With Part 2 demonstrating that there’s a lot wrong with the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method in its operation, including target calculations, this Part 3a is all about presenting how my McWarehouse method works logically.
This series, finding something better than DLS, will be increased from the originally intended six parts to ten in order to halve the length of each individual publication on The Roar. However, they will be numbered 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, 6a and 6b.
The McWarehouse mathematical model is based on the notion that a team chasing a target has two different run rates they need to adequately maintain: (i) chasing an example target of 300 in a maximum of 50 overs, they must firstly maintain a run rate of six per over across the whole of the 50 overs available. However, they must also (ii) maintain a run rate of 30 per partnership across the whole of the innings.
Simply, each five-over period of play must produce for the chasing side an outcome of no worse than 1 for 30.
To generate a complete table, the McWarehouse method begins with a ‘par diagonal of equilibrium’. The top row represents, in descending order, the number of wickets still to fall, while the column on the far left represents the number of available overs already used up. This par diagonal, at all points, equates to precisely those two different aforementioned run rate requirements.
Table 1 reflects a run-chase target of 300 from 50 overs.
| 50max | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 30 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 10 | – | 60 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 15 | – | – | 90 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 20 | – | – | – | 120 | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 25 | – | – | – | – | 150 | – | – | – | – | – |
| 30 | – | – | – | – | – | 180 | – | – | – | – |
| 35 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 210 | – | – | – |
| 40 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 240 | – | – |
| 45 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 270 | – |
| 50 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 300 |
If cricketing reality says that any team’s innings will not always be precisely in that state of equilibrium demonstrated by the previous table, then they at least need to have maintained a credible balance between overs remaining and wickets still in hand. Keep in mind, this is in proportion to the runs still needed to be scored for victory at or by any given point the match might be prematurely terminated.
As wickets are preserved, the current run rate per partnership increases above the overall innings requirement, and this allows leeway for a temporary drop in the current run rate per over to slightly below the whole-innings requirement.
However, if a disproportionately higher number of wickets fall and the chasing team moves into the isosceles triangle region, to the right of the par diagonal of equilibrium, then there is far less scope to fall behind in the run rate per partnership requirement. Namely, because on an average day, ignoring momentarily how quickly runs might be scored, the lower half of a batting line-up does not contribute more to the eventual team run total than the top and middle-order.
(Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
For example, based on mathematical probability, a team that is already seven wickets down after 30 overs will more than likely be bowled out around the 40-over mark, failing to maximise their team’s potential 50-over run total.
Following this example, a side seven wickets down at the 30-over mark chasing 300 could conservatively be assumed to make no more than about 70 runs for the final three wickets, and further still, would need a virtual ‘timeless’ scenario in order to achieve this.
While at 5-180 after 30 overs and chasing 300, the run chase can be considered to be in equilibrium. Yet if the side was seven down instead, they have lost a disproportionate number of wickets and therefore, cannot afford to take the same risks as when five down – if they are to maintain the initial run rate per over requirement simply because the runs per partnership requirement would have risen from the original 30 to 40.
On the contrary, reducing the runs per partnership requirement from the original 30 to about 23 would seem attainable for a batting group consisting chiefly of tail-enders and perhaps one remaining specialist batsman at the crease.
This gives rise to a series of runs per wickets calculation tables that make it straightforward to recalculate run targets if an innings is reduced.
| 50max | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 | 66 | 78 | 90 | 115 | 140 | 165 | 190 | 215 | 240 | 270 |
| 20 | 92 | 101 | 110 | 120 | 145 | 170 | 195 | 220 | 245 | 270 |
| 25 | 120 | 127 | 134 | 142 | 150 | 175 | 200 | 225 | 250 | 275 |
| 30 | -150 | 156 | 162 | 168 | 174 | 180 | 205 | 230 | 255 | 280 |
| 35 | 182 | 187 | 192 | 197 | 202 | 206 | 210 | 235 | 260 | 285 |
| 40 | 215 | 219 | 223 | 227 | 231 | 234 | 237 | 240 | 265 | 290 |
| 45 | 252 | 254 | 256 | 258 | 260 | 262 | 264 | 267 | 270 | 295 |
| 50 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 | 300 |
Each necessary target, at the various points on the table above, is converted into a decimal fraction and then expanded to cover every single ball of the maximum overs set down for the match according to the playing situation. This is demonstrated in Table 3 below, which represents a small portion of the overall handbook comprising more than 100 such tables collating every possible number of maximum overs from 50 to six:
| 50max | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 29.3 | 2.0498 | 1.9672 | 1.8905 | 1.8184 | 1.7516 | 1.6712 | 1.4673 | 1.307 | 1.1786 | 1.0732 |
| 29.4 | 2.0332 | 1.9525 | 1.8776 | 1.8075 | 1.7424 | 1.6697 | 1.466 | 1.3061 | 1.1779 | 1.0726 |
| 29.5 | 2.0166 | 1.9378 | 1.8647 | 1.7966 | 1.7532 | 1.6682 | 1.4647 | 1.3052 | 1.1772 | 1.072 |
| 30 | 2 | 1.9231 | 1.8519 | 1.7857 | 1.7241 | 1.6667 | 1.4634 | 1.3043 | 1.1765 | 1.0714 |
| 30.1 | 1.9883 | 1.9125 | 1.8423 | 1.7769 | 1.7161 | 1.6597 | 1.4622 | 1.3034 | 1.1757 | 1.0708 |
| 30.2 | 1.9766 | 1.9019 | 1.8327 | 1.7681 | 1.7081 | 1.6527 | 1.461 | 1.3025 | 1.1749 | 1.0702 |
| 30.3 | 1.9649 | 1.8913 | 1.8231 | 1.7593 | 1.7001 | 1.6457 | 1.4598 | 1.3016 | 1.1741 | 1.0696 |
| 30.4 | 1.9532 | 1.8807 | 1.8135 | 1.7505 | 1.6921 | 1.6387 | 1.4586 | 1.3007 | 1.1733 | 1.069 |
The umpire and players simply need to divide the target score by the decimal figure from the box corresponding to the number of wickets still standing and the number of overs and balls already bowled.
For instance, a team is chasing 239 off 50 overs, and the innings is prematurely terminated after 29.3 overs. They have three wickets still standing, so the calculation will be – from Table 3 – 239 divided by 1.307. Evidently, to be awarded the victory, they would need to have 183 runs on the board.
The columns in bold represent the par scores to that point of an innings, and this par column shifts one position to the right for every ten per cent of the elapsed innings – a maximum of five overs for a 50 over match.
Therefore, if it became known before the innings that time remaining necessitated that the chasing side’s batting stint be reduced to 30 overs, then the calculation for that same 50-over target of 239 would be: 239 divided by 1.6667, which corresponds to 5-143 – a par score to this point. Subsequently, this guide target would be presented to both team’s captains in the following form:
Par Target in Runs: 143 VBO: 6 (‘Virtually Bowled Out’ principle from Part II of this series)
Par Winning Score (at required net run rate per over for whole of reduced innings): 5 for 143
(Ryan Pierse/Getty Images)
If the captains wish to know alternative par targets, then it is their own responsibility to make these calculations. All teams, as well as umpires in any association competition, will possess their own copy of the handbook containing all necessary tables vis-a-vis delayed or reduced matches. In this particular example, above par targets would be as follows: 0 for 120, 1 for 124, 2 for 129, 3 for 134 and 4 for 139. Below par scores would be as follows: 6 for 163, 7 for 183, 8 for 203 and 9 for 223.
With nine wickets down, for example, the assumption is that with the last pair at the crease, we would expect them to gather 16 runs for victory, provided they had so much time to do it that run rate per over was superfluous. That is not to say that they should scratch and poke around for 20 overs, rather that there is no way they can be backed to get their team home if they are required to score at the overall innings run rate requirement of 4.78 per over.
There is another factor that always makes the nine wickets down scenario extremely significant in a mathematical sense, and this will be explored in detail later. By the same token, in chasing 239 to win off 50 overs, if the openers were still together at the 30-over point, we would back the team to double their innings total with all ten wickets still in hand.
Importantly, under the McWarehouse system, the match does not end simply because the chasing side reaches the par score – 143 runs in the above example. If they reach 143 with only five wickets down by the end of the 25th over, they must continue batting until either a) the 30 overs their innings has been reduced to have been bowled in full, b) they get bowled out before the end of those 30 overs, in a wickets-sense rather than VBO, or c) they pass the actual 50-over target – 239 here.
In the case of c), this provision applies whether the 50-over target is one run more than the opposition actually scored with full access to their maximum overs, or a projected 50-over score for the team batting first in the event that their overs were also reduced after their innings began.
For example, let’s imagine that this team chasing 239 from 50 overs has their innings reduced to 30 overs, producing a par guideline score of 5 for 143. Let’s also imagine that this is precisely the score they have reached off 25 overs, with another five to be bowled. If they then lose another wicket off those remaining five overs, then they will need to score another 20 runs. Lose another two wickets and they will need to score another 40 runs off these last five overs of their reduced innings.
Conversely, if their total sat on 6 for 160 off 25 overs, then off the final five overs they would require a further three runs without losing another wicket, or if they were to lose one more wicket they would need to add another 23 runs to the team’s total before the end of the 30 overs their innings has been reduced to.
Obviously, the best tactic in such a scenario would be to aim for another 23 runs without undue risk, just in case they do lose another wicket in freakish circumstances – this would be smarter than just trying to block out the last five overs for three measly runs.
(Photo by Paul Kane/Getty Images)
Tables 1 and 2 showed earlier that the par diagonal of equilibrium, which is the fundament that underpins McWarehouse, requires no wickets to fall in the first five overs – of a 50-over innings and conversely the first ten per cent of any maximum overs amount – and then allows one wicket every five overs, or ten per cent of maximum overs. There are several reasons why that first ten per cent of maximum overs does not permit a wicket in order to keep the run chase in equilibrium while maintaining, in mathematical theory, the required run rate per over across the innings.
One wicket down after five overs in a 50-over innings represents a VBO scenario. Hence, in order to be on par at that stage, a team needs to have lost one less wicket than VBO. Additionally, five overs is well before the minimum required overs that need to be bowled in order to constitute a match – 20 with the DLS method. In the 50-over competition of the association I umpire, we set it at 25. I believe it should be set at half the number of maximum overs for a match, and I will discuss this in Part 6.
Furthermore, if the minimum overs for a 50-over match is 25, then we can eliminate the 15- and 20-over rows from Table 2, and then the only thing of relevance is that the par diagonal of equilibrium allows for four wickets to fall in the first 25 overs -or 50 per cent of the maximum overs number – to remain on par, keeping up the required run rate per over.
A misconception is that McWarehouse weights all ten partnerships of an innings equally, i.e. assumes the same proportion for both batsmen and tailenders. Table 4 below dispels this misconception. The most important columns to pay attention to are the middle column as well as the one on the far right. This clarifies that the permissible WAF (wicket affordability factor) as well as the subsequent runs per partnership requirement decreases marginally for the first five wickets of an innings and then more considerably for the last five.
| Overs Bowled | Wickets Standing | Progressive WAF | Runs Still to Get: Target 250 | Runs Per P’ship Needed: Target 250 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | All | 30 | 250 | 25 |
| 5 | 10 | 27 | 225 | 22.5 |
| 10 | 9 | 26.7 | 200 | 22.2 |
| 15 | 8 | 26.3 | 175 | 21.9 |
| 20 | 7 | 25.7 | 150 | 21.4 |
| 25 | 6 | 25 | 125 | 20.8 |
| 30 | 5 | 24 | 100 | 20 |
| 35 | 4 | 22.5 | 75 | 18.8 |
| 40 | 3 | 20 | 50 | 16.7 |
| 45 | 2 | 15 | 25 | 12.5 |
| 50 | 1 | n/a | 0 | Target Achieved on Par = 9 for 250 (50 overs) |
Part 3b will complete this third section in the series with some more hypothetical chase situations. I will also revisit some controversial matches from the 1992 World Cup where that ridiculous highest-scoring overs method was used. In so doing, I will demonstrate the applicability of the McWarehouse solution to the infamous semi-final between England and South Africa.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Also, a match where the team batting first starts out batting for 50 overs then after 17 overs suddenly find out they only have another 26 rather than 33 … that is a significant difference whether they are scoring heavily or stodgily in terms of runs per over and indeed runs per partnership. What my system does is reassure them just bat normally and do what batting teams normally do i.e try and score runs and not lose wickets. If you do that and succeed maximum overs projections will take care of themselves. What D/L seems to do is say “throw the bat and if you screw it up we will compensate you as long as you get close to batting out the reduced overs amount” (in this case 43 from 50). This was also covered late in Part 2 of this series. Apart from anything else, with this mentality the team bowling first gains no advantage from bowling their opposition out. Even if the team batting first have their overs reduced, then a multiplier of precisely 1 (in the event they get bowled out) is the only reasonable maximum overs projection when it comes to then setting target/s for the chasing side.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I hope you are following the subsequent comments below good friend. Cheers mate.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Incidentally standard D/L would set a blanket target of 168 which would not be fair to the defending side if the chasing side were 9 wickets down nor would it be fair to the chasing side if they were 8 or less wickets down. But by pass all that for a moment and ask yourself this: the first team got to the end of 43 overs for 172 with last pair at crease … why then does the second team get to win at 168 even if they also have their last pair at the crease at the end of the same amount of 43 overs?
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Low scoring or otherwise makes no difference. Teams make what they make. And then the second team has to make one more run – that’s if both innings run their natural course. And if the overs of both teams or just the chasing team get reduced then the runs and wickets also have to get reduced – proportionately. If both innings are reduced then what the 2nd team has to do has to be directly mathematically proportionate to what the first team did in terms of overs faced runs scored and wickets lost.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
In that case read as per what I replied for that scenario.
Brian
Guest
West Indies started batting 50 overs. Rain came after 17 overs so the match became 43 overs each. It was low scoring so probably had little effect. However mathematically speaking I assume the West Indies were disadvantaged by batting their first 17 overs as if its a 50 over game. A slight change that would presumably complicate the calculation of Australia's chase
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
I PREVIOUSLY WROTE: “If the start of the match was delayed and 43 was the maximum overs before the West Indies innings began, then the tables for that amount of maximum overs are used. The multiplier and dividing decimal fractions of 2.5, 2.3622, 2.2388, 2.1127, 2, 1.7143, 1.5, 1.3333, 1.2 and 1.091 that represent the halfway point of an innings will now be found not at the 25.0 over row but rather 21.3.” I left something out here: none of that would come into calculations until the Australian run chase had been subsequently reduced from 43 in the event that the West Indies innings had already been reduced to 43 before it began. In the example target scores I gave, the decimal fractions are taken from the 5O maximum overs tables.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
What specifically would you like me to demonstrate about that Michael Bevan match with my system? It will work for anything. I am looking at the scorecard and the west indies innings was reduced to 43 overs … however, I do not know whether this was before or after the match began and this makes a big difference. If the start of the match was delayed and 43 was the maximum overs before the West Indies innings began, then the tables for that amount of maximum overs are used. The multiplier and dividing decimal fractions of 2.5, 2.3622, 2.2388, 2.1127, 2, 1.7143, 1.5, 1.3333, 1.2 and 1.091 that represent the halfway point of an innings will now be found not at the 25.0 over row but rather 21.3. If the West Indies innings began on time as a 50 over innings and then got reduced to 43 somewhere along the way, then the 9 for 172 they finished with gets projected to a 50 over total of 176 and then the guide or par target would be 151 with a VBO of 8 (par target of 7 for 151). Above par targets would be 0 for 139, 1 for141, 2 for 143, 3 for 144, 4 for 146, 5 for 148, 6 for 159 while below par targets would be 8 for 158 and 9 for 173. Paul Reiffel 8th out with the score at 157 would have seen Australia already VBO’d so with No 11 in Australia would have coincidentally needed the same score that they did on the day, but it’s actually not a coincidence as such, but comes about because they coincidentally lost the same amount of wickets as the opponents.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
None of them are fair because you cannot have a blanket target when the two teams have different WAFs. Precisely this situation where the fielding team is on top when the first team’s innings is prematurely terminated demonstrates this. They should respectively be approached like this. 7 for 125 (off 25 overs) gets projected to a 50 over total of 167 and you are 100% correct they are neither winning nor will they bat out their 50 overs – won’t even get close. Then the solution presented is thus: Guide/Par Target: 84 VBO: 5 (par score 4 for 84) Above par scores are 0 for 67, 1 for 71, 2 for 75 and 3 for 79. Below par scores are 5 for 98, 6 for 112, 7 for 126, 8 for 140 and 9 for 154 8 for 125 (off 25 overs) gets projected to a 50 over total of 151 with the following solution: Guide/Par Target: 76 VBO: 5 (par score 4 for 76) Above par: 0 for 61, 1 for 64, 2 for 68 and 3 for 72 Below par: 5 for 89, 6 for 101, 7 for 113, 8 for 126 and 9 for 139 9 for 125 (off 25 overs) gets projected to a 50 over total of 136 with the following solution: Guide/Par Target: 69 VBO: 5 (par score 4 for 69) Above par: 0 for 55, 1 for 58, 2 for 61 and 3 for 65 Below par: 5 for 80, 6 for 91, 7 for 103, 8 for 114 and 9 for 126 Would a 10 year old kid understand the VBO concept? With a sound knowledge of cricket and maths for his age most definitely in no time – and he’ll no doubt have his cricket loving dad and/or uncles to clue him in.
Brian
Guest
The 7/125 is fair because its fair to say at 7/125 after 25 in a 50 over game your not winning. The loss of 25 overs has negated your unlikely chance of bating out the 50 overs. With regards to the 2019WC match I agree DL failed turning an improbable target off 15 overs into an impossible one. Your point about VBO I do understand but you have to remember cricket a retail game for the masses, would a 10 year old get it, an 85 year old or anyone who is half watching. Since you mention famous games I wonder how Michael Bevan's last ball 4 against the West Indies goes with your system. It may be difficult for the average punter to follow
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
Feel completely free to keep playing the devil’s advocate btw – I would welcome it because you might broach something that another reader is also thinking and then I can answer it for everyone concerned. Cheers mate.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
That’s not an issue at all – the par target provides that and it is written in a way to resemble just that. It wouldn’t take long for fans to understand that Guide/Par Target: 180 Overs 32: VBO: 6 means that a target that is precisely in mathematical sync, in every way, with the original maximum overs target is no longer available to the chasing side once they lose 6 wickets. At all levels of limited overs cricket below international and televised domestic matches, the respective teams can calculate the nine above and below par scores themselves, as I made clear in the piece itself. In a televised match, I think the majority of commentators would be competent at explaining things for a first-time cricket watcher, in fact I think they could potentially have a field day at generating excitement around it. But, the main commentators role in terms of numbers for the TV screen would be is this: in the above example, let’s say the batting side were 4 for 132 off 25 overs then the commentary would be: “They need 48 off the last 7 overs available at 6.83 runs per over, providing they lose no more than one more wicket to that point – if this pair can actually stay together then 43 will be enough at a run rate of 6.15”. Commentators would not need to focus on anything other than the Par/Guide target, as well as the current number of wickets down – unless of course the chasing team were so far ahead, then it would be interesting to tell the viewers how many wickets the defending team will need to take between now and the end of the reduced overs amount in order to still be in with a chance by the end. D\L targets are not fair, but usually way too generous to the chasing side and their blanket targets should mostly be easily chased down losing no more than 6 or 7 wickets tops. This was covered extensively in Part 2 where I also gave five hypothetical examples of targets that were not only unfair but barely or even no different to the ones set in that infamous 1988-89 season. Imagine three scenarios where the team batting first’s innings is terminated prematurely at 25 overs and then the chasing team also gets 25 overs. In these three scenarios, the team batting first is 7 for 125 and D\L sets a blanket target of 116. How is it fair for the chasing team to have 2 extra wickets to lose off the same number of overs but win scoring 9 runs less? First team 8 for 125 and the required score is a blanket 103 – again how is it fair that they face the same number of overs, get an extra wicket but win scoring 22 less. 9 for 125 at same point of first innings termination and off the same number of overs the chasing team get the same number of wickets but only have to score 93 – 32 runs less. Then there was the ridiculous occurrence in the 2019 world cup that I began part 1 with to introduce this whole series. Needing 11.07 runs per over off the final 15, then becomes 27.2 per over off the remaining 5 overs that time permitted when they got back on. D\L can neither claim to be fair or mathematically logical.
Brian
Guest
The issue i see is the difficulty in understanding the rules. When a game is shortened the average fan wants to come back to 184 required of 26 overs not 172 required for 8 wickets. Mathematicaly you are correct but cricket needs to be easily understood as well as fair which is what DL provides. When the ball hits the rope on the full we don't give 5 runs which would be the fairest result. We give 6
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
NRR that should have read.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
YOU SAID: “Bernie…but surely you agree tactics differ between batting first and batting second” My method is not about tactics, it is about maths – reducing the task requirements proportionately so you have the same run rate per over requirement, same run rate per partnership requirement and same wicket affordability factor. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the whole ICC establishment has gradually brainwashed cricket lovers into believing that the right method should magically be able to cater for tactics, power plays etc and this is silly – can a method account for the ‘Maxwell Factor’ or a team reversing its batting order? No, and the idea is just as silly. What the right method does need to do is ensure that the chasing side’s task is directly mathematically proportionate to what the team batting first achieved. YOU SAID: “This is what’s wrong with the mathematically vague DLS method, it doesn’t take into account the limit as x -> 0 or x -> infinity.” We both agree D\L is inadequate – mathematically vague is a huge understatement, so let’s not worry about mentioning it anymore. YOU SAID: “If there is no rain, the team batting second can win the match in as few overs as possible or take all 50 and they can win by losing as few wickets as possible or 9 wickets. Your scenario doesn’t allow this”. Yes it does. My McWarehouse method allows a chasing side in a reduced overs scenario to use whatever tactics they like. They can aim for par score, below or above par score or even attempt to chase down the actual maximum overs target and thus end the match forthwith – I made that clear. YOU SAID: “Whenever a match is affected by rain, the requirements become less than ideal, even when it happens during the first innings. A line has to be drawn somewhere. And while I see the mathematical merits in your method, practicalities just don’t require it. Would you want a team batting second face ten more overs if they won in the 40th over of a non-rain delayed match just to see how close it could’ve been, or how much of a thrashing it really was?” Nobody is saying anywhere that in a match where both innings run their natural course that we should depart from ending the match when the match would normally end – what part of anything that I said gave you that impression? Please tell me so I can straighten it out. YOU SAID: “Maybe it’s in your next iterations, but what if rain reduces the match to 45 overs for the team batting second? Again, due to having ten wickets available to win, you can go harder, which is why the par score should be more than 250…” This is actually why all target scores should be geared directly to wickets rather than pulling the wool over the eyes of players and fans alike that one sole blanket score is possible when the two teams have different WAFs. A correct blanket score with different WAFs is a pipe dream and pretty much tantamount to putting money in a poker machine. YOU SAID: “When you bat first you need to ensure you have wickets in hand towards the end, batting second you can utilise all your wickets to win…” Whether batting first or second the overall aims are the same: preserve wickets and score runs and have an abundance of wickets in hand in the latter half or whatever fractions of the innings in order to lift the tempo. Conversely the bowling side’s overall objective is also always the same i.e. restrict scoring and dismiss batsmen.
quokka
Guest
Bernie...but surely you agree tactics differ between batting first and batting second. This is what's wrong with the mathematically vague DLS method, it doesn't take into account the limit as x -> 0 or x -> infinity. If there is no rain, the team batting second can win the match in as few overs as possible or take all 50 and they can win by losing as few wickets as possible or 9 wickets. Your scenario doesn't allow this. Whenever a match is affected by rain, the requirements become less than ideal, even when it happens during the first innings. A line has to be drawn somewhere. And while I see the mathematical merits in your method, practicalities just don't require it. Would you want a team batting second face ten more overs if they won in the 40th over of a non-rain delayed match just to see how close it could've been, or how much of a thrashing it really was? Maybe it's in your next iterations, but what if rain reduces the match to 45 overs for the team batting second? Again, due to having ten wickets available to win, you can go harder, which is why the par score should be more than 250... When you bat first you need to ensure you have wickets in hand towards the end, batting second you can utilise all your wickets to win...
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
It's actually chopped and changed backwards and forwards for the last 40 years. In 1999 the semi final tie saw Australia advance to final because they had won the previous game between the two teams that tournament. Not perfect but much better than NNR.
quokka
Guest
I totally agree with that, but that's the system we've got at the moment...and don't get me started on the 'most boundaries wins' decider!!!
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
What I really appreciate most (and I’ll shut up soon I promise) is that you actually took the trouble to read everything through rather than revert to the standard old cop outs such as “it’s too long and complicated” or the extremely counter productive cliches such as “you’re never going to find the perfect method” et el. Thanks again.
Once Upon a Time on the Roar
Roar Guru
quokka .... I hope you do come to see the points I am making and I also appreciate the ‘great effort’ compliment. The 100 pages book of tables have the decimal fractions to four places because the more decimal fractions the greater accuracy of calculations and an A4 size page allows room for four (decimal places) given a column for overs bowled and another 10 for wickets standing amounts were needed. The 100 pages of tables the small cut out table 3 in the article represented actually took me an entire year to complete, working tirelessly almost daily outside of my regular job and of course my weekend umpiring both days all year round. Like the constipated accountant, I had to just work it all out with a pencil. Cheers