Duckworth Lewis.... What a joke

[mal]

Probability suggests EG were a long odds on favourite before the last rain,
BUT history shows and the future will always show that odds on favourites do get beaten.

so why do you only tip odds on favourites

DONT YOU ME
I will have it known I tipped a $5-50 winner saturday night called URJOKIN
And a $1-20 winner today

As for the cricket morally the right team WINS the system is OK.
But AG is disgusted + MAL unsatisfied.

Its a fantastic debate, so many varaibles.

[topsywaldron]

We are now left guessing at what LEE+ BRACKEN were capable of.

A few no balls and a bad haircut?

[MightyEagles]

I remember the system before, it basically cost South Africa a spot in the 1992 World Cup final (I think against England). I think they needed 22 of about 4 overs, the rain came down and SAf needed 22 off 1 ball.

[GetTheSherrin]

what if s.harmison was playing, would the dwthlewis take in to consideration the amount of noballs he bowls? he could have one us the game, a few noballs hit to the boundary take the run chase down alot.

i definately think that they should play more overs to constitute a match though. maybe more like 30-35.

also the dwthlewis is worked out by years of matches results, but the game has changed alot in the last few years, especially since the power plays came in. i know england had already bowled all of theirs but still it makes for a completely different game with the fielders in.

[mighty_tiger_79]

I remember the system before, it basically cost South Africa a spot in the 1992 World Cup final (I think against England). I think they needed 22 of about 4 overs, the rain came down and SAf needed 22 off 1 ball.

correct against England at the SCG and i would say it cost them the tourney.

[redandblack]

what if s.harmison was playing, would the dwthlewis take in to consideration the amount of noballs he bowls? he could have one us the game, a few noballs hit to the boundary take the run chase down alot.

i definately think that they should play more overs to constitute a match though. maybe more like 30-35.

also the dwthlewis is worked out by years of matches results, but the game has changed alot in the last few years, especially since the power plays came in. i know england had already bowled all of theirs but still it makes for a completely different game with the fielders in.

Duckworth/Lewis is regularly revised to take higher scores into account over the last few years.

It's not complicated if you have the tables and is as close to reality as it's possible to get, I think.

[mal]

what if s.harmison was playing, would the dwthlewis take in to consideration the amount of noballs he bowls? he could have one us the game, a few noballs hit to the boundary take the run chase down alot.

i definately think that they should play more overs to constitute a match though. maybe more like 30-35.

also the dwthlewis is worked out by years of matches results, but the game has changed alot in the last few years, especially since the power plays came in. i know england had already bowled all of theirs but still it makes for a completely different game with the fielders in.

Yeah gotta agree with you 35-40 overs for a game
20 overs is too little

GETTHESHERRIN/DUCKWORTH/LEWIS system appreals.

[Punk Rooster]

I remember the system before, it basically cost South Africa a spot in the 1992 World Cup final (I think against England). I think they needed 22 of about 4 overs, the rain came down and SAf needed 22 off 1 ball.

I genuinely felt for SA- I remember Brian McMillan playing (blocking?) the final ball in disgust

[mal]

I remember the system before, it basically cost South Africa a spot in the 1992 World Cup final (I think against England). I think they needed 22 of about 4 overs, the rain came down and SAf needed 22 off 1 ball.

I genuinely felt for SA- I remember Brian McMillan playing (blocking?) the final ball in disgust

They should have used the HAWK/MAL system and called the game off.
That was absolute stupidity.

[Adelaide Hawk]

I remember the system before, it basically cost South Africa a spot in the 1992 World Cup final (I think against England). I think they needed 22 of about 4 overs, the rain came down and SAf needed 22 off 1 ball.

I genuinely felt for SA- I remember Brian McMillan playing (blocking?) the final ball in disgust

And that was the day I declared to myself that one day cricket was a joke, and have never seriously regarded it as a legitimate competition ever since. This was after the time I saw an Aussie team make 2/270-odd, and get beaten by a West Indian team who made 8/130-odd. Can't remember the exact scores, but it was something around that mark.

Rules of cricket are simple. Team A bats and makes as many as possible. Then Team B bats, and if they make more runs they win. If they make less runs, they lose. And if they haven't reached Team A's total still having wickets in hand, and haven't received their full over entitlement in the allocated time ... they DRAW!!!!!

This inane need to have a result, regardless of butchering the integrity of the game drives me nuts. Duckworth-Lewis is the greatest comedy team since Martin-Lewis.

[mal]

I remember the system before, it basically cost South Africa a spot in the 1992 World Cup final (I think against England). I think they needed 22 of about 4 overs, the rain came down and SAf needed 22 off 1 ball.

I genuinely felt for SA- I remember Brian McMillan playing (blocking?) the final ball in disgust

And that was the day I declared to myself that one day cricket was a joke, and have never seriously regarded it as a legitimate competition ever since. This was after the time I saw an Aussie team make 2/270-odd, and get beaten by a West Indian team who made 8/130-odd. Can't remember the exact scores, but it was something around that mark.

Rules of cricket are simple. Team A bats and makes as many as possible. Then Team B bats, and if they make more runs they win. If they make less runs, they lose. And if they haven't reached Team A's total still having wickets in hand, and haven't received their full over entitlement in the allocated time ... they DRAW!!!!!

This inane need to have a result, regardless of butchering the integrity of the game drives me nuts. Duckworth-Lewis is the greatest comedy team since Martin-Lewis.

We think the same HAWK
A level playing field for all teams
A need for finality unlike the aborted finish.
Call the game off or finish it off if possible with overtime

I hereby submit the HAWK/MAL system its called a DRAW.

[redandblack]

So under your system, mal, if Side B is 3/95 after 20 overs, chasing 260, and it rains for a while, you'll make the following announcement to the 50,000 at the ground.

"Attention please, ladies and gents. There's still time for another 20 overs before we have to turn the lights off, but you can all go home, it's a draw under the HAWK/Mal system.

Bugger off home."

Should work a treat.

[mighty_tiger_79]

or stay until tomorrow when we finish it off

[Adelaide Hawk]

How would the Duckworth-Lewis system work in footy? A team wins the toss, kicks with a howling gale in the first quarter, leads by 8 goals, and then the wind drops completely and it rains at 1/4 time. The umpires get the calculators out and decree that the team who is 8 goals down now only has to outscore the opponent by 2 goals in the 2nd term to be even at half time, and they have to do it in 10 minutes.

Sounds stupid? Yes it does, and so does a cricket team winning a game of cricket when they make less runs than the other team. We wouldn't want a footy match to go less than 4 quarters, so why have a 50 over cricket match only go for 33 overs?

[mal]

So under your system, mal, if Side B is 3/95 after 20 overs, chasing 260, and it rains for a while, you'll make the following announcement to the 50,000 at the ground.

"Attention please, ladies and gents. There's still time for another 20 overs before we have to turn the lights off, but you can all go home, it's a draw under the HAWK/Mal system.

Bugger off home."

Should work a treat.

Riot.

[redandblack]

How would the Duckworth-Lewis system work in footy? A team wins the toss, kicks with a howling gale in the first quarter, leads by 8 goals, and then the wind drops completely and it rains at 1/4 time. The umpires get the calculators out and decree that the team who is 8 goals down now only has to outscore the opponent by 2 goals in the 2nd term to be even at half time, and they have to do it in 10 minutes.

Sounds stupid? Yes it does, and so does a cricket team winning a game of cricket when they make less runs than the other team. We wouldn't want a footy match to go less than 4 quarters, so why have a 50 over cricket match only go for 33 overs?

Nonsense argument if ever I've seen one.

I think Mal's answer was much better

[Ecky]

How would the Duckworth-Lewis system work in footy? A team wins the toss, kicks with a howling gale in the first quarter, leads by 8 goals, and then the wind drops completely and it rains at 1/4 time. The umpires get the calculators out and decree that the team who is 8 goals down now only has to outscore the opponent by 2 goals in the 2nd term to be even at half time, and they have to do it in 10 minutes.

Sounds stupid? Yes it does, and so does a cricket team winning a game of cricket when they make less runs than the other team. We wouldn't want a footy match to go less than 4 quarters, so why have a 50 over cricket match only go for 33 overs?

AH, you are confusing two issues here.

1) If there is a rain delay, should the game be called off, or should a revised target be set?
2) If a revised target is set, how should the target be calculated?

The Duckworth-Lewis system is by far the best system to use, should a revised target be set. So don't blame the system, blame the authorities that insist that rain reduced games are not cancelled/replayed.

PS Name-dropping time
I met Tony Lewis of Duckworth-Lewis fame at a stats conference once, and he is a "top bloke"!

[Adelaide Hawk]

How would the Duckworth-Lewis system work in footy? A team wins the toss, kicks with a howling gale in the first quarter, leads by 8 goals, and then the wind drops completely and it rains at 1/4 time. The umpires get the calculators out and decree that the team who is 8 goals down now only has to outscore the opponent by 2 goals in the 2nd term to be even at half time, and they have to do it in 10 minutes.

Sounds stupid? Yes it does, and so does a cricket team winning a game of cricket when they make less runs than the other team. We wouldn't want a footy match to go less than 4 quarters, so why have a 50 over cricket match only go for 33 overs?

AH, you are confusing two issues here.

1) If there is a rain delay, should the game be called off, or should a revised target be set?
2) If a revised target is set, how should the target be calculated?

The Duckworth-Lewis system is by far the best system to use, should a revised target be set. So don't blame the system, blame the authorities that insist that rain reduced games are not cancelled/replayed.

PS Name-dropping time
I met Tony Lewis of Duckworth-Lewis fame at a stats conference once, and he is a "top bloke"!

I'm not confusing anything. I'm pointing out the frivolity of forcing a result in shortened matches. Unless a team has a better score than their opponent, they do not deserve to win. That is the point I am making.

To answer you questions
1) If their is a rain delay in the 2nd Innings of a match and the batting team cannot possibly make the required total, it should be called a draw. If the rain delay is in the 1st Innings, then both innings can be shortened.
2) How should the target be calculated? It shouldn't.

[-]

Duckworth/Lewis is spot on.

The previous system was a joke.

correction. duckworth lewis is as good as it will get.

the previous system of each lost over deducting the lowest scoring overs from the total was a joke.

[MAY-Z]

How would the Duckworth-Lewis system work in footy? A team wins the toss, kicks with a howling gale in the first quarter, leads by 8 goals, and then the wind drops completely and it rains at 1/4 time. The umpires get the calculators out and decree that the team who is 8 goals down now only has to outscore the opponent by 2 goals in the 2nd term to be even at half time, and they have to do it in 10 minutes.

Sounds stupid? Yes it does, and so does a cricket team winning a game of cricket when they make less runs than the other team. We wouldn't want a footy match to go less than 4 quarters, so why have a 50 over cricket match only go for 33 overs?

AH, you are confusing two issues here.

1) If there is a rain delay, should the game be called off, or should a revised target be set?
2) If a revised target is set, how should the target be calculated?

The Duckworth-Lewis system is by far the best system to use, should a revised target be set. So don't blame the system, blame the authorities that insist that rain reduced games are not cancelled/replayed.

PS Name-dropping time
I met Tony Lewis of Duckworth-Lewis fame at a stats conference once, and he is a "top bloke"!

I'm not confusing anything. I'm pointing out the frivolity of forcing a result in shortened matches. Unless a team has a better score than their opponent, they do not deserve to win. That is the point I am making.

To answer you questions
1) If their is a rain delay in the 2nd Innings of a match and the batting team cannot possibly make the required total, it should be called a draw. If the rain delay is in the 1st Innings, then both innings can be shortened.
2) How should the target be calculated? It shouldn't.

that is just as bad ah- if you bat first and it rains after 30 overs you might be 3/120 ready for an attack but because it rains th eassault never happens. then the rain stops and the opposition have 30 overs to score 121 with 10 wickets and the knowledge they only have 30 overs so the team batting second is heavily advantaged. by applying duckworth lewis you get as fairer situation as possible