'disadvantage' Australia had because they did not know it was a 32 over game until their 11th over. The fact is since they were already 2 wickets down they also benefited from playing a shortened game. Otherwise(theoretically) they'd have a problem with batting 50 overs. That must be considered an 'advantage'. So in this case mathematically this 'advantage' & 'disadvantage' cancel themselves out. So I think D/L is absolutely correct.

  • RAJEEV on February 9, 2012, 11:33 GMT

    HOW ABOUT IF YOU ARE REDUCING MORE THAN 15 OVERS. PLAY A NEW MATCH ALTOGETHER?

  • Deepak on February 9, 2012, 8:10 GMT

    i think we have 2 just enjoy game .

  • n on February 9, 2012, 6:00 GMT

    good point. in addition to that, i wonder if DL takes the conditions into consideration. for example, 35/2 after 12 would be ok in england where most teams prefer a conservative start and late flourish, but on most subcontinent pitches, the same score would be a disaster. so a team playing in the subcontinent would be praying for rain at that stage whereas its still not so bad in england. in case of rain then, a team in the subcontinent has had a reprieve, so would there be too much addition to the final score as it's actually quite beneficial for them in a way anyway

  • Shadab Raza on February 9, 2012, 4:13 GMT

    The more mathematics cricket body will implement the more complications will occur for a straight forward cricket fan. since the game is become commercial, so its a clash between commercialism and ODI format. either you compromise money or the game.. ICC decided to take option A. live with it, boys! and they call it LUCK. lolz.

  • Michael on February 9, 2012, 3:38 GMT

    For those who are saying that 'India were on top before the break', I think it just goes to show what an even better effort it was from Australia to turn things around. Australia, trying to bat for 50 overs, were reduced to 2/35 after 11 overs. They had saved 8 wickets for the remaining 39 overs, or 1 every 5 overs (on average), for which they were scoring at just over 3. We can assume there would be some acceleration, but at that rate they would have made around 150. Instead, they managed 216 using 32 overs, despite the handicap of their initial slow start. India would have known they only had 32 overs, so could afford to lose wickets at 1 every 3 overs or so, almost twice as fast. They had their full compliment of wickets for a match 2/3 as long. Powerplays and bowler restrictions come into it, but they clearly have an advantage because they knew from the outset they didn't have to bat as long, and can be more aggressive. Hence their target should have been larger.

  • adi on February 8, 2012, 22:21 GMT

    Michael you forgot that the number of overs balled as power play for Australia was more than number of overs balled for India hence the Aussies had better advantage at scoring runs.

  • Vikas tiwari on February 8, 2012, 20:12 GMT

    intially match was 50 overs.so both teams have 100% resco. now australia after 11 overs have the 77.4% reso. remaining. after match reduce they have tthe 52.55%resou left so they lóse 77.4-52.55=24.95%reso. so they have 100-24.95=75.05 and india have 75.1 reso for the 32 over match. so australia have .05 rescó less than india. so indiá get only 225*.05=1 run more in target. you can calculate for any match. for this[reso] sé the d/l tabe at cricinfo. i hope that will helpful for everyone.

  • Natarajan on February 8, 2012, 10:38 GMT

    A great test for the DL method would be to use it to predict the 50 over score for a side batting first. Instead of showing the projected score at 4 and over and 6 an over the broadcasters should add the projected score as per the DL method based on the resources available (overs and wickets) atany point of the innings. Then it will be there for all to see how accurate or otherwise it is. No idea why the broadcasters do not do it

  • Sriraj on February 8, 2012, 9:47 GMT

    People harping on blindly about the POWERPLAYS, please STOP THE PRESS! Both teams got the same number of powerplays in the match. If a couple of people had suggested the incorrect fact that India got lesser overs, fine - but I see atleast 20 people firmly suggesting it. Did you guys see the game? Australia got 10 ovs before the break and 3 overs after the break. TOTAL=13. India got 13 ovs as well split as 7+3+3. The reason for this article is because usually when 1st inns are interrupted, we are used to seeing the target being increased. This was only a rare occasion where the resources lost by Aus equally matched the resources lost for India and hence the same target.

  • Darryl on February 8, 2012, 9:30 GMT

    You can find a Duckworth Lewis method calculator online - do a search for Duckworth-Lewis calculator in your favourite search engine and you'll find it.

  • Rohan on February 8, 2012, 5:44 GMT

    I just want to put this in - India had bowled pretty well for the first 11 overs, tying up the batsmen. Following the rain, when the game was shortened, the bowling quota was reduced to 7 overs per bowler. Vinay Kumar and Praveen Kumar who had bowled excellently up to that point had now bowled 6 and 5 overs respectively. Therefore, India could now avail only 3 more overs from their premier bowlers. Is that not also a handicap that the Indians faced? Now, of the 21 overs that remained, 18 would have to be bowled between the spinners, which is 86% of all the bowling to come, instead of the original 30 out of 50 overs = 60%. To make a general statement, does the bowling team not stand the chance of losing its premier bowlers' overs, permitting the remaining batsmen to go after the much weakened attack?

  • Ravi on February 8, 2012, 4:58 GMT

    @Madhan My thoughts are same too. The only advantage Australia had was that they got more powerplay overs than India. That seems to have compensated the other advantages.

  • cricketmadjason on February 8, 2012, 4:33 GMT

    There are a couple of comments about the power play in this match which are incorrect. Yes, Oz got 10 overs of power play initially and India 7, but when play resumed after the rain delay India were not given the opportunity to have a bowling power play - the last 3 overs of the initial power play were counted as such (despite the different fielding restrictions) yet when India batted both batting and bowling power plays were made available. The variability of the bowling PP in India's innings vs the extra fielding restriction in Oz's innings effectively cancel each other out.

  • Prasanna on February 8, 2012, 4:11 GMT

    But yes, even after the explanation (see previous post), there can/should be more 'factors' taken into consideration apart from only 'wickets lost' and 'overs remaining'. And the D/L system uses avg score of 235 (may have been revised now), which also should be dependant on grounds atleast.

  • Prasanna on February 8, 2012, 4:08 GMT

    the D/L system works on 2 resources: wickets and overs remaining. every team starts with resource = 100 at start. Now when rain began, Aus had lost 2 wickets after approx 11 overs, the resource at that time for them was 77 (approx acc. to D/L table) and when play resumed with limited overs, resource left was 54 (due to reduced overs left) to give a net resource of 77. But India had already been reduced 18 overs, so they started with not 100 but around the similar resource of 77-78. So no addition to the score. If Aus had lost less/more wickets, things would hav been different.

  • swami on February 8, 2012, 3:15 GMT

    I could roughly estimate the fitting curve of D/L method. If this is correct, India's target is 216.3. Hence, if they have scored 216, it would not have resulted in tie, but India loosing. Hence the target is 217. As you correctly pointed out the batting of Australia after the break, compensated the downtrend of the curve by slow batting (in comparison) and loss of two wickets before. But this method needs certain modifications as after T20, the scoring rates changed and hence squaring the polynomial fit after the midpoint is necessary at both ends.

  • Janaka on February 8, 2012, 3:14 GMT

    When I read that the target was 217 (just 1 more run than Australia scored), I thought D/L method was not used in the match but later I understood that 217 target came from D/L method. I think thats fine (it should be a concidence how it came to 217 anyway) as far as we know how Australia and India were before the rain delay. Someone should remeber that D/L method is not to help only batting side. I have seen many times bowling sides are also benefited if they have bowled well before rain delay. D/L method is to give fairness to both sides due to (rain) delays.

  • Jonathon Josephs on February 8, 2012, 2:52 GMT

    The DL method is unbiased and ASSUMES that a score is made by going at the same rate for the entire innings. Meaning, if a team scores 250 runs, the D/L Method assumes every over yields only 5 runs, no more, no less. Thus if a team is 180 for 4 at the 40 over mark, the D/L method does not account for those 10 overs slogging and assumes if the team played out the full 50 overs, they would get 225 (4.5 runs per over continuously). Some people say that's not right. The problem is, that it is almost impossible to guess how much a team "might score" in missed overs. It is as fault, but mathematically it is almost impossible (way too many combinations and the D/L sheets would be thousands of pages long) to do so. Thats why we have simplified it and it is the way it is today.

  • Mathematician on February 8, 2012, 2:48 GMT

    Aus also got their full quota of 1st power-play that India would not get with only 32 hours. An adjustment also have to factor in that during those power-play overs, Australia only scored 35/2. If that accounted for nothing, India would have no advantage of bowling better before the rain break.

  • John on February 8, 2012, 2:43 GMT

    Using the 2002 D/L table (so the figures won't be perfectly up to date), when Australia stopped at 2 down after 11 overs, they had 76.9% of their resources left. When they resumed at 2 down with 21 overs to go, they had 54.1% of their resources left. Hence the 18 overs between overs 11 and 29 were considered to be worth 22.8% of the potential scoring. When India started at 0 down with 32 overs to go, they had 78.3% of their resources left. So those first 18 overs with 0 wickets down were considered to be worth 21.7% of the potential scoring. Based on that 10 year old table, India's target would have been 219, still pretty close. yes, Australia had the disadvantage of not knowing the game would be shortened, but the fact that they were already 2 down meant that their scoring potential during those overs was similar to India's during their lost overs.

  • Valerio on February 8, 2012, 2:33 GMT

    I'll explain it this way. Because Australia lost 2 early wickets, they benefited from having the game shortened as their remaining specialist batsman could now play with more freedom in a reduced overs game. In other words, any loss of wicket was not as critical. This was evened out by the disadvantage of not knowing that there was a reduced overs match from the start.

  • sagar on February 8, 2012, 2:33 GMT

    Though i agree in general on not being able to understand the D/L method, I have one point in favor of D/L method's rationale in this caes.

    When it is true that australia could have taken an aggressive approach and scored more runs if they knew that it was a 32 over game ahead of time, it is also equally true that they might have lost more wickets trying to do that. If australia lost 2 wickets in 11 overs playing cautiously, they might have as well lost 4 wickets in the same time if they played aggressively. If that would have been the case, they might not even have lasted the given 32 overs, thus scoring lesser than what they scored at the end - 216. So, theoretically India were asked to chase more than what australia might have managed.

    I'm not trying to support D/L method, india or australia here. I just wrote what i thought about it.

  • MC on February 8, 2012, 0:44 GMT

    One thing you fail to take into account is that the team bowling first had used-up its quota for the fast bowlers and was hence disadvantaged and was forced to use part timers. The team bowling second was better able to manage its bowlers. Not that the outcome would have been any different given the team composition that India chose, but with close competitors it would make a significant difference, I think. D/L should be done away with and the match moved to a reserve day instead or not played at all since the other disadvantage is that the team batting second can use all 10 wkts and the smaller number of overs makes it easier to try aggressive things up-front if the line-up is pretty deep giving a distinct advantage to the team batting second. The best thing then is to play on a 10 over rotation basis making it more exciting, since each round a new team could be the leader. Maybe that is the way to play one day cricket always, rotate teams around 10 overs each.

  • Jarrod on February 8, 2012, 0:02 GMT

    The reason that Australia's total was not adjusted up was that they had already lost two wickets when the rain came. Having lost early wickets affects you far more in a 50 over game than a 32 over game. Australia's score was increased to 217.4 and then rounded down to 217.

  • Raja on February 7, 2012, 23:43 GMT

    I think we must consider the use of both batting resources as well as bowling resources. A good example was when South Africa having lost 5 wickets (best batsmen) before the rains came, were able to win under D/L with SriLanka still not used 5 overs from Malinga, reserved to get rid of the tail. Also we must remember tah the powerplay overs are reduced as well as number of overs by each bowler, when D/L is applied. So it is not an easy calculation to find fault with.

  • dinesh on February 7, 2012, 23:02 GMT

    although not to the same extent, india too were done in by the rain in the first innings. the bowling combinations they had for the first 11 overs may not have been the same if they knew it was a 32 over game. dhoni couldve used some of the fast bowling options later on. plus india didnt get the first 10 overs of batting powerplay either. i doubt D/L could ever produce a calculation that is completely fair for both teams but in this instance india too were at the receiving end, albeit to a lesser extent in my opinion.

  • Muhammad Farooq on February 7, 2012, 22:53 GMT

    You are spot on Michael Jeh. I wonder why they are not improving D/L method when we are seeing so many rule changes in cricket these days. Thanks for the article atleast someone has brought this issue to light.

  • Shivasiddharth on February 7, 2012, 22:48 GMT

    But look at it another way. Australia used their full quota of first 10 over power play when the overs were reduced. 32 over match meant, that mandatory power play overs be reduced for India.

  • Aditya on February 7, 2012, 22:43 GMT

    I think the lesser number of powerplays for India could justify that.

  • Nick on February 7, 2012, 22:42 GMT

    @Nilesh, India did receive the same amount of PowerPlay overs, the altered playing conditions were that there were 7 overs of initial powerplay overs and then 3 each for the batting and bowling side. The only difference was that Australia could choose when to use their 3 bowling powerplay overs..

  • explorer76 on February 7, 2012, 22:32 GMT

    @vipul - I dont think the author was doing a unilateral or biased interpretation. Many of us had the same question in mind as well. Our thoughts were that india knew from the start that they have 32 overs and can play more aggressively. Australia, on the other hand, played the first 11 overs thinking that they have to save wickets to be able to play 50 overs. But then suddenly they were left with only 21 overs in which to come up with a strong total. So with that in mind it seems that india got an advantage and australia was at a disadvantage. However I agree to the point that india also got limited in their choice of bowlers, and also that india got fewer power play overs. So that can possibly explain why the total was not increased.

  • Dheeraj Gakhar on February 7, 2012, 22:28 GMT

    I agree that the target should have been more..taking into account the recovery..and the fact that Australia had already batted 11 overs before the rain interruption..

  • David on February 7, 2012, 22:05 GMT

    The only reason D/L needs to adjust the target in that situation is because before the rain delay Australia would have been batting (and India would have been bowling) as if it was a 50 over match rather than a 32 over match. What happens after the rain delay to D/L is irrelevant because they now know the situation. D/L is only answering the question - 'How would things have been different in the first 11 overs if the had teams known it was a 32 over match?'

    Australia had lost two wickets when it rained. In the same way that Australia should have runs added to them because they would have been scoring faster, India should get the advantage of having been bowling for wickets - having taken two wickets when there are 39 overs left is far more important than having taken them with 21 overs left.

    In this case, the two happened to balance out, and I think that's about right - in a 50 over match Australia would have had to bat slowly and consolidate for the next 10 overs or so.

  • faumi on February 7, 2012, 21:29 GMT

    if a match is interupted by rain at the early stage of a match and if the batting side has lost many wickets by that time reducing overs going to benefit the batting side. if you think practically if it is not rained aus had 8 wkts to bat for 39 ovrs.Beacause of the rain interuption still they had 8 wkts to face only 21overs. because of over reduction aus were not affected by those 2 early wickets.

  • COOLS on February 7, 2012, 21:16 GMT

    We should not forget the Australia got first 10 overs where everybody was in circle except two,also the opener had no presuure to score since itwas 50 overs match that gave him enough time to settle.Si if yiu see eventually it's even for both the teams.

  • Chetan asher on February 7, 2012, 20:53 GMT

    Just as Ponting & co. had batted slower expecting to bat for a full 15 overs, Dhoni had bowled 6 overs each of Kumar & Kumar...this meant he had only 2 overs from his 2 seamers after resumption. Australia could go after the spinners & India were denied the 8 / 9 overs of medium pace that Dhoni would have planned on using during a fight-back.

    ....so the target was more than fair. Who knows - if Dhoni could use Praveen / Vinay for another 2 overs each, they might have got the Husseys & then, Australia would have scored fewer runs than they managed

  • Jason Chiu on February 7, 2012, 20:52 GMT

    Duckworth-Lewis overvalues wickets at the death overs and undervalues the time value of early overs, especially when the batting team has lost several wickets. The latter may have happened because 1990s teams would become more defensive. That may have been the tactic then, but except for Dhoni's variation mentioned above, very few teams adopt this tactic. It is time to recalibrate Duckworth-Lewis.

    Australia went from 78% to 57% of their resources while losing the 12th to 29th over on 35/2. India losing the first 18 overs also represented 21% of their resources. While both resource losses are underestimated, the reasons above show that the curve that plots resources to overs remaining (with two wickets lost) is not sufficiently steep. Had they lost no wickets, these 18 overs would represent 27% of resources. Somewhere in between would agree better with our intuitions.

  • AK on February 7, 2012, 20:33 GMT

    Nice article, some nice comments and the usual brain dead ones from the silly people.

  • Neal on February 7, 2012, 20:20 GMT

    Well may be it took into account the fact the duo who bowled superbly to restrict OZes hard hitting bats were left with only 3 overs between them. Otherwise there was a chance that they could have inflicted with some more damage.. I am surprised that such articles appear from time to time when the various authors think that a non sub-continental side is at the receiving end..

  • harry on February 7, 2012, 19:43 GMT

    I respectfully disagree with you guys. I feel the target should have been reduced for India. Yes I am serious, REDUCED. My logic is this: When Australia batted at 11 over mark they had lost 2 wickets. Which ment that they had 39 over remainging and had 8 wickets remaining. After rain, the match was reduced to 32 overs. So this ment that they had only 21 overs remainging and still had 8 wickets.

    This meant that the advantage which India had of making Australia play for 39 wovers with only 8 wickets remaing was lost. On resuming play, australia didnt have to worry about the two lost wickets as number of overs were reduced. In other sense it meant that Australis had lost 2 wickets in 29 overs(50-21). Does it make sense what I am saying?

  • Kapil on February 7, 2012, 19:09 GMT

    There are a lot of misconceptions going around D/L. I have studied it a bit and hence let me try and explain. First of all, it does NOT matter how many runs Australia got in the first 11 overs. The only thing that matters is how many wickets they lost. So if they had lost 0 wickets, they would have got a few extra runs because the assumption is that they were playing slowly to save wickets. On the other hand, say they had lost 8 wickets in the first 11 overs. In that case, runs would have actually been DEDUCTED from their final score because the assumption then is that with 8 wickets down in the first 11 overs itself, Aus would not have been able to play the entire 50 overs (and would probably be all out latest by the 20 over mark) and India would have had a full 50 overs to chase. However, rain meant India would get only 32 as opposed to 50 overs, and hence India would have been compensated for that.

    It just so happened in this case that with 2 wickets down, D/L calculated no change

  • David on February 7, 2012, 18:59 GMT

    "But if India keep choosing to chase runs and adopt a strategy of waiting for the last five overs before they go ballistic, I don't think that strategy will work in this country."

    Totally agree. Should be obvious, that they disadvantage themselves by choosing to chase.

  • ram on February 7, 2012, 16:40 GMT

    The only possible reason i could think of is that Australia had 3 extra Power Play overs (1 to 10, where India had 1 to 7), which could have been considered by Mr.D/L as advantage to Australia and caused the target not to change.

  • Julian on February 7, 2012, 16:32 GMT

    I believe D/L was spot on for this match. D/L always takes into consideration the run rate and wickets lost at the time of the rain interruption. In this case, Aussies were doing really bad when the rain came. Anyone with some cricketing sense at that point would have predicted that Australia would have reached anywhere between 220-260 had they played their 50overs. D/L method took the same into consideration and that resulted in Aussies having the same end score even after the acceleration after the rain break. Imagine if Aussies had lost 2 more wickets and rain shortened it to be a 20ovrs game, then Aussies would have some part of their score taken away, because Aus played poorly considering the game was to be a 50ovrs game. I guess this example explains it all.

  • silverpie on February 7, 2012, 15:23 GMT

    Looking at the charts for the "standard" version, Australia was already down to 76.9% when the rain hit (39 overs/8 wickets), and had 54.1% on resumption (21 overs/8 wickets), so the rain cost them 22.8% of an innings. 32 overs/10 wickets is 78.3%, so India lost 21.7% of an innings. That would have suggested a slight increase to the target, on the order of two or three runs. D/L is notably sensitive to the wickets in hand as well as the overs left (while VJD gives wickets little weight).

  • zulfikhar on February 7, 2012, 15:01 GMT

    The way D/L works is based on resource percentage (RP). It calculates how much RP is left at each stage of the innings when it is interrupted. The RP is a function of both wickets and overs. So at the beginning, a team has 10 wkts and 50 overs which equals 100% RP. If any of those are complete i.e. all out or 50 overs, the RP is 0. Between those 2, D/L came up with a table that defines at each stage what the RP is. This table is constantly updated to reflect the current averages in world cricket. I have an older table (maybe 3 yrs old). According to that, the total RP Aus got (taking into account the loss of wkts and the overs completed at interruption) was 77.2%. The total RP available to Ind was 78.1%. So India's par score should have been 78.1/77.2 * 216 = 218.5 or target=219, whereas it was 217. However, the new table probably has newer values based on latest stats, batting avgs, etc. Hence the difference. Still it's not much and it's easy if you know the workings of DL

  • Anonymous on February 7, 2012, 14:59 GMT

    The D/L method is usually reasonably fair. It does seem strange that no runs were added to the aussies score but I think it may have been a lack of runs added simply due to the huge score Australia ended up posting. Because they batted so well in the last 21 over the D/L method basically voided itself. The D/L method really only helps those who dont score so well in a rain affected match.

  • Ashwin on February 7, 2012, 14:32 GMT

    Guys, couple of things: 1. INDians were forced to bowl their remaining overs without much from Kumars. Kumars had almost bowled out their quota by the time rain interrupted. 2. Aussies enjoyed an extended 1st powerplay. IND didn't get as many powerplay overs. So, it all evens out.. .

  • Ashwin on February 7, 2012, 14:32 GMT

    Guys, couple of things: 1. INDians were forced to bowl their remaining overs without much from Kumars. Kumars had almost bowled out their quota by the time rain interrupted. 2. Aussies enjoyed an extended 1st powerplay. IND didn't get as many powerplay overs. So, it all evens out.. .

  • balaji venkataperumal on February 7, 2012, 14:29 GMT

    I am no fan of D/L method and I feel India was done in by it this time around. Aussies were able to get the full quota of powerplay and then adjust their innings accordingly for 32 overs and go all out. India on the other hand used up majority of their main bowlers' quota and were left high and dry with only 3 overs of their medium pacers' quota, who had bowled so well and were responsible for Aussies being reduced to 35/2. Also when batting India had reduced power play overs. Had they knew it was 32 overs from the outset, they would have retained more overs of the pacers for the death. This method affects both teams and it's time to look for a more realistic method.

  • Alex on February 7, 2012, 14:04 GMT

    The runs Australia scored before the rain delay was in the powerplay. I think they kept the same score, but reduced the number of overs that India could have in powerplay.

  • rafe on February 7, 2012, 13:46 GMT

    Australia had a very below par start to their innings - 2/35 odd off 11 overs. That cancelled out any bonus that might have been due to them for the shortened game. It makes sense.

  • Swaminath on February 7, 2012, 13:42 GMT

    Julian fuller is right. I had the same doubt as Jeh after being surprised by the target of 218. Later realized how wickets and resources in hand have a big impact on the target. When you have more resources in hand, you can argue that you were planning assuming there are 50 overs to play.As long as the resources you have are more, the bargaining power will be more on the batting side. As you lose out on your resources(read wickets), your bargaining power decreases. Use the same logic to run-rate also. The two major resources(wickets, run-rate) were both on the lower side for the Australians at the time of interruption and thus they had a lower bargaining(if that s the right word)power. That is why when a team is chasing, if their run-rate is good and have wickets in hand..their target is small and vice-versa. But i have to agree that it is flawed cos it is on an assumption that a team with bad run-rate and lesser wickets can't make up for the lag whereas in sports anything can happen

  • Ravi Abhyankar on February 7, 2012, 13:34 GMT

    The two critical points in D/L are 2 wickets and 5 wickets. In case Australia had lost only 4 wickets (instead of 5), the target for India would have been higher. The fall of the fifth wicket nullified the effect of higher strike rate. D/L is proven to be the least bad method of calculating.

  • shok on February 7, 2012, 13:16 GMT

    the 10 powerplay overs at the start that australia got and india didnt would have affected the calculation. also seems fair because if it was a 50 over game, with that start it would have been harder for australia to have got a competitive score as they would have had to be consistent for a longer period of time

  • Andy on February 7, 2012, 13:10 GMT

    All you people who say Australia had more powerplay over, weren't watching the game, they both had thirteen powerplay overs, the 10 at the start of Australia's innings was counted as the normal powerplay and the bowling powerplay

  • Prakash on February 7, 2012, 13:00 GMT

    The only reason I see is that Dhoni was left with only 3 overs of his two of the best bowlers after the interruption.So it actually evened out that the openers were cautious at the start.This is what I think...I may be wrong...

  • Praveen on February 7, 2012, 12:23 GMT

    Guys, D/L calculation is near perfect and applied "correctly" in this match as well. whatever the additional runs that all you thought should have been added to IND's target nullified due to early 2 wickets of AUS (assuming that they DO more runs when more wickets fall).

  • Dr Avinash on February 7, 2012, 12:07 GMT

    I think the 10-15 runs you mentioned were compensated by the excellent Indian effort in the first 11 overs. Though Warner and Ponting were cautious, probably, according to Msrs D/L they should have been able to score better. Again, losing wickets pushes you back.

  • Ashish on February 7, 2012, 11:55 GMT

    But Australia got full 10 overs in their first powerplay. Hence they had a greater scoring opportunity than India as India had only 7 overs of powerplay! Hence it is justified

  • hammad sheikh on February 7, 2012, 11:54 GMT

    Good point but we should understand that Australia played their full quota of power play overs before the rain came down and Indians got fewer over with fielding restriction... It was Ausralia who didnt played well in the first power play thts why Indians got the advantage.

  • Roger D on February 7, 2012, 11:51 GMT

    One of the factors taken into account in D/L calculations is the scoring rate of historical games - a statistical analysis of past results. More recent results are given more weighting ("importance") so as to allow the D/L method to "keep with the times".

    Australia were punished for losing two top order wickets and scoring significantly more slowly than other comparable games. The fact that Australia went on an incredible rampage afterwards doesn't matter because D/L's only intent is to adjust for unforeseen changes of circumstance. Once the rain stopped, both teams knew the revised situation.

    The only job D/L had was to consider whether Australia's start was unfairly affected by the over reduction. It was, but the loss of two wickets and low scoring rate negated any compensation they might have received - based in part on how well previous teams have performed from a comparable position.

    11 overs 35/2 is a comparatively weak position in a 50 over game. D/L punishes weak positions.

  • Chanaka on February 7, 2012, 11:31 GMT

    The issue with DL is that it does not correctly take the use of the power play into its consideration and also the effectiveness of the bowlers. If the best bowler has bowled his 10 overs before the rain the DL score would be the same as if he hadnt bowled any. This is very hard to calculate as 'best' is subjective.

    On the other hand, full batting/bowling power plays taken before the rain does not equate to reduced numbers taken when the overs are reducted.

  • Unni on February 7, 2012, 11:27 GMT

    I too initially was convinced about the argument in the article. However, the comment from Sriram above is very valid. Indian bowlers were also used in the first 10 overs as if for a 50 over game. In the end the bowling team was allowed to use its valuable fast bowling resources only for a total of 14 overs. And they end up using 10 of them in the beginning itself ! So, it evens up the situation.

  • J Rajan on February 7, 2012, 11:24 GMT

    Well, to be fair - the D/L method only ensures the team batting second in this instance chase a higher target ... But what about, Team India which suddenly realized that they have bowled out their main seam bowlers, when they returned. Suddenly with the truncated innings, there were only 2 or 3 overs each for Praveen and Vinay Kumar. And surely with the spinners bowling the Australians made merry to score what they did. If India had Praveen and Vinay to bowl another 3 overs each, they wouldn't have even scored 180 or 190 and more wickets could have fallen, which would have stifled the target.

    The cricket administration should look into this!!!

  • Sandeep on February 7, 2012, 11:22 GMT

    Guys, Consider the factors such as Overs remaining/ Total overs, Wickets Left/total wickets, Power play overs for each side / actual PP overs , Current run rate / 6. These all will be calculated as fractions and derives the Target. That justifies.

  • Rahul on February 7, 2012, 11:18 GMT

    I do not know what the fuss is all about! You need not be a mathematician to understand it! Australia above par excellence after resumption of play was only just exactly compensated by their lacklustre performance before the rain break. They were 35-2 in 11 which is just above 3 an over and 2 down! Yes, India would have chased lesser had they procured another wicket before the rain break or if even they didn't shell out those 10-12 runs in the over before the break!

  • David on February 7, 2012, 10:59 GMT

    The point you make about what's "intuitively" right is, the key. Players and fans alike are never happy with any mathematical model that produces something that "feels" wrong. Despite the trend towards reducing the human error component in the adjudication of cricket, here is one area where reintroducing a more human component would be broadly acceptable.

    My suggestion is that the 4 officials used for the match contribute a human dimension to the target calculation. They are all very knowledgeable about cricket, they know what "feels" right, and, what's more, they're independent judges. So, give them the D/L calculations as a starting point, but then they all submit their own opinion as to what the target should be, and the actual target is the average of their opinions.

    To preserve anonymity, they should be given a printed card on which they fill in a circle next to their nominated score; the marked card is put in a ballot box, and the cards are later destroyed.

  • Shyam on February 7, 2012, 10:57 GMT

    Agree with the comments about D/L but I'd like to ask about Dhoni's batting - he leaves way too much at the end to do which is fine in India but in Oz you can't let the required rate get much over 8-8.5 at worst. If you watch Watson in the 1st ODI vs England last year and Clarke in a latter one at the SCG (forget which number) they had to keep up with the rate much more and burst through a smaller runs v balls deficit at the end - see Clarke's use of the power play in that game. Will be a good lesson for Dhoni to learn for the next world cup.

  • Brent on February 7, 2012, 10:45 GMT

    D/L takes into account all factors such as overs left, runs scored and wickets. Being two down early would have put Australia on the back foot if the rain delay hadn't occurred. If Australia was none down at the rain delay then they would of added another 15 or so runs to the total for the reasons you state. But India deserved credit for excellent early bowling. D/L throws up some odd totals but they got it about right this time.

  • Kapil on February 7, 2012, 10:45 GMT

    Everyone is saying Australia were at disadvantage but nobody actually realizes or talks about is that India had momentum on their side.. Agreed Wade hit a couple of boundaries in the last over before rain but in case Australia had to bat full 50 overs, their approach would have been a lot cautious which would have given wicket openings to India. And even if India had 270 to chase, a quota of full 50 overs had allowed their batsmen to assess and approach the situation in much better manner...

  • razee on February 7, 2012, 10:40 GMT

    i think D/L should invent a way to set targets for weaker teams (depending upon their rankings?). The weaker teams should be given a target which is 3-5 percent less of the score of the stronger team. This will benefit India and SL in this series and creat some interest in the competition. ha ha ha ha

  • dharmeshtank on February 7, 2012, 10:40 GMT

    Duckworth-Lewis is a very complex algorithm, that takes into account a plethora of situations. Yet, it loyally follows Murphy's Law. If anything can go wrong, it will. I concur on your observation about the revised target, infact, I opined that it be more than what OZ had scored, to give them the benifit of the first 11 overs. In the end, the team which understands Duckworth-Lewis better, always wins. Or so it seems. Unless Mr. Murphy takes over from DL.

  • Madhan on February 7, 2012, 10:38 GMT

    while i'm not a big fan of DL either, the case here in the first ODI is somehow reasonalble. Australia were 35 for 2 at the end of 11 overs. But they had the advantage of 10 overs of powerplay. However the number of powerplay overs were reduced for India. Hence the target revised by just 1 run. Essentially AUS are penalized for not utilizing the powerplay effectively which got offset with the reward they should get from a reduced match.

  • Sriram on February 7, 2012, 10:11 GMT

    You will need to consider as to how India had used up their bowling resources as well assuming that it's a 50 overs match. So, it's the resources made use of the bowling team + the resources left with the bowling team. So, it's not about the batting angle alone.

  • Julian Fuller on February 7, 2012, 9:52 GMT

    Like you, I initially failed to fully understand the "rules", so, I bought a copy of Messrs Duckworth & Lewis's book, and tried to understand it better! If Australia had lost no wicket at the rain delay, one could summise that runs would indeed be added to the target, as for 11 overs, they batted with all resources, but planning on 50 overs. In the event, they lost 2 quick early wickets which negates the disadvantage to batting slowly for 11 overs, as, in fact they had little choice having lost those 2 wickets. It is about batting resources, at the moment of rain delays, hence one sees the target climb so fast for a chasing team when they lose wickets.

  • Nilesh on February 7, 2012, 9:35 GMT

    What you are saying is not correct

    have you considered that Aus ha got the first power play of 10 overs which India did not get.

    and they did not score enough runs in the same

    what you are saying is the target should be 10 to 15 runs more, yes you are right if India would have got 10 overs of first power play, but they do not get so the target was only 1 run more

  • Vipul on February 7, 2012, 9:19 GMT

    I think your perspective on the D/L system at least in this case appears to be very unilateral and biased. You seem to have missed the fact that India was in an extremely strong position at the time of the rain interruption. The bowling was clearly on top and the batsmen were struggling. The D/L system does not recognise this. Also, if it was a 50 over game then the likes of Wade and the Hussey brothers would have surely opted for a much more conservative approach as their first target would have been to bat out the 50 overs. In addition, at leat they could change the game plan, where as MS Dhoni was left with only 3 overs of medium pace and hasd to rejig his game plan totally. Considering the medium oacers had been so effective thus far it must have been a major blow. Although I am not a fan of any mathematical or statistical system to be used, I have to admit Dockworth and Lewid got it right this time and any inflation of the total would have been an unfair advantage to Australia

  • Johnny Rook on February 7, 2012, 9:08 GMT

    I think D/L method compensated the good batting performance of Australia after the break with bad performance before the break. Had Australia been 1 for 50 in 11 overs, India's target may have been 230 odd. I wonder if it could have been lesser than 216 had it been say 3 for 20. I doubt that can be the case but am not sure. If someone knows more about VJD method, it would be great to know what target does that calculate...

  • Sriram on February 7, 2012, 8:39 GMT

    Clearly no. The D/L method is supposed to be based on two 'resources' - no. of overs left and no. of wickets left, and the calculations (based on data) follow some sort of a parabolic trend.

    I suspect, even if the D/L method is abstruse, the results are intuitively acceptable for games where overs are reduced from the very beginning, or even when one innings are completed properly, and the other innings is shortened. The problem appears to be for 'stop-start' innings. However, we need to know more about the D/L method's entrails before commenting further. Perhaps, Jayadevan's VJD method (used in a few domestic games in India, I think) is worth using for comparison, to see which appears intuitively better in such 'stop-start' games.

  • vrneet on February 7, 2012, 8:35 GMT

    it seems to me Duckworth-Lewis is getting it wrong more often in last year or so than before. I think the game seems to be changing(T20)much too quickly for them to keep up. in T20's I find that the team batting second always wins.

  • jabirshah on February 7, 2012, 8:27 GMT

    agreed kindly explain us also about the calculation made for that match

  • Anand Kane on February 7, 2012, 8:06 GMT

    I am in agreement of your argument. I have always been puzzled with the way the DL system works. It was shocking to see no runs added to the Oz score for the 11 over play prior to the rain.

  • Hassan Baloch on February 7, 2012, 7:33 GMT

    So many things changed in cricket by ICC in last decade for its improvement, why not D/L method? Is it something perfect or irreplaceable? At the time when D/L method was firstly introduced, it was based on cricket according to then. Cricket has changed a lot. D'L is old enough now and is not according to today's cricket. And specifically the point raised by "Michael Jeh" in the article must be taken seriously by ICC.

  • saqib.salafi on February 7, 2012, 6:44 GMT

    I too was waiting for a revised target. I guess Australia being generous to WORLD CHAMPIONS. We can say charity!!! :p

  • Krishan Kumar on February 7, 2012, 6:34 GMT

    Dear Michael Jeh, I too really was surprised by the D/L method calculation as you are. I thought the target must be 235 runs but D/L proved me wrong. How they calculate it is really baffling and out of mind for me to understand. Is there somebody please, to clear the calculation of target score of 217 ?

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • Krishan Kumar on February 7, 2012, 6:34 GMT

    Dear Michael Jeh, I too really was surprised by the D/L method calculation as you are. I thought the target must be 235 runs but D/L proved me wrong. How they calculate it is really baffling and out of mind for me to understand. Is there somebody please, to clear the calculation of target score of 217 ?

  • saqib.salafi on February 7, 2012, 6:44 GMT

    I too was waiting for a revised target. I guess Australia being generous to WORLD CHAMPIONS. We can say charity!!! :p

  • Hassan Baloch on February 7, 2012, 7:33 GMT

    So many things changed in cricket by ICC in last decade for its improvement, why not D/L method? Is it something perfect or irreplaceable? At the time when D/L method was firstly introduced, it was based on cricket according to then. Cricket has changed a lot. D'L is old enough now and is not according to today's cricket. And specifically the point raised by "Michael Jeh" in the article must be taken seriously by ICC.

  • Anand Kane on February 7, 2012, 8:06 GMT

    I am in agreement of your argument. I have always been puzzled with the way the DL system works. It was shocking to see no runs added to the Oz score for the 11 over play prior to the rain.

  • jabirshah on February 7, 2012, 8:27 GMT

    agreed kindly explain us also about the calculation made for that match

  • vrneet on February 7, 2012, 8:35 GMT

    it seems to me Duckworth-Lewis is getting it wrong more often in last year or so than before. I think the game seems to be changing(T20)much too quickly for them to keep up. in T20's I find that the team batting second always wins.

  • Sriram on February 7, 2012, 8:39 GMT

    Clearly no. The D/L method is supposed to be based on two 'resources' - no. of overs left and no. of wickets left, and the calculations (based on data) follow some sort of a parabolic trend.

    I suspect, even if the D/L method is abstruse, the results are intuitively acceptable for games where overs are reduced from the very beginning, or even when one innings are completed properly, and the other innings is shortened. The problem appears to be for 'stop-start' innings. However, we need to know more about the D/L method's entrails before commenting further. Perhaps, Jayadevan's VJD method (used in a few domestic games in India, I think) is worth using for comparison, to see which appears intuitively better in such 'stop-start' games.

  • Johnny Rook on February 7, 2012, 9:08 GMT

    I think D/L method compensated the good batting performance of Australia after the break with bad performance before the break. Had Australia been 1 for 50 in 11 overs, India's target may have been 230 odd. I wonder if it could have been lesser than 216 had it been say 3 for 20. I doubt that can be the case but am not sure. If someone knows more about VJD method, it would be great to know what target does that calculate...

  • Vipul on February 7, 2012, 9:19 GMT

    I think your perspective on the D/L system at least in this case appears to be very unilateral and biased. You seem to have missed the fact that India was in an extremely strong position at the time of the rain interruption. The bowling was clearly on top and the batsmen were struggling. The D/L system does not recognise this. Also, if it was a 50 over game then the likes of Wade and the Hussey brothers would have surely opted for a much more conservative approach as their first target would have been to bat out the 50 overs. In addition, at leat they could change the game plan, where as MS Dhoni was left with only 3 overs of medium pace and hasd to rejig his game plan totally. Considering the medium oacers had been so effective thus far it must have been a major blow. Although I am not a fan of any mathematical or statistical system to be used, I have to admit Dockworth and Lewid got it right this time and any inflation of the total would have been an unfair advantage to Australia

  • Nilesh on February 7, 2012, 9:35 GMT

    What you are saying is not correct

    have you considered that Aus ha got the first power play of 10 overs which India did not get.

    and they did not score enough runs in the same

    what you are saying is the target should be 10 to 15 runs more, yes you are right if India would have got 10 overs of first power play, but they do not get so the target was only 1 run more