Scrap the Duckworth Lewis Method -The Inveterate Spoiler and Ruminant of Limited Over Cricket !!
Posted on January 19th, 2012

Howzatt!ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ ByƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚  Doosra Sammy

January 20thƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 2012
ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Never before does the term ” Borne of the mindset of a pair archaic British pomposities” retrieved from a sporting satire skit become more applicable than when considering, ” from the sublime to the ridiculous” aspect of the Duckworth / Lewis Method which when put into perspective causes more harm to the game of limited over cricket than the intended good !ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ And it is often painfully visible when a downpour ruins the chances of a winning team who are often robbed of a certain victory because the ICC has chosen to go with the ignominious permutations and combinations of a pair of self styled ‘professors’ who are neither mathematical geniuses, acclaimed cricketers ( albeit a tad irrelevant ) nor have the right to dictate what is more detrimental to cricket than chucking in all probabilities as incidentally the game does tend to get chucked away in a manner of speaking as is the fairness of it all.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ In days of yore, abandonment and or re-scheduling seemed the fair order of the day although to some it may be an inconvenience and messers Duckworth and Lewis seem a mere convenience for the organisers and the financiers so what about the paying public? it might be asked who see their team robbed of a certain victory if not the makings of it and surely deserve a re-fund or a re-play at best not a Duckworth/ Lewis Blooper!

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ Interestingly enough prominent sources from The Carribean where cricket is a household word and has produced some of the finest and the best in both game quality and players the game has ever seen although not faring too well in recent international outings at present, suggests that ” All the brains available to ICC do not reside in England and Australia, for which reason consideration ought to be given to improvements in the regulation of the game of cricket which originated in the West Indies and elsewhere. The Duckworth-Lewis Formula for deciding interrupted or incomplete limited overs cricket matches is neither infallible nor desirable as a universal device.

Because cricket is a game of glorious uncertainties, what principle should prevail in the application of rules of competition for deciding the result of any match in which the final innings cannot be completed as scheduled? There is no mathematical formula which can simulate that uncertainty (even as a ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-probabilityƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢¢”š¬…” too many indeterminate variables.

The result of the recent WICB One-Day Championship must be acceptable under existing competition rules, but it is inconsistent with decisions made at other times. Leewards scored 139 for nine in 32.5 overs (the last batsman retiring hurt). Barbados replied with 139 all out in 38 overs. The fairest result of this match by the ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-Comparative MethodƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ would be obtained by comparing the scores of both sides at 32.5 overs (197 balls).

If found to be equal at that stage then the side which had lost fewer wickets would be declared the winner; otherwise the side with the higher score at 32.5 overs would be declared winner.

The match would be ƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ…-tiedƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ”š‚ only if at 32.5 overs both sides had scored 139 runs for the loss of the same number of wickets. There is no complicated mathematical formula and presumption involved in this Comparative Method or Historical Record; only reference to the scorebook and matching of scores at the same stage of each sideƒÆ’‚¢ƒ¢-¡‚¬ƒ¢-¾‚¢s innings.

This is done graphically on television when scoring rates are being measured as the match progresses.

This method has been recommended to the appropriate authorities for years now without the courtesy of response with cogent reasons for not adopting it in WICB Competition Rules for Limited Overs matches.” end quote and what better logic can there be towards the abandonment of the Duckworth/Lewis Method one might ask? which is probably more deserving of being thrown into the English Channel for good measure!

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ When Sri Lanka’s cricketers ~ (Mr Dilshan the skipper has already voiced his protestations ) get wind of this ( no pun intended!) , they will in all probabilities exult in the logic of it all and reflect back to the last ODI against South Africa which they could well have won but for the rain, not forgetting what happened to the South Africans who were shortchanged in similar circumstances at the last World Cup involving Sri Lanka coincidentally, in the Semis. which almost in poetic justice the Lankans were never able to capitalise on eventually due to the heroics of a certain Mr Gichrist!!

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ There will surely be a universal clamour for disbandment of the D/L mishap rather than method which hopefully will be picked up by the cricket world, all its advocates and adjudicators that there certainly is merit in the logic of the West Indian concept that the D/L method seems not only detrimrntal to the gentlemen’s game albeit a shorter version of it, and simply not cricket!.

ƒÆ’-¡ƒ”š‚ 

3 Responses to “Scrap the Duckworth Lewis Method -The Inveterate Spoiler and Ruminant of Limited Over Cricket !!”

  1. Vis8 Says:

    Duckworth-Lewis’s equation should also take into account what impact death-bowlers like Malinga will eventually have on the outcome of the match. Considering the fact Malinga had five overs left, the odds were favoring the Sri Lankans. But, the D/L method of calculations take into consideration only the run-rate, wickets left, and gave SA the match.

  2. Dham Says:

    A major stupidity of the Sri Lankans also affected this match.
    When the match started afternood it was clealy visible tha they could be a possibility of rain.
    Did the Sri Lankans see that ?
    Once we started batting we had high acoring rate but the rated dropped and then went up to about 4.5.
    At this point SA started delaying the game by taking so long to set the field. It was abusurdly slow and commentators were also shocked. But this is where Dilshan could have compalined to match referee. Did he do that ? I am not sure.
    Knowing the local conditions SA cheated by delaying the came until they were sure rain would come. They started with higher score, thanks to Dhammika( who is normally good) and Kulasekara( who alawys is the main culprit normally).( I think Kulasekara should stiil be retained as a batsman but should never be given bowling. What he is doing is bowling at times very well but is never a treat to any batsman. He gives very very doo batting practice.

    Had this delay was not there, either full overs would have bowled or rain would have come at a later stage. It is not too late to make a complain even today. New method by prof. Hudson should include bowling rate for both teams. This means if your rate( bowls per minute) was low at the time of rain ( taking overs bowled ) then more runs will be added to opposite side.

  3. cassandra Says:

    There were various anomalies under the previous system and the D/L system was introduced to counter them. It is of course almost impossible when designing a system to cater for every possible contingency and we need to wait until a system has been operating for some time for unforseen situations to arise. And then it is time for fresh revision. In the years that the D/L system has been operating several shortcoming have come to light and it is only logical and fair that the system be now overhauled. SL’s recent loss is not the first time the team suffered because of the inequity of the D/L system. There was the Final in the West Indies when the team was asked to score at an unreasonable rate – and it very nearly did if not for the weather and the rain interruptions.

    It is only too clear that the D/L system needs to be revised. Maybe the Minister for Sports can pursue this matter with the same vigour with which he seems to take up other matters connected with the game.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2024 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress