ICC World Twenty20 2010 May 4, 2010

Duckworth defends rain-rules formula

  shares 92

The statistician Frank Duckworth has launched a robust defence of the eponymous formula that he devised, in partnership with Tony Lewis, to recalculate run-chases in rain-affected one-day games, and believes that the current criticism of his calculations stems entirely from Paul Collingwood's frustrations, following England's failure to beat West Indies in their opening contest of the World Twenty20 in Guyana.

The Duckworth-Lewis system was devised in the 1990s and formally adopted by the ICC in 2001, and is widely regarded as the fairest means of resolving rain-shortened contests in 50-over cricket, even if the workings of the formula are a mystery to all but the most mathematically gifted. However, for the second time in consecutive World Twenty20 contests against West Indies, Collingwood was left feeling aggrieved following defeats that he believed might not have occurred had the matches been played out over their full distance.

At The Oval in June 2009, West Indies progressed to the semi-finals by chasing 80 in nine overs after England had posted an imposing 161 for 6, while Monday's discrepancy seemed even more stark - England made 191 for 5, but West Indies were left needing 60 in six overs, thanks to an early onslaught from their captain, Chris Gayle, who admitted he had chosen to bat second in the contest precisely because he anticipated D/L would be a factor.

"There's a major problem with Duckworth-Lewis in this form of the game," Collingwood told reporters after the match. "I've got no problem with it in one-dayers ... but it's certainly got to be revised in this form. Ninety-five percent of the time when you get 191 runs on the board you are going to win the game. Unfortunately Duckworth-Lewis seems to have other ideas and brings the equation completely the other way and makes it very difficult."

However, when asked if he accepted that a recalibration was required to reflect the higher tempo of Twenty20 cricket, Duckworth was emphatic in his rebuttal.

"No I don't, quite frankly," he told Cricinfo's Switch Hit podcast. "Remember that there have been a total of about 70 matches decided by Duckworth-Lewis since Twenty20 was invented in 2002, and there's only been two instances where any dissent has been expressed, and both of those were by Paul Collingwood and the England team, as a result of failing to win against West Indies.

"That revised target of 60 from six overs was set because, before the rain interruption, West Indies had faced 14 balls and scored a massive 30 runs without losing any wickets," Duckworth added. "They were 11 runs ahead of the D/L par, and if the match hadn't been able to restart, and if for the sake of argument you allowed a match to be valid with only 2.2 overs bowled, then West Indies would have won by 11 runs. They were winning easily when the rain came."

Remember that there have been a total of about 70 matches decided by Duckworth-Lewis since Twenty20 was invented in 2002, and there's only been two instances where any dissent has been expressed, and both of those were by Paul Collingwood and the England team, as a result of failing to win against West Indies

Nevertheless, that winning position was largely due to the exploits of Gayle, who cracked 15 runs off Ryan Sidebottom's first over of the reply en route to 25 from 12 balls. He was eventually dismissed seven balls after the resumption, at 41 for 1 after 3.3 overs, although by that stage of the recalculated run-chase, West Indies required just 19 more runs to win from 15 balls, whereas in a full 20-over innings, the figure would have been a more daunting 151 from 99.

Duckworth, however, insisted that his maths still added up. "We don't know what would have happened [in a full contest]," he said. "I've seen Gayle score a Twenty20 century in absolutely no time, so you've no idea. His dismissal didn't affect the situation at that stage. If he'd got out before the rain, when there were still ostensibly 20 overs still to face, that would have been important because it would have significantly affected the run-scoring capability.

"Wickets start to diminish in importance the shorter the game," he added. "The fact that the match had been reduced to a further 3.4 overs only meant that his wicket was fairly immaterial. The only thing that was lost was the momentum [that his innings had generated], but there are plenty other good West Indians who could come in and pick up the mantle."

On another day, one of those men might have been Kieron Pollard, but as Duckworth himself conceded, his unusual dismissal - stumped off a leg-side wide for 0 - actually worked in West Indies' favour on this occasion, because they earned a run for the extra, without using up any deliveries. However, he did not accept that such anomalies ought to be factored into future Twenty20 scenarios, with sides permitted to lose only, say, three or four wickets in the case of a six-over chase.

"It would have made no difference," he said. "When the target was revised, the resources [we factored in] were whatever wickets are left and the fewer overs. We only alter the overs. The consideration of losing wickets came in over ten years ago, right at the start, and there are very good reasons why this would be totally impractical."

Duckworth did, however, confirm that small alterations to the formula are made from time to time, as came to light during a CB40 fixture between Leicestershire and Durham on Monday, when it transpired that the scorers at Grace Road had been using the 2009 calculations to set Leicester a chase of 176 in 26 overs, when the 2010 figure ought to have been 181.

"We do recalibrate quite regularly," he said. "We review the data every four years, and last summer as part of a series of regular reviews, we did reanalyse all the data that existed, and this for the first time included an extremely large pot of Twenty20 data.

"We reached two important conclusions. The first was that the scoring patterns in Twenty20 matches fitted in absolutely perfectly with the formula that we'd always used satisfactorily with 50-over games. Secondly, however, there were one or two small changes needed to the numbers going into our formula, so that the tables and the targets would be ever so slightly different. But the changes were very small, and were accepted by the ICC in an independent assessment by their statistical advisors."

Andrew Miller is UK editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Sumzy on May 6, 2010, 6:33 GMT

    In my opinion, the big problem that ICC has done is calling it a game after 5 overs. In 50 over matches, it's 20 overs and its 40% of the full match where as in Twenty20, it's 5 overs and 25% of the full quota. One other thing they need to consider is, team batting second knows the advantage of having fielding restrictions when the game is curtailed. At least, they should stop this rule, when they are making targets using D/L

    There is no doubt ICC needs to revise their strategy for curtailed Twenty20 games. I guess they could start doing this by changing the minimum overs (to call it a game) to at least 10 overs and if there is no result, going for a ball out.

    I guess many won't complain about it.

  • Phase_swinG on May 6, 2010, 4:07 GMT

    Did duckworth ever played cricket?? I doubt it... Cricket is played on a cricket ground rather on a paper with mathematical brilliance. The Phase of the game is so swift that the end result can be changed by an individual brilliance in a matter of over. So, where is the place for so-called D/L. I am a big fan of cricket & since the game is already short, it should be decided on the ground by letting each team have a fair share of opportunities. Lets say, they play a one over eliminator, instead of D/L. Any lay-man can understand the game & its very satisfying to all of them. That way, cricket will grow

  • on May 5, 2010, 17:44 GMT

    i agree with collingwood that the duckworth lewis system which works perfectly fine with ODIs appears to suffer from anomalies in T20s...this i think is due to the ridiculous rule of 5 overs constituting a complete game...on a per over basis 60 from 6 overs which is slightly more than the original required rate and the fact that WI had not lost any wickets...it seems low because of the ridiculously low number of overs to bat with all ten wickets in hand ...in my opinion there should be no rain shortened T20 games as the number of overs per side is too less to begin with...the game should be abandoned in case of a long rain delay...an alternative to this is to have the super over

  • Itchy on May 5, 2010, 13:41 GMT

    The DL method is not deeply flawed but was designed for ODIs with a minimum of 20 overs to decide a match not a T20 game where less than 20 overs will decide a rain-affected match. If the ICC has made a ridiculous decision to set 5 overs as the minimum number of overs and then use DL as the method for determining the required score then it is they who should be blamed.

    There should be NO rain affected T20 matches as they are too short to start with - play all 20 overs per side or abandon the match as anything less is a waste of time.

  • ntg1972 on May 5, 2010, 11:43 GMT

    Narayanan The D/L system was brought in after the 1992 game with South Africa as the old system was unfair so not a correct comparison I'm afraid.

  • on May 5, 2010, 10:56 GMT

    I totally agree with the England captain. I think the target should be set taking the wickets to consideration. For example Zimbabwe needed 104 off 11 overs against SL but they could have batted aggressively because they had all 10 in hand, and it is unfair. The target has to be set to achieve with the certain amount of wickets, like 5 wickets. The target could have been reasonable in that game had they given 95 in 11 overs before the 6th wicket fell.

  • dave_67 on May 5, 2010, 9:48 GMT

    Frank Duckworth's comments come across as smug and self satisfied. It doesn't really matter what Collingwood thinks of the system - would he have commented if England had won? - but from a spectator's perspective the England/Windies match was simply unsatisfactory as a contest. Gayle bowled first because DL favours the team that's chasing, just as Ireland knew their best chance of victory was to bat 2nd in a rain-affected match. So teams are exploiting a flawed system and matches are potentially being decided by the toss of a coin. The Windies DL target was clearly too small in comparison to England's total - in a 36 ball innings the side batting second should have to score well above the other side's run rate - especially if loss of wickets is not taken into account....how Duckworth can defend a farce like Monday night is beyond me! The fact that England werwe 10-1 outsiders after a couple of overs tells you all you need to know about the stiff task they were faced with.

  • BooniesMo on May 5, 2010, 9:29 GMT

    I think the D/L method is valid for deciding games in it's current form. The problem lies in the minimum overs bowled requirement. I would like to hear Mr D's thoughts on whether 5 overs is enough to decide a 20 over game - the D/L method becomes more accurate with more over bowled. Perhaps minimum overs should be 10?

  • AsimZaka on May 5, 2010, 9:16 GMT

    DL is a stupid mathematical theoratical, away from the reality equation. It should be scraped right now for the betterment of cricket.

    Instead, we should have a jury of ex-cricketers, un baised, the day the rain falls, who then sit down, analyze everything, the rain, the runs, the pitch damage, the wickets, type of batsmen to follow etc. and come up with a fair equation every time. The pannel should be 3 to 5 un baised ex professionals.

  • AsimZaka on May 5, 2010, 9:12 GMT

    I think that the D/L rule is very theoratical and far away from the actual realities on the cricket field. I think that it has always come up with unfair figures like in the 1992 world cup and then twice already in this 20 20 world cup. It is a funny system.

    Inthe practical world there are so many things that we need to look at, the number of wickets, the conditions, the type of batsmen (1st five or the tail enders), which DL does not cater for.

    I think this mathematical rule needs to be altered tremendously to cater for many other factors, which I think would not really be possible, as every game is a new game. Every pitch is a new pitch.

    I think we need to scrap DL and instead, make a committee of un-baised ex cricketers, on the day of the match, who sit down during the rain, and analyze the exact factors like runs, wickets, state of the pitch, and set a fair target.

  • Sumzy on May 6, 2010, 6:33 GMT

    In my opinion, the big problem that ICC has done is calling it a game after 5 overs. In 50 over matches, it's 20 overs and its 40% of the full match where as in Twenty20, it's 5 overs and 25% of the full quota. One other thing they need to consider is, team batting second knows the advantage of having fielding restrictions when the game is curtailed. At least, they should stop this rule, when they are making targets using D/L

    There is no doubt ICC needs to revise their strategy for curtailed Twenty20 games. I guess they could start doing this by changing the minimum overs (to call it a game) to at least 10 overs and if there is no result, going for a ball out.

    I guess many won't complain about it.

  • Phase_swinG on May 6, 2010, 4:07 GMT

    Did duckworth ever played cricket?? I doubt it... Cricket is played on a cricket ground rather on a paper with mathematical brilliance. The Phase of the game is so swift that the end result can be changed by an individual brilliance in a matter of over. So, where is the place for so-called D/L. I am a big fan of cricket & since the game is already short, it should be decided on the ground by letting each team have a fair share of opportunities. Lets say, they play a one over eliminator, instead of D/L. Any lay-man can understand the game & its very satisfying to all of them. That way, cricket will grow

  • on May 5, 2010, 17:44 GMT

    i agree with collingwood that the duckworth lewis system which works perfectly fine with ODIs appears to suffer from anomalies in T20s...this i think is due to the ridiculous rule of 5 overs constituting a complete game...on a per over basis 60 from 6 overs which is slightly more than the original required rate and the fact that WI had not lost any wickets...it seems low because of the ridiculously low number of overs to bat with all ten wickets in hand ...in my opinion there should be no rain shortened T20 games as the number of overs per side is too less to begin with...the game should be abandoned in case of a long rain delay...an alternative to this is to have the super over

  • Itchy on May 5, 2010, 13:41 GMT

    The DL method is not deeply flawed but was designed for ODIs with a minimum of 20 overs to decide a match not a T20 game where less than 20 overs will decide a rain-affected match. If the ICC has made a ridiculous decision to set 5 overs as the minimum number of overs and then use DL as the method for determining the required score then it is they who should be blamed.

    There should be NO rain affected T20 matches as they are too short to start with - play all 20 overs per side or abandon the match as anything less is a waste of time.

  • ntg1972 on May 5, 2010, 11:43 GMT

    Narayanan The D/L system was brought in after the 1992 game with South Africa as the old system was unfair so not a correct comparison I'm afraid.

  • on May 5, 2010, 10:56 GMT

    I totally agree with the England captain. I think the target should be set taking the wickets to consideration. For example Zimbabwe needed 104 off 11 overs against SL but they could have batted aggressively because they had all 10 in hand, and it is unfair. The target has to be set to achieve with the certain amount of wickets, like 5 wickets. The target could have been reasonable in that game had they given 95 in 11 overs before the 6th wicket fell.

  • dave_67 on May 5, 2010, 9:48 GMT

    Frank Duckworth's comments come across as smug and self satisfied. It doesn't really matter what Collingwood thinks of the system - would he have commented if England had won? - but from a spectator's perspective the England/Windies match was simply unsatisfactory as a contest. Gayle bowled first because DL favours the team that's chasing, just as Ireland knew their best chance of victory was to bat 2nd in a rain-affected match. So teams are exploiting a flawed system and matches are potentially being decided by the toss of a coin. The Windies DL target was clearly too small in comparison to England's total - in a 36 ball innings the side batting second should have to score well above the other side's run rate - especially if loss of wickets is not taken into account....how Duckworth can defend a farce like Monday night is beyond me! The fact that England werwe 10-1 outsiders after a couple of overs tells you all you need to know about the stiff task they were faced with.

  • BooniesMo on May 5, 2010, 9:29 GMT

    I think the D/L method is valid for deciding games in it's current form. The problem lies in the minimum overs bowled requirement. I would like to hear Mr D's thoughts on whether 5 overs is enough to decide a 20 over game - the D/L method becomes more accurate with more over bowled. Perhaps minimum overs should be 10?

  • AsimZaka on May 5, 2010, 9:16 GMT

    DL is a stupid mathematical theoratical, away from the reality equation. It should be scraped right now for the betterment of cricket.

    Instead, we should have a jury of ex-cricketers, un baised, the day the rain falls, who then sit down, analyze everything, the rain, the runs, the pitch damage, the wickets, type of batsmen to follow etc. and come up with a fair equation every time. The pannel should be 3 to 5 un baised ex professionals.

  • AsimZaka on May 5, 2010, 9:12 GMT

    I think that the D/L rule is very theoratical and far away from the actual realities on the cricket field. I think that it has always come up with unfair figures like in the 1992 world cup and then twice already in this 20 20 world cup. It is a funny system.

    Inthe practical world there are so many things that we need to look at, the number of wickets, the conditions, the type of batsmen (1st five or the tail enders), which DL does not cater for.

    I think this mathematical rule needs to be altered tremendously to cater for many other factors, which I think would not really be possible, as every game is a new game. Every pitch is a new pitch.

    I think we need to scrap DL and instead, make a committee of un-baised ex cricketers, on the day of the match, who sit down during the rain, and analyze the exact factors like runs, wickets, state of the pitch, and set a fair target.

  • BellCurve on May 5, 2010, 9:09 GMT

    There are many things wrong with the D/L method. The Zim-NZ game illustrated this best. Zim scored 84 runs because they were too aggressive in trying to set NZ a target of 150. After rain interrupted the chase, the D/L tables were calculated and NZ set a target of 29 after 8.1 (given they have lost 1 wicket at that stage). So, D/L was saying NZ could not score 57 runs in 11.5 overs with 9 wickets in the bank facing Zim? That is outrageous! The D/L method is deeply, deeply, deeply flawed.

  • bestbuddy on May 5, 2010, 9:07 GMT

    I agree with Collingwood in that I feel that the duckworth lewis system is not ideal for this situation; but I also feel its not the formula's fault. Like Duckworth says in this article, in a 5 over game wickets become immaterial; a 5 over game is too short to ever keep the balance of the match. Either the batting team is facing an easier target, or the target becomes impossible; there is no middle ground in such a short game, as only attainable runrates are a factor. 12 an over for 5 overs is relatively easy, 14+ becomes difficult; too little leeway. There should thus be a greater number of overs required to constitute a game - at least 10 I would say. Iits no coincidence that for a 50 over a side game to reach a conclusion regarding d/l you need to have bowled at least 20 overs each...maybe d/l should be scrapped in 20/20..??

  • scritty on May 5, 2010, 9:07 GMT

    Socring 60 in 6 overs - While having poweplay for 50% of the time is just a matter of 8 or 9 boundary balls. A couple of good overs with no concern over losing wickets. Scoring 191 in 20 is a much harder task. I reckon if on the decent pitch we say Monday you asked 10 sides to score 60 in 6 (with more than 3 overs of powerplay restrictions and no concern about losing wickets) MOST would succeedt. If you asked the same teams to score 191 in 20 under normal conditions most would fail. You need 15 or 16 better than average overs to score 191 in 20 - while worrying about wickets. You need 8 or 9 good balls to score 60 in 6. I respect Duckworth - but this discrepancy seems flipping obvious

  • ThirteenthMan on May 5, 2010, 8:57 GMT

    Duckworth: ""That revised target of 60 from six overs was set because, before the rain interruption, West Indies had faced 14 balls and scored a massive 30 runs without losing any wickets," Duckworth added. "They were 11 runs ahead of the D/L par, and if the match hadn't been able to restart, and if for the sake of argument you allowed a match to be valid with only 2.2 overs bowled, then West Indies would have won by 11 runs. They were winning easily when the rain came." "

    How can he defend D/L by saying"They were winning easily when the rain came."? They were winning easily according to D/L, so he cannot say that proves the worth of D/L.

    Whatever system is in place, it will be poor if only 5 overs are bowled. Does D/L take account of whether the team batting second new D/L would come into play (i.e. did they expect rain?)? I can't see how there can be much data on which to base allowances for the effect on tactics of expecting/not expecting rain.

  • on May 5, 2010, 8:49 GMT

    Anoop: You're argument is absurd. Paul Collingwood might lose 100 out of 100 times, might lose 0 out of 100 times. Its D/L's job to assess how often he would have lost GIVEN team 2 has done so much in so many overs during that chase. And Paul's beef is spot on: If WI were given 20 overs to chase, their target is 191. Now if the heavens open up AFTER 5 overs, WI's target to be "ahead" depends on how many wickets they lost. But if the heavens open up BEFORE WI innings starts, WI have the same target regardless of wickets lost. THAT is the glitch in D/L that is repeatedly showing up.

  • Ajayvs on May 5, 2010, 8:27 GMT

    There were many other methods tried before adapting the Duckworth Lewis method and none of them were found satisfactory.This by far is the fairest adopted method so far.Having said that i would still support Collinwood's thoughts on this system,it is little bit unfair to teams bowling second in 20-20 matches.What i think is needed, is to calibrate the system(change the formula a little bit) for 20-20 games to make the asking rates a little bit stiffer for teams batting second. In the Wi-England match probably a 13-14 run per over target would have been fairer to both the teams.

  • amitk500 on May 5, 2010, 6:58 GMT

    I agree and disagree on D/L method. In ODIs, D/L method makes some sense or atleast is a fair ground. In T20, I think instead of going for D/L method for matches for which 10 overs have not been bowled yet, consider the game as DRAW and if RAIN stops and allows for enough time then go with SUPER Over to decide the winner of the game. This will be fair to both the teams. For T20 games, where atleast 10 overs have been bowled, D/L method can be used to decide the winner. As such D/L is a pretty good statistical formula but statistics dont always give us the real information.

  • Midlander on May 5, 2010, 6:57 GMT

    One point that doesn't seem to have been made is the issue of power plays - which DL doesn't allow for I think. The problem with the WI/England match was that the first two overs, when Gayle scored freely, were powerplay overs. a possible way forward would be to weight the powerplay overs differently at (say) twice the level of other overs. Thus a T20 match, with 8 powerplay overs (is that the correct number) would have 28 effective overs in DL terms that would be reduced by two for every powerplay over that was used. In the case under discussion, this would have pushed up the DL target quite significantly for the WI I think.

  • on May 5, 2010, 6:55 GMT

    I dont get how D-L method works better in 50 over matches as well. Remember, the same England enjoyed the benifits of D-L method in 1992 World Cup Semifinal. 22 from 21 balls being reduced to 22 from1 ball sounded a very good calculation ??

  • on May 5, 2010, 5:11 GMT

    I completely disagree with Paul Collingwood's comment on D/L method. He has not lost the match because of D/L method in fact England lost it because of the earlier onslaught by West indies in counter and they were 30 without loss in just 2.2 overs. In cricket there is no 99.5% even if you score 191 for 100 times , cricket is funny game and we have seen in past and you might lose on all 100 occassions after scoring 191 Mr Paul Collingwood

  • on May 5, 2010, 4:15 GMT

    How about we try to compare the alternative method and see which one is really superior, to ease here is the link to a very good comparision between D/L method & Jayadevan's method (which was also accepted by the ICL) http://www.rediff.com/cricket/2001/may/21srini.htm

  • on May 5, 2010, 3:11 GMT

    "Collingwood is right and Duckworth is wrong. 20/20 and 50 over cricket are completely different and you cannot apply the same criteria to them. There should be an entirely separate formula for 20/20, yesterday's target was clearly completely wrong. " The target was wrong, because the method was inconsistent with itself.

    I repeat: If the targets are moving (based on wickets lost), the same D/L formulae can be applied to T/20. For example, if England scored 191, and rain reduced WI innings to 5 overs upfront...WI need to score 43/0 say.....or 47/1...or 55/2...etc etc....up to say 112/9 in 5 overs....now if WI reach 112 for the loss of ANY number of wickets sooner than 5 overs, the game ends then and there... The challenge for the D/L method was to set a meaningful "end point" to a rain curtailed match...and their first cut's shortcoming (the game ends when team 2 reaches say 48 in 5 overs REGARDLESS of wickets lost) has been totally exposed in T20 cricket.

  • on May 5, 2010, 2:26 GMT

    The fundamental problem in the D/L Lewis system in rain shortened matches is that it is inconsistent with ITSELF. For example, suppose team 1 makes X runs in a limited overs(say 50 overs) game. Team 2 makes Y runs in Z overs, losing W wickets. Based on the value of W, D/L assesses probability of victory for Team 2 and figures the following: "Using up W wickets and Z overs, they should have been at Y1 to be "ahead of par". ANd if Y>=Y1, Team 2 wins, else Team 1 wins (or its a draw, when the score is exactly par). However, this logic isn't extended to when assessing targets for rain curtailed games. Continuing with the same example: Team 2's innings was curtailed before it started. Therefore they get a D/L Target of X1 runs in Z1 overs:regardless of how many wickets they have lost!!! This absurdity gets exposed most in T20.Team 1 makes 191. Team2 needs to make say 90 runs in 8 overs regardless of how many wickets they lose!!! Make the target moving based on wickets lost, and all's fair.

  • ABP235 on May 5, 2010, 2:22 GMT

    Mr Duckworth is wrong. No, not in his formula, but in stating that only Collingwood has a problem with his formula. I have seen comments from everyone, even Gayle took Colly's side in this, so many fans are against it. I believe T20 matches should never be shortened. another factor people are not commenting is the SUPER CRAZY SUPER OVER in times of a Tie. This is absolutely ridiculous. Even for a tie in round robin games they use this. Well, if it is used in a knockout stage, it can be accepted (though not in full satisfaction) but in round robin, a tie should remain a tie. That will be the best result.

  • on May 5, 2010, 2:03 GMT

    T20 is already a very short and packed game. If pacing an innings over 20 overs isn't fair, then what is? 191 was definitely a great score to defend. I think a full game of 20 overs each or a tie break, super over or even a toss gives fair (dis)advantage to both sides. Just call it a no-result in H2H stats and move on for the tournament's sake with a tie break.

  • on May 5, 2010, 1:52 GMT

    I totaly agree with Collingwood. 95 times team wins after scoring 191 in 20 overs. I don't know if Mr. duckworth is trying to make people fool or himself. Even kids know that in 6 overs even 70 runs are not difficult when all wickets in hand. I agree with those people who say game should not be decided just in 5-6 overs. Even this system is just OK for 50 over game but not perfect.... I dont know if others agree with me, I WOULD SUGGEST either 50 overs match or 20, LAST overs should be count. For EXAMPLE, England scored 191 and they scored 75 runs in last 6 overs. WI should chase 76 runs to win. It would be fair with both teams. If England have advantage that they scored with old ball, but other hand they lost some wickets before last 6 overs. WI playing 6 overs with new ball but they have all wickets in hand as well as Power play overs. Again I suggest, COUNT the score is made in last overs of first innings if overs are reduced. Thanx

  • on May 5, 2010, 1:06 GMT

    it is one thing setting a six over target and another thing having a washout after six overs.in the second case, the batting team has to its advantage the full quota of power play. with gayle batting during this period, ten an over during the power play was a given. the actual equation of 132 to get in 82 would have been too much for chanderpaul, sarwan sammy and bravo. i guess we might need a different correction for different teams because a team like west indies relies heavily on gayle, whereas south africa banks on its middle order.i dont think england were too bothered about chirs gayle going berserk because once they got him, the match was easily theirs.

  • on May 5, 2010, 0:51 GMT

    Mr.Duckworth s defending his formula as a mathematician and that s kind of fair. But what really s unfair is ICC employing D/L for a T20 game! As someone clearly pointed out, T20 is just a 3 hour game similar to an avg tennis match. Follow a similar path of havin reserve days in Wimbledon (rain s a problem evry year), where the matches are played till completion without truncatin the matches to say, a 1 setter or a tie breaker!! People might argue tat cricket schedule is far more tighter compared to tennis and i agree but this s a WORLD CUP for cryin out loud and not some ordinary series! And since the match s only for 3 hrs it can easily be played whenever the rain stops.. Have a limit on reserve days - if it goes beyond a specific no:of days then do all the crazy calculations or flip a coin or watever n decide the result! Message to ICC - DONT SHORTEN AN ALREADY SHORTENED VERSION OF THE GAME - IT IS RIDICULOUS!!!

  • on May 5, 2010, 0:46 GMT

    Well 30 in 2.2 overs means further 162 required off 17.4 hours had the game been full 20 overs i.e. 9.2 runs per over. Now 60 off 6 overs means, further 30 required off 3.4 overs i.e around 8.2 runs an over. How on Earth can Duckworth claim that maintaining an average of 9.2 for 17.4 overs is easier (or say equal as D/L claims eqaul chances) than maintaing 8.2 for 3.2 overs? On the other hand, the rules are same for everyone whether favouring or otherwise? Who can forget SA requirng 22 off 13 balls were reduced to 22 off 1 ball in 1992 World Cup semi final due to some ridiculous rain rules? So the situation like this is just a trigger to make correction to the rules as nothing can be perfect in a reduced game!

  • MadRun on May 5, 2010, 0:36 GMT

    The problem with D/L in T20 is two fold:-

    1. 5 overs to constitute a result yielding game is ridiculous. It would invariably help the team batting second. Gayle himself had admitted that he chose to bat second because he felt that D/L could be a factor. Now assume that a team feels that D/L could be a factor and choose to play with 7 bowlers and 3 hard hitting batsmen and bat second, provided they won the toss or incase they lose the toss and have to bat, they could pack their team with batsmen and a couple of bowlers and go hell for leather!!!. To be fair, both teams can do the same.... I strongly feel that no less than 10 overs must be played by both teams to constitute a game.

    2. In order to bring some sanity and parity to the calculations, I think M/s D and L should somehow also take into account the performance/averages of the playing 11's last 5 matches and incorporate it to find the runs required to win!

  • AceB on May 4, 2010, 23:52 GMT

    T20 is a ridiculous format anyway so any method of resolving a match would be equelly ridiculous ..If WI had lost or had messed up for some reason , would there be so moch hot air?.. Yes complete the matches but don't forget that T.V is boss...

  • Thandiwe on May 4, 2010, 23:46 GMT

    The problem is not with the D/L system in setting target scores but its application. I cannot fault the system and the similarities in the scoring patterns of T20 and ODI but reducing a game to 5/6 overs seems "not nearly equivalent".

    To examine the WI/England match; England scored at 9.55 runs oper an over and the Wi were asked to chase at 10 runs per over. Yet, the English effort was sustained over 20 overs or 3.67 times the requiredment for the WI. I acknowledged that the WI were off to a flyer at 12.88 runs per over.

    If we cannot move upward the minimum over, then the adjustment shall come in some other resource like wickets. For example, England scored their runs at 38.2 runs per wicket. What if the target score was prorated by the runs per wicket score to determine how many wickets the chasing team could lose.

    For that the Wi target would have been 60 runs with 2 wickets.

    So once Pollard was out the Wi would have lost.

    Food for thought.

  • Avery_Mann on May 4, 2010, 23:45 GMT

    It's always someone else's fault when England loses, in any form of the game. Chris Gayle out-smarted England this time, and hit the big shots when he needed to. You have to take wickets to win in the short games when DL is involved, and England couldn't do that. A fair win for WI.

  • Warrior78 on May 4, 2010, 23:34 GMT

    Why should they be reducing overs to just finish a match in an already shortened version of the game. Where did the reserve day concept go. Atleast for important events like WC, there should be a reserve day available. The administration is only thinking about ways to make money from public & advertisements. The way cricket administration is being done is becoming a JOKE. Self centered people are spoiling the sport we all love & admire so much!!

  • Dine on May 4, 2010, 23:33 GMT

    Wow how can you have all 10 wickets for a reduced over? It has to take into account of how many wickets were lost by the opposition team. For eg. if Eng had scored 60/0 in 6 overs then the same runs (altered by D/L) must be scored BUT for the loss of no wickets as ENG had not lost any. So the calculations are good for the D/L method but you must take into account how many wickets were lost by the opposition. I won't even oppose this as a rule for every run chase (even in base ball) that takes place, be it being interrupted or not.... It is very simple if a team gets a score for the loss of no wickets then the other must do that as well or else they lose. Already a team batting second has the advantage of being able to pase their innings and just scoring the runs and the wickets not being considered is not fair.

  • kitten on May 4, 2010, 23:31 GMT

    Collingwood made such a fuss yesterday(and rightly so), but today the rains worked in his favour against Ireland. There was a good chance that Ireland would prevail if the rains had not intervened. So Collingwood and England got their due satisfaction from being denied the day before.

  • Andy199 on May 4, 2010, 23:14 GMT

    Couldn't agree more. DevZaveri is right! Cricket is a mind/skill game... a team has done its hard work to get to 191... some stupid calculations cannot revise a target... abandon the game or have reserve days or schedule matches on days when there are no rain forecast... nothing else makes ANY SENSE at all... a super over makes much much much much more sense to me than having a reduced target ...

  • Horsley-Send on May 4, 2010, 22:48 GMT

    Ok, My 2 pence worth. I see it this way, Eng 190 in the 20 overs, to make a game a team batting 2nd has to face 5 overs, fair enough but, we havnt taken into account of the field restrictions in those 5 overs. DL will not seem to allow for that, side batting first has no chance what so ever, why do you think Chris Gayle bowled first, every international cpt would have done the same.

    So how do we get over this? just food for thought, maybe take the side batting first score for those first 5 overs, cant remember whats Engs was but as both side knew rain was coming, at least it would become a more level playing field.

  • Peligrosisimo3 on May 4, 2010, 22:47 GMT

    Before all the teams entered the T20 tournament everyone knew of the D/L method to decide rain interrupted matches. What is all the hoop-la about.If England wins the world cup by the D/L that will be the last time we will ever hear complaints from englishmen about D/L. Come on 191 is NOT a foregone conclusion.South Africa chased down 200 plus from WI(first T20, we know that). With the reductions there are less field restriction even none and 60 in 6 overs towards the end of an innings is considered explosive so 60 in 6 is not a piece of cake as the majority seems to suggest. At the start of an innings there ARE fielding restrictions. Its not perfect but neither is having one team bat one day and the other team the other day. Conditions can change drastically and neither is it ideal to have one team bat 5 hours after the first team has batted. Imagine if a team were to complain about a penalty shootout after losing to another team in the shoutout. If D/L is a no-no,then dont participate

  • on May 4, 2010, 22:47 GMT

    The failing of Duckworth/Lewis is that it tries to make variables constants. It has no way of gauging the importance of certain players in the team. We all know that if West Indies are 30/1 and Chris Gayle is the man out then West Indies have far less chance of winning than if it's his partner that's out yet D/L implies the same chance which is obviously wrong. For me D/L is as accurate as if I created a horse racing database that predicted which horse should win the race. Critics would be right to tell me my system was flawed because of the random variables in a race that cannot be controlled regardless of what formula is used. And the same goes for D/L. Keep mathematicians away from Cricket. It's a beautiful game for it's artistry, emotion and theatre. People with calculators should be kept as far away as possible from a cricket ground!

  • on May 4, 2010, 22:23 GMT

    Well I think Paul Collingwood is right here since D/L method may be good in case of an ODI as there has to be 20 overs bowled each side, however in T20 its 6 over a side. By implementing D/L in T20 we are forgetting the past T20 matches in which teams which scored heavily during the first 6 overs have end up scoring far lesser than expected. Consider the match that is in question here, after 18.4 overs England was 180 for 4 and were expected to score above 200 but they actually end up scoring just 9 runs in the final over out of which 2 deliveries didn't even go for runs. What we are forgetting here s the team's strategy at different point of times in a match. This factor leads to dot balls been bowled and hence drastically changing the situation. In 50 over games it is an over or two which changes the momentum but in T20, the same thing is decided within 2 - 3 balls. i think the best possible way out is to have a reserve day for T20 since not much time is required to play an innings.

  • crikkfan on May 4, 2010, 22:17 GMT

    Ok 2 points - 1 in favor of the J-rule for T20 - here is an excerpt from an interview where it clearly mentioned the J-rule could be better suited than D/L rule. It was after all used in the ICL - "And at the ICL, Jayadevan is finally getting what has been long overdue -- the money for his hard work. "Finally, I have been able to cover my costs," he said. And since his system is well suited for the T20 matches, is the IPL too on his cards? To which Jayadevan said,"Sure, I wouldn't mind that."" 2nd point is that most people agree that decided a match after 5 or 6 overs is ridiculous - I agree too and that is a different issue altogether than the rain rule per se. If ICC thnks a match can be decided in 5 overs , what should then be the revised target if the original is 191 ? - 60 in 6? 100 in 5 ? somewhere in the middle? I dont know - I dont think it is fair however you look at it. I dont blame the rain rule for that however.

  • forzaps on May 4, 2010, 22:06 GMT

    A 20-20 game should never be shortened period. In baseball, they just keep playing (if the game goes into extensive extra innings for example). Tournament logistics and broadcast deals simply have to have this as a requirement they have to factor in.

  • Maverick79 on May 4, 2010, 22:05 GMT

    D/L's fair. No question about that when its a 50 over game. Also its not the case of which teams complaining. Whoever says England is complaining, may i ask you guys, what would have been the reaction if it was your side. Australia,India, Pakistan whoever. Don't you guys think Srilanka would not have complained had Zimbabwe (how on earth can they say there was no clarity about the score after the match had resumed) won the match. Lets accept it, D/L needs real tweaking in its T20 calculation or even better let the points be split. Its better than 5 over gali (village) cricket. I'm not in support for England. But be serious ICC, this is considered to be a world cup for T20 except that its played every year(maybe just this time). Don't make mockery of this version thats already making bad news in every aspect.

  • werewight on May 4, 2010, 22:00 GMT

    The only reason, Mr Duckworth, that there have only been two instances of dissent against D/L in T20 is because this same situation hasn't arisen every time. A team smashing the first two or three overs for 12s is good obviously, but not game changing enough to have such an effect on the score. There needs to be an adjustment made so the batting team has to be worried about losing wickets. Perhaps for every 2 overs taken off a wicket is taken off. So 60 from 6 overs can be defended by bowling the other team out (taking 3 wickets).

  • on May 4, 2010, 21:58 GMT

    What a load of cobblers. DL method is an insult to the players, fans and officials. Unless wickets in hand is taken into account it's not even close or fair for 20/20. Take your head out of the sand Mr Duckworth and do something about your formula to make it less of a joke please.

  • on May 4, 2010, 21:50 GMT

    Yea Devzaveri but the only difference is Sl wasnt eliminated and its because they started well... Im not saying Dl 100% fair but it still gave England a chance to win unlike 92 world cup semi-final..

  • FlashAsh on May 4, 2010, 21:37 GMT

    Frankly Duckworth has shot himself in the foot!! Claiming that WI played better in first few overs!! What was the england score at 2.2 overs?? And they thought they had the entire 20 overs allocation!! So to suggest its Englands frustration is a bit rich!! Whats the highest score of the competition so far? 191!!

    D/L has worked mostly for 50 overs but does need a look at, although having only 5 overs constitute a match is laughable. That is what really needs looking into e.g this evening play called off at, what 16:30 hrs local time? whereas a ODI would go on til 21:30 hrs??? So this match could have been finished or given 10 overs etc if they were happy to play until 21:30 hrs under lights??

    Frankly Duckies defence was not robust more of a spoilt childs throwing toys from pram and ICC back us so Nah, nah, nah!!

    Changes need to be made to the system for 20/20 or lets gets some more modern statisticians??

  • DrAtharAbbas on May 4, 2010, 21:24 GMT

    It all seems like one thing: We are playing a world cup of mathematics and statistics. It will make more sense if we call in 11 maths/stat professors of each country and let them present their research papers on the following topic in a conference hall.

    Application of interpolation and statistics in the field of sports: Then call that research conference a "Cricket World Cup"

    I shall certainly present my research paper in it concluding that results based on statistical predictions are simply meaningless.

    Please play the sport, it is a sport

  • on May 4, 2010, 21:20 GMT

    well now tht endlang have made it to the super eights by the D/L method..they would not complain as ireland had a fair chance of winning.

  • on May 4, 2010, 21:09 GMT

    what a bizzare tournament, most of the matches are decided on rain. I think the way we are going, the final may be decided on one ever each :)

  • h636 on May 4, 2010, 21:06 GMT

    I dont see why they just figure out the run rate multiply it by the overs available and play

  • rickpaul on May 4, 2010, 21:01 GMT

    The use of statistical modelling for dynamical processes is well established, but, and this is a very important point, all estimates come with errors of margin. Thus one can estimate a score necessary to be made within a certain amount of time, but this comes with error margins. Thus 60 from 6 overs would have to be with erros of margin (eg from say 10 to 120 per 6 overs). The error margins will increase as the numbers decrease - ie likely to be bigger for small over numbers than large. The alteration of expectation given immediate recent performance (ie change from 66 to 60 folliwng first 2 overs) will bring huge bias and any statistician would be horrified that a general formula be used as such. Dynamical models are very poor in general - has anyone ever believed the weather forecast?

  • DevZaveri on May 4, 2010, 20:53 GMT

    Who is he kiddung? What does he mean the only team to complain has been England. he needs to ask the captains of a cricket team. if SL was eliminated the other day they would not be happy too. I am a avid maths fan and a avid cricket fan and can conclude the current way of calculating the D/L is ridiculous. No way on earth is chasing 191 even remotely close to chasing 60 in 6? i think in t20 we should not have a match less than 12 overs atleast. playing for 6 overs is absolute mockery of cricket. 8 out of 10 times team chase 60 from 6 overs and 8 out of 10 times team lose chasing 191.

  • droplet on May 4, 2010, 20:53 GMT

    if the west indies had scored less than 30 runs in the 2.2 overs they faced before the rain, they would have had to score more than 60 runs in the six total overs that they eventually faced. d/l in this instance is stating that in a chase of 191 20 overs, 30/1 in 2.2 is considerably ahead of the required rate and so the target must be made correspondingly easier to reach from the point of interruption. let's say for example that west indies had faced zero deliveries before the rain came, the total would most definitely not have been 60 off 6. it would have been much higher. // the biggest failure of the system is when a team plays for the rain, being failry sure it will fall. but this can backfire on them just as easily...

  • on May 4, 2010, 20:52 GMT

    One important thing here to note is that D\L system, considers "how well team was doing" before rain interruption. If say, team is scoring more than RRR then target set is different (and lower), as opposed to team scoring less than RRR. I think in T20 this fact can be exploited easily by quickfiring a couple of overs and boosting RR and getting a lower target, if you are anticipating rain. This is what Gayle has done here.

  • arvindohio on May 4, 2010, 20:50 GMT

    First, Twenty20 format itself should be scrutinized. In tests, you play a total of 40 wickets, in one-day game you play 20; so shouldn't you play a total of 8-10 wickets (4/5 per side) in T20. ICC needs to look into this. Now, to add on to that D/L method, makes it a even bigger comedy, giving all 10 wickets at any time to play.

    SUGGESTION: A team should be considered "all out" when they lose 5 wickets. This makes T20 even bowler friendly, and will force batsman to play sensibly than just chase the ball. All eleven field, but only any 6 of the 11 batsman (5 wickets) can play the 20 overs; however, all eleven can bowl.

    In US baseball games, its around 3-4 hours. One of the drawbacks of 1-dayers that was claimed, was it took an entire day or 7 hrs.

    Lastly, I have great respect for cricinfo. Please don't publish such insensible articles from people who are just math nerds bit don't understand the game a bit, all they know is NUMBERS. If possible, pls elevate the above suggestion to ICC

  • crikkfan on May 4, 2010, 20:29 GMT

    The 'geniuses' here are commenting D/L is ridiculous and the formula needs adjustment and what not. Do you know what it should be changed to? Ok even without getting into details, what aspects need to be changed, you need more runs to be scored by the chasing team? How much more? It is easy to sit in the armchair and criticize but that is good for nothing. D/L is the best we have got or one of the two to be precise - another gentleman by the name of Jayadevan has come up with an equally impressive calculation too which some consider better - I wouldnt mind if the 'J-rule' is evaluated for T20 cricket. I just came up with that naming!

  • DrAtharAbbas on May 4, 2010, 20:23 GMT

    One last thing to add from my earlier text. If probability and statiscs can be the basis of match results, we really do not need to play a match. We can always decide the winner based on past statistics at any time. Similarly, all top ranking players must be awarded the trophies based on statistics as rankings are based on statictics. No need to play.

    I fully back Collingwood; he is very justified in being aggrieved.

    (FYI: I am myself a mathematician: if someone thinks that I am writing it without understanding)

  • rogerbij on May 4, 2010, 20:22 GMT

    I disagree with the other comments thus far. While no formula is perfect, the D/L is a very well considered method backed up by a tonne of empirical data (see the story above). So what was the problem yesterday? My view is that it is not the formula but the ridiculously short number of overs that are required to constitute a game in 20/20. If WI were required by the D/L formula to maintain that runrate for 10+ overs there would've been less to complain about, but when only 5 overs constitutes a match...well I cant think of a fair system for a slogathon such as that.

  • ranpath on May 4, 2010, 20:22 GMT

    Duckworth for a T20 match ? Please let's be real. Duckworth in my humble opinion is not appropriate even for the longer version. Yes a team can blaze away for a few overs and have a high run rate. But the nature of cricket means that a couple quick wickets, the run rate drops and the match can go either way. let 's be willing to accept the concept of the rained out match as a "result". If its a final then make more rational provisions for a winner to be declared ( based on the team with the best run up to the final for example ). Or why not have the championship shared or schedule a replay ? By the way if they are so sold on the DL system why don't they develop a formula for test matches - especially where rain interrupts play when a team is on the brink of victory ?

  • DrAtharAbbas on May 4, 2010, 20:16 GMT

    Rain in Wimbledon tennis is almost always a factor, yet I have never seen a best of 5 match reduced to best of 3 because of rain. The comparison of tennis match with a T20 is very fair as both are around 3 hours time. I have never seen a football match reduced to 45 minutes because of rain, never in field hockey, Never a marathon is reduced to 13 miles because of inclement weather. I haven't seen any other sport do this statistical gimickry and try to make sense. it will never make sense. In ODI it makes sense (only partially) because you need the entire day for the play, and you don't want it to go to the next day. (Wimbledon does that to tennis matches). A 3 hours match for cricket: Why should it be reduced? Why at all. T20 is already a shortened match. 5 overs a side makes sense only in a Lahore street for elementary school kids To decide the fate of the world cup, on 5 overs, It is simply RIDICULOUS. Please complete the matches, All: please, don't ruin the worldcup

  • RaoVS on May 4, 2010, 20:12 GMT

    20/20 itself is a highly shotned game. And to declare result based on 5 overs is ridiculous. We may as well toss a coin and finish the game. Why waste 3 hrs? Predicting what would have happened in such a short game, with even more shorter data is simply illogical. Factor something other than statistics for interruptions.

  • Phil_Kirby on May 4, 2010, 20:07 GMT

    I am not British, but Collingwood is right and Duckworth's arguments are codswallop - very typical of a statistician buried deep in his books. Apart from an extraordinary innings from a handful few around the world, chasing 191 in 20 overs was not easy, close to impossible; you could put any other team to chase against this same England team, give them 10 tries, and you'd be lucky to see one successful attempt; but 60 in 6 overs when you don't have to worry about the wickets? More than even chance for any of the same teams! The only reason D/L works in one-days is that it needs a minimum of 20 overs, which still gives a modicum of balance for both sides to adapt while chasing or defending. D/L should absolutely change for a 5 over bish-bam-boom, with weightage given to wickets lost (for both sides). Hiding behind a fog of math is just denial, not an assessment.

  • straight_driver on May 4, 2010, 20:04 GMT

    A simplistic calculation shows that WI scored at 10 RPO to get to 60 in 6 overs.This RR is greater than the 9.6 RPO that would have been required to reach 192 in 20 overs - so WI deservedly won. The fallacy here is in the number of wickets lost - which would make far greater impact in the full 20 over game than in 6 overs. The number of wickets lost have got to count somehow for it to be fairer - at least commonsense says so!

  • Arvian on May 4, 2010, 20:03 GMT

    Come on Mr. Duckworth, No human being in the world would agree with you. I don't choose 192 in 20 overs in my wildest dreams if I have a choice like 60 from 6 overs with 10 wickets. You don't need to be a mathematician to say so, it is very clear that England got a raw deal in the last match. Anybody will be frustrated with the kind of treatment Collingwood got with your so called D/L rule and that is completely understandable. Just think the amount of runs scored in a T20. Most teams are scoring 180+ runs and sometimes 200+ too. How many times 450 or 500 runs scored in a 50 overs match???? In a T20, 8 runs per over is the norm these days where in 50 overs it is 6 runs per over. This simple equation should give you the reason behind the Coliingwood's frustration. 2 different formats and you need 2 different D/L rules, Period. Hope this is a wakeup call D/L rule.

  • harpmander on May 4, 2010, 19:34 GMT

    I think they should make some changes like,,,if they gave W.I. a target 60 from 6 overs then why did`t they reduced the wickets,,,i mean 60 runs in 6 overs with 10 wickets is easy but think about 60 runs in 6 overs with only 3 wickets is kinda challanging,,,

  • on May 4, 2010, 19:31 GMT

    Is there a way that DL system comes out right after the toss, so there's no need to play a game at all? Some use if statistics to save all the "wasted" energy on the field?

  • rsgarcia on May 4, 2010, 19:19 GMT

    Yes, it was a hard loss to take. But guess what--lots of other teams have lost under the D/L in situations that would have appeared far different without the rain. None of the captains then had the bad form to act like it should all be changed because he lost. Do I like D/L? Who does? But if you had 60 runs from 5 overs with only two wickets down, that meant that at the current run rate, England would have lost by the 15 over. The D/L isn't about your total runs scored--that can change in myriad ways, positive and negative. But what is not in dispute is that the WI had a huge start and many players to back them up. The two wickets lost are pointless in a 20/20. The WI has lost many games to the D/L after making big scores. They took their losses then and they'll take the win now. It's time for England to take theirs. Really, it's not like they're a 20/20 powerhouse or anything. Just because you made a good score doesn't mean you had the match won.

  • pb10677 on May 4, 2010, 19:18 GMT

    I like the DL system - it's a decent system, it's the best one we've got and effort is made to ensure it does evolve over time. However,I do think it needs slightly recalibrating for T20 cricket.

    Mr Duckworth makes some good clear points in his statement here. He's right that England's bowling wasn't that good - they bowled 8 wides in 6 overs, which not only took up time but added to the score. They also weren't very streetsmart going out to bowl - they should have known the Windies were going to lace it because weather was floating around.

    The other key point is when Mr D mentions the value of wickets as a resource diminshes in T20. Conversely, the value of an over is far greater as you get less of them. The whole formula is based on the relationship between those two resources, which is different in the 50 over format than in T20.

    The calculation needs to take care of the different emphasis between the two factors in T20, and I'm not sure it does at the moment.

  • on May 4, 2010, 19:16 GMT

    I agree with Collingwood. Chasing 191 in 20 overs with 10 wickets is not as easy as chasing 60 in 6 overs with 10 wickets in hands. I think the problem is that the law is just theoretical calculation. It does not reflect the whole scenario of the match situation. U agree with "SettingSun" they might be a good statistician but they simply do not understand the whole game. Just imagine that 160 runs in a t20 game is now nothing out of this world but average. But, If it was just about calculation then according to that pattern 400 runs should be average score made more frequently in 50 overs game but that's not the case Why? because it is not just about calculation. Instead of defending themselves they should come up with something else. I felt bad for England as a cricket fan ( I do not belong to England but Pakistan).& I do not hate west indies but it would be really a difficult chance for them to get 191 from 20 overs.

  • inswing on May 4, 2010, 19:15 GMT

    Another flaw in the D/L method is that it assumes that before the rain, everyone plays as if it is a full game. In most situations, you know that there are chances of rain, so this assumption is false. Gayle scored at such a high rate because he was not playing a 20 over game and hence did not care for his wicket. That bring in another flaw of the D/L argument, which is that wickets don't matter in T20 because the game is so short. This is obviously and completely false, as anyone who has followed T20 knows. Wickets are less important than Tests or one days, but not nothing. Any time there are a couple of quick wickets, you will see the run rate go down. This would not happen if wickets had no importance. One change is essential to D/L for T20: Increase the asking rate for shortened games. A second option is to limit the number of wickets, in case the innings is very short, such as 5 or 6 overs. Right now, D and L are the only two people in the world who think that D/L is fair.

  • Bang_La on May 4, 2010, 19:10 GMT

    Hahahahaha now its getting funny! We clearly can see Collingwood's foot in mouth :)

  • mrhash11 on May 4, 2010, 18:51 GMT

    I am no England Fan but I would support Collingwood here. Obviously this Duckworth dude will defend his formula cuz thats probably his only achievement in life. Most teams posting 191 can relax even if the score is 60 in the first 4 overs. What this formula doesn't take into account is the number of wickets a team has to post that score. If the number of runs required decrease after the overs have been reduced due to rain, then so should the number of wickets. For example in this case a score of 60 required in 6 overs seems reasonable but with two wickets in hand. If the third wicket falls before 60 runs are scored, the match is over. Can't believe ICC does not have a few decent mathematicians to figure this out!

  • Maverick79 on May 4, 2010, 18:50 GMT

    D/L for 50 overs is fair. A lot has to be done for T20. Even a run rate of 12/over for 6 overs is always doable in a rain shortened match. Remember they still have 10 batsmen to bat out. Had it been India instead of England, Mr Duckworth/Lewis would have started by now on new formula's for this version. C'mon just be fair to a team that's batted wonderfully and lost the match handsomely. I'd have to say, the best rule for a T20 shortened match esp if it was around 5 to 6 overs chase, is to set a target by adding the the highest 5/6 (depending on how many overs the chase is) overs scored off by the first team. At least be fair to the first team. If the first team could bat out like that in 20 overs then the chasing team should be good enough to bat the same way in fewer overs that they have. Make this game a fair one. Who can forgive the rules set by the cricket administrators when SA was screwed from entering the finals in the 1992 world cup. 18 years down and nothings sorted out.

  • mrhash11 on May 4, 2010, 18:45 GMT

    I am no England Fan but I would support Collingwood here. Obviously this Duckworth dude will defend his formula cuz thats probably his only achievement in life. Most teams posting 191 can relax even if the score is 60 in the first 4 overs. What this formula doesn't take into account is the number of wickets a team has to post that score. If the number of runs required decrease after the overs have been reduced due to rain, then so should the number of wickets. For example in this case a score of 60 required in 6 overs seems reasonable but with two wickets in hand. If the third wicket falls before 60 runs are scored, the match is over. Can't believe ICC does not have a few decent mathematicians to figure this out!

  • nafzak on May 4, 2010, 18:39 GMT

    Duckworth is correct... England should stop whining whenever they lose. They always seek to change the rules when they can't win.

  • on May 4, 2010, 18:36 GMT

    D/L rule need to be revised. They could reduce the number of wickets of the chasing team according to the situation. This would make this rule more fair. (As batsmen normally, take their wickets for granted during a revised chase.)

  • Phil_Kirby on May 4, 2010, 18:33 GMT

    I am not British, but Collingwood is right and Duckworth's arguments are codswallop - very typical of a statistician buried deep in his books. Apart from an extraordinary innings from a handful few around the world, chasing 191 in 20 overs was not easy, close to impossible; you could put any other team to chase against this same England team, give them 10 tries, and you'd be lucky to see one successful attempt; but 60 in 6 overs when you don't have to worry about the wickets? More than even chance for any of the same teams! The only reason D/L works in one-days is that it needs a minimum of 20 overs, which still gives a modicum of balance for both sides to adapt while chasing or defending. D/L should absolutely change for a 5 over bish-bam-boom, with weightage given to wickets lost (for both sides). Hiding behind a fog of math is just denial, not an assessment.

  • cricktah on May 4, 2010, 18:26 GMT

    Duckworth does make a good case for why WI had a lower score to chase than one would expect...they started well at 13 per over despite the game being a 20 over contest at that stage. He reasons that their good start had to be taken into account while setting the par score for 5-6 overs. Clearly, the target would have been stiffer had the rain interruption occured b4 the start of the WI innings. While the logic is sound, the execution is flawed. D/L was built for ODIs and appears to use an ODI par RR of 5-6 runs/over as an assumption. the par RR in a 20-20 is however in the vicinity of 7-8. So, when the required RR is increased for the chasing team, it should be increased by a greater factor for a 20-20 game than an ODI. This is clearly a case for a SEPARATE D/L for ODIs and a SEPARATE ONE FOR 20-20S.

  • kanchirk on May 4, 2010, 18:22 GMT

    Frank Duckworth is too much in love with this baby. D/L Needs revision for T-20s. Period.

  • s0ldier on May 4, 2010, 18:22 GMT

    Oh la la...crybabies Paul Collingwood and Co...I am sure had this happened to WI, Collingwood would be the first person to defend the DL method.

  • CiMP on May 4, 2010, 18:22 GMT

    "The Duckworth-Lewis system... is widely regarded as the fairest means of resolving rain-shortened contests in 50-over cricket, even if the workings of the formula are a mystery to all but the most mathematically gifted." If people do not understand how it works how can they still judge it as fair or otherwise? In this case it feels like the target shd have been little stiffer but there cd be other scenarios where the side batting second may feel the target set is stiffer than the full innings target. A much simpler system. Pick the best overs of both sides and average it out and set that as the target. Example: You have time just for, say, 6 overs. The side batting first had scored, say, 104/3 in its best 6 overs. The bowling side had conceded 24/2 runs in its best 6 overs. The target cd be 64. You can even consider allowing only 3 more batsmen to come in after either of the batsmen at crease gets out. Not foolproof, but easily understood. Both teams' best plays are considered.

  • alexbrowne on May 4, 2010, 18:12 GMT

    Regardless of the mathematical absurdities thrown up by the D/L method in T20 matches, I think Colly and England are trying to use this to deflect their own inadequacies. It was an excellent batting line up but by 1) picking Sidebottom and 2) opening him with Swann, England made a big mistake - of all the bowlers that make Chris Gayle uncomfortable, I doubt that a 75mph ageing seamer with no variation other than swing when conditions are favourable is one of them. 27/0 off the first two overs when England knew rain was coming was a poor effort, and Colly then let Swann bowl a second expensive over! Take nothing away from the batting performance, but if it had have gone to the full 20, I still think England would have struggled.

  • jmsblk on May 4, 2010, 18:11 GMT

    After having a duck against Irel'd Collingwood would be saying to himself: why icc is giving chances to teams like Irel'd?

  • Imran.Bush on May 4, 2010, 18:09 GMT

    Come on England fans! Do you honestly believe Mr Collingwood would have questioned the D/L system had the situation been reversed? It's already in place and all players should abide by the rule just as we accept the umpire's decision to be final. I don't hear any captains asking for an overhaul of the umpires when howlers are made? Sports is a great leveler and let us not forget that your captain has been found wanting in maintaining the integrity of the game, a la the run-out incident involving New Zealand. Admittedly, he subsequently apologized for his role in the matter.

  • itisme on May 4, 2010, 18:08 GMT

    Mr Duckworth might be a good mathematician, but from what he said, it seems he has no knowledge of what actually goes on in a cricket field. He is absolutely wrong when he says that chasing 192/20 with 10 wickets is equivalent to 60/6 with 10 wickets. I am not english, and I do not have amy particular sympathy with the english team or Collimgwood, I would rather support WI than England, but this does not stop me saying that on this occasion England were wronged by the absurd D/L method. It needs revision and fast, otherwise we are going to see many more games reduced to farce as this one. Yes, Mr Duckworth, like a true academician, be a man and admit mistakes and correct it.

  • Naren on May 4, 2010, 18:01 GMT

    Just ridiculous how he is defending his formula. As inswing put it, any team would prefer chasing 60 in 6 overs than 192 in 20 overs. The runrate staying almost the same only marginal reduction and a massive amount of people have voted against the DL method's applicability for Twenty20 in the polls (almost 75+%). He cannot keep claiming his formula is right, it needs major tweaking.

  • TrevorN on May 4, 2010, 17:57 GMT

    Of course scoring 60 in 10 is easier than scoring 192 in 20. The criticism posted in the previous comments would be fair if the rain came before West Indies had started their innings. But it didn't, so the comparison is apples and oranges. The D/L formula has to factor in the start the team batting second has already made, and the better the start, the easier the D/L target.

  • Tiptop32 on May 4, 2010, 17:44 GMT

    D/L rule for a T20 match is absolutely ridiculous. It is high time ICC scraps this rule for T20. I could not imagine what will be the consequences if a team loses final of T20 match due to D/L rule. All member countries should take tough stand on this rule rather than only when it badly affects them. Yesterday SL would have been eliminated from this WC, if Zim could have played little proactively. D/L rule for a T20 game is shame for the game of cricket. D/L rule is making comedy of cricket. Either the match should be played next day or both teams should get equal points. We dont need non-sense in cricket.

  • inswing on May 4, 2010, 17:32 GMT

    There is no doubt that the formula needs adjustment. They are claiming that scoring 192 in 20 overs with 10 wickets in hand has the same difficulty as scoring 60 in 6 overs with 10 wickets. This is simply not the case. Ask any captain at the start of the game - which one would you rather chase? I bet all of them will choose the latter option. A lot of teams score 60 or more runs in the last 6 overs of a game, even with several wickets down. Scoring 192 in 20 overs is much more rare. When overs from 20 to 6, the required run rate should go up much more than from 9.6 to 10, to more like 12. Something in the range of 70 to 75 would be a much more fair target and roughly equal to 192 in 20 overs.

  • SettingSun on May 4, 2010, 16:44 GMT

    Collingwood is right and Duckworth is wrong. 20/20 and 50 over cricket are completely different and you cannot apply the same criteria to them. There should be an entirely separate formula for 20/20, yesterday's target was clearly completely wrong. Duckworth may be a noted statistician but he clearly doesn't actually know cricket.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • SettingSun on May 4, 2010, 16:44 GMT

    Collingwood is right and Duckworth is wrong. 20/20 and 50 over cricket are completely different and you cannot apply the same criteria to them. There should be an entirely separate formula for 20/20, yesterday's target was clearly completely wrong. Duckworth may be a noted statistician but he clearly doesn't actually know cricket.

  • inswing on May 4, 2010, 17:32 GMT

    There is no doubt that the formula needs adjustment. They are claiming that scoring 192 in 20 overs with 10 wickets in hand has the same difficulty as scoring 60 in 6 overs with 10 wickets. This is simply not the case. Ask any captain at the start of the game - which one would you rather chase? I bet all of them will choose the latter option. A lot of teams score 60 or more runs in the last 6 overs of a game, even with several wickets down. Scoring 192 in 20 overs is much more rare. When overs from 20 to 6, the required run rate should go up much more than from 9.6 to 10, to more like 12. Something in the range of 70 to 75 would be a much more fair target and roughly equal to 192 in 20 overs.

  • Tiptop32 on May 4, 2010, 17:44 GMT

    D/L rule for a T20 match is absolutely ridiculous. It is high time ICC scraps this rule for T20. I could not imagine what will be the consequences if a team loses final of T20 match due to D/L rule. All member countries should take tough stand on this rule rather than only when it badly affects them. Yesterday SL would have been eliminated from this WC, if Zim could have played little proactively. D/L rule for a T20 game is shame for the game of cricket. D/L rule is making comedy of cricket. Either the match should be played next day or both teams should get equal points. We dont need non-sense in cricket.

  • TrevorN on May 4, 2010, 17:57 GMT

    Of course scoring 60 in 10 is easier than scoring 192 in 20. The criticism posted in the previous comments would be fair if the rain came before West Indies had started their innings. But it didn't, so the comparison is apples and oranges. The D/L formula has to factor in the start the team batting second has already made, and the better the start, the easier the D/L target.

  • Naren on May 4, 2010, 18:01 GMT

    Just ridiculous how he is defending his formula. As inswing put it, any team would prefer chasing 60 in 6 overs than 192 in 20 overs. The runrate staying almost the same only marginal reduction and a massive amount of people have voted against the DL method's applicability for Twenty20 in the polls (almost 75+%). He cannot keep claiming his formula is right, it needs major tweaking.

  • itisme on May 4, 2010, 18:08 GMT

    Mr Duckworth might be a good mathematician, but from what he said, it seems he has no knowledge of what actually goes on in a cricket field. He is absolutely wrong when he says that chasing 192/20 with 10 wickets is equivalent to 60/6 with 10 wickets. I am not english, and I do not have amy particular sympathy with the english team or Collimgwood, I would rather support WI than England, but this does not stop me saying that on this occasion England were wronged by the absurd D/L method. It needs revision and fast, otherwise we are going to see many more games reduced to farce as this one. Yes, Mr Duckworth, like a true academician, be a man and admit mistakes and correct it.

  • Imran.Bush on May 4, 2010, 18:09 GMT

    Come on England fans! Do you honestly believe Mr Collingwood would have questioned the D/L system had the situation been reversed? It's already in place and all players should abide by the rule just as we accept the umpire's decision to be final. I don't hear any captains asking for an overhaul of the umpires when howlers are made? Sports is a great leveler and let us not forget that your captain has been found wanting in maintaining the integrity of the game, a la the run-out incident involving New Zealand. Admittedly, he subsequently apologized for his role in the matter.

  • jmsblk on May 4, 2010, 18:11 GMT

    After having a duck against Irel'd Collingwood would be saying to himself: why icc is giving chances to teams like Irel'd?

  • alexbrowne on May 4, 2010, 18:12 GMT

    Regardless of the mathematical absurdities thrown up by the D/L method in T20 matches, I think Colly and England are trying to use this to deflect their own inadequacies. It was an excellent batting line up but by 1) picking Sidebottom and 2) opening him with Swann, England made a big mistake - of all the bowlers that make Chris Gayle uncomfortable, I doubt that a 75mph ageing seamer with no variation other than swing when conditions are favourable is one of them. 27/0 off the first two overs when England knew rain was coming was a poor effort, and Colly then let Swann bowl a second expensive over! Take nothing away from the batting performance, but if it had have gone to the full 20, I still think England would have struggled.

  • CiMP on May 4, 2010, 18:22 GMT

    "The Duckworth-Lewis system... is widely regarded as the fairest means of resolving rain-shortened contests in 50-over cricket, even if the workings of the formula are a mystery to all but the most mathematically gifted." If people do not understand how it works how can they still judge it as fair or otherwise? In this case it feels like the target shd have been little stiffer but there cd be other scenarios where the side batting second may feel the target set is stiffer than the full innings target. A much simpler system. Pick the best overs of both sides and average it out and set that as the target. Example: You have time just for, say, 6 overs. The side batting first had scored, say, 104/3 in its best 6 overs. The bowling side had conceded 24/2 runs in its best 6 overs. The target cd be 64. You can even consider allowing only 3 more batsmen to come in after either of the batsmen at crease gets out. Not foolproof, but easily understood. Both teams' best plays are considered.