Since when did 180ish of 20 overs = 50 off 5 with 10 wickets

D/L is poor for 20/20, always has been although Duckworth and Lewis don't accept the fact. Still think it works for 50 over cricket.

reduce the number of wkts?? why? they'd just not bat the no11 etc..

Clearly the system needs tweaking so that the odds pre rain and after are nearly the same making it a fair deal for both.

the problem with D/L for T20s for very short run chases is as follows:

top order batsman have a much greater scoring potential than those lower down the order.

this is factored in the resources calculation used by D/L but as the overs remaining gets down to less than 7 or 8 the difference in remaining resource, based on the remaining wickets becomes smaller and smaller and the resource remaining approaches a function solely of overs remaining, especially so when there are less than 7 wickets down.

this is an invalid assumption to make for higher run rates, which is of course happens far more often in t20s than ODIs.

there is a gigantic difference between expecting 5,6,7 to get 11+ an over, and expecting 1,2,3 to get it,  i.e. there has to be a much greater weighting for remaining wickets in calculating remaining resource for T20s when the chase is shorter than 7/8 overs.

As someone said the team chasing when overs are taken off should be same odds to win in the shortened game as they were prior to any overs being taken off.

If Duckworth and Lewis stand by their system they should put their money where their mouths are and lay the team chasing on betfair at the same odds they were when the team batting first finished their innings.

nope dont like fiddling about with runs added for wkts lost. over complicates things. target for 5 overs last night should have been 60+ for a fair game.

paddletoe 04 Jul 12 11:12 
Surely there has to be some value placed on taking or losing a wicket in these reduced games. Normally a batsman has to weigh up the risk reward value of losing his wicket but in these reduced games its all reward and no risk for the batsman. So much easier to score runs when it does not matter if you lose your wicket.


the duckworth lewis method already accounts for this in its calculations of remaining resources. the problem is that the values it uses for T20 are wrong, meaning that it underestimates the importance of wickets.

again, i do think the system is sound, but the data used for T20 is flawed.

Are the components of DL changed as more and more 20-20 data becomes available over the years?

If rain occurs after 5 overs of the 2nd innings and there is no more play then DL is fair. But if rain occurs mid-innings and then they have 5 overs knowing what they need to go for from the start then it isnt.

silverback

the data is updated every 4 years. but i'm pretty sure from everything i've read that a single set of resource data is used for every limited overs match: DL for T20 is a one day cricket match when 20 overs and 10 wickets are left. this is based on a flawed assumption.

you can't scale it like that, and there has to be separate resource data for T20 and for ODIs. there are two bits of proper analysis readily available on the web which both lead to much higher totals for last nights match (along with england's one against the west indies when we got 190).


paddletoe

you cannot have variable targets when the remaining number of overs is known. what happens if the remaining overs are 19 overs instead of 5. you'll come to claim the impact of a wicket is less important at the time of the full 19 overs, but more important with smaller chases. I can promise you that if you run through these ideas you'll come up with exactly the same sort of resource model that D/L uses, and realise that it justs the value that are wrong and not the idea.

irakli - there's nothing wrong with a 5 over total in response to a full innings, so long as the target is fair. it's not at the moment

Agree wholeheartedly with DStyle and think he is so obviously right I can't for the sake of me work out why nothing has been done to amend the DL when there is clearly an anomaly in the case of drastically reduced overs like last night. I don't see how D/L can not accept this and they come across very poorly, in my eyes, because of it.

The DL adjustment wasn't rigbht but to score 50 off 5 at 925pm after much rain took some doing!!!

Notts had to start well. They had to nail their boundary shots and they did. Wickets in hand count for little when you have 30 balls to face.

Lumb was in his Matty Hayden mode. Hugely impressive from Notts.

50 off 5 in wet conitions with all 10 wkts is a piece of piss inj.

10 wkts in hand means you can take on the fielders arm and turn 1s into 2s easy. the fielder will be slower off the mark to the ball, may fumble and probably wont throw as strongly/accurately with the wet ball.

Injera, the umpires cant decide to go for a 10 over a side game simply because it might rain later on in the night. Another massive flaw with DL (not applicable to the Notts v Lancs match) is it pretty much assumes that nobody knows rain is on the way. It all works ok as long as the rain takes everyone by complete surprise.

Interestingly we could have had a situation last night in the Windies match where if the second innings had been reduced to 25 overs or so then West Indies would have been the winners without having to go back out and bat, due to already being ahead of the par score for the 25 over mark. It would have meant that the game being won by West Indies or being a no result would have solely come down to the conditions being fit for the game to resume or not even though it would have then ended without any further play. What a sport.

Another great example today.

Sussex 104/0 after 9 when the rain comes. Surrey set 62 off 5. How on earth can that be right?

I wasn't looking at the markets however I suspect the pre and post rain prices were miles apart.

Fair call Corridor. The Sussex game another example.

i was waiting on sussex for a treble and because yorks and notts were looking good i layed sussex once the rain came @ 1.20 as i was fearful of a D/L chase for surrey

Like the Notts/Lancs game the DL target was farcical - what would have been interesting is if surrey would have had 9 overs - the target should have been in the region of 130 so i cant see how that equates to 62 off 5

The 1st thing i would do is make it 10 overs minimum for a result