West Indies v England, Group D, Providence

Collingwood wants Duckworth-Lewis overhaul

Andrew McGlashan in Guyana

May 3, 2010

Comments: 89 | Text size: A | A

Andy Flower and Paul Collingwood were left frustrated as the Duckworth/Lewis calculation left West Indies with an easy target, West Indies v England, World Twenty20, Guyana, May 3, 2010
Andy Flower and Paul Collingwood were frustrated as the Duckworth/Lewis calculation left West Indies with an easy target © Getty Images

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

RSS Feeds: Andrew McGlashan

© ESPN Sports Media Ltd.

Posted by 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.

Posted by 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.

Posted by 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

Posted by 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.

Posted by 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.

Posted by 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.

Posted by 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? :)

Posted by 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 !

Posted by 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.

Posted by 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...

Comments have now been closed for this article

Email Feedback Print
Andrew McGlashanClose
Andrew McGlashan Assistant Editor Andrew arrived at ESPNcricinfo via Manchester and Cape Town, after finding the assistant editor at a weak moment as he watched England's batting collapse in the Newlands Test. Andrew began his cricket writing as a freelance covering Lancashire during 2004 when they were relegated in the County Championship. In fact, they were top of the table when he began reporting on them but things went dramatically downhill. He likes to let people know that he is a supporter of county cricket, a fact his colleagues will testify to and bemoan in equal quantities.
Tournament Results
Australia v England at Bridgetown - May 16, 2010
England won by 7 wickets (with 18 balls remaining)
Australia v Pakistan at Gros Islet - May 14, 2010
Australia won by 3 wickets (with 1 ball remaining)
England v Sri Lanka at Gros Islet - May 13, 2010
England won by 7 wickets (with 24 balls remaining)
West Indies v Australia at Gros Islet - May 11, 2010
Australia won by 6 wickets (with 22 balls remaining)
India v Sri Lanka at Gros Islet - May 11, 2010
Sri Lanka won by 5 wickets (with 0 balls remaining)
More results »
News | Features Last 3 days
News | Features Last 3 days