|
|
Post by stewart on Nov 23, 2008 18:23:58 GMT
Anyone new to cricket would think that the game's administrators had taken leave of their senses after the latest one day match.
India scored 166 in 22 overs and then England passed that score with more than an over remaining. However, it appears that by some insane mathematical calculation, England were expected to actually score 198 to win, and are therefore adjudged to have lost the match by 19 runs.
Duckworth and Lewis, whoever they are, definitely need a visit from the men in white coats.
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Nov 23, 2008 18:50:47 GMT
I never ever understood the scoring in cricket and its a game I have seldom watched, I know many really enjoy the game, but for me its too slow and takes too long.  But that sure seems a mad way to have to win any game, you would think the highest score would win. |
|
jerry
TFF member
Posts: 165
|
Post by jerry on Nov 23, 2008 18:52:09 GMT
I'm no expert, in fact I know absolutely naff all about cricket, but I would assume that in one day games teams score at a slower rate in the early overs. India would have had no idea that their stint at bat would be cut short (presumably by the weather?), whereas England would have known from the off how many overs they had to face.
If the Indians had known they would only be facing 22 overs one would assume they would have posted a far higher target!
It's therefore hardly fair for England to have to simply pass the Indian total to win!
|
|
chelstongull
TFF member
Posts: 6,759
Favourite Player: Jason Fowler
|
Post by chelstongull on Nov 23, 2008 20:01:45 GMT
Are you sure it wasn't Laurel & Hardy method?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2008 20:14:44 GMT
Jerry that would be my answer as well.
I didn't follow the game but I've just scrolled through the details.
For the first 14 overs India thought they were playing a 50 overs game. Then it rained.
When play resumed it was now a 44 overs game. It rained again after 17 overs and - when play started again - it became a 22 overs game.
This meant India were effectively playing three different games.
By contrast, thoughout England's innings the batsmen knew it was to be a 22 overs game. If there had been an interuption to the England innings a further adjustment would have been made.
Although this seems irrational at first sight, it does look like India were making a better job of what they were doing than England. The instinctive feel is usually the best guide.
Duckworth Lewis is based on what has happened in previous games. Today it would have taken how India were performing and extrapolated a score they may have achieved in different circumstances.
The "what might have happened in fairer circumstances" approach is central to Duckworth Lewis. The old system only took account of "what actually happens" which isn't always the fairest in cricket.
I struggled with it for a while but, through going to games, I always kept an eye on the DL target and it began to make sense.
I'd defend DL but if you ask me anything about it don't expect an immediate answer. Give me half-an-hour, more if I'm interupted.
|
|
|
|
Post by stewart on Nov 24, 2008 8:51:47 GMT
I agree that, had India known at the start of their innings that they would receive only 22 overs, they MIGHT have scored 197. Equally, they MIGHT have approached their batting in an entirely different manner and been all out for 150.
It's all based on assumption, supposition and guesswork and that, in my opinion, is no way to determine the outcome of an important international match.
|
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Nov 24, 2008 9:50:26 GMT
It`s not rocket science boys and girls, it`s based purely on if they scored  runs in however many overs then that dictates the` over score rate` at which the opposition must better. Typical ignorance i`m afraid, shows up most when England lose things, funny about that eh! Oh and yes I`m also aware of the fact India beat Australia recently so don`t bother! I`m willing to bet that if England won due to the DL rule most people would understand it and also quite like it! |
|
jerry
TFF member
Posts: 165
|
Post by jerry on Nov 24, 2008 10:52:41 GMT
It`s not rocket science boys and girls, it`s based purely on if they scored runs in however many overs then that dictates the` over score rate` at which the opposition must better. Typical ignorance i`m afraid, shows up most when England lose things, funny about that eh! Oh and yes I`m also aware of the fact India beat Australia recently so don`t bother! I`m willing to bet that if England won due to the DL rule most people would understand it and also quite like it! A word of advice Aussie...make sure you know what you are talking about before throwing around comments like that otherwise you just make yourself look like a complete idiot!!! ;D If it was as simple as you describe above then it would just be called "winning by a superior run rate".(As I believe it was in the past) It is actually a calculation based on the number of overs to face and the number of wickets left. www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ABOUT_CRICKET/RAIN_RULES/DUCKWORTH_LEWIS_2001.htmlBut lets not let the facts get in the way of some good old fashioned abuse eh Aussie?  |
|
|
|
Post by jimd on Nov 24, 2008 12:53:19 GMT
Stupid rules for a stupid game  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2008 13:05:12 GMT
That's right, Jerry, the overs left - and wickets remaining - calculation is at the heart of it.
I started to understand DL's rationality by seeing how unfair the old "superior run rate" method could be.
Here are a couple of, admittedly extreme, examples:
Game 1
Team A 250 for 0 (50 overs)
Team B 126 for 9 (25 overs - rain)
Team B's only rain interuption was after 25 overs when a sudden storm broke and the game was abandoned. The run rate method gives them the game. But would you have put money on them winning without the interuption?
Game 2
Team A 250 all out (50 overs)
Team B 124 for 0 (25 overs - rain).
Again it's the first interuption of the game, it's without warning and there's no further play. Run rate gives the game to A but is that where your money would have been?
DL - and I hope I'm right - would give the opposite decision in each case reflecting the balance of the game beneath the surface of run rate. Of course we don't know what could have happened in both of those examples - an amazing last-wicket stand or a fall of wickets - but Duckworth and Lewis were asked to devise the most fair method taking account of the evidence to date.
|
|
|
|
Post by stewart on Nov 24, 2008 15:57:46 GMT
That's right, Jerry, the overs left - and wickets remaining - calculation is at the heart of it. I started to understand DL's rationality by seeing how unfair the old "superior run rate" method could be. Here are a couple of, admittedly extreme, examples: Game 1 Team A 250 for 0 (50 overs) Team B 126 for 9 (25 overs - rain) Team B's only rain interuption was after 25 overs when a sudden storm broke and the game was abandoned. The run rate method gives them the game. But would you have put money on them winning without the interuption? Game 2Team A 250 all out (50 overs) Team B 124 for 0 (25 overs - rain). Again it's the first interuption of the game, it's without warning and there's no further play. Run rate gives the game to A but is that where your money would have been? DL - and I hope I'm right - would give the opposite decision in each case reflecting the balance of the game beneath the surface of run rate. Of course we don't know what could have happened in both of those examples - an amazing last-wicket stand or a fall of wickets - but Duckworth and Lewis were asked to devise the most fair method taking account of the evidence to date. Your argument based on the details of your two examples is perfectly sound and valid and I would not dispute your conclusions. Clearly common sense would be required and applied in order to determine who should win, if anyone. However, there is a huge difference here. Whereas your examples deal with runs actually scored, the recent ODI was decided on runs which MIGHT hypothetically have been scored. As an ex-player at quite a reasonable level, I have always detested any attempt to mess around with cricket in a mathematical sense. We shall simply have to agree to disagree. |
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Nov 24, 2008 16:13:33 GMT
Like I said I do not know anything about how they decide who wins a cricket match, but reading the posts by bartondowns, it seems to me someone is making it all very hard work.
Why can't the game just be so many overs and the team with the most runs win? Keep it simple then there would be no need for some guy to have to use a calculator or some mathematic formula to get a result.
|
|
|
|
Post by aussie on Nov 24, 2008 17:31:12 GMT
Dave they have to do it the hard way due to the bloody rain!
Jerry, so what I omitted the bit about wickets who cares it`s simple, but it would be a lot more simple if it were played indoors, you ever see an indoor game called off or delayed due to poor weather? Imagine the size of the stadium you would need, awesome! Transparent roof as well!
|
|
Dave
TFF member
Posts: 13,081
|
Post by Dave on Nov 24, 2008 20:29:20 GMT
Dave they have to do it the hard way due to the bloody rain! Jerry, so what I omitted the bit about wickets who cares it`s simple, but it would be a lot more simple if it were played indoors, you ever see an indoor game called off or delayed due to poor weather? Imagine the size of the stadium you would need, awesome! Transparent roof as well! Aussie mate you are a genius and I think you and I can make a fortune here. Did you see if there was any contact details for Roberts, in the Sunday papers, I just feel he is the man we need to sell it for us. Wait till Merse hears the plans and coming from Roberts, we know that Merse will think its such a great idea and you know he will start shouting that the people of Torbay had better wake up and grasp it with both hands. So keep this under your hat aussie, until we can get Roberts as our front man. The first thing we need to do is get the balloon moved over to the Rec site on the seafront. We will put our new cricket ground there, maybe a hotel around the outside and while we are at it, lets have some shops. Now here is the really clever part, we have made the biggest transparent sheet, big enough to cover the whole new ground. On match days we secure it to large poles all around the outside of the ground. Then we tie the middle to the bottom of the balloon and sent it up. he presto we have the first indoor cricket pitch, don't forget its close to the train station so transport will be good, might even be able to take this one step further and get that football club in town on board. They could pretend it was wembley. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2008 21:01:17 GMT
Dave, good thinking mate. Chris Roberts, judging from the various emails we exchanged (under a variety of my identities), always seemed very receptive to blue sky thinking.
He particularly liked my Park and Steam proprosals - away fans coming in by steam train (using the old freight line) having parked off the A38 at Heathfield; home fans - with a special family emphasis - coming up from Kingswear, Churston and Goodrington. Chris also thought my innovative fast ferry service from Dawlish and Teignmouth to the new Torquay United pier at Corbyns Head might also be a runner.
I did sound him out about merging with Argyle and City to form the Devon Dumplings playing at the Tragodome but I didn't get a reply. By then he either thought I was a nutter or I was setting a trap for him (I expect his dear old mum taught him a few tricks of the trade).
|
|
runs in however many overs then that dictates the` over score rate` at which the opposition must better. Typical ignorance i`m afraid, shows up most when England lose things, funny about that eh!