Chasing 337 to win in a 50-over match, the team batting second are 6-171 after 35 overs.
They require 11.07 runs per over and, equally importantly, 41.5 runs per partnership, with four partnerships still available for utilisation counting the one currently in progress.
Their wicket affordability factor (WAF) is one every 22.5 deliveries. Six is actually a par number of wickets to be down at this point. One more – to make it seven – within those first 35 overs would make them virtually bowled out (VBO) in a reduced-overs scenario.
However, a par score for those par six wickets down at this point would be 236 – that is, 6-236 off 35 overs would mean the run chase was in equilibrium, while either one or two runs fewer would mean the fielding side had their noses fractionally in front. Another wicket at that same score – so, 7-236 – has the fielding side comfortably in the box seat all things considered.
However, the chasing side is behind the eight ball because although only six wickets down, they have only 171 on the board. Then it rains and ten overs are lost. The next two in are Muck It Up Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis Really Blew It. After that will come a third chappie to really make Steven Stern the whole equation for the chasing side.
(Photo by Morne de Klerk/Getty Images)
With the 15 remaining overs cut to only five, suddenly it is deemed that the chasing side have to score another 136 off those five overs, or 27.5 per over, whereas when the interruption occurred they needed ‘only’ 11.07 per over off the final 15 had the innings run its natural course. I say ‘only’ because, make no mistake, the defending side were well and truly on top and the chasing side were extremely unlikely to win in the original event.
However, a rare miracle was still possible, cricket being a funny game and all that. Changing the requirement to 27.5 per over changed even the possibility of an outside miracle against the grain of normal events.
Fair dinkum, they may as well have not even retaken the field and simply awarded the game to the defending team then and there. I mean, sure, the runs per partnership requirement had been massively slashed from 41.5 to now only 34 and, sarcasm aside, the WAF had genuinely reduced from 22.5 to 7.5, but seriously, you could have given that chasing side all ten wickets (or partnerships) back and they still would not have stood a chance in hell, not even any hope of a freakishly unlikely miracle.
You could have sent in any two batsmen from history in their prime, the choosing of the chasing team, whatever their nationality, and allowed them to bat the whole remaining five overs irrespective of how many times they were subsequently dismissed and still the chasing team would have had not one remote iota of hope to score 136 off those five overs.
If the degree of difficulty of the remaining run chase taking ‘remaining resources for the batting side’ into account was supposed to be roughly equal after the resumption to what it had been at the precise onset of the interruption, then Messrs Duckworth, Lewis and Steyn failed miserably, and this has not been the first time.
That occurrence in the India-Pakistan match at last year’s World Cup should have sounded the death knell for the DLS method.
It should have been its Waterloo in the same way that the third final of the 1988-89 Australian Tri-series between Australia and the West Indies or the 1992 World Cup England-South Africa semi-final did for the even more ludicrous reset target methods that preceded it. It was surely every bit as farcical.
For too long now they have been able to wriggle free in the face of such occurrences with generic PR statements along the lines of, “Yeah it does seem that there’s a deficiency in that specific type of situation, but our latest updated program will fix it”.
Yeah right. Stop pulling our leg stump time after time.
(Photo by Morne de Klerk/Getty Images)
This article will be in five parts. Part 2 will expose the some of the very real flaws in the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method and highlight the lack of logic in some of the targets it sets as well as the inconsistency in its methodology across the various types of interruptions that can occur in a limited overs match.
Part 3 will present a more mathematically consistent method that I have loosely based on the original somewhat vague but nonetheless noble DL principle of ‘taking wickets into account’. I have used inverted commas because DL has never done this even nearly as well as they have always made out to have done except for in one particular type of interruption that can occur.
Part 4 will be a continuation of Part 3 focussing on a specific type of interruption among the various different types that can occur. At the end of that section I will also provide a much better reset solution to that infamous game that I revisited in the introduction of this Part 1 introduction to this whole series.
Part 5 will compare and contrast the DLS method and the method that I believe would be better, and in the absence of any other name at this point I will call it ‘McConville-Warehouse’ in honour of the Brisbane summer and winter Warehouse competition that I have been umpiring in since 2008. As a disclaimer, do not be confused, it is not indoor cricket but standard outdoor as per the MCC laws of the game. McConville-Warehouse will simply be truncated to ‘McWarehouse’.
Part 6 will finish by addressing the minimum overs requirement in reduced-overs matches and contend what should be the appropriate number as well as how to reconcile the numbers commissioned to the fielding team’s bowlers in these circumstances.
I will sign off on this introductory Part 1 by also pointing out that there are actually two DLS systems in existence: the original standard version and the professional version. The standard version was first revealed to the cricket world during the 1999 World Cup in England and then replaced by the professional version a bit over four years later in late 2003.
The professional version apparently relies on keeping regularly updated running stats fed into a gigantic computer data base and remains shrouded in secrecy not available to the public domain. It is only in recent years that the standard version has been released to club or grade levels of the game by way of an easily downloaded mobile phone app that manifests itself in the form of a calculator.
One could argue that if the original standard version were replaced (by the professional version), that would mean that it was inadequate in the first place, and that is precisely what I will show in Part 2 by way of some hypothetical scenarios, which in turn begs the rather obvious question of why on earth associations at club level would want to switch to something that is little better than either of the two moronic methods that it replaced.
In Part 2 I can only present actual situations that really did occur when using the aforementioned professional version (for the reason stated earlier), situations that still nonetheless gave rise to some targets that could be diplomatically regarded as ‘questionable’ but in reality, in the interests of calling a spade a spade, were actually genuinely moronic.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
At some of the levels of cricket I umpire at they probably would.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Oh it is ... I promise you that. Cheers
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I like your confidence. I will view with an open mind......but it better be good.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Actually Rowdy, please store that comment away in your archives and if you still retain that same opinion once we have completed Part 5, then it would be great to repost it at precisely that point in time and I will answer it then.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
We shall see ... Stay tuned for Parts 2 - 6. Part 2 has been submitted and is awaiting publication.
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
The nuance changes, in the match, as each ball is bowled changes the dynamic too quickly for any formula to cover every possibility. It's one of the reasons I've lost interest in ODI's. You are forcing players to play a different version of an ODI match. Like Golden Point in League the game changes from run n carry to a drop-kick fest. ------ If rain stops a game at 30-32 overs there is no possibility to achieve a fair outcome. How do you slam a revolving door?
Rowdy
Roar Rookie
I thought it was an Albanian greeting.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Taa
Insult_2_Injury
Roar Rookie
Unenviable task, Bernie. You're right with the current system, though, not sure why most teams don't look at the target and say no, thanks we're off to the pub!
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
G’day All Day … Thanks for that …. While everything you wrote is more than worthy of a response, as with at least one other, I will hold off until I have posted more in the series and there may come a better time later to discuss some of it … The one thing I will say for now is that you have absolutely nailed a very large part of the problem with D\L – “ … always allowing the chasing team to retain all ten wickets …” I have been long since convinced that a blanket target, one size fits all, the entire line up of 11 batsmen/10 wickets, is simple not doable when the chasing team faces less overs than the side batting first, or even when neither innings runs their natural course – in fact, in my view, it is as impossible a mathematical equation as dividing a number by zero. I will go ahead and try and post Part 2 tonight, as I think I have generated enough interest via this intro already … However, I will give you a small sneak preview into something that is mainly covered in Parts 3 and 4 … The whole D\L method revolves around the concept of a batting side having two resources to utilise in which to maximise their eventual total: a) wickets they may lose and b) overs they may face. These resources are given a total value of 100%. Now the problem is how are they assigned to each? In a 50 over game, is it 1% for each over, totally 50% as well as 5% for each wicket to provide the other 50%? This is, admittedly a little over simplistic, but it’s actually not that far wide of the mark. Now, if the chasing side’s target is 200 off 50 overs, and their innings gets reduced to 25 (before it starts), then the D\L theory is that only 75% of the chasing side’s resources remain so therefore they should chase 75% of the target which comes to 150. The problem with this is that according to my own McWarehouse method, 150 is only a fair score to award victory to the chasing side if they have lost no more than 7 wickets. So how does McWarehouse work? Well, for years watching on TV, the commentators constantly put the equation on our screens about what the required run rate is from any given point i.e. runs per over. McWarehouse recognises TWO legitimate run rates that must be maintained in a limited overs run chase: as well as the well known runs per over equation, they also need to maintain a certain number of runs per partnership, with each wicket they may lose equating to a ‘partnership’ – partnership in itself is obviously not a new terminology in cricket. So, chasing 200 off 50 overs, the chasing side needs to score at 4 runs per over, as well as 20 runs per partnership, and fusing this together, each 5 over period of play requires an average yield for the chasing side of no worse than 1 for 20. This led me to produce a basic table that has what I call a ‘par diagonal of equilibrium’ which you will see in Part 3, so I won’t say too much more at this point. Other key terminology I have coined are ‘VBO’ which stands for ‘virtually bowled out’ – my system simultaneously allows a chasing team to always bat it’s full line up, but a par target, as well as above and below par targets are geared to wickets lost/still standing much more conspicuously than D\L has ever done. VBO will be explained relatively early in Part 2. Another is a team’s ‘WAF’ which stands for ‘wicket affordability factor’ and this is measured in balls and the name should be self-explanatory – if in the unlikely event it is not, then it will also be adequately explained at the right time. Part 3 will see an explanation of what I have dubbed ‘The Virtual Line-up’ and this is a mathematical concept also. Then in Part 4 there is the ‘VRB’ or ‘virtual run benefit’ and I will leave that until then. Before I sign off, it is appropriate I feel to give some credit to Messrs Duckworth and Lewis (not the method but the actual people) for identifying certain types of interruptions that nobody realised existed previously. I am talking predominantly of course about games where neither innings runs its natural course, and Duckworth and Lewis presumably recognised that when this happens it is important that the team on top – whether the batting or the fielding side – does not have their hard won advantage negated, for example, the first side gets to 2 for 150 of 30 overs and then rain wipes out 2 and a half hours of playing time to leave only enough time for the chasing team to also receive 30 overs. It is wrong to simply have the chasing side chase 146, as this does not allow for the fact that the side batting first would, on a normal day, have accelerated over the last 20 overs and ended up with more than 250. Conversely, if the side batting first is 8 for 115 off 30 overs when there innings is terminated and the chasing side also faces 30, or even only 25 depending on time remaining, then it needs to be taken into account that the most likely scenario had the side batting first’s innings not been prematurely terminated that they would likely have been wrapped up for around 135, which off 50 overs would be easier to chase down then 116 off 30. How should this be reconciled? I believe it can be reconciled in a very simple and logical mathematical manner, as can the above reverse scenario. However, once again, it is my firm belief that D\L has never done it nearly well enough,
All day Roseville all day
Roar Guru
Hi Bernie, Good luck with this. In my view DL is generally fine in theory, and "war-gaming" every possible scenario confirms that. But it has flaws in practice as a result of overlaid ICC playing conditions eg- * after a first innings of 20 overs and then rain, forcing a very artificial result in another 5 overs, instead of just accepting a washout and draw (for example setting a target of 49 in 5 overs with 10 wickets in hand) * after a first innings of 50 overs and then rain, forcing a very artificial result in another 15 overs, instead of just accepting a washout and draw * after a between-innings interruption, forcing too many fieldsmen to stay in the circle for far too many of the second innings' 5-15 overs * allowing the team batting second to always retain 10 wickets, even when it chases a reduced target in say 5 overs and therefore can afford to throw the bat at every single ball- that's not an even contest between bat and ball * not sufficiently acknowledging the differing scoring trends of the 20-over format (which didn't exist when DL was developed) and the 50-over format during the opening, middle and final overs, and with wickets in hand, and when batting with the field up or back * perhaps even not sufficiently acknowledging the historic proven differences in scores between male and female matches, and between matches played at high- and low-scoring grounds. When T20 cricket began, a team that defended 160 almost always won, and a side that was 3-for after 6 overs almost always lost. But tactics seem to change so quickly, that mathematicians can't possibly keep up.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
The simple things in life are often the best as the old saying goes.
Paul
Roar Guru
Not at all Bernie. I'm one of hundreds of thousands who are totally confused by this method. At it's essence, cricket is such a simple game and short form cricket even more so, yet the powers that be come up with a system that is ridiculously complex, to try and make 20 & 50 over cricket more equitable if weather intervenes. I hope what ever you come up with is easier to understand, Bernie.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I plan to lost Part 2 tomorrow - then it will depend on the roar when they publish. I have had some take longer than a week, other appear literally over night. Just curious Paul, have I run into a diehard D/L supporter?
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Thanks Brian.
Clay
Roar Pro
Regrettably it took me far too long to realise this related to the rain delay scoring system and not the umpiring snafu-stopper... Very interested to follow along with this series as statistics and the like fascinate me.
Brian
Guest
Thanks Dave yes it was genuine. Its a tough mental slog that needs a different forum and I hope you get it.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Yes Dwayne, and that would mean admitting to having been suffering from a case of The Emperor’s New Clothes for an extended period of time – something that’s never easy for powers that be to bring themselves to do.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
The other thing I should have added is that my passion for the topic stems from being a big believer in a system that is both mathematically logical as well as enhances the concept of cricketing justice. In my view, D\L set out to do this, and in lots of ways was better than either of the two methods that preceded it, but like so many ideals that start out positively, it didn’t end up doing it all that well. That mathematical logic and sense of cricketing justice are imperative. Also desirable is for the average lay person to understand at a glance why rescaled calculations are as they are, and again, the professional version of D\L is shrouded in secrecy and not available to the public domain. Wikipedia articles also do not, in my view, shed any better light as to why certain targets in the past were rescaled as they were. This is actually the main crux of parts 2,3 and 4, while part 5 will compare and contrast D\L and my own method that I have for the interim dubbed ‘McWarehouse’. But what’s in a name is the least important aspect.
Dwanye
Roar Rookie
Yep, the fault not so much with Duckworth and company, it with the powers that be not being proactive and trying something else when short comings are seen.