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

D/L method made it tough for us - Vettori

Cricinfo staff
54

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

  • peeeeet 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.

  • 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

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

    @jaztech

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

  • jazzaaaaaaaa 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.

  • IMObserver 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.

  • Winsome 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.

  • randikaayya 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.

  • TheGrandMaster 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...

  • DiscoMike 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.

  • Des_65 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.

  • peeeeet 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.

  • 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

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

    @jaztech

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

  • jazzaaaaaaaa 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.

  • IMObserver 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.

  • Winsome 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.

  • randikaayya 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.

  • TheGrandMaster 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...

  • DiscoMike 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.

  • Des_65 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.

  • IMObserver on March 7, 2010, 7:37 GMT

    "But if they were 100/9 after 20 overs, the revised target would be 300, because before the rain interruption they had virtually no chance of pulling of a win."Fredi-Flintoff.

    Well that's exactly what is wrong with D/L. How can revised target be 300, which is the original target, after reducing the number of overs, even if they had no chance of reaching that with remaining 30 overs? Makes no sense. Yes the last man is likely to fold: but that is the revised target for the bowling side too: if he is expected to be out in next five overs then taking 25 overs to get him out should be relegated to bad performance from the bowling side given the status of the game at the time of decision. Now you asking the batting side to do in 25 overs what they were resquired to do in 30 overs.

  • Nihontone on March 7, 2010, 6:48 GMT

    Hi Rohan I didn't realise that an over had been removed from one of the other Power Plays, so I stand corrected. The match in the WC you mentioned (which was ridiculous!) was before the DL method was developed. You're also right that NZ fought hard and almost won. I think the whole top order needs to take responsibility. I also think the Australian bowlers did ok too. There was also pretty handy catch or two!

  • Avery_Mann on March 7, 2010, 6:03 GMT

    Australia stole this game; Duckworth and Lewis were accessories to the crime. Nice to see the Aussies can only scrape a win once Taylor and Oram are out, and Vettori (and Franklin) were playing below 100% fitness in this game. If Taylor comes back, I'm backing the Kiwis to take the series 3-2.

  • on March 7, 2010, 5:23 GMT

    @Blair Potter, First calculate the run rate of NZ at the moment rain stopped play. They scored 44/3 after 8.3 overs. It is less than 5.2 runs per over. They lost 3 wickets and scoring at less than the required run rate. Just because NZ has a good tailend batting strength, are you suggesting that D/L method be changed only for matches involving NZ batting second? The no.of runs & overs deducted in this game is similar to many rain affected games in the past ( approx. 5 overs deducted & less than 15 runs ) . You can even check out this site's database to find out it is true. During India's one day tour to WI in 2002-03, WI were batting second and their target was revised similarly.

  • jaztech on March 7, 2010, 4:24 GMT

    The problem in this match was not D-L (apart from the sore losers who blame D-L for NZ losing) but that the game couldn't be allowed to run longer to accommodate the loss of time from the rain. What's the rule on extending the expected finish time of the game? Is an extra hour too much? What about two hours? Or is this too likely to interfere with television scheduling?

  • robotiger on March 7, 2010, 3:33 GMT

    The DL system is fair. The only thing it does not take into account, and which it never can, is atmosphere, situation, and unpredictability of the human brain. These are not considered in the co-efficient, and nor they should be. Credit to NZ for fighting hard and giving themselves every chance to win despite the failures of the top order. How much longer can NZ persist with Ingram, Broom and Franklin as front line batsmen? Franklin is still contributing more bowling than batting, while Ingram and Broom look unsettled at the crease. Ryder for Ingram is an eventual solution, and possibly Elliot for Broom. Styris must bat 4 next game. Perhaps they might also consider Kane Williamson? It may be too early to play him at this level, but then again, pressure makes diamonds...

  • dinosaurus on March 7, 2010, 3:32 GMT

    Unless you lose wickets early, Duckworth Lewis favours the side batting second if anything. Anyone who can't see this has no place commenting on the system. As for it being devised before the batting powerplay came into the game that also probably favours the side batting second. The whole point of the system is that wickets in hand has a dramatic effect on the achievable run rate. Even in 20-20 losing wickets (particularly early wickets) affects the total achievable, though it is a lot harder to get all 10 wickets in 20 overs, compared with 45.

  • on March 7, 2010, 2:31 GMT

    The central point is that there is NO short end of the stick with D/L. Yes the run rate is elevated but then again you have fewer overs through which you need to keep wickets intact. If 20/20 shows us anything it's that the freedom of not having to build a long inning can be very liberating. Also you have the relative advantage of knowing ahead of time what the situation is. The BIG disadvantage is for a team batting FIRST who play their first 20 overs thinking it's a 50 over game and then discover it's only going to be 30. But even there D/L represents a good estimate of what an appropriate target might be for the team batting second. Vettori might feel aggrieved, but mathematics is pretty impartial.

  • on March 7, 2010, 1:44 GMT

    People keep commenting how the kiwis were down 3 wickets when the ran came, they were also scoring at 6.5runs per over, does that now make any difference to the calculations, and using the excuse of "you lost 3 early wickets you are going to lose" is just absurd, how many times have you seen tailenders when close matches, when it comes down to a really close match, and almost always when the D/L method is involved its the tailend that decides the outcome, and as a batting tailend i don't think there is any better in the world than the NZ team at the moment

  • lankan_style on March 7, 2010, 1:15 GMT

    My question to Nilhontone would be if you are set a target of 350 and if it was reduced to 45 overs with 20 runs, is it fair play still?

  • srogers on March 7, 2010, 1:10 GMT

    The thing I hate about D/L is it deprives the team batting second of the same amount of Power Play overs that the team batting first had.

  • Rohan.Dhanerwal on March 7, 2010, 1:10 GMT

    @ NIhonton Hello Nihon, it's easy to say things sitting at home. I would say it's really unfair to NZ. Vettory is right they lost two PP overs and what is interesting is that one from mendatory 10 overs (that PP was of 9 overs) and one from BPP overs. Bowling PP overs were not changed. Another thing is they lost five overs and target was reduced just 8 runs! You remember a match in WC when Africa were needed 22 runs from 13 balls and then after rain the target was 21 runs from 1 ball! Like Vettori, I also don't understand this system. Funny, it's made by those two who never played cricket in thier life. Yet, NZ fought really well and were close to another victory. Full marks to Vettori. I think, MacCullam must take more responsibilities.

  • on March 7, 2010, 0:32 GMT

    The way Vettori was batting he could've single handedly won the match if only he didn't get cheeky playing that walk across stumps playing leg side shot one too many times, especially against Harris who wouldn't have dragged the ball to the leg side naturally unlike Bollinger, who must be replaced by McKay for the third match. So instead of having a whinge he should just admit he had the game in the palm of his hand and his overconfidence at playing an unorthodox shot was eventually his undoing.

  • on March 6, 2010, 23:17 GMT

    Didn't NZ get bowled out? ..... Doesn't really matter then if it was 45 or 50 overs if you haven't got any batmen left to score runs.

  • zingzangspillip on March 6, 2010, 23:08 GMT

    New Zealand have themselves to blame. If they hadn't lost three wickets before the delay, the D/L method wouldn't have affected them. It's the same for all teams, and for Vettori to complain about it is petty in the extreme.

  • on March 6, 2010, 22:10 GMT

    D/L method is CRAP and should be banned by the ICC. NZ would have won the match easily if they played for the whole 50 overs. Its time for ICC to come up with a better method than D/L

    Well played Vettory, what and exciting innings it was.

    GO NZ !

  • Nihontone on March 6, 2010, 21:51 GMT

    A question, if Vettori doesn't understand the DL method, why isn't there someone amongst the plethora of support staff who does? Some other points from this article.

    NZ didn't lose 2 Power Play overs. The 3rd Power Play was called (by the umpires) at the beginning of the 42nd over. That means it would've run through overs 42, 43, 44 and 45. Secondly, why didn't he call it earlier?

    As to the revised target, consider this:

    a target of 274 off 50 overs requires a run rate of 5.48 a target of 266 off 45 overs requires a run rate of 5.91

    Not a massive difference I think. If I were Vettori & Greatbatch, I'd be more concerned about the top order collapse (which, as others have pointed out, made the revised target tougher). Also, all the commentators I heard mentioned that a target of less than 300 was below par at Eden Park. Given that New Zealand has a preference for chasing totals this should've a been a very gettable total.

  • sam_manzanza on March 6, 2010, 21:24 GMT

    For those who are calling NZ soft or that we didnt understand the D/L method, you guys are completely misunderstanding what vettori was saying and grossly overplaying what was a fairly innocuous statement. All dan was saying was that NZ got the short end of the stick under the D/L calculations. Not that we were robbed, not that the D/L needs to be scrapped. Simply that had they not come into play, NZ would have been better off. And hes 100% right. We lost five overs (two from powerplays) and only had to chase 8 less runs. 265 off 45 (18 PP overs) is a damn sight harder to get than 273 off 50 (20 PP overs).

  • TheGrandMaster on March 6, 2010, 21:21 GMT

    That's the point I think. No problems with the 8 runs for 5 overs - obviously there is a lot of statistical basis for this. However, two overs were also changed from PowerPlay overs to normal overs. This isn't affected by wickets, as the batting team could choose to take them straight away (and they are typically taken at the end when a team has typically already lost wickets). Those two PP overs would have been worth a decent amount of additional runs. Surely the D/L also needs to add a reduction of the average amount of extra runs scored in PP overs when deducting them. That could have been worth another 6 to 10 runs.

  • on March 6, 2010, 20:48 GMT

    The real joke about this whole situation is that 50 overs could easily have been played out. I mean every other game is starting at 2 instead of 12, so surely they SHOULD have had the hours to easily play it out.

  • Homeofthenaki on March 6, 2010, 20:10 GMT

    Well dissapointed your comments sound really informed. NZ play the victim do they? NZ make the most in what they have is what I think. They compete hard and don't give up. You suggest they have been doing that for years well i suggest that if that were the case they wouldn't have credibility as a cricket team. I didn't see him complaining either. Always complaining would about sum up an Aussie( tongue in cheek). Finding excuses why they lost the norm (being cheeky also). What Dan was suggesting is that the DL does not stand up to an International game. Its complicated and outdated. Why does a team irrespective of country have to loose five overs because of the weather and then the team only have 8 runs taken off. There RPO wasn't 2. NZ will believe they can win this series expect some changes though in the middle order i think.

  • Moreplease on March 6, 2010, 20:04 GMT

    Some of you know it alls need to read what vettori said again, nowhere in there did he say D/L was unfair. I've only been watching cricket for 20 years but that was one on the most unfair D/L revisions I've ever seen, I know they were 3 wickets down but still to have only 8 runs taken off your total an be docked 5 overs 2 of which were powerplay overs is crap. Most teams score at over ten an over in powerplay over regardless of how many wickets they've lost. So really NZ had 20 odd runs added on to the score an lost 3 overs. So it was more like they were chasing 315 runs if it was a normal game. I think in D/L revised matches they should not be allowed to take powerplay overs away from any team, unless its before the match has started.

  • wizardofla on March 6, 2010, 20:00 GMT

    I pretty sure Dan understands D/L. What is trying to say is that the system is flawed. "To lose two Powerplay overs and only have eight runs taken off" - That's a big difference. Irrespective of the wickets, teams tend to score more that 4 an over in the death overs.

  • NBZ1 on March 6, 2010, 19:05 GMT

    A lot of the comments have pointed out how D/L takes into account how well you were doing before the rain-break, which is true enough. But I think Vettori still has a point, in that D/L was developed before we had the concept of batting powerplays. Does the D/L formula take powerplay dynamics into account?

    For instance, why deduct 1 over from the batting powerplay (which is 1/4 of the total no of powerplay overs) while deducting none from the mandatory powerplays? Also, suppose 20 overs are played in the second innings, and all the powerplays have been used up, when rain strikes and the innings is reduced to 45 overs. How do you reduce the no of powerplay overs now?? And since you obviously cannot, how do you reward the bowling side who have been forced to bowl a higher proportion of powerplay overs than is mandated?

  • OutCast on March 6, 2010, 18:52 GMT

    Cricket is as weird as it gets... no other sport employ the Donkey Logics (D/L) to fit the game in time. If I knew it will rain I wont be planning a long sun bath. Dan's boys must have moved their a$$es quickly enough to move the scoreboard... IF TAILENDERS score heavily and win matches, why would not NZ select all tailenders for the game? Teams like Zim & bang are around to give face lift to many teams...

  • akzephyr on March 6, 2010, 18:49 GMT

    Duckworth lewis was developed using statistics obtained from teams playing the old ODI rules, when powerplays were not available to the batting side and was probabably the best system available (albeit with the occasional completely farcical recalcuations). however, it's hard to see how it can still be used now we have powerplays. Still NZ only has itself to blame with a lack of application from the top order.

  • rustin on March 6, 2010, 17:56 GMT

    @Travis, I don't think he is pleading ignorance to the D/L method's calculations, he is just pointing out that in some cases the results are ridiculous. Just like the one in this match.

  • SnowSnake on March 6, 2010, 17:18 GMT

    There is no point in cricizing D/L system for several reasons. First, any person critizing such system must provide an alternative, and believe me the alternative will be subject to other criticisms as well. Second, D/L system was not designed in the middle of the game. Both teams knew what the rules were before they started the game, so it is fair. D/L system uses team resources (in terms of wickets lost) to come up with criteria for the team in the second innings. Among the reasons why NZ got what they did was 1) they could not get all AUS wickets, and 2) NZ lost all of its wickets. Under such a situation, I don't know how NZ can justify a win with D/L. Sure it is heart breaking to face uncertainty in terms of how many overs to bat and how many overs in power play etc., but all teams chasing in an ODI game are subject to the same rule, which makes it fair. The only other reasonable alternative to the D/L is to abandon the ODI in an event of rain.

  • dissapointed on March 6, 2010, 16:51 GMT

    NZ have been the underdogs for the last 30 years, ever since I started playing and this won't change until they decide not to play the victim. Every one plays, wins and loses with the D/L system, it's been around for a long time, so take it on the chin. What would have happened if the NZ boys went down in the last T20 using that ridiculous system to decide the match. Vettori needs to stop making excuses, break the mold that the NZ have been using for the last 30 years, which is poor us. Time to stand up and compete without looking around to gather excuses.

  • drinks.break on March 6, 2010, 16:46 GMT

    One thing some people here don't seem to realise is that rain also disadvantages the fielding team. Less time to get the required runs by the batting team also means less time to take 10 wickets for the bowling team (meaning that batting risks have a greater chance of being rewarded).

    Also, a wet outfield means a slippery ball and zero swing, which makes batting a relative walk in the park.

    Add to that the 3 top order wickets lost by NZ before the rain came, and the target was absolutely fair.

  • geebob on March 6, 2010, 16:36 GMT

    Vettori said D/L made things difficult but didn't cry hoarse and call for its axe. Neither did he say it was unfair, he just said it made a tougher chase. But, honestly, Styris comes after Broom and Franklin?? Really? It better not be Vettori's idea. I can understand that leaving them in the lower middle order is a suicide anyway but then why even pick these guys!! Ingram was woeful at the top. Bring Watling back, drop Guptill for a match or two. That guy is awesome but until he can churn out consistent performances, he should not be made comfortable. He's just like the early Lou Vincent, electric in the field, a century in the beginning and then never living up to it.

  • Ragav999 on March 6, 2010, 16:11 GMT

    Imagine if the tables were turned on Australia according to D/L system and Ponting just throws a line somewhere about D/L in post match presentation, the comments will flood this site about Aussies being sore losers.

  • Travis on March 6, 2010, 15:45 GMT

    I thought Vettori was smarter than this, but he's shown himself to be yet another dumb captain (amongst many other people involved in the game at the highest level) pleading ignorance to the D/L Method when it should be a prerequisite in his job description to fully understand and comprehend. It's quite simple - the team was plainly losing at 43/3 chasing 274 when the rain began to fall. If he wants the formula to do him a favour then don't be in such a disastrous position. Despite people's best efforts to pretend otherwise, it's not rocket science.

  • Soji_George on March 6, 2010, 15:38 GMT

    Good to see that aussies are having some tough days atlast. They used their summer for experimenting different team combinations . Without Ross in the team, kiwis put up a really nice fightback as they surely gonna make aussies in the rest of the series.

  • TKiwi on March 6, 2010, 15:19 GMT

    The D/L calculations made no sense in this game, surely some common sense could have prevailed especially after a 45 lunch break and a game scheduled to finish at 8pm? What did the umpire have a date or something? We really wouldn't want to keep all those spectators up past 8pm on a Saturday night.

    Also what applied mathematical equation is involved to reduce a score by such a small number of runs yet take away 5 overs? NZL lost the game because they were bowled out but surely the run chase would have been different needing 60 from 60 compared to 50 from 30.

    D/L is an important part of the game and is essential to produce results but this one made no sense in the context of the game, score at the time and most importantly the time of the day.

  • on March 6, 2010, 15:03 GMT

    D/L is an utter joke of mathematics..

  • drinks.break on March 6, 2010, 14:49 GMT

    For all his heroics, I think Vettori needs to ask someone a bit more about the D/L system. What killed NZ was that they'd already lost 3 wickets in the 8.4 overs before the rain came. At that rate, they were going to be all out within 30 overs, so the D/L target needed to be something that would take a massive effort to reach - to make it much easier would have meant NZ dodged a bullet for their poor top-order batting. Vettori single-handedly almost produced that massive effort. But however disappointing the end result, it was fair.

  • SnowSnake on March 6, 2010, 14:42 GMT

    These things happen, but good show New Zealand. As far as Australia is concerned, it is funny that Ricky Ponting tells his batsmen to improve their game and gets out at a score of one with a stupid shot early in his innings. I think Ricky should give up captaincy, he plays 10 games contributes a century in one game and a series of low scores in others. For a batsman only player, he should do more to justify his position as a captain or give up captiancy and focus on his batting. He reminds me of Sourav Ganguly in his declining years. All credit to Australian bowlers. I still don't understand why Johnson comes in so late to bat. He should be promoted ahead of Jim Hopes.

  • Winsome on March 6, 2010, 14:16 GMT

    The reason why the D/L was tough was because they had lost so many wickets early. If they had only lost 2 wickets or so, the D/L would have been easier. Why would the fielding side be penalised to give the batting side an easy chase when their bowlers had got them on top when it rained?

    Dan Vettori knows this, he's just being a little disingenuous. Great player though and must get thoroughly fed up with carrying the batsmen.

  • AJ_Tiger86 on March 6, 2010, 14:15 GMT

    Vettori is wrong, the D/L method is perfectly fair. New Zealand had lost 3 wickets within just 8 overs when the rain interrupted. So, there was a good chance that they would have been bowled out before 50 overs ( in fact, they couldn't even bat out 45 overs). D/L method takes this into consideration and thus the revised target was higher than it would have been if NZ had not lost those 3 wickets. For example, if a team is 100/0 after 20 overs chasing 300 from 50 overs when rain interrupts and the match is reduced to 25 overs, the revised target would be 129 from 25 overs. But if they were 100/9 after 20 overs, the revised target would be 300, because before the rain interruption they had virtually no chance of pulling of a win.

  • on March 6, 2010, 14:05 GMT

    Same with me! I cant really understand this D/L method. It simply favors the side defending the total. Obviously a rain interruption means the chasing side should not face unfair hardship as rain stoppage affects the batsman's concentration. If the chase was restricted to 45 overs, surely why cant the ICC set the target at the scoring rate set by the side batting first? Also as Vettori said the power play overs were reduced by 2 with only 8 runs taken off the target which adds to the ambiguity of the D/L method!! Also with Auckland having flood lights, they should have extended the game with the lights turned on as well. If a day night ODI was played as a day game and if rain interrupts a bit, they must be able to play the full overs by extending to play under lights in the future!

  • on March 6, 2010, 13:35 GMT

    I agree to Dan vettori's comments- It was luck that saved Australia.....

  • on March 6, 2010, 13:09 GMT

    yup....Mr Vettori.....u did ur part really well....& u r damn right.....nobody has been able to understand the D/L method....its high time that the ICC takes it a bit seriously & probably develop something which w'd be fair to both sides....5 overs & 8 runs is nt enough in a match with a run-rate of 5.8.....the series is 1-1 & i jst hop the kiwis bounce back to clich the CHAPPELL-HADLEE trophy again.....:))

  • on March 6, 2010, 13:05 GMT

    DL seems correct only if your on the winning side... I've understood how it works and won't really acknowledge it gives an true result.. but then, there's no better alternative either...

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • on March 6, 2010, 13:05 GMT

    DL seems correct only if your on the winning side... I've understood how it works and won't really acknowledge it gives an true result.. but then, there's no better alternative either...

  • on March 6, 2010, 13:09 GMT

    yup....Mr Vettori.....u did ur part really well....& u r damn right.....nobody has been able to understand the D/L method....its high time that the ICC takes it a bit seriously & probably develop something which w'd be fair to both sides....5 overs & 8 runs is nt enough in a match with a run-rate of 5.8.....the series is 1-1 & i jst hop the kiwis bounce back to clich the CHAPPELL-HADLEE trophy again.....:))

  • on March 6, 2010, 13:35 GMT

    I agree to Dan vettori's comments- It was luck that saved Australia.....

  • on March 6, 2010, 14:05 GMT

    Same with me! I cant really understand this D/L method. It simply favors the side defending the total. Obviously a rain interruption means the chasing side should not face unfair hardship as rain stoppage affects the batsman's concentration. If the chase was restricted to 45 overs, surely why cant the ICC set the target at the scoring rate set by the side batting first? Also as Vettori said the power play overs were reduced by 2 with only 8 runs taken off the target which adds to the ambiguity of the D/L method!! Also with Auckland having flood lights, they should have extended the game with the lights turned on as well. If a day night ODI was played as a day game and if rain interrupts a bit, they must be able to play the full overs by extending to play under lights in the future!

  • AJ_Tiger86 on March 6, 2010, 14:15 GMT

    Vettori is wrong, the D/L method is perfectly fair. New Zealand had lost 3 wickets within just 8 overs when the rain interrupted. So, there was a good chance that they would have been bowled out before 50 overs ( in fact, they couldn't even bat out 45 overs). D/L method takes this into consideration and thus the revised target was higher than it would have been if NZ had not lost those 3 wickets. For example, if a team is 100/0 after 20 overs chasing 300 from 50 overs when rain interrupts and the match is reduced to 25 overs, the revised target would be 129 from 25 overs. But if they were 100/9 after 20 overs, the revised target would be 300, because before the rain interruption they had virtually no chance of pulling of a win.

  • Winsome on March 6, 2010, 14:16 GMT

    The reason why the D/L was tough was because they had lost so many wickets early. If they had only lost 2 wickets or so, the D/L would have been easier. Why would the fielding side be penalised to give the batting side an easy chase when their bowlers had got them on top when it rained?

    Dan Vettori knows this, he's just being a little disingenuous. Great player though and must get thoroughly fed up with carrying the batsmen.

  • SnowSnake on March 6, 2010, 14:42 GMT

    These things happen, but good show New Zealand. As far as Australia is concerned, it is funny that Ricky Ponting tells his batsmen to improve their game and gets out at a score of one with a stupid shot early in his innings. I think Ricky should give up captaincy, he plays 10 games contributes a century in one game and a series of low scores in others. For a batsman only player, he should do more to justify his position as a captain or give up captiancy and focus on his batting. He reminds me of Sourav Ganguly in his declining years. All credit to Australian bowlers. I still don't understand why Johnson comes in so late to bat. He should be promoted ahead of Jim Hopes.

  • drinks.break on March 6, 2010, 14:49 GMT

    For all his heroics, I think Vettori needs to ask someone a bit more about the D/L system. What killed NZ was that they'd already lost 3 wickets in the 8.4 overs before the rain came. At that rate, they were going to be all out within 30 overs, so the D/L target needed to be something that would take a massive effort to reach - to make it much easier would have meant NZ dodged a bullet for their poor top-order batting. Vettori single-handedly almost produced that massive effort. But however disappointing the end result, it was fair.

  • on March 6, 2010, 15:03 GMT

    D/L is an utter joke of mathematics..

  • TKiwi on March 6, 2010, 15:19 GMT

    The D/L calculations made no sense in this game, surely some common sense could have prevailed especially after a 45 lunch break and a game scheduled to finish at 8pm? What did the umpire have a date or something? We really wouldn't want to keep all those spectators up past 8pm on a Saturday night.

    Also what applied mathematical equation is involved to reduce a score by such a small number of runs yet take away 5 overs? NZL lost the game because they were bowled out but surely the run chase would have been different needing 60 from 60 compared to 50 from 30.

    D/L is an important part of the game and is essential to produce results but this one made no sense in the context of the game, score at the time and most importantly the time of the day.