Pakistan’s remarkable victory in their do-or-die World Cup clash with New Zealand has ensured the tournament will have the grandstand group stage finish many thought unlikely.
With one game each left to play, Babar Azam’s men are only net run rate behind the Black Caps, courtesy of their Duckworth-Lewis-Stern system-assisted 21-run win chasing New Zealand’s monumental total of 401.
With their match, against an embattled England with nought but pride to play for, coming after Kane Williamson’s team face Sri Lanka mid-week, Pakistan – and the cricket world – will know exactly what they must do to reach the final four.
But while their win over New Zealand is unquestionably fantastic for the tournament and its stakeholders, as well as the millions of fans watching on from around the globe, the nature of the Black Caps’ defeat demands closer inspection – because as incredible as it would be to have Pakistan claw their way from nowhere into a semi-final berth, especially if they come up against bitter foes India, the match exposed a major problem with the DLS system.
Put simply, there is no possible way any cricket supporter could suggest Pakistan were in front in that match when rain arrived to call halt to proceedings – while their tally of 1/200 off 25.3 overs was a sensational batting performance, particularly from match-winning centurion Fakhar Zaman, they were still less than halfway to the Black Caps’ imposing target when the game was called off.
At best, the match was evenly poised – and I’d argue, with 201 runs still to make, New Zealand were still in the box seat, if sitting nervously.
For every successful chase like South Africa’s infamous hunt down of Australia’s 434 back in 2006, there are a dozen examples of teams falling short, as the Black Caps themselves did against the Aussies’ target of 400 just a week ago.
How many times in gargantuan ODI chases have we seen teams make brisk starts, only to eventually see inevitable wickets fall to the need to keep accelerating that either slow things down or collapse the innings entirely?
The Bengaluru scoreboard proclaims Pakistan’s victory over New Zealand via the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern system. (Photo by Matthew Lewis-ICC/ICC via Getty Images)
Knowing rain was around in Bengaluru, Pakistan could set their focus on staying ahead of the DLS ‘par’ score, which was always going to be far less daunting than the 401 staring at them on the scoreboard. That was a huge advantage which in no doubt allowed Zaman and Babar Azam to spy a way to pinch a victory with a little luck from the weather gods, and surely freed them psychologically enough to bat as magnificently as they did.
Even the originally revised DLS target following the first bout of rain, which amounted to Pakistan needing 182 runs off 117 balls in what had effectively become a T20 match, had New Zealand in the box seat, if in no way assured of victory.
For New Zealand to lose a match in which they not only posted a 400-plus total, but also finished with a superior run rate in their innings to Pakistan’s when the match was called off (8.02 to 7.84), is the latest example of cricket’s unluckiest team falling victim to bureaucracy at a major tournament rather than being outplayed – the infamous ‘boundary countback’ to decide the 2019 World Cup final, of course, the other major example of this.
The intent of the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern system is to give rain-affected ODI and T20I matches the best chance possible at a result, which is a noble and essential pursuit. The problem is that the system, by its nature, can also manufacture results in scenarios such as what faced New Zealand and Pakistan on Saturday.
The solution is simple: the system can and should always be allowed to revise a target, and the process by which it does this (one I and surely most cricket fans just take for granted rather than trying to decipher its web of complexity) is probably the best one we can possibly come up with.
But the issue that should be rectified is the ‘par score’ component that allows a result to be obtained in situations like on Saturday where the revised number of overs can’t be completed: under the current system, once the second innings is 20 overs old, the match is deemed worthy of awarding a winner and a loser.
In cases like New Zealand and Pakistan’s, that is manifestly unfair: neither Pakistan nor New Zealand deserved to lose that game, so intriguingly was it poised when rain intervened. And I’d feel the same way had Pakistan been a handful of runs behind the target instead of 21 runs ahead of it.
(Which raises another issue with the DLS: Pakistan could theoretically have been on 180 runs, and batting a full run per over slower than in New Zealand’s innings, and still been one run ahead of the par score, which is just silly.)
The solution is simple – forget the 20-over minimum, and make it so a match is only complete if the DLS revised overs number for the second innings, no matter how many times it needs to be altered, is met.
If that meant Pakistan’s target was whittled down slowly across the evening from 180 off 20 overs, to 100 off 10, to 60 off 5, or even to 20 off one over, then so be it: that would at least allow both teams the chance to earn a victory in the traditional way of cricket – by either hitting the winning runs or denying the opposition the same.
Rain delays play during day three of the Second Test match in the series between Australia and South Africa at Sydney Cricket Ground on January 06, 2023 in Sydney, Australia. (Photo by Cameron Spencer/Getty Images)
Yes, this change will mean more ‘no result’ matches than there are currently, but I’d argue for us cricket fans, whether we’re watching at home or in the stands, it makes no difference whether a game rained out midway through it has a winner awarded in the dry dressing room, or is deemed a draw.
Either way, the match can’t really be said to have finished, rather just having petered out – and surely even celebrating Pakistan fans would feel even one per cent sheepish about the way their ‘win’ panned out.
(On second thoughts, no they wouldn’t: and why would they?)
I know I was disappointed that rain intervened on Saturday, because the match looked set to be a classic encounter – and it made zero difference to my enjoyment of what proceeded it, or my sadness that we couldn’t get a full 100 overs of it, for Pakistan to be awarded victors based on a wildly complicated system I don’t fully understand.
Sure, there will be times where a clear winner is denied a deserved victory, while well ahead of the DLS ‘par score’, due to rain intervening: but those exist now, too.
At last year’s T20 World Cup, South Africa were 0/51 after three overs in a rain-affected run chase against Zimbabwe, needing just 13 more runs in four overs for victory.
But because the innings hadn’t reached the threshold to award a result, the match was declared null and void – and a few weeks later, it would cost the Proteas a semi-final berth.
Neither Pakistan or New Zealand deserved to lose the most important match of the World Cup yet – and by the same token, neither deserved to win it.
But the fact the laws of the game are such as to declare a result anyway looks set to shape the most prestigious tournament of all – and it wouldn’t be fair to the Black Caps, once again copping the rough end of the stick, to allow the system that enabled such an unfair result to remain unchanged.
Fruitpicker
Roar Rookie
I never "get upset". I've done this for a living. You should have posted your comment as an article. Again, I don't have any mathematical nous and don't care about it. Obviously, you enjoy statistical sandwiches so keep munching on it. I've covered ICC world cups for decades and seen Pakistan destroy any statistical or historical nonsense. What you call "speculative nonsense" is what I call self-belief where numbers pale in significance. The "win predictors" are also like virtual ball trackers that show how the LBW delivery will hit the stumps when, in reality, the bowler's bounce and swing/seam suggest otherwise. The worm turns in the blink of an eye when Zaman goes berserk with the willow. The "win predictor" isn't some magical software. It reacts to what humans do on the park. If your statistical mumbo-jumbo and historical voodoo were so efficient, you would be every punters' dream. The games have entered a do-or-die phase. They have no respect for fickle figures. The players' intangible qualities come into play. Had some Aussie or Pom gone on about a bullish knock, we'd be waxing lyrical about the possibility of the realms of the unthinkable. Hey, just a little statistical teaser for you — Pakistan has had the wood on the Caps 8-2 (it's in that ballpark, so again I couldn't careless if it's accurate because they're just numbers). Spare us all the drivel about how this is the ODI world cup. The T20 merchants in the IPL, albeit engaging in a hit-and-giggle version, are playing for their mortgages and retirement schemes. Now that's pressure. Talking of pedigrees, only one is worth talking about — India. No one looks like beating it but this is knockout ODI and anything can happen in the last 4. To mention the Proteas' pedigree (they've never won a cricket world title of significance yet) and then rabbit on about batting as deep as "England" (among the worst teams in the current ODI world cup) is what constitutes hallucination. I could go on but will leave it at that.
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
Par score after 40 is 7 for 200 I should have said. Sorry about the careless typo.
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
Under my much better McWarehouse system, the first team’s innings at the termination point of 1 for 220 off 40 gets projected to a 50 over total of 301. 9 for 220 gets projected to 228. In the first instance, the par target to chase is 241 with a VBO of 8, making the par score of 7 for 241 – VBO stands for ‘Virtually Bowled Out’. Above par scores are 0 for 216, 1 for 221, 2 for 224, 3 for 228, 4 for 232, 5 for 235 and 6 for 238. Below par (winning) scores are 8 for 266 and 9 for 291. In the case of a team being, say, 9 for 91 after 25 overs when their innings is terminated, the 50 over projection is 99. Therefore, if the second team also has 25 overs, they don’t chase 92, they have a par target of 50, with a VBO of 5, making the par target 4 for 50. Now here’s the thing: no team is going to labour 25 overs and aim to score 50 losing no more than 4 wickets. However, if they are 3 for 81 at the end of 25, or even 5 for 87, they win, because the above par targets are 0 for 40, 1 for 42, 2 for 45 and 3 for 47, while below par targets are 5 for 58, 6 for 67, 7 for 75, 8 for 83, and 9 for 92. Finally, in the example of the paragraph immediately before this one, should the second team reach 100 prior to the end of 25 overs, they win, irrespective of how many wickets lost, and the game ceases forthwith because it is like they bowled the opposition out for 99 and then chased down the 100.
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
DLS is one correct when the chasing team innings sets out with the full overs, and then gets prematurely terminated without prior notice. In all over instances, it is rubbish.
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
Under my much better McWarehouse system, chasing 370, you need to be 157 if only one wicket down at the 25 over point. Chasing 400, it is 170. The par score is 4 for 185 in the first instance, and 4 for 200 in the second.
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
The par score after 40 overs, chasing 250 off a full 50 is 7 for 250 - not in DLS, but in McWarehouse, my much better system. Above par scores are 0 for 179, 1 for 183, 2 for 186, 3 for 189, 4 for 192, 5 for 195 and 6 for 198, while below par scores to be awarded the win are 8 for 221 and 9 for 242.
The Knightwatchmen who say Nii
Roar Rookie
Well ... two years ago I wrote a series of articles presenting a much better alternative, but nobody wanted to know about it. I knew this day would come again. It would have come much sooner, and much more often, had a proper amount of proper one day cricket continued to be played in that same time frame.
Access denied
Roar Rookie
Apologies, for some reason the Roar isn't allowing me to put spaces between paragraphs.
Access denied
Roar Rookie
He’s not getting the drift because you’re speaking speculative nonsense. And you’re using obviously flawed, overly simplistic piece of mathematics utterly divorced from empirical reality. We’ve had multiple games at the Chinaswamy THIS tournament. No one has gotten close to chasing a 400 score. In fact, the only team to bat second and get over 350 is NZ despite plenty of 350+ scores being set, despite great batting tracks and small grounds, modern players and modern tactics. The various win predictors take into account contextual factors, those based on reality (i.e. history) not speculative nonsense. When the game was called off NZ were still an 80% chance to win according to the ones I know about. That’s because history is littered with chasing sides attempting large totals being well ahead of the rate at the halfway mark, the 30th over the 40th over and still losing. Because it’s hard to maintain throughout an innings because it generally requires set batsmen to keep scoring at a rate that requires risk. And it doesn’t require many, if any, wickets to fall to stall when the rate is that high. NZ WERE aware of the rain. I’ve never seen Williamson try to pull so many balls that weren’t quite there, particularly that early on. He knew that the match could well be shortened due to rain. They did accelerate through their overs barring the last 10 where Wasim bowled with great control of reverse swing. The batsmen’s intent was to score big, that they didn’t quite manage it was due to falling wickets and Wasim’s bowling, not muddled tactics and a lack of intent. They probably fell 8-15 runs short of where they were aiming at the 40th over mark. But to say that there score wasn’t par is ridiculous. No one has come close to chasing these totals at this world cup, on these grounds, with these wickets. Here’s some pertinent contextual factors you don’t seem to be mentioning. All teams chasing records in world cups are worse. All sides. Obviously some worse than others (SA), but this is true of all teams. Score board pressure is bigger in world cups. Most sides other than SA and to a lesser extent NZ have found it hard to accelerate a lot in the final ten, Indian pitches soften the ball. This is brought out in the numbers, making it more difficult to accelerate. Pakistan is more reliant on the top 4 scoring the runs than any other team at this world cup over the last 3-4 years. This team, these players. Making them much more susceptible to a collapse or failing to maintain momentum with a wicket or two. Their best finishers are either out of the side or in bad form. Exacerbating this problem. Outside of Fakhar they are NOT fast scorers by nature either, that includes the top 4 and the middle to lower order. Once again making them more susceptible to failing to cash in regardless of their start. They don’t have the pedigree of SA in the middle and lower order for SR, they don’t bat as deep as England, Aus or NZ currently. Basically, it’s Fakhar or bust. He’d have to do all the heavy lifting right to or just before the end. It’s a shame the rain came. Maybe Fakhar would have knocked up the greatest world cup innings of all time to get them over the line. But to act like that was likely, and that NZ were UNDER par, especially by 50-70 runs is nonsense. Just as it’s nonsense to judge tactics and intent by outcome. They were trying to hit the ball out of the park in the last 20 overs. It’s the type of comment an alien mathematician might make without ever knowing a single thing about how cricket actually works, what actually happens in real games. The win predictors do, your math does not. It’s as flawed as your reasoning, with your fallacy of appeal to authority with citing what Babar said as if it proves anything being yet another great example. So don’t get upset when people don’t follow your reasoning. It’s bad.
Griffo 09
Roar Rookie
You forgot one crucial piece of information about the batting team. They also have to not lose wickets. The harder you go with the bat, the more risks you take, and if you're taking more risks, you're more likely to lose wickets. As for the bowling team, it's the same principle as a non-interrupted game; take wickets and make it harder for the batting team.
Tempo
Roar Rookie
Mate, none of what you’ve written provides any support for your assertion that the par score on that match was 460-470, the third highest score in ODI history. Yes, run rates are going up, but if that’s the case why aren’t we seeing regular 450+ scores? Your claim is plainly ridiculous. I could accept a claim that NZ scored around par or even slightly under perhaps. But not that the third highest score in history would merely be a par score.
Macca
Roar Rookie
"No, they weren’t fresh" So they weren't trying to make 200 in 25, they were trying to complete making 400 in 50 overs - which is a very different thing.
Fruitpicker
Roar Rookie
History is the only word of substance you've written. What was a bumper score has no bearing on postage stamp-sized fields, field restrictions, powerplays, etc, to generate 4s and 6s like they're going out of fashion. Consequently, batsmen are eclipsing so-called records of quickest centuries and half centuries in crazy number of deliveries. Put away the calculator and look at all the other variables that make Pakistan prevail. Skipper Babar Azam said post-match that had Fakhar Zaman maintained his momentum into the 30-something overs, his side would have taken the total to that vicinity. We'll never know but I'm inclined to believe what's unfolding on the pitch rather than history or calculators.
Fruitpicker
Roar Rookie
Let's take it a step back. Why even bother reaching for a "basic calculator"? Just look at what Pakistan did. It's obvious. Stride out with a T20 mentality and send the Caps packing with a don't-argue start until rain becomes a factor. It's simple. It's what Pakistan did that matters. For those who lament why 401 looks anaemic. The answer will best be served cold from the Black Caps' dressing room. What were they thinking? Penny for their thoughts.
Good Game
Roar Rookie
Don’t mind a good tangent. Certainly, no evidence of arching up anyway.
Tempo
Roar Rookie
So by your estimation NZ needed to score the third highest ODI score in history to be at par? That’s pure nonsense. You also can’t judge par based on Pakistan’s score in the second innings. If Pakistan had lost a couple more early wickets and been 3/170, would that have changed the par score on this pitch? Pakistan were just ahead in the chase and no certainties to win. I’m not sure how this can be interpreted as proof that NZ were 60-70 runs behind par as you seem to be claiming.
KenW
Roar Rookie
No, they weren't fresh - they were set and firing at well over a run a ball. Seeing them like beach balls. And they had 7 fresh batters in the shed.
Adam
Roar Guru
It was a deviation from the topic at hand
Macca
Roar Rookie
"But if the game had continued Pakistan would only have had that easier task of making 200 off 25"But the 2 batsmen in weren't starting fresh were they.
BigGordon
Roar Rookie
Tell me which is easier? Knowing that you have to make a certain amount of runs in an over as a batting team or knowing, as a bowling team you have to stop a certain number of runs and/or take wickets on demand to make the DLS equation harder, all the while bowling with a wet ball on a dry pitch with a wet outfield and fielding restrictions as though it's a regulation 50 over game? The piece of paper is a minor part of this issue.