Uncovering Duckworth & Lewis - Contribute

Contribute
StoryPage
Uncovering Duckworth & Lewis

Uncovering Duckworth & Lewis

- by Mukundhan 04 Mar 2009
This story has been read 157 times.

Category: Sports
Topic: Others

We all quite know that the Duckworth and Lewis method (called D/L method for short) is a quantitative method used to calculate the target score for a team batting second in an encounter that is marred by inclement weather or other circumstances.

But none of us have quite bothered to understand how it works. The method itself is not quite complex that it is beyond any mortal’s comprehension. Its a numerical method that takes the wickets lost and the current score into account to output the revised target score. From experience, the target score estimated by Duckworth and Lewis increases considerably with every fall of wicket.

Ever since the introduction of this method into ODI cricket, controversies have been aplenty. South Africa, particularly in the 2003 world cup, would have felt hard done by the vagaries of this method. Their progress into the next round of the tournament was stalled by the anomalous numbers thrown up by this method.

The D/L method applies to both the first and the second innings interruptions. In case of first innings interruptions, as described in wikipedia, “the D/L method sets a higher target for the team batting second when the delay occurs in the 1st innings because the team batting second know that that they will be able to score more runs from those overs than the team batting first had from their (interrupted) innings”.

Though the argument is absolutely valid, the basis of determining ‘by how much’ the target should be revised in the D/L system is not sound. The D/L system is modelled in such a way that it takes numerical inputs in the form of the present score and the wickets in hand to calculate the target number. If the team batting first, anticipating a 50 over game, is consolidating after a loss of two quick wickets, they wouldn’t be in a position to suddenly accelerate the scoring when the match is reduced to 25 overs per side. In such a case, the method used for calculating the revised target does not take the nature of the pitch, the form of the batsmen in the crease and the overhead conditions into account in determining the target score. Such a flawed model cannot be considered as the basis to accurately approximate the course of the match.

In case of second innings interruptions, the method estimates the target by considering the overall scoring rate throughout the match; a target most teams would be favoured to achieve”. This method assumes that a team at 311/7 after 47.3 overs chasing 330 in 50 0vers is expected to overhaul the target if the match were to last 50 overs. Again, this method does not account for the hypothetical case in which three quick wickets fall in the 48th or the 49th over. Considering the fact that the tailenders would be in at the loss of 7 wickets, this is a valid surmise.

The D/L method puts the chasing team at a gross disadvantage by depriving them of the batting powerplay overs. It has become a common practice for chasing teams to use their batting powerplays more judiciously. However, the rain interruption reduces the number of batting power play overs the chasing team can have (when the opposition get their full quota of batting powerplay overs). That could seriously affect the plans of the chasing team, which would have banked on the batting powerplay to score some quick runs capitalising on the fielding restrictions.

The conclusion: The D/L method needs a definite revision. It is not compatible with the modern day innovations like the powerplays. It does not take the actual match situation and the loss of batting powerplays into account in determining the target score. So, it will be better to declare a match with more than two rain interventions as a ‘No-Result’ instead of deciding the outcome based on this flawed system.

You are the first user to rate this story

RATE THIS PAGE