June 8, 2012

The rain equations

A look at how the Duckworth-Lewis and VJD methods work in different situations
39

Over the last week, the rain rule used in international cricket has come in for plenty of scrutiny after the Duckworth-Lewis method was recommended by ICC's Cricket Committee as the one that should be used for all international games. The move prompted intense protest from V Jayadevan, an engineer from India, who has devised an alternative method, which was also evaluated by the committee. Jayadevan has claimed he didn't get a fair hearing, while the ICC has refused to get into specifics, only stating: "The committee unanimously agreed that there was no evidence of any significant flaws in the D/L method nor did the committee believe that any improvements could be offered by the VJD method."

Is one of the methods superior to the other? That's difficult to answer without knowing all the facts, but it's also true that there are differences between the two that come to the fore, especially in extreme cases. A study of a few scenarios also brings out a mathematical anomaly with the Duckworth-Lewis method. (Some of these examples have been provided by Jayadevan, but the results have been independently verified.)

Scenario 1: The team batting first in an ODI scores 50 (or 100) in 20 overs when its innings is cut short, and the second team gets 20 overs to chase down the target. Let's examine the target scores by both methods in cases when the team batting first has lost 0, 1 and 2 wickets (see table below).

The aspect that stands out is that by the D/L method the targets, and the projected scores, vary widely. The target for the team batting second is 140 when the team batting first is 50 without loss, and 95 when the team batting first is 50 for 2, a difference of 45 runs. By the VJD method, the difference is only ten, to reflect the fact that losing two wickets after 20 overs doesn't significantly impact a team's ability to score, given that they still have eight wickets in hand for 30 overs.

The other aspect about these targets is the projected score, which is the estimated total that a team would have reached in 50 overs from a given situation. From a score of 50 without loss, D/L estimates that the first team would have ended up scoring 231, which means they'd have scored 181 more in the remaining 30 overs. That score, however, dips to 156 when the 20-over score is 50 for 2, which means they're expected to add only 106 more in the last 30 overs, with eight wickets in hand. Is that a harsh call on the batting abilities of those coming in at No. 4 and lower, or is it fair?

With the rival VJD method, the projected scores are much closer, again suggesting the belief that the loss of two wickets after 20 overs won't significantly alter the scoring ability of a team: with all ten wickets in hand, a score of 50 in 20 overs translates into 191 in 50; with two wickets down, the score drops by only 19 runs, as opposed to 75 in the D/L method.

D/L v VJD - comparison 1
Scenario D/L target Projected score VJD target Projected score
50/0 in 20 overs, target in 20 140 231 113 191
50/1 in 20 overs, target in 20 115 188 108 181
50/2 in 20 overs, target in 20 95 156 103 172
100/0 in 20 overs, target in 20 179 344 170 325
100/1 in 20 overs, target in 20 172 320 164 310
100/2 in 20 overs, target in 20 163 288 158 296

Also, the difference in D/L targets between scores of 100 for no loss and 50 for no loss in 20 overs is just 39 (179 minus 140). However, for the same scores but with two wickets down, the difference increases to 68. In the VJD method, this difference stays constant (57, 56 and 55), which intuitively makes more sense.

Scenario 2: Five-over par scores in high-scoring Twenty20 matches

The ICC has ruled that five overs per innings is enough to constitute a complete Twenty20 game, which means any system should be able to work out reasonable results even for such a short game. (It's another matter that the ICC probably needs to rethink this policy - five overs is far too short a period for a complete innings in a cricket match.)

Here's a look at the five-over par-score tables under D/L and VJD for high-scoring Twenty20 matches. The totals here range from 200 to 280, and a look at the five-over par scores shows major differences between the two systems. With D/L, the maths seems to be wrong - the par scores at six and seven wickets down are lower for a target of 281 than for a target of 201. A team chasing 201 has a par score of 95 when they are six down, but the par score actually reduces by one run when the target goes up by 60. From the table below, it's clear that 116 for 7 in six overs is a winning total when the target is 261, but is three runs short of the par score when the target is 201. For scores of over 200, the D/L par scores are sluggish and actually reduce as the targets get higher.

With VJD, on the other hand, the par scores move up with the targets, which is as it should be, but those pars are also much higher than the D/L ones. For a target of 200, for example, the par score at six down is 126 in five overs, which means the last four wickets need to score 75 in 15 overs with four wickets in hand. Is that too low an asking rate, given that the rate at the beginning of the innings was ten an over, or is it justified given that six top-order wickets have already fallen?

D/L and VJD par scores at 5 overs for high-scoring T20 matches
Team 1 total D/L par-6 down 7 down VJD par-6 down 7 down
200 95 119 126 145
220 97 121 139 160
240 96 119 151 174
250 95 118 158 182
260 94 115 164 189
280 92 111 177 203

Let's look at a couple more situations where the par scores don't quite conform to cricketing logic. In a chase of 200, a score of 104 for 1 after 11 overs is below par - ie, the team batting second would have lost with that total - but a score of 105 for 4 after ten, or 104 for 5 after nine, is a winning total according to D/L. You'd expect the loss of four or five wickets to have a more adverse impact on par scores, but it doesn't.

The par scores in the VJD method, meanwhile, reacts sluggishly to the fall of the first couple of wickets, but springs into action thereafter. So, the par scores after ten overs in this method are 91 for 0, 92 for 1, 92 for 2, and 93 for 3, but jumps to 107 for 4 and 122 for 5 - the VJD logic is that, with only ten overs to go, it doesn't matter much if a team has ten wickets in hand or eight. Comparing with the situations given above in the D/L method, the 11-over par is 101 for 1, the ten-over par is 107 for 4, and the nine-over par is 119 for 5.

Thus, while 104 for 5 after nine is a winning total under D/L, a team would have to score 120 for 5 under the VJD method at the same stage to win.

Scenario 3: Internal consistency in Twenty20 targets

Here's another look at internal consistency of the two methods, but in Twenty20 matches. Like in the first case, this looks at the targets set by each method when teams have made two sets of scores (35 and 50), losing 0, 1 and 2 wickets. In the VJD method, there's little difference in the targets regardless of the wickets lost; in D/L, the targets don't change much when the score is 50 - 50 for no loss gives a target of 63 and 50 for 2 throws up 60 - but the wickets influence the target much more when the score is 35 - the difference there is ten runs. What's interesting is that there's a difference of only six runs in the D/L target between scores of 35 without loss and 50 without loss; the target difference between 35 for 2 and 50 for 2 goes up to 13. In the VJD method, the difference remains constant at 12.

Comparisons in T20 matches for six-over scores by team batting first
Scenario D/L target in 6 VJD target in 6
35/0 57 53
35/1 52 52
35/2 47 51
50/0 63 65
50/1 62 64
50/2 60 63

These examples don't provide an exhaustive list of differences between the methods, but they offer a glimpse into some of the salient ones. The ICC has so far refused to get into specific advantages and disadvantages of the two - and Duckworth-Lewis haven't said much either - which has allowed the debate to degenerate along regional lines in the media. Are there areas where the D/L method outperformed VJD? Are there examples to illustrate D/L superiority? Are there mathematical flaws in the VJD method leading to erroneous outputs in certain situations, which made the cricket committee choose the D/L method? The ICC could start by offering answers to some of these questions.

S Rajesh is stats editor of ESPNcricinfo. Follow him on Twitter

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • on June 9, 2012, 14:35 GMT

    Since these days all the matches are administered by neutral officials, my suggestion is that all five (two on field umpires, third umpire, reserve umpire and the match referee) should form a jury and vote or allot marks to both the teams in such conditions and best of five should win. Alternatively, highest & lowest from the marks given by the officials be dropped and the team getting maximum from the rest three should win. Result should be a tie, in case both get equal marks. believe this is a widely used practice in games judged by a jury. ICC can provide a guide line to officials for awarding marks in such conditions.

  • keecha on June 9, 2012, 6:50 GMT

    Am not sure if either methods consider the economy rates of the bowlers, strike rate of the not out batsman when arriving at the numbers. These are important figures. If it looks a bit overcast, the captain bowling first might employ his best bowler fully before rain intervenes and he might complete 10 overs for just 30 runs by the 35th over and lets say rain arrives then and reduces it to a 37 overs per side match. The rule should consider the worst economy rate of the bowlers that have bowled in first innings for the number of overs the best bowler bowled extra than the max number of overs allocated to the team bowling second. Also if the chasing team loses a wicket at 50 runs in the 6th over and the batsman that got out had contributed only 10 % of the score with a strike rate of 30, then there should not be a significant rise in the target for the loss of 1 wicket beca the one who has done all the handwork is still out there and could pull it off. These things should be factored in

  • keecha on June 9, 2012, 6:38 GMT

    Everybody unanimously agree that D/L method is the ultimate scale? Think again. Why go mathematically? don't we see that the D/L method is now biased to the team that chases in a rain affected match? as a player, as a captain, as a cricket follower, everyone knows that if it is a rain affected match, the side batting second has an edge. so why not change? and is the DL method factoring in the changing powerplay rules??

  • 07sanjeewakaru on June 9, 2012, 5:28 GMT

    It's ridiculous to see D/L targets when 200 to 280 reduce when 6 down 95 to 92.So, It's massive fail.How about is this happen in T20 WC final or semi like 92 WC semi?I don't think there are many differences in two methods.Think Engineer who built VJD improved the DL.This should be considered and evaluated.It should be stop happening things like SCG in1992.

  • Rao_Guru on June 9, 2012, 4:07 GMT

    Several people have suggested replaying the match on a reserve day as the fairer alternative to adjusted scores on a rain-shortened day. In principle, I agree with this. However, I think that instead of replaying the match from scratch on the reserve day, it is better to continue the match from where it is suspended on the first day. This way, there is a better chance of finishing the game. After all, if it rains on one day, it is also possible to get a similar amount of rain the next day as well. Better use of the reserve day in my opinion.

  • Ennarkay on June 9, 2012, 3:15 GMT

    Rajesh, Can you tell us what the VJD method says about THE famous SA Vs Eng match from 1992 world cup? If it comes out with similar target as D/L, no point discussing it. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65155.html

  • on June 9, 2012, 0:15 GMT

    always hated D/L; why not resume the match next day; loved that option in 99 world cup

  • on June 8, 2012, 23:58 GMT

    Rajesh, look at the more likely ODI scenario of 100 runs in 20 overs. VJD and D/L targets are less than 5% of each other. What's the fuss? As we say here in the states: "Don't fix it if it ain't broke."

  • Steggz on June 8, 2012, 23:39 GMT

    Big issue for both systems re: T20 targets is that they still need more games for the equations to work.

  • on June 8, 2012, 22:16 GMT

    @declaration - well said. It's better to accept 'no result' or have a reserve day and replay the match wherever possible. Both these methods are based on statistics/historical performances (that are supposed to work well for most scenarios) and one can always find or create examples to prove or counter-prove a point. Picking only extreme examples to discredit DL method also seems a little unfair. Maybe the DL method needs some tweaking in this new age of high scoring T20s. But I still think at the end of this all, we shouldn't even be trying to predict/extrapolate scores. It's a futile exercise. The beauty of the game is you never know when And planning to use such methods in World cup matches is just outrageousl.

  • on June 9, 2012, 14:35 GMT

    Since these days all the matches are administered by neutral officials, my suggestion is that all five (two on field umpires, third umpire, reserve umpire and the match referee) should form a jury and vote or allot marks to both the teams in such conditions and best of five should win. Alternatively, highest & lowest from the marks given by the officials be dropped and the team getting maximum from the rest three should win. Result should be a tie, in case both get equal marks. believe this is a widely used practice in games judged by a jury. ICC can provide a guide line to officials for awarding marks in such conditions.

  • keecha on June 9, 2012, 6:50 GMT

    Am not sure if either methods consider the economy rates of the bowlers, strike rate of the not out batsman when arriving at the numbers. These are important figures. If it looks a bit overcast, the captain bowling first might employ his best bowler fully before rain intervenes and he might complete 10 overs for just 30 runs by the 35th over and lets say rain arrives then and reduces it to a 37 overs per side match. The rule should consider the worst economy rate of the bowlers that have bowled in first innings for the number of overs the best bowler bowled extra than the max number of overs allocated to the team bowling second. Also if the chasing team loses a wicket at 50 runs in the 6th over and the batsman that got out had contributed only 10 % of the score with a strike rate of 30, then there should not be a significant rise in the target for the loss of 1 wicket beca the one who has done all the handwork is still out there and could pull it off. These things should be factored in

  • keecha on June 9, 2012, 6:38 GMT

    Everybody unanimously agree that D/L method is the ultimate scale? Think again. Why go mathematically? don't we see that the D/L method is now biased to the team that chases in a rain affected match? as a player, as a captain, as a cricket follower, everyone knows that if it is a rain affected match, the side batting second has an edge. so why not change? and is the DL method factoring in the changing powerplay rules??

  • 07sanjeewakaru on June 9, 2012, 5:28 GMT

    It's ridiculous to see D/L targets when 200 to 280 reduce when 6 down 95 to 92.So, It's massive fail.How about is this happen in T20 WC final or semi like 92 WC semi?I don't think there are many differences in two methods.Think Engineer who built VJD improved the DL.This should be considered and evaluated.It should be stop happening things like SCG in1992.

  • Rao_Guru on June 9, 2012, 4:07 GMT

    Several people have suggested replaying the match on a reserve day as the fairer alternative to adjusted scores on a rain-shortened day. In principle, I agree with this. However, I think that instead of replaying the match from scratch on the reserve day, it is better to continue the match from where it is suspended on the first day. This way, there is a better chance of finishing the game. After all, if it rains on one day, it is also possible to get a similar amount of rain the next day as well. Better use of the reserve day in my opinion.

  • Ennarkay on June 9, 2012, 3:15 GMT

    Rajesh, Can you tell us what the VJD method says about THE famous SA Vs Eng match from 1992 world cup? If it comes out with similar target as D/L, no point discussing it. http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65155.html

  • on June 9, 2012, 0:15 GMT

    always hated D/L; why not resume the match next day; loved that option in 99 world cup

  • on June 8, 2012, 23:58 GMT

    Rajesh, look at the more likely ODI scenario of 100 runs in 20 overs. VJD and D/L targets are less than 5% of each other. What's the fuss? As we say here in the states: "Don't fix it if it ain't broke."

  • Steggz on June 8, 2012, 23:39 GMT

    Big issue for both systems re: T20 targets is that they still need more games for the equations to work.

  • on June 8, 2012, 22:16 GMT

    @declaration - well said. It's better to accept 'no result' or have a reserve day and replay the match wherever possible. Both these methods are based on statistics/historical performances (that are supposed to work well for most scenarios) and one can always find or create examples to prove or counter-prove a point. Picking only extreme examples to discredit DL method also seems a little unfair. Maybe the DL method needs some tweaking in this new age of high scoring T20s. But I still think at the end of this all, we shouldn't even be trying to predict/extrapolate scores. It's a futile exercise. The beauty of the game is you never know when And planning to use such methods in World cup matches is just outrageousl.

  • srriaj317 on June 8, 2012, 21:38 GMT

    While it is true that the D/L system is ineffective to match the new T20 format, I believe the ICC might have decided to continue with it simply because it is financially and administratively much easier to stick with the same rules. If the ICC had decided to trial the VJD in T20s only, there would be a bunch of people here complaining about complex and changing rules (cannot please everybody!!). The D/L system is based on pure statistics. Therefore, even if a D/L score feels intuitively wrong, as an engineer I would rather stick to the theoretical model and data D/L provides instead of complaining. It's better than the rain rules anyway!

  • on June 8, 2012, 16:57 GMT

    I can't believe in this day and age an historical common sense model can't be built. Both models appear to be based on history but real world scenarios don't make sense in the examples above when both models are applied. If a team is 104-1 in 11 overs they'll chase 200, but 4 down is a different matter even with an extra over.

  • on June 8, 2012, 16:09 GMT

    Wow, so the ICC can do endless experiments with "Powerplays", adjust the DRS 2.5 metre rule in the middle of a World Cup, and keep doing trials on stupid ideas like "Super Sub" all the time, but cannot give the VJD method a fair chance to be used in actual games. Is it so hard to let the VJD method be used on a trial basis for 1 year, and then take a decision on whether it is better or worse than D/L?

  • py0alb on June 8, 2012, 16:07 GMT

    If we're perfectly honest, the best thing to do would be to just finish the game tomorrow.

  • Meety on June 8, 2012, 13:42 GMT

    Too late at night to get fully into this. What I do beleive is that maybe there needs to be a hybrid, failing that I think D/L covers more bases with me. I think there SHOULD be more weighting (D/L) for no wickets down. Losing wickets is proven to be a major factor in lowering a possible score.

  • RakarthIX on June 8, 2012, 13:17 GMT

    For me VJD should have proposed to the ICC to trial purely on a t20 basis as that is where the really odd target scores have been thrown up - ie making it far to easy for team batting 2nd or practically impossible

  • declaration on June 8, 2012, 13:04 GMT

    do away with d\l and please do not replace.wereever possible have a reserve day otherwise be content with a no result no system can predict results of incomplete games pakistan may fall behind asking rate but with afridi in next who knowes also cut out teams ahead on d\l wasting time .

  • on June 8, 2012, 12:34 GMT

    The ICC obviously are no statistics experts and hence I would say are not the best judges of which system would be more accurate at predicting totals and results. Ex-cricketers and politicians are, more often than not, not mathematicians by any stretch of the imagination and I can hardly imagine them bringing in credible experts like you to help in making these decisions, although that should be the way to do it.

    An insightful post as always from you Rajesh and I look forward to more. Keep up the good work!

  • Balasonline on June 8, 2012, 11:47 GMT

    Good Analysis. We had come across few games in which we thought D/L method has not justified the match situation. If you guys take those matches for different scenario then every body would quickly fore see the difference that VJ makes.

  • ultrasnow on June 8, 2012, 11:40 GMT

    1. Play cricket indoors (how mechanical).... 2. Play cricket in the rain (how romantic)

  • Muhtasim13 on June 8, 2012, 11:11 GMT

    the D/L method is really quite versatile and effective if you take a look at the mathematics behind it. Most cricketers have unfortunately not studied that level of mathematics and thus don't hesitate to blame the D/L method

  • Pelham_Barton on June 8, 2012, 10:43 GMT

    The preferred method is the one that does better across the range of situations that actually occur. Scenarios 1 and 3 are in a tiny corner of this range, and to me they show that there is no truly fair method for this set of circumstances. All that the table in scenario 2 really tells us is that if Team1 scores 200 or more in a T20 match and Team2 lose 6 or more wickets in 5 overs then Team2 are going to lose by either method - but has anything remotely close to that ever happened? The text below that table is not giving us a like-for-like comparison. Why not give a list of D/L targets at 10 overs to compare with the VJD list?

  • BellCurve on June 8, 2012, 10:35 GMT

    The VJD target of 203 in 5 overs in the table above (Team 1 total = 280; 7 wicket downs) is nonsensical. Also the VJD logic that a side that has lost 0 wickets after 5 overs is virtually in the same position than a side that has lost 3 wickets is clearly flawed. These examples suggest that the ICC has made the right decision. Mr V Jayadevan should stick to engineering. I am amazed that the ICC even considered his proposal.

  • bighit14 on June 8, 2012, 10:18 GMT

    Statistics is really an interesting subject to learn. :-)

    There is always a resistance to change in any field. ICC may not want to change so soon to VJD as they fear if D/L outperforms in certain areas to VJD, then they will have to switch frequently between these two. However, VJD method is worth a try atleast once.

  • premclement on June 8, 2012, 10:18 GMT

    The best way to compare these two systems is by addressing examples from real matches that occured in the past. This will provide which method is superior to the other.

  • brittop on June 8, 2012, 10:16 GMT

    @S Rajesh: I think you have a slight bias towards VJD going by your examples in this and a previous article. I don't think that looking at "extreme" examples is the best basis for a comparison - surely you want to compare the "everyday". Looking at a team having scored only 50 after 20, or bring 6 or 7 down in a five over chase does seem particularly helpful. As @datewithsestiny says, you want to look at how VJD compares with D/L in various real situations and then consider which has produced the fairest totals (but then, what is "fair")

  • on June 8, 2012, 10:08 GMT

    @Venkatesh Padmanabhan and cric_info_man: The 1992 WC semi-final was not decided by D/L method. The D/L method came much later, in the early 2000s I think. The Eng v SA semi-final was decided by the rain-rule the ICC had set for that tournament (and scrapped later) which read that in case of rain, the most economical overs of the team batting first would be deducted. The reason the target changed from 22 in 12 balls to 22 in 1 ball was that England had played out (at least) a couple of maiden overs, which were deducted from SA's innings first.

  • Karnor on June 8, 2012, 9:30 GMT

    The real problem is that 5 overs isn't enough to have a good idea of how a side will perform. No system is going to get around that.

    Clearly D/L has a problem where an increase in the first team's total actually leads to a reduction in the target (i.e. your second example).

    But in this scenario the VJD system has issues as well - where the first team scored 200 the par score for 7 down is 145. That means the team going second would need to have been scoring at 29/over. And that's not taking into account dot balls where the wickets fell - take those into account and they'd have been scoring at the small matter of 37/over!

    As for your first scenario - surely this could be analysed by comparing non-rain interrupted matches and see how teams have actually done when they are c.50 for 0 vs 50 for 2 after 20 overs. Hopefully the actual totals would look something like the D/L predictions.

  • sifter132 on June 8, 2012, 9:22 GMT

    Ideally I think somewhere in the middle is the 'right' answer. I'd say more toward D/L for 50 overs, more towards VJD for T20s. D/L favours wickets in hand, VJD not so much. So to me D/L should NOT be used for T20 because wickets in hand is not such an important factor in the chasing strategy.

  • on June 8, 2012, 9:16 GMT

    The difference would be minimal in both systems as its purely maths, which does not know anything about pressure, collapse etc. I have see many a times team reach 100 for 0 in 20 hours (whic could be rated above average performance and not something exceptional). The projected score for this scoreline are 344/ 325. Now Mr Rajesh, can you do a stat on it and find out how many times a team near 100/0 in 20 overs have managed 320+ (an exceptional score by any means)?

  • Nagu on June 8, 2012, 8:50 GMT

    the 1992 match between SA and Eng did not use the D/L method. D/L method was introduced after that. So please get the facts right. there are no real complaints or movements against the D/L method as of now, and although VJD method does show a lot of consistency, the evaluation of this system has to be made under all conditions

  • HRMDTB on June 8, 2012, 7:42 GMT

    @cric_info_man - Actually the 1992 WC did not use the D/L Method.

  • Scrop on June 8, 2012, 5:28 GMT

    Looks like D/L needs to be revamped or ICC should change their stance on VJD Method.

    @ Editor, It would be interesting to see what would have been South Africa's Target in the famous 1992 World cup Semi final game under VJD method and D/L method.

    Can we get that number Mr. Rajesh ? If possible also the SrL-SAF World cup 2003 game.

    Scorp

  • Hafeez_Malik on June 8, 2012, 5:20 GMT

    There is very minor difference in both systems, like in tonight's match (between Sri Lanka and Pakistan) D/L system calculated the target as 135 had it been VJD system it should have been 133. I know every run is counted at the end of day but at the start of Pakistan innings it would not have made a difference at all. In my opinion you can't predict unless you have exact weather prediction, like when Sri Lanka was batting there were several interruptions and Sri Lanka had to revise their plan after every interruption while during Pakistan's innings the proceedings were rather smooth knowing there will be no interruptions. Had any of these systems count this aspect also?

  • on June 8, 2012, 5:18 GMT

    Well, so long as no team's target goes from 22 runs from 13 balls to 21 runs off the last ball of a knock-out match (SA vs Eng., 1992 WC SF), either the VJD method or D/L method should be fine!

  • Heisenburg on June 8, 2012, 5:10 GMT

    How about we use both methods and get an average?

  • on June 8, 2012, 4:43 GMT

    What I want to know is what the VJD method says the target is for the Eng. vs. SA game in the 1992 WC! Isn't that the kind of scenario we're trying to avoid with new methods?

  • cric_info_man on June 8, 2012, 4:21 GMT

    Mr Rajesh,

    overall it seems the D/L method has more weightage for wickets in hand, although your scenarios give a good understanding, but if you could address this one case that's been been the most controversial and worst example of D/L methos. How would the VJD method have addressed the 1992 world cup semi final between SA and Eng where SA were robbed of their victory due to the D/L method?

  • datewithdestiny on June 8, 2012, 3:44 GMT

    Interesting Rajesh! I dont know if you can read my comments, but I was always wondering if you could show up comparisons from real cricket matches- What D/L showed up for the team batting second and what VJD might have shown in a similar circumstance. This will make it easier for a lot of people to understand than by hypothetical situations. You could include some contreoversial games where D/L was used and show a VJD method. And also matches where D/L didnt create a controversy and see if VJD matches it.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • datewithdestiny on June 8, 2012, 3:44 GMT

    Interesting Rajesh! I dont know if you can read my comments, but I was always wondering if you could show up comparisons from real cricket matches- What D/L showed up for the team batting second and what VJD might have shown in a similar circumstance. This will make it easier for a lot of people to understand than by hypothetical situations. You could include some contreoversial games where D/L was used and show a VJD method. And also matches where D/L didnt create a controversy and see if VJD matches it.

  • cric_info_man on June 8, 2012, 4:21 GMT

    Mr Rajesh,

    overall it seems the D/L method has more weightage for wickets in hand, although your scenarios give a good understanding, but if you could address this one case that's been been the most controversial and worst example of D/L methos. How would the VJD method have addressed the 1992 world cup semi final between SA and Eng where SA were robbed of their victory due to the D/L method?

  • on June 8, 2012, 4:43 GMT

    What I want to know is what the VJD method says the target is for the Eng. vs. SA game in the 1992 WC! Isn't that the kind of scenario we're trying to avoid with new methods?

  • Heisenburg on June 8, 2012, 5:10 GMT

    How about we use both methods and get an average?

  • on June 8, 2012, 5:18 GMT

    Well, so long as no team's target goes from 22 runs from 13 balls to 21 runs off the last ball of a knock-out match (SA vs Eng., 1992 WC SF), either the VJD method or D/L method should be fine!

  • Hafeez_Malik on June 8, 2012, 5:20 GMT

    There is very minor difference in both systems, like in tonight's match (between Sri Lanka and Pakistan) D/L system calculated the target as 135 had it been VJD system it should have been 133. I know every run is counted at the end of day but at the start of Pakistan innings it would not have made a difference at all. In my opinion you can't predict unless you have exact weather prediction, like when Sri Lanka was batting there were several interruptions and Sri Lanka had to revise their plan after every interruption while during Pakistan's innings the proceedings were rather smooth knowing there will be no interruptions. Had any of these systems count this aspect also?

  • Scrop on June 8, 2012, 5:28 GMT

    Looks like D/L needs to be revamped or ICC should change their stance on VJD Method.

    @ Editor, It would be interesting to see what would have been South Africa's Target in the famous 1992 World cup Semi final game under VJD method and D/L method.

    Can we get that number Mr. Rajesh ? If possible also the SrL-SAF World cup 2003 game.

    Scorp

  • HRMDTB on June 8, 2012, 7:42 GMT

    @cric_info_man - Actually the 1992 WC did not use the D/L Method.

  • Nagu on June 8, 2012, 8:50 GMT

    the 1992 match between SA and Eng did not use the D/L method. D/L method was introduced after that. So please get the facts right. there are no real complaints or movements against the D/L method as of now, and although VJD method does show a lot of consistency, the evaluation of this system has to be made under all conditions

  • on June 8, 2012, 9:16 GMT

    The difference would be minimal in both systems as its purely maths, which does not know anything about pressure, collapse etc. I have see many a times team reach 100 for 0 in 20 hours (whic could be rated above average performance and not something exceptional). The projected score for this scoreline are 344/ 325. Now Mr Rajesh, can you do a stat on it and find out how many times a team near 100/0 in 20 overs have managed 320+ (an exceptional score by any means)?