SA Footy

This much MALigned cricket formula is certainly raising eyebrows.
The system does favour the side which appears to be the legitimate winner most times.
However some games remain inconclusive.
The system is the best available in deciphering a winning outcome to a team.
However I think its time to consider other alternatives

My opinion is that when the side batting second does not recieve the equal amount
of overs to the side batting first the result should be null and voided and a draw the result
For example
QL 9/157 [43]
NS 1/58 [15]
If this game went the distance it appears a NS victory
D/L gives NS the win[and fair enough in view of QL average batting]
But this result is inconclusive and circumstantial.
NS have not won for umpteenth games and a couple of wickets would have
perhaps seen panic and a defeat ?
All purely speculative.

Second point
There are 4 points available[if no bonus points applicable]
QL V NS example again
Both sides should have got 2 points each ?
OR
Perhaps a better , more fairer points allocation MIGHT be
QL 1.5 POINTS
NS 2.5 POINTS
Give 1 point more to the D/L winner but not all points.
BUT
What system would work in a final ?

QL V NS
After 14.4 overs [15 needed for a result] it was raining heavily
Shane Watson was told by the umpire to stop wasting time as the
2 balls had to be bowled irrespective.
At the completion of the over the game was called off.
Morally right by the ump
BUT
Jimmy Maher was very vocal and appeared to ask the umpire
" The rain is the same as it was during the last over why stop, whats the diff?"


Duckworth/Lewis works but doesnt work as well...

I agree mostly with this mal. The problem would arise if a team was chasing say 150 off 40 overs and the game got called off after 20 overs. If that team was 1/140 should it still be a shared result? There will never be a perfect way to determine the result but i think Duckworth/Lewis is as close as we are likely to get.

mal wrote:This much MALigned cricket formula is certainly raising eyebrows.
The system does favour the side which appears to be the legitimate winner most times.
However some games remain inconclusive.
The system is the best available in deciphering a winning outcome to a team.
However I think its time to consider other alternatives

My opinion is that when the side batting second does not recieve the equal amount
of overs to the side batting first the result should be null and voided and a draw the result
For example
QL 9/157 [43]
NS 1/58 [15]
If this game went the distance it appears a NS victory
D/L gives NS the win[and fair enough in view of QL average batting]
But this result is inconclusive and circumstantial.
NS have not won for umpteenth games and a couple of wickets would have
perhaps seen panic and a defeat ?
All purely speculative.

Second point
There are 4 points available[if no bonus points applicable]
QL V NS example again
Both sides should have got 2 points each ?
OR
Perhaps a better , more fairer points allocation MIGHT be
QL 1.5 POINTS
NS 2.5 POINTS
Give 1 point more to the D/L winner but not all points.
BUT
What system would work in a final ?

QL V NS
After 14.4 overs [15 needed for a result] it was raining heavily
Shane Watson was told by the umpire to stop wasting time as the
2 balls had to be bowled irrespective.
At the completion of the over the game was called off.
Morally right by the ump
BUT
Jimmy Maher was very vocal and appeared to ask the umpire
" The rain is the same as it was during the last over why stop, whats the diff?"


Duckworth/Lewis works but doesnt work as well...

Mal the system is to get a result when no reasult is possible. Speculation is not something that can get calculated in any way shape or form. The only way to truely have a fair system is to stop play at that point. Then restart at a later day with the exact same pitch conditions.

Only problem is that the next day you don't get the exact same pitch conditions. One day cricket is all about getting a result and NSW deserved the result last night.

Did anyone else notice that Jimmy Maher was into the umpire, slowing things down and generally pissing him off? On the microphone during the 15th (match defining) over the umpire could be heard to say 'I don't care how wet it is we are finishing this over'. I think Jimmy pushed the umpire a little too hard and it cost the Bulls two points.

regards,

REB

REB, Jimmy Maher did the same when the redbacks played there the other week. Every time the bowler walked back to his mark, Jimmy was seen getting into the umps ear, and everything seemed to go his way that night. the duckworth lewis system worked for them that time.

A few systems have been trialled but to me the DL system is the best of a bad bunch

Problem is on trying to manufacture a winner when there's not been equal overs faced - unless they just call these games a draw then whatever system we have will problems I reckon

Its better than the debacle in the 1991 World Cup SF when South Africa's chase went fro 22 runs in 13 balls to 22 runs in 7 balls and then 22 runs in 1 ball under the old system. That when it was based on the equivalent number of scoring balls in the 1st innings. If Team 1 scored 200 from 50 overs but in their top 40 scoring overs scored 195 then the opponent had make 196 if their overs were reduced to 40.

And I'll never forget Aus v WI in 1988/89 season when we scored about 226 from 38 or so overs (great effort) only to see the WI target dropped to about 90 off 15 overs which they did in a cake-walk (under the run-rate system)

Rik E Boy wrote:Only problem is that the next day you don't get the exact same pitch conditions. One day cricket is all about getting a result and NSW deserved the result last night.

Did anyone else notice that Jimmy Maher was into the umpire, slowing things down and generally pissing him off? On the microphone during the 15th (match defining) over the umpire could be heard to say 'I don't care how wet it is we are finishing this over'. I think Jimmy pushed the umpire a little too hard and it cost the Bulls two points.

regards,

REB

Well REB, get out there and hack the pitch up a bit, put some water on it, heck i dont care to me the DL system works well enough for what it is.

to confusing for me, I can never understand it, I reckon quite simply, the game is not completed due to weather etc it is a draw, too much can happen these days so quickly, a side may be crusing to victory and someone takes a hat trick or similar, batting collapses are nothing strange in cricket, I just think that you can not have any fair system in place

Of course, you can't see Foxtel/Cricket Australia use the easiest method to determine a match - finish it the next day.

Watto what a champ, trying to stall the game as any champion in that situation would.