New Zealand v Australia, 2nd ODI, Auckland March 6, 2010

D/L method made it tough for us - Vettori

Cricinfo staff

After his thrilling 70 off 49 balls nearly upstaged Australia in Auckland, Daniel Vettori has said the revised D/L target made the chase more difficult for New Zealand

New Zealand's target was reduced by eight runs according to the D/L method after a couple of rain delays, but they lost five overs including two from the Powerplays. Vettori felt his side was short-changed by the calculations.

"There are a lot of things I don't understand about cricket, and that is one of them. To lose two Powerplay overs and only have eight runs taken off," Vettori said. "I don't know how that works. It makes things incredibly tough. It would have been better had the game gone the full 50 overs, it would have been a lot better for us."

New Zealand ultimately went down by 12 runs, with Vettori being the last man dismissed. He blamed the defeat on the regular loss of top-order wickets, which left too much work for the tail-enders. "It had been exciting to get out of a tough situation and to get close to Australia's total but the loss of the wickets knocked back any ultimate chance the side had.

"We kept having to push back the Powerplay and we never could really made the most of what was a good wicket and when you have wickets in hand you can do that."

He had earlier sent down a typically tidy spell, picking the wickets of Ricky Ponting and Brad Haddin, and his all-round efforts fetched him the Man-of-the-Match award. Vettori had sat out the first ODI with a neck problem, and he revealed that he was initially slated to bat at No. 11 due to the injury.

"At the start of the day I was going to bat 11 because I couldn't really do it but I think it freed up as I bowled so that made it easier. I think once you get yourself in the game you feel like you want to be part of it."

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Peter on March 8, 2010, 5:30 GMT

    @IMSingular: the reason the revised target would have been 300 is that the D/L system presumes that a team 9 wickets down in 20 overs would have been scoring at a ridiculously fast run rate and losing wickets in the process. The D/L doesn't look at how many runs a team has scored, just how many wickets have been lost. It does this to provide an advantage to which ever side was on top at that stage in the match. In this case, the bowling side should be rewarded for taking 9 wickets in 20 overs. Say they were 100/0 after 20 overs, the target would have been drastically reduced. This is because the D/L method presumes that a side after 20 overs and 0 wickets lost would be taking their time and building a platform to launch from later, and also rewarding the batting team for being 0 down after 20 overs. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is my understanding of the system.

  • Dummy4 on March 8, 2010, 3:08 GMT

    to be really honest the D/L method takes the number of wickets as counting parameters which is very wrong . eg : if a team requires , say 200 of 30 overs and if it has reached , say 50/0 after 12 overs (and play is interrupted), the D/L would set the target to somewhere around 125 after 22 overs. Now if the team has lost 2 wickets and is say at 75/2 after 12, they would have to score at a higher rate, say 160 after 22 overs. Now this is really stupid , simply because the team batting at 50/0 , although it had mopre resources , if it lost wickets , then it could lose them in a heap to up the scoring rate . So the amount of wickets is such an important parameter rather than overall run rate . Having said that , if a team is 8 or 9 down , the actual run rate hardly makes a difference. Oh well! at least it is not a farce like 92 WC..lolz

  • Narayan on March 7, 2010, 9:49 GMT


    Baseball games have gone well over midnight if necessary. ODIs should be able to do the same.

  • Jarrod on March 7, 2010, 9:33 GMT

    The reason why NZ only lost 8 runs from their target is because they lost a few wickets before the rain delay. If they hadnt of lost wickets then the target wouldve been a lot easier because it rewards the batting side for having wickets in hand (More resources). My understanding is that higher up in the batting order, means they are more valuable resources (Because theyre the batsman, they score the most runs) the further down the order you go, the least valuable the resources are and D/L takes that into account when revising the target.

  • Narayan on March 7, 2010, 9:16 GMT

    Does reductiion of batting powerplays make sense? Me thinks not. We can actually apply option theory of finance here. Let us say the already 30 overs have been played and batting power has not been taken. That means the batting side has option to use 5 over batting powerplay any time along in next 20 overs. Now let us say the game has been reduced to 45 overs. Now the batting side has to take the powerplay in the 15 overs. Baiscally the flexibility for the batting side has been reduced: that is batting side is all ready punished by reducing the flexibilty, that is time value of optionhas been reduced. Now reducing the number of powerplay overs is double jeopardy. Understanding the arithmetic of existing procedure is not the same thing as understanding the required mathematics to to take into account this loss of flexibilty. But to say that Australia stole the game is unjust, though to say that New Zealand was done in by D/L is justified.

  • Lou on March 7, 2010, 8:59 GMT

    Talking about missing players, I suggest people try looking up the Aussie injury list in the past year. The fact that Ryan Harris is anywhere near any of our teams speaks volumes.

    Rohan. Dhanerwal, the D/L has been changed since that SA farce. It isn't the same system. It has been revised even as recently as 2004.

    Blair Potter the Kiwis weren't scoring at over 6 an over, where did you get that from? When the rain came down, the over before, the runrate was 5.37, Johnson bowled three dot balls, then the rain came down.

    People just come on here, make stuff up, then base an argument on things they have made up, this isn't creative writing class guys, get a grip.

  • Randika on March 7, 2010, 8:56 GMT

    Does the D/L system take into account the effect of power-play overs? Has there been a revision to the system since the last time ICC changed fielding restrictions rules? If not I'd say its grossly unfair for the Kiwis on grounds that they've notched up more than 8 runs per PP over even with 9 wickets down.

  • Sam on March 7, 2010, 8:50 GMT

    What I want to know about D/L is if, say the 2nd innings is 30 overs in and it rain takes off 5 overs, will the revised target be different whether or not the batting (or bowling team) has already taken the Power Play? I'm assuming at the moment it does not. But that is absurd. Has obviously the Power Play makes a huge difference to run rate. So if the allocation of Power Play overs is altered (as it was in this game), then D/L also needs to incorporated. This didn't happen for NZ in this game, and that is the point that Vettori is making. I think he is fine for the 8 runs for 5 overs calculation, it is the no additional runs for the two less Power Play overs that he is querying. And rightly so...

  • Disco on March 7, 2010, 8:43 GMT

    While the D/L system is far from perfect, NZ were bowled out with 10 legal deliveries still available and 13 runs still to get. Very achievable the way the game is played these days. 10/10 for Vettori though, fantastic cricketer.

  • Desmond on March 7, 2010, 7:43 GMT

    Simple System below: Run rate / No. of wickets

    Australia 5.46/7 = 0.78

    NZ 5.62/10 = 0.562

    So, Australia wins.

  • No featured comments at the moment.