West Indies v England, Group D, Providence May 3, 2010

Collingwood wants Duckworth-Lewis overhaul

  shares 89

Paul Collingwood was left fuming at the Duckworth-Lewis system as it played a huge role in England's defeat against West Indies for the second World Twenty20 running and left them facing a must-win match against Ireland. After piling up an imposing 191 for 5 England were in the driving seat but rain intervened after 2.2 overs of the chase and when play resumed, virtually as late as it could before the game was abandoned, the hosts were left needing 60 from six overs with all 10 wickets in hands.

"There's a major problem with Duckworth-Lewis in this form of the game," Collingwood said. "I've got no problem with it in one-dayers, and I know it's made me very frustrated tonight because I've come off the losing captain, 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."

Just to rub it in for Collingwood, five minutes after the game ended torrential rain started. There was always a risk that weather would play its part in Guyana and both games on Monday were affected with Sri Lanka also winning under the D-L system. It was a lack of intent that cost Zimbabwe - although it is believed they didn't have a copy of the D-L chart when their revised chase began. For England it was an early blitz by Chris Gayle which proved costly, because the 30 runs that came before the rain meant the calculations would always be in favour of West Indies.

It won't make Collingwood feel much better as he stews over the result, but Gayle agreed with his assessment of the system. "I think it's something they're going to have to look into," he said. "I would support what Collingwood just said. I could have been in the same position as well. It's something that can be addressed so it can be even stevens for both teams in the future. I'm happy but it's just unfortunate for England."

What made it worse for Collingwood, though, was that it was the second time in nine months England had come out on the wrong end of the calculations against the same team. At The Oval, during last year's World Twenty20, a rain break left West Indies chasing 82 from eight overs and they achieved the target, despite a flurry of wickets, to send England packing.

"I'm trying to take the emotion out of that defeat to be honest with you," he said. "It's the second time it's happened to us against West Indies so it's very frustrating for the boys because we've played a near-perfect game and still lost."

The one slight difference this time was that West Indies had managed to start their chase - whereas at The Oval the entire pursuit came after the heavens opened - and they benefited from judging the conditions. Gayle said at the toss that he was bowling first because Ramnaresh Sarwan, a Guyanese, knew rain would be a factor. There's nothing like a bit of local knowledge coupled with the luck of the toss.

"We knew that the weather was going to play a part so the first five overs, obviously, can determine the game," Gayle said. "So we decided to go out and see what we could get out of the first five overs. The target was actually 43, I think, at one stage and the adaption went in our favour. After the rain we knew we were most likely to win the game from there on."

But that doesn't escape the fact that the D-L system needs some serious adjusting for Twenty20 cricket. It goes through periodical updates based on matches played, but the problem is that the sample size of Twenty20 internationals remains quite small. Scoring at ten-an-over, which was West Indies' aim, is far from challenging for six overs when it is often a rate maintained over the full 20.

"I think that's what the equation is built around in the one-day format. Unfortunately there's probably not enough games," Collingwood said. "I'm not a mathematician, I don't really know what the equation should be, but your backs are certainly against the wall when it's like that."

The unsatisfactory end to the match took the gloss off an outstanding batting display for England, who produced one of their most complete Twenty20 performances. They have been looking for players who can throw the bat, but Luke Wright took that to the extreme when he lost his grip and the willow flew towards square leg. The team effort included an England-record 11 sixes, on a pitch previously not easy for scoring, as their pre-match routine of launching balls into the stands from the centre clearly paid off.

It was started by the pair of debutants, Michael Lumb and Craig Kieswetter, and finished off spectacularly by Wright and Eoin Morgan, who gave another display of his breathtaking skills as 76 came from the last five overs. It showed England should have far too much firepower for Ireland.

"What we've spoken about in the dressing room, what we've picked guys for, they did exactly that today," Collingwood said. "For the two guys to make their debut and show the confidence they did, it put the opposition under a lot of pressure and I thought all the guys played it pretty perfectly. There was a lot of power there."

England's batting performance showcased Twenty20 at its fast-paced best, but what followed showed that some of the regulations and calculations have been left playing catch-up.

Andrew McGlashan is assistant editor of Cricinfo

Comments have now been closed for this article

  • Nilikasammy on May 5, 2010, 22:32 GMT

    I totally agree with Umar Riaz. 20 over matches are the shortest format of the game, and enough time should be provided to complete these matches in case of rains or any other such sort of disturbances.

  • UmarRiaz on May 5, 2010, 20:47 GMT

    I dont know the reason for D/L method in a T20 game. The game is already short enough. No other sport is decided on a rule like that. I think T20 must complete its full 20 overs in each inning. No other sport like soccer or hockey is reduced if it rain. There should be enough time in backup to finish a game or the game should continue to the next day like all other sports. 5 or 6 over cricket that too evaluted on D/L method is not sport. Maybe cricket is not a sport anymore, ICC & IPL made it is a bingo.

  • CricketPissek on May 5, 2010, 13:22 GMT

    colingwood's losing respect more and more as time goes by. first that racist/ignorant comment about golf in Bangladesh, and now this. pathetic cry baby. he's not good enough to be captain of a national team. diplomacy is a fundamental requirement of a good leader and colly is obviously lacking it

  • reality_check on May 5, 2010, 11:23 GMT

    Did Paul Collingwood (or then English captain) questioned D/L after winning the T20 in Johannesburg "England 202-6 (20 ovs) beat South Africa 127-3 (13 ovs) by one run (D/L method)"? More importantly did Graeme Smith whine about loosing the match by 1 run because of D/L? No in both instances. Draw your own conclusions.

  • s.hamid on May 5, 2010, 9:06 GMT

    "WHEN IT HURTS" How often have seen in the past when ever a rule or system hurts England and Australia, all of a sudden that rule needs to be overhauled, D/L has been in the game for years now and no one had spoken of its shortcomings before, well it had to be England first.

  • robheinen on May 5, 2010, 8:11 GMT

    Mr. Collingwood has always been slightly low on mental capacity. It has amazed me that he turned up to captain the england side - albeit the T20 side. Apart from this, the Duckworth-Lewis method for calculating scores has been introduced to make the game of cricket more just. The effect has only been that the discussion about rain affected games has shifted from the weather to the D/L method. Fans and players alike need discussion, why else play? Discussion is apparently a necessary attribute of life. On the basis of this I say: Lose the D/L method all together and give us back the discussions on the bad luck we had with the weather.

  • Bang_La on May 5, 2010, 0:37 GMT

    Reply to: VipulPatki: Bangladesh have not scored 191 in T-20 till now. Its a basic information and you should be aware of basic information on cricket if you wanted to be in a cricket forum :) In case the score 191 is kind of your favourite, then know, Bangladesh scored 191 in a 50-over WC 2007 match and helped eliminate India. Keep asking, how you are going to learn if you don't ask, putki? :)

  • Peligrosisimo3 on May 4, 2010, 23:22 GMT

    Even before a ball was bowled the teams knew of the existence of the D/L method to decide matches. Now there is all this hoop-la after the fact. You know how ridiculous it would sound for a team to complain of the penalty shoot out after loosing to another team via this same penalty shootout?If there is such discontent with D/L then the concerned teams should protest by boycotting the tournament. No use in complaining after the tournament is under way. POINTLESS !

  • CricketPissek on May 4, 2010, 22:31 GMT

    @ Nas88 - erm.. D/L does take wickets into consideration. in fact, they had a "moving target" originally (i remember a Sri Lanka v South Africa match... circa 1998) but critics said it was too complex. the target kept changing depending on your wickets. so with 1 run to get if u lose a wicket, u may need more runs :-D this method is quite fair, but needs more work for shorter overs like 5.

  • Philly.rocks on May 4, 2010, 21:12 GMT

    I completely agree with Mr Duckworth about the method and English captain. Look guys, we had so many games being questioned at 90's just because of rain interruption. Remember SA's game against England in 92 world cup at semi final where England was benefited from the that rain law [22 runs from 14 balls became 22 runs from 1 ball]. This D/L method is thousands times better than that joke. The truth is that this D/L method is the best suitable and acceptable method available at present. Well I dont say that its flawless because it is based on data statistics. But its better than any other available method. I agree with Mr. Duckworth that Only very (2/3 times in last decade) occasion people talked against D/L method and couple instances are from Collingwood. It can be concluded that when you lose then you blame on the system but when you were benefited in 92 world cup semifinal then you guys took that. wowow, thats English style.. Nothing more to say...

  • Nilikasammy on May 5, 2010, 22:32 GMT

    I totally agree with Umar Riaz. 20 over matches are the shortest format of the game, and enough time should be provided to complete these matches in case of rains or any other such sort of disturbances.

  • UmarRiaz on May 5, 2010, 20:47 GMT

    I dont know the reason for D/L method in a T20 game. The game is already short enough. No other sport is decided on a rule like that. I think T20 must complete its full 20 overs in each inning. No other sport like soccer or hockey is reduced if it rain. There should be enough time in backup to finish a game or the game should continue to the next day like all other sports. 5 or 6 over cricket that too evaluted on D/L method is not sport. Maybe cricket is not a sport anymore, ICC & IPL made it is a bingo.

  • CricketPissek on May 5, 2010, 13:22 GMT

    colingwood's losing respect more and more as time goes by. first that racist/ignorant comment about golf in Bangladesh, and now this. pathetic cry baby. he's not good enough to be captain of a national team. diplomacy is a fundamental requirement of a good leader and colly is obviously lacking it

  • reality_check on May 5, 2010, 11:23 GMT

    Did Paul Collingwood (or then English captain) questioned D/L after winning the T20 in Johannesburg "England 202-6 (20 ovs) beat South Africa 127-3 (13 ovs) by one run (D/L method)"? More importantly did Graeme Smith whine about loosing the match by 1 run because of D/L? No in both instances. Draw your own conclusions.

  • s.hamid on May 5, 2010, 9:06 GMT

    "WHEN IT HURTS" How often have seen in the past when ever a rule or system hurts England and Australia, all of a sudden that rule needs to be overhauled, D/L has been in the game for years now and no one had spoken of its shortcomings before, well it had to be England first.

  • robheinen on May 5, 2010, 8:11 GMT

    Mr. Collingwood has always been slightly low on mental capacity. It has amazed me that he turned up to captain the england side - albeit the T20 side. Apart from this, the Duckworth-Lewis method for calculating scores has been introduced to make the game of cricket more just. The effect has only been that the discussion about rain affected games has shifted from the weather to the D/L method. Fans and players alike need discussion, why else play? Discussion is apparently a necessary attribute of life. On the basis of this I say: Lose the D/L method all together and give us back the discussions on the bad luck we had with the weather.

  • Bang_La on May 5, 2010, 0:37 GMT

    Reply to: VipulPatki: Bangladesh have not scored 191 in T-20 till now. Its a basic information and you should be aware of basic information on cricket if you wanted to be in a cricket forum :) In case the score 191 is kind of your favourite, then know, Bangladesh scored 191 in a 50-over WC 2007 match and helped eliminate India. Keep asking, how you are going to learn if you don't ask, putki? :)

  • Peligrosisimo3 on May 4, 2010, 23:22 GMT

    Even before a ball was bowled the teams knew of the existence of the D/L method to decide matches. Now there is all this hoop-la after the fact. You know how ridiculous it would sound for a team to complain of the penalty shoot out after loosing to another team via this same penalty shootout?If there is such discontent with D/L then the concerned teams should protest by boycotting the tournament. No use in complaining after the tournament is under way. POINTLESS !

  • CricketPissek on May 4, 2010, 22:31 GMT

    @ Nas88 - erm.. D/L does take wickets into consideration. in fact, they had a "moving target" originally (i remember a Sri Lanka v South Africa match... circa 1998) but critics said it was too complex. the target kept changing depending on your wickets. so with 1 run to get if u lose a wicket, u may need more runs :-D this method is quite fair, but needs more work for shorter overs like 5.

  • Philly.rocks on May 4, 2010, 21:12 GMT

    I completely agree with Mr Duckworth about the method and English captain. Look guys, we had so many games being questioned at 90's just because of rain interruption. Remember SA's game against England in 92 world cup at semi final where England was benefited from the that rain law [22 runs from 14 balls became 22 runs from 1 ball]. This D/L method is thousands times better than that joke. The truth is that this D/L method is the best suitable and acceptable method available at present. Well I dont say that its flawless because it is based on data statistics. But its better than any other available method. I agree with Mr. Duckworth that Only very (2/3 times in last decade) occasion people talked against D/L method and couple instances are from Collingwood. It can be concluded that when you lose then you blame on the system but when you were benefited in 92 world cup semifinal then you guys took that. wowow, thats English style.. Nothing more to say...

  • Nas88 on May 4, 2010, 20:54 GMT

    The greatest drawback of the DL method is the fact that it does not take into consideration wickets in a run chase scenario... i have no problems with WI chasing only 60 odd in 6 overs but they shouldn't be given the luxury of all 10 wickets. they should have been given only 3 wickets maximum. Chasing 30 runs in 18 balls with 10 wickets is just unfair... whereas chasing 30 runs in 18 balls with either 2 or 3 wickets in hand is a much more fair scenario...

  • TriniBourbon on May 4, 2010, 20:03 GMT

    I think honestly, the team chasing has a distinctly better chance of winning based on the D/L system. I think the modification that should be made is the consideration of wickets in hand (or wickets lost.) Chasing 40 in 5 overs with 10 wickets in hand is a different prospect from chasing 40 in 5 overs with only 5 wickets remaining. The team that is chasing should be given not just a run scoring target, but a maximum amount of wickets that can be lost.

  • krv954 on May 4, 2010, 19:29 GMT

    Lets not be too critical of the Duckworth Lewis system. It is a much better system and way more fair than the old system used to be. If anybody wants a reminder, 1992 World Cup Semifinal. South Africa needs 22 runs from 13 balls. It rains and the revised system says S Africa needs 22 runs from 1 ball. Duckworth Lewis is a way better than those days. But it still needs some improvement. I also feel that the rules need to be changed a little bit, like for example each side should play at least 10 overs for a result to happen. Currently it is 5 overs is too short. Whom do we blame for this- Duckworth Lewis or ICC?

  • Deepfreezed on May 4, 2010, 18:05 GMT

    Well this T20 world cup seems to be dawning in rain. Make you wonder what the future is there for this format as an international game. IPL is by far leaps and bounds more exciting that this tournament. Snore-fest here will make this format irrelevant.

  • Bang_La on May 4, 2010, 16:45 GMT

    To reality_check : That was my question. It may go in favour or in against any team anytime. Why question the validity of the method itself? Scratch it if you want but when you participate in a match, you participate accepting all rules. Its absolutely unsporting to raise question about game-rules after losing. Any thoughts?

  • on May 4, 2010, 16:32 GMT

    I agree with Collingwood on D-L method for T20. In ODI many times I have seen that side batting first score 280 (5.6 RPO), but when D-L comes into play, it takes off 6 Overs, and revised target to 260 from (44 overs, new RR is now 5.91). I know those are not real DL calculation, just an example, to show that DL takes off too many overs but not enough runs. And that is because side batting first doesnt know rain will affect the game, so they play according to the 50 over game plan. But why same thing wasnt applied here, 191-5 (9.55 runs per over) but revised target 60 off 6 overs, it should have been some where around 65-70 of 6 overs. Or DL should start to look at the wickets fallen after the revised target, WI lost 2 wickets in anf overs, so that should have made target little bigger may be about 3 runs. That would have made big difference in the game.

  • on May 4, 2010, 16:27 GMT

    This D/L method doesn't work at all for T20. I have a better method.. ICC please contact me for details.

  • santhoshkudva on May 4, 2010, 16:10 GMT

    D/L might have some mathematical logic to arrive at scores which teams have never cared to find out.The fallibility of the whole thing was on display during the eng-wi match where England could easily have cantered home. Colly was entitled to feel aggrieved because his team clearly had the upper hand. The greatest drawback of D/L is that it does not take into consideration factors like lance kluseners, mike bevans and javed miandads, who during their heydays would easily have put all mathematical calculations in disarray during near impossible run chases.

  • knowledge_eater on May 4, 2010, 16:08 GMT

    It will be fixed soon, at least before next W2020 (I hope they don't play each year though) My suggestion: if I am not being biased, give the job to fix this to some Indian Geeks and Nerd mathematician. They consume maths and cricket for living. They take breakfast, lunch and dinner of maths. And Cricket is their desert. Problem will be fixed soon, if someone's ego doesn't get into way. Peace.

  • BoomBoomAdnan on May 4, 2010, 16:08 GMT

    collingwood is right even if the target was 75 in 6 overs it wud be ez becuase u have 10 wickets. need a diffrent system fot t20

  • svasudevan on May 4, 2010, 15:49 GMT

    Whatever the revised rules are, its going to be unfair to one of the sides as this is a 20/20 game. Let us say, the D/L came up with 90 runs off 5 overs for West Indies. In my opinion, its still unfair, but this time to West Indies. Then all it takes is 3 to 4 wickets (or 3-4 dot balls) and the equation becomes 3.5 runs per ball, which is very unfair. In case of situations like this, its better to go for 2 or 3 super overs per side, starting afresh. At least both the teams are in an even plane. If you don't even have time to complete 5-6 overs, that's it; then the points are shared.

  • cricketdebator on May 4, 2010, 15:49 GMT

    If one is fair,one could not help feeling sorry for England and the way they lost the game. I am a Windies fan but most admit that England played too well to end up losing. Although not impossible, it is highly improbable that West Indies would have maintained a run rate of 9.6 over 20 overs to win the match. On the other hand it was much easier to score their eventual total of 60 runs off 6 overs with 10 wickets intact, than it would have been to complete the same task with say 2 or 3 wickets intact. Anyway, hats off to England for what was a spendid batting display - the best I have seen from them. Never-the-less, I expect them to reach the super 8 stage, and maybe, just maybe, we might clash with them again further down the road.

  • awassuup on May 4, 2010, 15:47 GMT

    The D/L is there for all the teams. In any game, if there isn't a tie. one team will win and will loose. It so happen that England who batted so well lost the game. But you know, WI would have still won the game hadn't the rain fall. If England had won this game would Paul Collingwood still be talking about the D/L rule? Or is it because they lost Paul is upset. OH another something, wasn't this rule created by some British doodes. Well their you go Paul, tell Frank & Tony to come up with something better. Be a good sport. Also Paul Collingwood should be fine for trying to use delaying tactics yesterday to drag the game on. Having one player running from one part of the field to another. In the end England lost and the captain cannot believe that WI beat them.

  • Darrh_Vader on May 4, 2010, 15:32 GMT

    I think to be fair to both the teams one needs to play the game in two innings of 10 overs each with the 10 wickets spread over the two innings like a regular game. You combine the score of the two innings. and determine the winner. If in case you cant get the second innings started then the score of the first innings determine the winner. If you cant get the first innings completed for both the teams the match is abandoned don't even get into the D/L system for the 5 overs etc etc I think this is a simple solution and fair to both the teams. When a Game is decided by Mathematics .... everyone looses. It equations with a lot of variables ..... and most importantly Assumptions that the TALENT is all teams being EQUAL

  • reality_check on May 4, 2010, 14:51 GMT

    Why is it that D/L method is almost always questioned by loosing English captains?

  • gauravn81 on May 4, 2010, 14:15 GMT

    Who told England to give 30 runs in 1st 2.2 overs before D/L came into picture and now Collingwood is blaming D/L method without blaming themselves. With this kind of attitude I dont think Collingwood will be able to take England too far in this tournament. All the best England captain Paul Collingwood, Englishmen never changes.

  • royalchallengers2010 on May 4, 2010, 14:02 GMT

    I think DL rule was created for 50/50 in mind not 20/20.

  • IGL2010 on May 4, 2010, 13:49 GMT

    Again ICC is ill prepared. It is the WC just because of TV rights and prime time slots for people in other parts of the World ICC spoiled two matches and hopes of two nations. Use some common sense they had the whole day to complete 2 20-20 matches. What is the fault of people who were at the match or people of WI who had the whole day to complete these matches. or people of Zimbabwe and England whose team could have won. Imagine if this was the final. If it was for ICC they would sell all rights and just have a toss and decide who is the winner. ICC needs to put extra days for the sake of quality and cricket in situations like these.

  • cric-kaka on May 4, 2010, 13:32 GMT

    D/L is up side down for a T20 game. First of all no game should be deemed completed until at least half of the over i.e. 10 overs in T20 are completed. It is better to duvide the points if the match is not completed than punish a side which bats first.

  • Tiptop32 on May 4, 2010, 13:15 GMT

    D/L rule in T20 is shame for cricket. So this rule not only hurted England and also the game of cricket in general. SL would have out of this WC, if Zim would have played little proactively. D/L rule is making comedy of cricket in T20. My suggestion would be to declare the match as draw or continue it next day. There should not be any D/L rules to decide the fate of a T20 match.

  • silverpie on May 4, 2010, 13:10 GMT

    I think D/L is a perfectly reasonable method of determining a match, even in 20-20, but it has two flaws in that context. First is that five overs is likely not enough to constitute a legitimate match. I'd advocate raising the minimum to eight overs (40% of the match, just as in 50-over games).

    Second, the table is flawed in the section where 20-over games tend to be found. Recall that it was assembled before we had a lot of data about how teams perform with 20 or fewer overs but most/all of the wickets in hand, so the good professors had to make estimates. These estimates are now proving to be flawed, so the table ought to be modified to take this into account--and I expect it soon will be.

  • bumsonseats on May 4, 2010, 12:58 GMT

    i thnk the only way a team batting 2nd, can win a rain effected t 20/20 match is if they score 300 runs, and then the other team have 6 overs to score 100. the amount of runs scored in most games given that the team has all its wickets even that is getable. the last world cup match in the uk against the WIs was not that much better. sounds like sour grapes from my. u bet it is. dpk

  • indstatinst on May 4, 2010, 12:47 GMT

    If the scoreline had been 20 runs 2.2 overs, the target would still have been 60 of 6, which would have meant getting 40 runs from 22 odd balls... there is nothing wrong with D/L method, in fact its the best possible option available

  • Percy_Fender on May 4, 2010, 12:19 GMT

    That the D/L method was farcical at times was known after the Eng South Africa match in 1992. Though so much was said in its aftermath, It is surprising to see that no modifications have been made.It is only when such games happen that we talk in force of the need for changes. I feel that for 20/20 games the D/L method should be changed taking into account the reasonability quotient into consideration based on the average of the runs scored in the last five overs ever since the 2007 WC.

  • Croc_on_mara on May 4, 2010, 12:12 GMT

    Why is no one remembering the VJD method which is tailor made for the T20 format and was successfully used in the ICL?? I can recall several proposals from sub-continental statisticians being shot down by the ICC/MCC owing to the misplaced arrogance of the poms. It is nothing but poetic justice if they get kicked out on account of this DL rule that they so proudly paraded a few years ago.

  • wolfofthepack on May 4, 2010, 11:40 GMT

    england bowled terrible! wat do u xpect if england won it would of been a diff story to tell! Congrats WI

  • on May 4, 2010, 11:39 GMT

    It doesnt make a difference.. Honestly this is the best English team i have seen since Botham... Paul Collingwood and his team should move on from here. When did we last see an English team with this strike rate in the top 6..

  • on May 4, 2010, 11:36 GMT

    Honestly it doesn't make a difference. This is the best English team since the 1992 world cup. Watching Kiewsetter hit sixes over cover was sheer ecstacy... Paul Collingwood and his team should move on from here.. when did we last see an English team with a strike rate like this...

  • gittuuu on May 4, 2010, 11:16 GMT

    the run chase should be based on the 'Best 6 Consecutive Overs' in this case. Say in this match Best 6 consecutive overs for England was from 15th to 20th in which they made 82 runs. West Indies should have been told to make 84 runs in 6 overs with 10 wickets. Accordingly, say for any match, second inning has to be 10 overs than it has to be 'Best 10 Consecutive overs'.

  • Riyazdeen on May 4, 2010, 11:05 GMT

    Hi.. Riyas here. most of the experts say match is not ended until the last ball is bowled, particularly in T20. then how can u decide a winner just in five overs. foolishness. isnt it???? feel very sorry for England. i never encourage D/L method in any format. in this mega event a reserve day is the best. ICC PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT ALL THESE COMMENTS.

  • pull2open on May 4, 2010, 10:57 GMT

    I have to agree with JackTrez. Sidebottom bowled a dreadful over that meant England were always behind the eight-ball when the rain went away. WI were set 60 at 10-an-over, a required rate almost half a run more per over than that achieved by England. If 6 overs in the second innings constitutes a match then WI won fair and square. England would not have complained so much if WI had been set that target from the outset .. it was just the fact that WI were 30-0 after 2.2 at the rain break that made it so easy thereafter. There's nothing wrong with the mathematics of the D-L method .. but you have to question whether 5 overs per side can ever really constitute a match. It may reduce the number of outright results but surely 10 overs is the real bare minimum. Any less reduces the game to an ugly hack heavily weighted towards whoever is batting.

  • hattima on May 4, 2010, 10:51 GMT

    Firstly, I can not understand why Collingwood was not fined for wasting so much time to set his field? It seems the rules are always different for England!

    They went in the match knowing the rules; it was the same for both teams. Clearly West Indies planned according to the conditions, and they did not. They gave away 30 runs in the first 14 balls, that's about 13 per over. So, I fail to understand what they are complaining about. It is ridiculous to decide a match in 5 overs; but blame that on ICC, not those two men for whom we have by far the most fair rain rule! These crybabies need to be told that to win matches it is not enough to score runs, you need to learn to defend that, too!

  • Ganes.V on May 4, 2010, 10:37 GMT

    It is absolutely mandatory that the D/L be changed or overhauled. Make it more even for both teams so that it gives equal chance for both teams to win. When the overs are reduced reduce thewickets as well. Dont allow the team chasing to have all ten wickets to chase the score but reduce it proportionately. Similarly to make things more even reduce the overs each bowlers can bowl and give a max of two overs each. If rules are revamped like this, both teams stand an equal chance to win which gives the viewers and players all a good match to enjoy. I sincerely hope that the ICC committee work their brains and bring in some changes so that it becomes more acceptable. Ask teams who are affected due to this and they will agree. South Africa who were affected in ICC world cup will agree with this change first I am sure and now England. I am sure if we go into details of each match where D/ L was applied, all of them will agree with this. Let us hope for the best and that too sooooooooon.

  • david_franklin on May 4, 2010, 10:32 GMT

    Problems:

    1. D-L's aim should be that both teams' probabilities of winning are the same AFTER an interruption as they were BEFORE it. They don't do this, though, because of some counter-intuitive results involving varying targets (see question 8 of their FAQ on www.duckworth-lewis.com). These results are counter-intuitive, but correct. As the system stands, the team behind at the interruption is disproportionately penalised, and this is made even more worse when you shorten the format.

    2. The system is exploitable. It accounts (rightly) for the fact that a team will have spent the overs before an interruption under the assumption that they were going to have all of their overs. This means teams who know there's rain around can bat aggressively at the start, knowing the system will help them. There's not much they can do about this, since you can't base your system on whether it might be about to rain, but the ease with which it can be exploited in twenty20 means it loses credibility.

  • NISH67 on May 4, 2010, 10:10 GMT

    I agree with Collingwood's assessment but the issue is these captains of international teams and their players only come out with objections if their team is affected , otherwise its all hunky dory . These are things that the captains must put forward to the ICC Cricket committee through their players representative and sort out initially , rather than moan about it after the damage is done . This kind of statement certainly doesn't potray them in good light but only shows up their ignorance !

  • gibbsie82 on May 4, 2010, 9:42 GMT

    My argument against this form of D/L in Twenty20 is that in theory after Gayles wicket fell they could have tried to win it in 4 balls by sending in big hitters and then if that failed send in stroke players to get 2s and 3s. If they are going to use D/L then why not set a minimun over but use the in play calculation that changes when a wicket falls. For example 6 overs: 55-0 then 61-1 etc. Just imagine the uproar if WI would have got to 60 and lost 9 wickets. Its harsh to highlight the costly first over when Rampaul, Pollard and i think Bravo all went for over 16 in the west indies 20 overs.

  • Voltage-International on May 4, 2010, 9:37 GMT

    It doesn't matter what Englan's bowling performance was like. The fact is, whilst not too many people have issue with this equation in ODIs it needs to be revised in T20 cricket. This match has proven it. Even for the winning captain to admit he feels the system needs review. England's slower bowlers may have put WI under huge pressure during overs 8-15, causing them to loose wickets- or, they may have not... but we'll never know because the system is flawed. Get the MCC involved, they're mostly English anyway...

  • ABP235 on May 4, 2010, 9:29 GMT

    Applying DL method to T20 is like giving Pneumonia pills for simple flu. To make it meaningful, the number of wickets with which a target has to be achieved should be proportionate. In this game, for 6 over game (being 30% of overs), the number of wickets that WI have to chase should be 3 (30%). Something like what is used in super over. Then there is something for the bowling team as well. It is ridiculous to give all 10 wickets to chase a target - how big it may be, one can achieve when one knows there are 10 wickets in hand. I was surprised that Zimbabwe didnt have this trick earlier in the day - as reported, it may be because Zimbabwe did not know how much to score!!!

  • Mahiru on May 4, 2010, 9:12 GMT

    maybe they should set 10targets depending on the amount of wickets lost by the chasing side.. example: in 6overs, as in yesterday, 0wickets- 50 1wicket- 55 2wickets-58 3wickets-60 etc.. i mean there should be a proper mathematical system to calculate this..its just my suggestion

  • shriddu on May 4, 2010, 9:12 GMT

    i am sorry that i dont know how this equation works but i dint see that in match yesterday where WI were given 60 runs to win in 6 overs. Had targets been 60/0 65/1 72/2 80/3 and so on roughly as such, the match would have been more interesting instead of 60 runs to win no matter how many wickets WI loses in just 6 overs. The fight would have been both sides.

  • aadh_king on May 4, 2010, 9:05 GMT

    Luc WI, ya D/L is quite a unfair method when it comes to T20. Mammoth total of 191 just didn't looked not enough at all.

  • shriddu on May 4, 2010, 8:57 GMT

    Thanks to rain and D/L method that made almost certain win for England team a losing one. Its really pity.

    It would have been a little bit better if the wicket fall would have to increase the target for them. With every wicket fall, the targets have to be increased at same time. So this can make WI batsmen a bit cautious and England team a fair bit of advantage as well as they took 2 wickets. Watz ur say?

  • muski on May 4, 2010, 8:49 GMT

    I have never ever been a fan of DL method. It is too cumbersome for any normal human being to fathom it. For tournaments such as these ICC should have a reserve day for matches. In the event the reseve day is also washed out, let the teams split the points. Its pretty hard on any team not to get frustrated when things are offered on a platter for the opposing team. The larger question is " Who in the ICC will ever think of doing away with DL rule". I dont see any wise man worth the salt in ICC who can take a decision on this

  • solangaarachchi on May 4, 2010, 8:35 GMT

    D/L method went in two ways last night. One for SL. it is fair. Even if Zim batted whole 20 overs it is not easy get 170 against the bast T20 attack in the world at the moment. But for Eng it went otherway. If WI batted full quata high chance of loosing. D/L method for T20 should be revised. It should take into account past successful chases also. If possible subjective matters like pitch condition too. many more

  • on May 4, 2010, 8:27 GMT

    I think D/L method is okay for T20!! Only think ICC need to consider is the maximum wicket for the additional overs allotted (in this case 3.4 overs) for the chasing team in T20. So for every additional overs left, say upto 3 overs have maximum 2 wickets, between 3-6 overs have 3 wickets, 6-8 overs will have 4 wickets , 8-10 overs 5 wickets and so on. So in this match WI had 3.4 overs left to reach the target, so the maximum wickets they could lose is 3 wickets so by that theory WI has won by 1 wicket!!

  • realredbaron on May 4, 2010, 8:26 GMT

    @Vipulpaltki, where does Bangladesh come here?!

  • sbbioman74 on May 4, 2010, 8:21 GMT

    well, tell me please!!! how can one judge a winner in a cricket match after just 5 overs!!! first was timeless test matches. second was 5 dayers, then came the ODIs, and now T20. but, can you really want to have cricket (be it in whatever situation, on field conditions, natural interventions etc.) decide winner or loser based on 30 balls faced by a side? that's just ridiculous! ICC just have decided the minimum number of overs for a result in T20 by proportionately decreasing it based on ODIs, isn't it? can that be good for cricket? like D/L system needs revision in T20, the minimum number of overs for results needs revision too.how many overs?.. that's open to discussion. i opt for 10 overs.

  • rubys on May 4, 2010, 8:18 GMT

    its englands fault they should never opened with sidebottom with chris gayle at the crease. try not to blame the system admit your mistake. i would have opened bowling with spin at both ends against west indies.

  • Mr.Coach.Captain on May 4, 2010, 8:12 GMT

    I am not a Brit, but I love cricket. It's pathetic to see what happened to England in spite of amassing almost 200!. Using D/L method in any form of cricket is shameful. 191 in 20 over is no way equivalent to 60 in 6 overs!. This doesn't test the 'ability of the team' to withstand to the pressure of chasing 191. This clearly shows that D/L method lacks common sense.

    It's not a pure number game. Game includes strategy. D/L completely ignores the role of strategy. Gayle would have had some strong strategy to chase 192. With D/L, it was not tested!

    Ban it completely. While a better method is invented, if the match is not played completely, then abandon it. Hope some dumb heads sitting in ICC will pay attention to this useless method.

  • capitalH on May 4, 2010, 8:12 GMT

    Although I agree completely that D-L is wrong, I cannot help but smile at the sweet satisfaction of remembering the 1991 WC semi-final, South Africa vs England. We would have probably still lost if it wasn't for the rain, but still it was a sad day for me.

  • Vnott on May 4, 2010, 8:06 GMT

    For each wicket which falls, you add 10 runs to the target and make it a minimum 8 over match....instead of 5, You are likely to balance the equation a fair bit...

  • JackTrez on May 4, 2010, 7:52 GMT

    Has everyone forgotten how bad England's bowling was? WI deserved the win.

  • Dax75 on May 4, 2010, 7:36 GMT

    Funny, I dont remember Paul Collingwood having a big sook at the end of the 20-20 last December where South Africa had to make 127 off 13 overs to win. I remember him celebrating their 1 run win. What goes around comes around, go the Windies!

  • George11 on May 4, 2010, 7:31 GMT

    With All due respect to Colly's comments, its fair to say that Chris Gayle's clean-hitting also played a big part in WI's win..credit must be given to him as well.. hard luck for England

  • Kaaaaaaash on May 4, 2010, 7:14 GMT

    Yes i fully aggree with Paul. Such a great match finishes with a high class darama. I think its not suite with the 20-20cricket at all. But never a less Morgan played a full innings with a big heart. But where is my KP?????????????

  • snowdog62 on May 4, 2010, 7:12 GMT

    The D/L rules for T20 will only be changed when India lose an important match due to it.

  • purya2001 on May 4, 2010, 6:17 GMT

    Mithun has hit it on the nail. When the team batting second is given less number of overs, the maximum number of wickets it can lose should also be reduced. Allowing them to use up 10 wickets within a span of 5 overs is absurd & lopsided. This is not new. They already use the approach in the Super Over, wherein only 3 batsmen (2 wickets) are allowed.

    Also, the target can be made dynamic with an increase for every wicket lost. This would force the team batting second to balance between runs & wickets, thereby creating a even contest.

  • ansram on May 4, 2010, 6:10 GMT

    Collingwood is spot on.

    The target must be around 75-80 runs for the WI. To reduce 192/20 to 60/6 is definitely loaded in favour of the chasing team as there is no effective change in runrate required. It is so very much easy to maintain a RR of 10/over for six overs. For Zim it was such an easy equation compared to the actual target but they seemed to show no sense of urgency.( were they unaware of the par score?). If the second batting team does not bat 10 overs, the match must be abandoned or decided based on a super over - to decide the outcome based on five overs does not sound good.

  • Shine77 on May 4, 2010, 6:04 GMT

    I totally do not agree with D-L system whether it is ODI or a T20 fixture. ICC Please overhaul this system and get the better performers to win the matches. Look at the way how England batted and they could not defend it because of this rule. This is not fair at all. In 1992 world cup South Africa had it. Today England had it. Tomorrow it will have to any one. Kindly stop this rule and come out with the good and fair rules so that, may the best deserving team win the matches.

  • on May 4, 2010, 6:04 GMT

    The Duckworth-Lewis method is a complete mockery of cricket. It is the only place where mathematics win over sports... England had all reasons to get frustrated as Windies would have never chased the target of 192. The D/W really needs some overhaul. May be it should get chucked out of cricket.

  • doushbag on May 4, 2010, 5:58 GMT

    Meh should just replay games if it rains...

  • on May 4, 2010, 5:38 GMT

    Well, I JUST CANNOT ACCEPT THIS DEFEAT OF ENGLAND. I'm a big England fan who is not a Briton. Why is it that DL always affects England? The previous match, Zimbabwe by themselves had a chance when they needed 44 off just 5 overs. Well, what is the point of scoring 55 runs by Eoin Morgan when in this case 10 runs off 2 balls would've been more than enough for West Indies and would be more worth than Morgan's br. Understand that chasing 60 in SIX overs and 191 in 20 overs are entirely different. Even when you have somewhere around 105 to win at a required run rate of just 5.5, there might a fall of two quick wickets like in Darren Sammy's over and pressure of the batsmen will increase. They''ll tend to lose more wickets and the tail may begin. But in this case, a quick contribution of 10 - 15 runs from each batsmen is more than enough. If ICC cares to see this my suggestion is that WI should start the chase again at Saint Lucia or Barbados and their target should be 192 and NOTHING LESS

  • on May 4, 2010, 5:10 GMT

    you cannot simply forgot that it was Gayle who won the toss and acted accordingly. He knew rains might come and did exactly what they need to do with D/L method. Nothing terribly wrong there as everyone otherthan if Collingwood, knew D/L method would be used if rain interupt the match. But me too, believe this method should be modified to 20-20 cricket.

  • SunsParadise on May 4, 2010, 4:57 GMT

    Yes, I totally agree that the D/L method will not work for T20 cricket, I cannot 100% say the same for one dayers though. I feel that the below points should be considered while deciding, 1. The number of wickets should be restricted as Mithun_Dig said earlier. 2. The number of overs per bowler should be considered, like in todays match if the match is reduced to 6 overs then any bowlers should be allowed to bowl maximum of two overs that way, teams can only bowl three of their best bowlers. 3. If the number of wickets is restricted that is in a 6 overs match if its restricted to 3 then batting team should be allowed to choose three of their batsman, based on their average and the strike rate the target should be defined. 4. If it rains in the first innings then similarly averages/strike rates of the batsman the target should be defined.

  • VipulPatki on May 4, 2010, 4:47 GMT

    @Bang_La: When was the last time Bangladesh scored 191 in T20?

  • CricEshwar on May 4, 2010, 4:26 GMT

    No sympathy for Zimbabwe for not showing intent, but Collingwood deserves some. England were clear favorites after the total they have achieved. I guess there is no shortening the shortest format through D/L, even in ODIs 20 overs is minimum for calling it a match, you can't call a match when only 5 overs are bowled, this isn't gully cricket there. If there is no result, then there is no result. Give a point each for league matches and a re-match for semis and finals.

  • TheOnlyEmperor on May 4, 2010, 4:20 GMT

    A simpler easy to understand system can always be devised which is far better than the harebrained D/L system, but then there would be always situations when ANY system design will prove favorable to one side or the other and there will be always be whiners to point that out and say that the system is not good enough.

  • maelztorm on May 4, 2010, 3:56 GMT

    the D-L system clearly has some issues but I don't think it is any more so for ODIs than it is for T20. We must remember that it is based on an average and on the history of pass games... Today's total was reasonable with all things considered, the problem is more with the minimum overs that constitute a game than with the total calculated by D-L... 8 or 10 seem more in order than the minimum 5. Keep in mind that the rain only came after the west indies started batting with the 'expectation' that they had 20 overs to score 192.... D-L rightfullly takes that into account...had it rained at the interval and west indies had 6 overs to reach a total D-L would probable require 70 to 80 runs in those 6 overs....The only reason the windies had the edge today is that they got an exceptionally good start (2.2 overs with 30 runs on the board)... had their start been any less impressive the game would have been Englands.. Windies were also privy to likely showers,,change of approach. DL wasnt :).

  • srisathyam on May 4, 2010, 3:41 GMT

    Well, it was a non-sensical rule to start with. Always hit good teams at wrong times. Well, England is tasting its own medicine...

  • Itchy on May 4, 2010, 3:09 GMT

    D/L works for one dayers but not for T20 due to reduced no. of overs to score runs with the same number of wickets. For me a rain interrupted T20 match is a complete waste of tiume and should be replayed.

    A result based on a six over run chase - what is the point?

  • Bang_La on May 4, 2010, 2:24 GMT

    As long as things go in favour of the English, everything is fine. The moment anything doesn't favour them, they start whinning :) Nothing new!

  • Mithun_Dig on May 4, 2010, 2:14 GMT

    The Number of wickets that the batting side can play should be reduced proportionately . Like a 10 ovrs match shud mean, the batting side shud be considered all out if they lose 5 wkts. A 5 ovr match shud mean 3 wkts all out. If a team has already lost more than those many wickets, then the match can be considered over in the favour of team batting first and that would be fair... as a team which is 23/5 in 3 ovrs chasing 191 , 9.9/10 times will lose. so they shud not be given a chance to score 60 of 6( i am assuming they were 18/0 is 1.2 ovrs when rain stopped play). The Rationale behind this logic is that, having at the back of the mind that you have 10 wkts, makes hitting easy. But with only 5 wkts in hand, blind hitting wud be reconsidered.

  • BillyCC on May 4, 2010, 2:09 GMT

    The Duckworth-Lewis formula has some serious flaws in both ODI and T20 formats. The major flaw is this: it makes an assumption that wickets-in-hand is more important than batting skill. This seriously advantages the chasing side when the game is stopped and no wickets have been lost (like today's match) and vice versa. The fact is: both factors are as important as each other. One of the comments often made about New Zealand is that once-upon-a-time, their middle order (Taylor, Vettori and McCullum) was their strength. Under the DL method, if these batsmen were in the middle when the rain starts, it would mean they have lost three or four wickets, making a chase much more difficult. And yet, I would argue they should be well in the contest because that middle order is the core strength. On the other hand, India's core strength is the top order, and also Dhoni later on. They should be penalised more for losing wickets early on.

  • shrtlg on May 4, 2010, 1:58 GMT

    The solution is simple. Change the minimum number of overs to 10.

  • SolFish on May 4, 2010, 1:53 GMT

    I think Duckwoth Lewis should have no part in cricket at all, it has no basis in reality, and as we can now see how those calculations has turned the world banking system into a mess/recession. the D/L is based on 2+2 =8, 0r 3-4=15, lets make life simple, total runs divided by total overs, then multiplied by total overs available to bat plus one. simple and fair to all, I refused to go pay to watch 50 over cricket, that can be compromised by the D/L rubbish, it has caused nothing but distrust and confusion to the losing side always, I hate to say this but it is a system created by con men to swindle their clients of their profits/runs, using fancy formulas on those unable to accept 2+2=4+1=5, using D/L today it may = 300, tomorrow =60, it's time to throw the D/L formula into the rubbish can of history.

  • on May 4, 2010, 1:22 GMT

    If anybody should be complaining on this day it should be Zim. Their game with SL was basically sacrificed for the sake of the WI vs Eng game. At least England had the chance to play to an end. Zim were not so fortunate as the game was called with no real change to the weather. There was no change in the rainfall between the time the last delivery was bowled and the time the players came off. IF the weather was good enough to get the last ball in to make it a game, then it was good enough to give Zim a chance to chase a total.

    In summary, deal with the rules as they are until they are changed.

  • maddadtheslogger on May 4, 2010, 1:18 GMT

    Hi First point where the D/L system needs to be revised for the T20 game is its effect on the net run rates. In this case, teams only play two games before a knock out of one team in the group. The effect of a one run loss over five overs is far more damaging then a one run loss over 20 overs. Further to this, is the number of minimum overs required to make a match. Whilst todays results showed one win and one loss for the teams batting second, the minimum overs needed should be greater than the number of powerplay overs faced by the team batting first. Poor Zimbabwe were effectively chasing a higher run rate than the team batting first, and were allowed only two powerplay overs after the rain. T20 is short enough already and to drop to 5 overs is just pointless - surely a 10 over minimum in both innings should be the standard; 6 power play, 4 normal. It was 'just not cricket' for two teams today and cricket was the loser - hit and giggle became ridiculous and tragedic.

  • ChrisH on May 4, 2010, 0:58 GMT

    Well naturally Colly wants an overhaul. That's twice now he hasn't done basic cricket and then lost. Why did he bring on Broad and not Bresnan who bowled a boundary-less over before to Gayle and Chanderpaul? Just because he wants to give everyone a bowl? Why did he not bring the field in for Fletcher and get the bowler (whoever it was) to try to bowl deliveries that wouldn't give him much room? In that last over and with Broad's dot ball, he had a fantastic chance to seal a win. Even on the penultimate ball he could have at least tried to ensure a tie (and thus the same 1 point each as if the match was called off) but he still keeps his field and we have a man coming in from point to field the ball off Fletcher's bat? What is that? Since there were no fielding restrictions he could have brought everybody in as close as possible to try and save the singles.

    I think the ECB should dump Collingwood and make Strauss the T20 captain. Strauss seems to think through these situations more.

  • aditya87 on May 4, 2010, 0:37 GMT

    He's absolutely right. Duckworth Lewis may make some sense in ODI cricket, but in T20 it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

  • No featured comments at the moment.

  • aditya87 on May 4, 2010, 0:37 GMT

    He's absolutely right. Duckworth Lewis may make some sense in ODI cricket, but in T20 it has absolutely no meaning whatsoever.

  • ChrisH on May 4, 2010, 0:58 GMT

    Well naturally Colly wants an overhaul. That's twice now he hasn't done basic cricket and then lost. Why did he bring on Broad and not Bresnan who bowled a boundary-less over before to Gayle and Chanderpaul? Just because he wants to give everyone a bowl? Why did he not bring the field in for Fletcher and get the bowler (whoever it was) to try to bowl deliveries that wouldn't give him much room? In that last over and with Broad's dot ball, he had a fantastic chance to seal a win. Even on the penultimate ball he could have at least tried to ensure a tie (and thus the same 1 point each as if the match was called off) but he still keeps his field and we have a man coming in from point to field the ball off Fletcher's bat? What is that? Since there were no fielding restrictions he could have brought everybody in as close as possible to try and save the singles.

    I think the ECB should dump Collingwood and make Strauss the T20 captain. Strauss seems to think through these situations more.

  • maddadtheslogger on May 4, 2010, 1:18 GMT

    Hi First point where the D/L system needs to be revised for the T20 game is its effect on the net run rates. In this case, teams only play two games before a knock out of one team in the group. The effect of a one run loss over five overs is far more damaging then a one run loss over 20 overs. Further to this, is the number of minimum overs required to make a match. Whilst todays results showed one win and one loss for the teams batting second, the minimum overs needed should be greater than the number of powerplay overs faced by the team batting first. Poor Zimbabwe were effectively chasing a higher run rate than the team batting first, and were allowed only two powerplay overs after the rain. T20 is short enough already and to drop to 5 overs is just pointless - surely a 10 over minimum in both innings should be the standard; 6 power play, 4 normal. It was 'just not cricket' for two teams today and cricket was the loser - hit and giggle became ridiculous and tragedic.

  • on May 4, 2010, 1:22 GMT

    If anybody should be complaining on this day it should be Zim. Their game with SL was basically sacrificed for the sake of the WI vs Eng game. At least England had the chance to play to an end. Zim were not so fortunate as the game was called with no real change to the weather. There was no change in the rainfall between the time the last delivery was bowled and the time the players came off. IF the weather was good enough to get the last ball in to make it a game, then it was good enough to give Zim a chance to chase a total.

    In summary, deal with the rules as they are until they are changed.

  • SolFish on May 4, 2010, 1:53 GMT

    I think Duckwoth Lewis should have no part in cricket at all, it has no basis in reality, and as we can now see how those calculations has turned the world banking system into a mess/recession. the D/L is based on 2+2 =8, 0r 3-4=15, lets make life simple, total runs divided by total overs, then multiplied by total overs available to bat plus one. simple and fair to all, I refused to go pay to watch 50 over cricket, that can be compromised by the D/L rubbish, it has caused nothing but distrust and confusion to the losing side always, I hate to say this but it is a system created by con men to swindle their clients of their profits/runs, using fancy formulas on those unable to accept 2+2=4+1=5, using D/L today it may = 300, tomorrow =60, it's time to throw the D/L formula into the rubbish can of history.

  • shrtlg on May 4, 2010, 1:58 GMT

    The solution is simple. Change the minimum number of overs to 10.

  • BillyCC on May 4, 2010, 2:09 GMT

    The Duckworth-Lewis formula has some serious flaws in both ODI and T20 formats. The major flaw is this: it makes an assumption that wickets-in-hand is more important than batting skill. This seriously advantages the chasing side when the game is stopped and no wickets have been lost (like today's match) and vice versa. The fact is: both factors are as important as each other. One of the comments often made about New Zealand is that once-upon-a-time, their middle order (Taylor, Vettori and McCullum) was their strength. Under the DL method, if these batsmen were in the middle when the rain starts, it would mean they have lost three or four wickets, making a chase much more difficult. And yet, I would argue they should be well in the contest because that middle order is the core strength. On the other hand, India's core strength is the top order, and also Dhoni later on. They should be penalised more for losing wickets early on.

  • Mithun_Dig on May 4, 2010, 2:14 GMT

    The Number of wickets that the batting side can play should be reduced proportionately . Like a 10 ovrs match shud mean, the batting side shud be considered all out if they lose 5 wkts. A 5 ovr match shud mean 3 wkts all out. If a team has already lost more than those many wickets, then the match can be considered over in the favour of team batting first and that would be fair... as a team which is 23/5 in 3 ovrs chasing 191 , 9.9/10 times will lose. so they shud not be given a chance to score 60 of 6( i am assuming they were 18/0 is 1.2 ovrs when rain stopped play). The Rationale behind this logic is that, having at the back of the mind that you have 10 wkts, makes hitting easy. But with only 5 wkts in hand, blind hitting wud be reconsidered.

  • Bang_La on May 4, 2010, 2:24 GMT

    As long as things go in favour of the English, everything is fine. The moment anything doesn't favour them, they start whinning :) Nothing new!

  • Itchy on May 4, 2010, 3:09 GMT

    D/L works for one dayers but not for T20 due to reduced no. of overs to score runs with the same number of wickets. For me a rain interrupted T20 match is a complete waste of tiume and should be replayed.

    A result based on a six over run chase - what is the point?