DUCKWORTH LEWIS SYSTEM AN ABSOLUTE FARCE QLV TA

[MAY-Z]

Quite simple, it rains, bad light intervenes, game called off before the end, neither side gets any points, the one and only fair decision in my opinion

how is that fair when a team is needing something like 10 runs off 20 overs with 9 wickets in hand? duckworth lewis is clearly teh best method of decided reduced matches

[mal]

MAY-Z I think we can all reach common ground on this thread

A : The D/L system is the best available alternative to contrive a result for whatever reasons
B : The D/L system favours the side which holds the upper hand on MOST occasions
C : BUT not every team that is awarded the game would ultimately have won the game

Point C is what irks some of the purists on SAFOOTY

You can apply A B C to this particular game QL V TA
Morally TA deserves to win after outplaying QL at the point of no return
BUT
It should be a drawn game as D/L+ MAL+ MAY-Z+REB +ROD ROOSTER and others cannot claim to being Nostras

[MAY-Z]

MAY-Z I think we can all reach common ground on this thread

A : The D/L system is the best available alternative to contrive a result for whatever reasons
B : The D/L system favours the side which holds the upper hand on MOST occasions
C : BUT not every team that is awarded the game would ultimately have won the game

Point C is what irks some of the purists on SAFOOTY

You can apply A B C to this particular game QL V TA
Morally TA deserves to win after outplaying QL at the point of no return
BUT
It should be a drawn game as D/L+ MAL+ MAY-Z+REB +ROD ROOSTER and others cannot claim to being Nostras

find me a game where where yout point c applies from, they would be very rare
why should it be a draw? being right around 95% of the time (which i think duckworth lewis is) is much better than being right asbout 1% of teh time which a draw (effectively a tie) would be

[Grahaml]

This is the best system that has ever been used. You can't just play the game again because players would have other commitments not to mention not to mention the toll it can take on some players. History shows that tasmania probably would have gone on to win the game. It's fairer to call the game a Tasmania win than to call it a no result when Tasmania were clearly in front. By the same token if Qld were to have taken 3 wickets I dare say they would have won comfortably.

[mal]

MAY-Z
point C = innocent until proven gulity
you can-not prosecute a team defending 206 against 1/60
Duckworth Lewis has no right to adjudicate the absolute result [It can only guess]

Your 95% theory is not right
95% = $1-05 as a dividend
as a gambler you would never take those odds TA v QL in that game

[RoosterMarty]

MAY-Z
point C = innocent until proven gulity
you can-not prosecute a team defending 206 against 1/60
Duckworth Lewis has no right to adjudicate the absolute result [It can only guess]

Your 95% theory is not right
95% = $1-05 as a dividend
as a gambler you would never take those odds TA v QL in that game

As you know, I am on your side in this case...

[rod_rooster]

At the end of the day limited overs cricket in whatever form, be it 50 overs a side or 20 overs a side, is just a rubbish bastardised version of the real game anyway. Makes sense to have a rubbish bastardised way of reaching a result.

[jackpot jim]

MAL - The D/L system used to guess the Result of the game is NO different to an Umpire guessing whether the ball would have hit the stumps in a LBW appeal. It's just part of the game so get over it or campaign to get rid of the LBW law as well.

[redandblack]

Mal, the DL system is as close to producing the right result as you can get in a game of cricket.

Tas v Qld = correct result.

[Rik E Boy]

At the end of the day limited overs cricket in whatever form, be it 50 overs a side or 20 overs a side, is just a rubbish bastardised version of the real game anyway. Makes sense to have a rubbish bastardised way of reaching a result.

Here endeth the lesson.

regards,

REB

[Rik E Boy]

Mal, the DL system is as close to producing the right result as you can get in a game of cricket.

Tas v Qld = correct result.

I wish mal would put his prestigous talent into devising a way of predicting lotto numbers. That way he can PM us all, one by one with the upcoming results so we can all get rich over the course of the year (either that or we all share $1.25 each). Come on mally, end this silliness and devote your energies to your true destiny............for the greater good of course.

regards,

REB

[mal]

IN THE YEAR 2525
In the world 10 balls each Cup

USA batted first and made 4/31
RUSSIA was 0/1 off 1 ball
Rain washed out the remainder of the game
The game was awarded to the USA in the RIKEBOY/MAYZ system


AAPT Reuter news
Zager and Evans

[Adelaide Hawk]

Quite simple, it rains, bad light intervenes, game called off before the end, neither side gets any points, the one and only fair decision in my opinion

how is that fair when a team is needing something like 10 runs off 20 overs with 9 wickets in hand? duckworth lewis is clearly teh best method of decided reduced matches

There is actually a law of cricket which states in order to "win", you actually have to score more runs than the opposition. Limited over "cricket" tends to ignore that principle.

There is a certain acceptance that weather can interupt a cricket match, and that is why we have "draws".

Just because a team needs 10 runs from 20 overs, there's no guarantee they will get them. I've seen very strange things happen in cricket.

[Adelaide Hawk]

Mal, the DL system is as close to producing the right result as you can get in a game of cricket.

Tas v Qld = correct result.

Therein lies the problem. Players should "produce" results in cricket, not mathematical equations.

[mal]

Geez HAWKY Im with you fancy scoring 60 runs and winning
FFS
If the game allows TA to score about 175 + somehow I might quarter agree with D/L
But 60 runs, thats not closure thats a guesstimate

[Hondo]

Mal & AH

You are forgetting the key reason why the D-L or any system is used in rain-shortened ODI's. If we are too quick to call draws then you are robbing the people that have put up their hard-earned to sponsor, televise or attend these games. If the bad weather is at the start or the middle of the day then you can't simply call it quits because the purists aren't satisfied that both teams have had 50 overs each. You'll have players in the buses at 2pm as the sun returns.

ODI's have long been a cash cow supporting the traditional game we all prefer, IMO let everyone have an entertaining day out and hopefully see an exciting climax to the game, even if the weather has taken some overs out of the game.

Maybe in the circumstances where a game is called off early and never starts again you could call it a draw (such as in Tas v Qld). But otherwise we have to accept it's about entertaining the punters that have made the effort to support the game, as much as possible.

[mal]

HONDO Im sure Hawky and I agree with your post
Yes its designed for spectators
Yes it is a cash cow
Yes its great for TV ratings
Its great for sponsorship
and yes when I go to the grounds I hope for a result
BUT
Morally AH/MAL are saying is a win in any sport should be justified and earnt not given purely on speculation
Allow the stock and share gamblers to speculate, and allow the statistical mathematcians to devise systems like D/L
BUT
Allow people like me to say that to predict a winner at 1/60 chasing 206 is heresay

[spell_check]

Brisbane and Sydney last year had a lot of rain affected matches; this one already into this season. I had a simple solution in another thread. That is, matches in those cities should be transfered to Adelaide Oval as it never rains here.

[redden whites]

no rain exept for the 2 games we had during the cricket world cup

[hearts on fire]

no rain exept for the 2 games we had during the cricket world cup

just our luck!