ICC news May 30, 2012

The Battle of the Rain Gods

76

The intricacies of the system used to recalculate run targets in rain-affected one-day matches are unfathomable to most people, but the ICC's cricket committee must grapple with the subject at Lord's over the next two days when it is presented with an alternative to the dreaded D/L method which has been adopted in international cricket in the past 15 years.

The Battle of the Rain Gods might not quite rival the best of Greek mythology - Hollywood is not yet thought to be interested - but it does not lack importance. A World Cup could one day depend on the outcome.

On one side are two reserved statisticians from Lytham St Annes, a peaceful seaside resort on the Lancashire coast, Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis, whose system has benefited from an ever-increasing amount of data and has gradually won acceptance in cricket circles as making the best of a bad job.

On the other side is a persistent engineer from the southern Indian state of Kerala, V Jayadevan, who has had the audacity to challenge the established order by claiming that the D/L method "comprises several silly mistakes."

In its place, he proposes the alternative that he has worked on tirelessly for the past 15 years - the VJD method. VJD, to British minds at least, sounds disturbingly like the return of Mad Cow Disease, but Jayadevan insists that cricketing sanity is one of the advantages of his system, which has already been trialled in Indian domestic cricket and was also adopted in the now-defunct Indian Cricket League.

The D/L system was eventually introduced in response to a farcical finish to England's World Cup semi-final against South Africa in Johannesburg in 1992 when South Africa resumed after rain to find their target had been reduced to 21 runs from one ball.

There is a sense that Jayadevan's rival system is too much for the ICC to cope with. It took cricket officials years to respond to his letters. One set of rain rules was quite enough. But gradually Jayadevan, a deputy director in the Kerala Engineering and Research Institute*, won support, notably from the former India captain Sunil Gavaskar.

And so, the ICC annual meeting in Hong Kong last June received his proposals and, doubtless with a grimace, passed them down to the cricket committee at Lord's for their consideration. Dave Richardson, the ICC's chief-executive-in-waiting, has indicated that they will be taken seriously. Clive Lloyd, the former West Indies captain, chairs the committee and played in an era when the response to rain was to turn to the newspaper crossword and put your feet up.

"I wish they get time to go through my views that bring out the anomalies in the D/L method," Jayadevan has told India's Mail Today. "If the members read it, half the job is done.

"The inherent fear of people for mathematics seems to have helped D/L method being questioned beyond a limit. The D/L system comprises several silly mistakes. But somehow it has managed to create an impression in the entire cricket community that it's highly scientific."

The challenge for the ICC, and indeed the cricket public, is to go beyond nationalistic rivalries, judge the stringency of two complex systems and calculate the benefits they can bring to the game. There are differences and a few can be outlined in laymen's terms.

The battle between Duckworth and Lewis on one hand and Jayadevan on the other has been characterised as a battle between mathematics and engineering. The mathematician pins faith in the purity of the mathematical algorithm; the engineer is prepared to more emphasis on the evidence of what works. In other words, Jayadevan will adopt what one specialist called "intelligent use of trial and error" if it produces a better outcome.

To add to the debate that is raging in statistical circles, the view is growing that Twenty20 behaves very differently from ODIs and requires its own separate tables.

"Like in cricket, the ultimate result of a stroke is more important than how it is played," Jayadevan said. "The most important point regarding the acceptability of a method is its reasonability to adjust targets in a truncated match, and here my system is far ahead. A majority of cricketers and officials are looking for a change and hence it makes sense to give an opportunity to VJD system at least for the next two years."

Both systems recalculate a rain-reduced target based on the number of overs faced and the number of wickets remaining - described as the "resources" still available. There are, however, key differences.

Firstly, the D/L method relies upon a pure mathematical curve that assumes a team's scoring rate accelerates throughout a team's innings. Jayadevan argues that this is no longer the case because of fielding restrictions in the early overs which cause a rush of early scoring before mid-innings consolidation. His tables are adjusted empirically to take this into account. He even claims to take Powerplays into account.

Secondly, and this is where it gets difficult, the D/L method relies upon a single curve which is used to make adjustments to the target. Jayadevan uses two curves: a normal curve to adjust runs already scored, and a target curve to adjust runs still to be scored. The normal curve takes note of both runs scored and wickets lost, but the target curve takes note of only runs remaining.

The greater complexity of Jayadevan's system is less of a problem than it once was. Both methods are computer-based. Calculations are no longer made on the back of an envelope. In theory at least, you can just key in the match details and await the printout.

*08:30 GMT, May 31, 2012 The story has been edited to correct the name of Jayadevan's institute

David Hopps is the UK editor of ESPNcricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on May 31, 2012, 22:55 GMT

    I know exactly how D/L works - whatawicket, perhaps you should take the time to learn?

  • on May 31, 2012, 8:05 GMT

    well, cricket has always been a game of uncertainties....and specially during natural interruptions, u really can't say anything exact about it. But still, we have seen how many disastrous results have the D/L method produced soo far. But really I don't think that any replacement would be beneficial either. Because even after imposing the new VJD system, you really can't say that its 100% exact. However, it was good to see more people thinking about such topics and are coming out with new ideas.

  • smudgeon on May 31, 2012, 6:38 GMT

    some really crazy suggestions going on here in the comments section! i don't have an alternative method, so i guess it'll either be the status quoe (ie. D/L) or the new kid on the block. either way, the debate will continue until well after limited overs cricket is long gone, and no camp will ever be truly satisfied. me? i just enjoy when they play highlights on the tell from old ODIs when it rains :)

  • jmcilhinney on May 31, 2012, 5:10 GMT

    I think that we're probably all in agreement that there simply is no perfect way to handle rain-affected matches. I agree with @CricketingStargazer's two points, i.e. there is no groundswell against D/L but the ICC have a responsibility to examine feasible alternatives. I see two issues though. 1. The ICC members themselves might have a hard time understanding the intricacies of either method. 2. All you've got to compare the results of the two methods with is intuition and that is rather subjective. It would be interesting to see the comparison though.

  • on May 31, 2012, 3:40 GMT

    I have this hope that ICC will use a simple modified version of what was used in the beginning: Make the target = the 1st innings run rate x the number of available of overs. With one important change; reduce the number of 2nd innings wickets by the % of overs lost. e.g. if you lose 20% of the overs the team batting second only has 8 wickets to lose (10 - 2).

  • Rocketman1 on May 31, 2012, 0:44 GMT

    A WC did rely on it. 2007 Australia vs Sri Lanka. You can have all the arguments you want, but until the last ball is bowled, you don't know what the outcome will be. Bevan SCG 95/96, Matthews MCG 2010. That WC Final could have gone down to the wire, which would have been great to watch. At the end of the day, a close game is a good game.

  • BurningBright on May 30, 2012, 20:01 GMT

    @Abhisheak Iyer :t hats a good idea..

  • CricketingStargazer on May 30, 2012, 20:00 GMT

    First thing: if someone thinks they have a better system than D/L the ICC has an obligation to look at it. Second thing: despite the wild claim made by its creator, there is no great clamour for an alternative to D/L; in England, where the climate means that D/L is used more than anywhere else, people accept that it is usually pretty fair - absurdities are very rare. There are very little to go on in this article to make a sensible assessment of the new method, but there is one comment that worries me a lot and that is the claim that only runs needed, not wickets, are important in a rain-affected chase. This is patently absurd: if a side needs 120 runs with only 1 wicket left, it obviously has a far harder task than a side that needs 120 runs with 10 wickets left. However, I get the impression from the article that the new method is aimed mainly at T20 and, in this case, rain affected chases are so abbreviated that things change totally, but good batsmen will still svore more than bad.

  • makmakmak on May 30, 2012, 18:23 GMT

    @sookha,

    The standard is definitely NOT needed for grounds, the simple reason being both the sides have equal opportunity to hit boundaries on the same ground!.

  • whatawicket on May 30, 2012, 18:04 GMT

    iv no idea how d/l works, who does, but try them both still using the d/l but run the other version running along side the indian version. i dont normally agree with randyoz but even the last remark makes sense. if india were to bring up a referal system that they think thats better go with that also.

  • on May 31, 2012, 22:55 GMT

    I know exactly how D/L works - whatawicket, perhaps you should take the time to learn?

  • on May 31, 2012, 8:05 GMT

    well, cricket has always been a game of uncertainties....and specially during natural interruptions, u really can't say anything exact about it. But still, we have seen how many disastrous results have the D/L method produced soo far. But really I don't think that any replacement would be beneficial either. Because even after imposing the new VJD system, you really can't say that its 100% exact. However, it was good to see more people thinking about such topics and are coming out with new ideas.

  • smudgeon on May 31, 2012, 6:38 GMT

    some really crazy suggestions going on here in the comments section! i don't have an alternative method, so i guess it'll either be the status quoe (ie. D/L) or the new kid on the block. either way, the debate will continue until well after limited overs cricket is long gone, and no camp will ever be truly satisfied. me? i just enjoy when they play highlights on the tell from old ODIs when it rains :)

  • jmcilhinney on May 31, 2012, 5:10 GMT

    I think that we're probably all in agreement that there simply is no perfect way to handle rain-affected matches. I agree with @CricketingStargazer's two points, i.e. there is no groundswell against D/L but the ICC have a responsibility to examine feasible alternatives. I see two issues though. 1. The ICC members themselves might have a hard time understanding the intricacies of either method. 2. All you've got to compare the results of the two methods with is intuition and that is rather subjective. It would be interesting to see the comparison though.

  • on May 31, 2012, 3:40 GMT

    I have this hope that ICC will use a simple modified version of what was used in the beginning: Make the target = the 1st innings run rate x the number of available of overs. With one important change; reduce the number of 2nd innings wickets by the % of overs lost. e.g. if you lose 20% of the overs the team batting second only has 8 wickets to lose (10 - 2).

  • Rocketman1 on May 31, 2012, 0:44 GMT

    A WC did rely on it. 2007 Australia vs Sri Lanka. You can have all the arguments you want, but until the last ball is bowled, you don't know what the outcome will be. Bevan SCG 95/96, Matthews MCG 2010. That WC Final could have gone down to the wire, which would have been great to watch. At the end of the day, a close game is a good game.

  • BurningBright on May 30, 2012, 20:01 GMT

    @Abhisheak Iyer :t hats a good idea..

  • CricketingStargazer on May 30, 2012, 20:00 GMT

    First thing: if someone thinks they have a better system than D/L the ICC has an obligation to look at it. Second thing: despite the wild claim made by its creator, there is no great clamour for an alternative to D/L; in England, where the climate means that D/L is used more than anywhere else, people accept that it is usually pretty fair - absurdities are very rare. There are very little to go on in this article to make a sensible assessment of the new method, but there is one comment that worries me a lot and that is the claim that only runs needed, not wickets, are important in a rain-affected chase. This is patently absurd: if a side needs 120 runs with only 1 wicket left, it obviously has a far harder task than a side that needs 120 runs with 10 wickets left. However, I get the impression from the article that the new method is aimed mainly at T20 and, in this case, rain affected chases are so abbreviated that things change totally, but good batsmen will still svore more than bad.

  • makmakmak on May 30, 2012, 18:23 GMT

    @sookha,

    The standard is definitely NOT needed for grounds, the simple reason being both the sides have equal opportunity to hit boundaries on the same ground!.

  • whatawicket on May 30, 2012, 18:04 GMT

    iv no idea how d/l works, who does, but try them both still using the d/l but run the other version running along side the indian version. i dont normally agree with randyoz but even the last remark makes sense. if india were to bring up a referal system that they think thats better go with that also.

  • on May 30, 2012, 18:03 GMT

    Sorry for the Capitalization: ICC SHOULD CONSIDER LOOKING AT ALL TRUNCATED MATCHES SO FAR AND SEE HOW VJD WOULD HAVE EVALUATED IT! THIS WILL SCIENTIFICALLY PIT DL AGAINST VJD.

  • wrenx on May 30, 2012, 16:56 GMT

    @JuniorD Follow the link in the article to the "VJD Method" - the article does just that.

  • TRAM on May 30, 2012, 16:55 GMT

    What??? D/L method doesn't use powerplay, field restrictions, etc ??? And the rules for ODI & T20 are same??? So we have been using a dumb system all these years? hmmm. The fact that they (ICC) keep the D/L programs secret says something ... Why cant both D/L & JDV program be kept open source so it will get the feedback from zillions of experts world over?? Why this secrecy??

  • andysarmy on May 30, 2012, 16:40 GMT

    Hi, Dean Jarratt. Bartering is a good idea for a more innocent age: too much money being bet for it to work now.

  • bobmartin on May 30, 2012, 16:28 GMT

    The plain fact is that opinion on the D/L system will be divided between the winners and the losers. Any team winning from a percieved advantage will be pro. and of course vice versa. I have yet to meet anyone who can say with any degree of certainty that the D/L system produces a fair result 100% of the time. Of course, without the specialist knowledge that the inventors of these schemes have, any opinion is just that.. a matter of opinion. Therefore the best system will be the one that invokes the perception of fairness of the result in the majority of the people in the majority of cases

  • exp_patronum on May 30, 2012, 16:25 GMT

    really? the 1992 WC semis in Johannesnurg?

  • BetterReading on May 30, 2012, 16:17 GMT

    1992 World Cup was played in Australia & NZ, thus the semi-final wouldn't have held in Johannesburg. It was held in Sydney.

  • on May 30, 2012, 16:17 GMT

    D/L is fatally flawed when the second innings is shortened. It puts too much value on wickets in hand when we all know that in a 8,10,12 over thrash, wickets are irrelevant.

  • sookha on May 30, 2012, 16:03 GMT

    cricket has so many rules and regulations yet it has no standard size grounds why? every other sports grounds are standard size.

  • andylaksh1 on May 30, 2012, 15:56 GMT

    I am curious to find out what VJD would come up with for that infamous 1 ball - 22 runs situation....

  • on May 30, 2012, 15:48 GMT

    Anyone know where to get the method itself? See how he arrives at his curves?

  • on May 30, 2012, 15:40 GMT

    Whatever methods are used in rain-reduced matches, we all need to remember - Cricket is a funny game. You cannot work it out with science OR even maths. Scientifically OR mathematically, when India lost 5 wickets at Lords' the match was England's to win, needing almost 200 with the cream of the batting gone, only 2 newcomers in Yuvaraj & Kaif on the crease. Nobody had taught that science OR maths to these 2 guys. D/L OR even VJD would have handed the match to England in the 40th, even 45th over. But fact is England Lost. There will be a few 100 more cases like this one. If results are important in Limited over games, it should start fresh at the end of the interruption as a new contest between both the sides.

  • on May 30, 2012, 15:37 GMT

    David..very well written and it does present a compelling case for the VJD method to be tried and tested. Interestingly, was wondering about the rain truncated match you are referring to between England and South Africa (1992 WC) was not in JoBurg (SA) but at the Sydney Cricket Ground (SCG) in Australia. Cheers!!

  • on May 30, 2012, 15:25 GMT

    Neither DL or VJD is required. I propose to let the captains 'barter' a target. In the case of England v West Indies where England scored 191 in 20 overs, West Indies were very happy with a target of 60 from 6 leaving England unhappy. If Collingwood had bartered for a target of 80 from 6 overs, no doubt both captains would have settled somewhere 'in-between' with 70 from 6 overs being a reasonable target for both teams. The captains 'know' the wicket and will set a better target. If they can't agree on a target, then the umpires can decide a target (after listening to both captains' arguments)...this too will be more accurate than DL/VJD as the conditions are taken into account by the umpires.

  • on May 30, 2012, 15:14 GMT

    How about a roof like in Melbourne? This could be used for T20s and ODIs. Let test matches still be exposed to the weather. That would ensure that my nemesis - math and her friend - engineering is not required ;)

  • Lanky1 on May 30, 2012, 15:09 GMT

    D/L has been very accurate for 50 over games. However it has been way out for 20/20. There was a very interesting article on Cricinfo over two years ago about how D/L was being adapted wrongly for 20/20 and how it could be used in a more accurate way but maybe we could have a trial keeping D/L for 50 over games and using VJD for 20/20 for couplke of years and then review things.

  • JuniorD on May 30, 2012, 15:05 GMT

    I am a bit disappointed here. I was looking for the writer, at the end of the article, to compare both systems by looking at a couple of games that was decided by the Duckworth-Lewis method. He did not. Pity.

  • dsig3 on May 30, 2012, 14:56 GMT

    Well as a fellow Engineer, I hope he makes it transparent, logical and easy to follow. The main problem I have with the DL is that not even the commentators have any idea what is likely to happen with an adjusted target. It gave bizarre results in the summer in Australia that no-one predicted. That cant happen, has to be simple and straight forward.

  • harsha_11 on May 30, 2012, 14:44 GMT

    Irrespective of whether the new system will be agreed upon or not, this is definitely great work by Jayadevan. Congratulations Jayadevan. I wish ICC will perform a complete analysis of his method.

  • timkellypmb on May 30, 2012, 14:42 GMT

    The game where South Africa needed 22 off the final ball was played at the SCG, not Wanderers!

  • tashichem on May 30, 2012, 14:42 GMT

    the D/L method never sound sensible to me, as cricket is a game of facts and figures. so target should be adjusted simple by the remaining overs means the required rate at the time rain came and this is too simple for the viewers to calculate. However ever now with different system of powerplays it may be adjsuted on that ground too

  • on May 30, 2012, 14:36 GMT

    People dont even know about the rule yet, and they have started taking sides. Awesome ! Let the dinner come to the table and then you can make your choices !

  • azzaman333 on May 30, 2012, 14:26 GMT

    If it were to be changed, there should be some statistical analysis conducted to determine which method is actually better at predicting the match scores. Taking into account extra information is all well and good, but it doesn't necessarily improve the accuracy of the models.

  • Mocherra on May 30, 2012, 14:26 GMT

    The Rain God formulas seems to assume that it starts raining out of the blue and teams are not planning their scoring keeping in mind that rain is in the forecast. With the amount of sophistication in weather models, it is easy to know if and when it is going to rain on a given day. So, the ideal scenario is move the match and not force a match to be played even when you know that the forecast calls for rain at somepoint during the match.

  • NAZMO-CRICKFANN on May 30, 2012, 14:11 GMT

    yes the current d/l system is very , xtremely questionable..at times i wonder who.....did this yes let us try the VJD system...do not let politics race nor nationality get in the way of fairness and common sense

  • on May 30, 2012, 14:07 GMT

    @ Smithie A timely reminder....

  • on May 30, 2012, 13:38 GMT

    VJD is Holy cow not mad cow... I have always wondered why bowling powerplay restricts the fielding side. If batting powerplay and fielding restrictions are good for batting side, the fielding powerplay should be designed to help the fielding side. Fair chance to both... Think about it.. ICC

  • ahweak on May 30, 2012, 13:38 GMT

    It is high time we had a more well thought out system for rain affected matches. Curiously certain decisions take a long time for silly reasons.

  • Nerk on May 30, 2012, 13:37 GMT

    Quite funny debate actually. Some people criticise the D/L method for being advantageous to the team batting first. Other criticise it for making it easier for the team batting second. The fact is, and given the short description of both systems here, I challenge anyone to make sense of either. The problem, as far as I can see, is that the D/L method does not take into account variables, a game of cricket is considered in abstract as it were. The VJD method tries to take into account these variables, but logically you would have to take into account all variables, surely. For example, you would have to work out the trends of particular grounds, the averages of batsmen and bowlers, their recent form etc etc. Really, what I'm trying to say is that pick either system, most cricket fans won't know the difference.

  • muski on May 30, 2012, 13:28 GMT

    There is no place for D/L or any other method in a 20-20 format. We have seen the unthinkable happen in the recent IPL- 50 runs being plundered in the last 3 overs- 26 runs scored in the last over etc. For all major tournaments like the WC a reserve day should be kept for matches. If the reserve day too is washed out, bad luck to the teams and they should share the points equally.

  • on May 30, 2012, 13:22 GMT

    The D/L system has always been advantageous to teams batting second. It's obviously easier to score 10 R.P.O for 5 or 6 overs than 8 R.P.O for 30 or 40 overs, especially if the pitch has something in it for the bowlers. If this man's system indeed is a refinement of the existing laws, then I see no reason as to why the D/L system should not be replaced.

  • py0alb on May 30, 2012, 13:16 GMT

    Both methods are unnecessarily complicated and inaccurate. A fairer method would be:

    If the 1st innings in incomplete, extrapolate a predicted score, based upon the resources remaining. This is normally quite easy to do.

    Now find the predicted score's percentile location in the Gaussian distribution that contains all completed List A innings. Finally find the equivalent percentile score for a completed innings for however many overs the 2nd team is to be set (should be plenty of 20 over and 40 over data available for such a calculation). That is the new target.

    Easy, accurate, logical and fair. You heard it hear first.

  • Alexk400 on May 30, 2012, 13:15 GMT

    I sday lets hear it. Nothing wrong with hearing what makes it better.

  • on May 30, 2012, 13:11 GMT

    Cricket has changed in last 15 years completely and so must the intricacies. I hope better sense prevails and a more modern method of calculating targets in a truncated match is adopted for modern games.

  • hattima on May 30, 2012, 13:11 GMT

    I already like the VJD system, as it has always baffled me whether it is not possible to take it into account the fact that the team batting second knows their target and hence should really be put on an adjusted curve. I am not sure how accurate the new system is but its premises do sound logical (which I admit grudgingly, being a fan of the DL system myself.)

  • Smithie on May 30, 2012, 13:08 GMT

    David, ask the question of where the ICC Cricket Committee is with the Cambridge Uni based reliability tests on predictive DRS. This should be sorted before the next England and Australia tours of India. Time to put Srinivasan/Tendulkar scepticism to the test of logic. Only by journalistic publicity can International Cricket get on a level playing field. All recent statistics involving India are not on a like for like basis when DRS is not in use. The current WI/Eng series shows the value of full DRS.

  • ed1984 on May 30, 2012, 13:07 GMT

    Obtuse treatment of an interesting topic. Why do you waste half of your article getting to the point?

  • Harvey on May 30, 2012, 13:07 GMT

    D/L works fine in 40 or 50 over cricket, but there's certainly scope for a different system for T20.

  • bvnathan on May 30, 2012, 13:05 GMT

    Being an engineer myself, I found the 'VJD Method' proposal interesting, but the challenge is HOW TO PROVE WHICH SYSTEM IS MORE EFFECTIVE. We have known that the original D/L model was re-configured (don't know the details of the changed made), after the original version was ridiculed how the revised target was dervied. The acceptance of the current D/L method has happened only after the changes were introduced. The approach to the revised target using a single curve vis-a-vis the proposed two new curves is worth evaluation, as long as the complexity involved is NOT THAT MUCH. Given that fact, I would welcome the new 'VJD Method' is given trial for acceptance: (1) Take some of the crucial matches impacted by rain and determined by the revised D/L method - and evalaute the revised target by VJD method (2) Roll out the VJD method in the on-going 'County' season as a trial in parallel (3) Roll out the VJD method to be tried out in AUS, SA, IND, ENG, SL, PAK domestic seasons

  • on May 30, 2012, 13:04 GMT

    I don't see the methods as rivalling each other. D/L method withstood its time. But as new evidence and experience comes in, one should analyse and question the old ways and refine the technology even as the game is changing constantly. That is possible only if international cricket tries out the VJD method. Possibly, that shall help the game of cricket if one can achieve 'truer outcomes' - irrespective of who devises a method and what methods are being used in rain affected matches - and try and avoid predicaments like scoring 22 runs of a single delivery!

  • on May 30, 2012, 13:01 GMT

    Sounds excellent to me. Cricket is evolving and so obviously the "trend" for scoring runs throughout an innings will have evolved considerably in the last 15 years. I like the sound of the new method, it sounds more comprehensive and representative. Also, it would be a good idea to review the method used periodically, to reflect changes in cricketing trends and rules.

    I also completely agree that ODIs and T20s need different tables. If you look at the line graphs for x=overs elapsed y= runs scored for the two, they behave quite differently. I doubt, however, that the outcomes of the two methods would differ by more than 10 runs or so, if that. It would be great to have some examples of which situations would cause the largest discrepencies between the two.

  • RandyOZ on May 30, 2012, 13:01 GMT

    Worth a look I suppose. No doubt the BCCI will support it.

  • KDoc on May 30, 2012, 12:56 GMT

    Throw all of this out the window; go back to the days of old. If it rains, abandon the match or split the points equally. The variables can be manipulated to sway the result.

  • on May 30, 2012, 12:43 GMT

    Why cant ICC have accurate rain predictions like they have in Formula 1 racing where they know the accurate time in second of rain arrivals! This will save them a lot of matches and time in advance!! Remember that once u have clear forecasts it wud definetely help the matches to be better planned, also save publics money and agony in the stadium !!

  • Nuxxy on May 30, 2012, 12:41 GMT

    Duckworth-Lewis has failed to react to changes in the game as quickly as it should. There is already a noticeable difference in games with two new balls, that effects the scoring rates at both ends of the innings (new ball for longer, less reverse swing). I just wish there was a better way that didn't always rely of historical data but also the match context.

  • Thomas_Ratnam on May 30, 2012, 12:40 GMT

    The Jayadevan method has been around for some time and ICC should give it a shot. To be fair to Messrs Duckworth and Lewis, whose method ran the calcualtions for curtailed matches for a decade and a half, they should be invited to participate in the discussions together with Jayadevan. Otherwise it wouldn't be cricket!

  • o-bomb on May 30, 2012, 12:32 GMT

    It seems arrogant to say that Duckworth Lewis has made "silly mistakes". I hope Jayadevan's system can back this up. D/L doesn't seem to be quite right for T20s so maybe some further tweaking is necessary on their part. I wouldn't mind seeing this new system in operation to see whether or not it measures up. To have it in place somewhere is the only way we'll know if it's worthwhile.

  • 777aditya on May 30, 2012, 12:28 GMT

    cricket should not be played in monsoon - period!

  • neerajprasher on May 30, 2012, 12:28 GMT

    Nobody know how D/L method works.Even ICC.

  • Tajbal on May 30, 2012, 12:27 GMT

    The ODI referred to between England and South Africa was played in Sydney and not Johannesburg (ODI no. 751 22 March 1992). Jo'burg was dry at the time.

  • on May 30, 2012, 12:27 GMT

    Small detail but the Engalnd V Sth Afr world cup semi final was in Sydney not in Jo'burg

  • landl47 on May 30, 2012, 12:25 GMT

    Everyone accepts that wickets in hand are crucial in a run chase. The D/L system takes no account of this- the side batting second retains all its wickets and therefore almost always has an advantage under D/L. Since nothing in this article suggests that the VJD system takes account of wickets in hand either, it's equally flawed. Unless a system removes wickets from the team batting second (say, in a 50-over game, one wicket for every 5 overs lost), the adjustment to runs to be scored such as that offered by VJD means very little.

  • on May 30, 2012, 12:25 GMT

    why not give it a try?????it has been long persistence with the D/L method,& has not proved to be anything great,bizzaire most often than not....the VJD method deserves a go as it will be hard for it to be more bizzaire than D/L method.... comon ICC....itz not about an Indian or an Englishman...itz about the good of cricket!!!

  • on May 30, 2012, 12:23 GMT

    Hopefully this system gets the clearance.....

  • Madhavan.Varun on May 30, 2012, 12:17 GMT

    I don't know if this VJD method works or not, but I sure as hell know the D/L system is flawed...

  • on May 30, 2012, 12:10 GMT

    Infact VJD method is far far better than D/L method. Earlier days there was a 15 over mandatory powerplay, but now it has been split into 10 overs ( 2 fielders outside circle), 5 overs each(3 players outside circle) within 40th over. This makes the batting team to get 5 additional overs of field restrictions where they get the chance of scoring faster. D/L method is just a mathametical equation which doesnot consider any field restrictions and assumes all the overs will have uniform scoring which is not true in reality....

  • on May 30, 2012, 12:07 GMT

    In matters of practical importance, I'd believe the engineering approach over a purely mathematical one. Oftentimes, we see that engineers incorporate "process knowledge" into the solution strategy for a problem. If the VJD method truly allows for scoring pattern changes and PPs etc., it should get a favorable view from the officials. The IPL can perhaps be a good testing ground for the method as well. Ultimately, the true test of any method is its ability to evolve as the sport evolves. Perhaps the VJD has a better chance of doing this under current circumstances?

  • ArunKB on May 30, 2012, 11:52 GMT

    I would recommend the common sense method (CSM). Complete the game once rain stops, e.g. why reduce the game from 50 to 35 overs when conditions are good enough for 50 overs.

  • on May 30, 2012, 11:44 GMT

    I think DL works fine. I can't really remember an occasion when the DL target "felt" badly wrong.

  • satish619chandar on May 30, 2012, 11:42 GMT

    It is a long time pending decision.. D/L is really not the best one available.. Could do well without it..

  • on May 30, 2012, 11:38 GMT

    Hopefully we might see the back of the side batting second having to score 15 more runs than the side batting first.

  • smudgeon on May 30, 2012, 11:34 GMT

    pretty sure that world cup semi was in Australia, not Jo'burg...

  • guptahitesh4u on May 30, 2012, 11:34 GMT

    Everything is complex..Bring out something simple

  • Humdingers on May 30, 2012, 11:34 GMT

    Get rid of that ridiculous D/L system! No one understands it anyway! Give this bloke a go.

  • Chappo_75 on May 30, 2012, 11:32 GMT

    "The D/L system was eventually introduced in response to a farcical finish to England's World Cup semi-final against South Africa in Johannesburg in 1992 when South Africa resumed after rain to find their target had been reduced to 22 runs from one ball." - My Friend I think you will find that this match as played in Sydney!! as the 1992 WC was in OZ ;)

  • my11hehe on May 30, 2012, 11:27 GMT

    i m always against D/L. Team batting first always has a better chance of winning. Hope VJD is implemented...

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • my11hehe on May 30, 2012, 11:27 GMT

    i m always against D/L. Team batting first always has a better chance of winning. Hope VJD is implemented...

  • Chappo_75 on May 30, 2012, 11:32 GMT

    "The D/L system was eventually introduced in response to a farcical finish to England's World Cup semi-final against South Africa in Johannesburg in 1992 when South Africa resumed after rain to find their target had been reduced to 22 runs from one ball." - My Friend I think you will find that this match as played in Sydney!! as the 1992 WC was in OZ ;)

  • Humdingers on May 30, 2012, 11:34 GMT

    Get rid of that ridiculous D/L system! No one understands it anyway! Give this bloke a go.

  • guptahitesh4u on May 30, 2012, 11:34 GMT

    Everything is complex..Bring out something simple

  • smudgeon on May 30, 2012, 11:34 GMT

    pretty sure that world cup semi was in Australia, not Jo'burg...

  • on May 30, 2012, 11:38 GMT

    Hopefully we might see the back of the side batting second having to score 15 more runs than the side batting first.

  • satish619chandar on May 30, 2012, 11:42 GMT

    It is a long time pending decision.. D/L is really not the best one available.. Could do well without it..

  • on May 30, 2012, 11:44 GMT

    I think DL works fine. I can't really remember an occasion when the DL target "felt" badly wrong.

  • ArunKB on May 30, 2012, 11:52 GMT

    I would recommend the common sense method (CSM). Complete the game once rain stops, e.g. why reduce the game from 50 to 35 overs when conditions are good enough for 50 overs.

  • on May 30, 2012, 12:07 GMT

    In matters of practical importance, I'd believe the engineering approach over a purely mathematical one. Oftentimes, we see that engineers incorporate "process knowledge" into the solution strategy for a problem. If the VJD method truly allows for scoring pattern changes and PPs etc., it should get a favorable view from the officials. The IPL can perhaps be a good testing ground for the method as well. Ultimately, the true test of any method is its ability to evolve as the sport evolves. Perhaps the VJD has a better chance of doing this under current circumstances?