by
Homer
June 17, 2009
A report in the Guardian claims that the Duckworth-Lewis system used in rain-affected matches will be reviewed in the coming months to take into account Twenty20 matches.
The Duckworth-Lewis method was introduced in 1997 after several failed attempts to come up with a way to make rain-affected one-day games more competitive. Since then, although there have been minor changes to the way run chases are calculated, no major overhaul has been undertaken. But the different needs of Twenty20 cricket means the time has come for a rethink.
"People have suggested that we need to look very carefully and see whether in fact the numbers in our formula are totally appropriate for the Twenty20 game," Frank Duckworth, one of the co-inventors, told the newspaper. "We thought it was appropriate to wait until the end of this competition when we've got a lot more Twenty20 data on our database.
--
16 June 2009
---
"There's a major problem with Duckworth-Lewis in this form of the game," Collingwood said. "I've got no problem with it in one-dayers, and I know it's made me very frustrated tonight because I've come off the losing captain, but it's certainly got to be revised in this form.
"Ninety-five percent of the time when you get 191 runs on the board you are going to win the game. Unfortunately Duckworth-Lewis seems to have other ideas and brings the equation completely the other way and makes it very difficult."
Just to rub it in for Collingwood, five minutes after the game ended torrential rain started. There was always a risk that weather would play its part in Guyana and both games on Monday were affected with Sri Lanka
also winning under the D-L system. It was a lack of intent that cost Zimbabwe - although it is believed they didn't have a copy of the D-L chart when their revised chase began.
--
16 June 2009
Incensed by the comparison, Duckworth scorned the inventor of VJD. "He uses what we call a Delphic method. He tries to give people what they feel is a fair answer and he keeps fiddling his figures to do it."
Read more...
Return
by
Gaurav Sethi
I was shocked to hear of John Dyson’s sacking. For one, I didn’t think he was still coach. How could he be, after all he did for West Indies’ cricket?
But now that he was coach, there was no way they could sack him. For a guy who couldn’t read, he sure did go far. Guess we’ll all remember him for calling the Duckworth Lewis wrong and helping West Indies’ lose a one-day international. That it was against England, hurt more.
But that was the least of it. The sheer impertinence of the man after that defeat; did you see his reaction? He wanted to take it up with the match refs. Appears he also wanted to sue the text book manufacturers for a tight column width.
It was clear at that moment, in Dyson’s incompetence the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) saw a beacon of hopelessness, a reflection of their own ineptness, and the generally acceptable standards of foolishness: Be a dunce today, for tomorrow we die.
John Dyson was their man. It did help that he shared John Buchanan’s first name. And he was an Australian too. He may not have been a Greg Chappell, but then nobody’s imperfect.
Read more...
Return