The formula is still stuck in the 90s. Cricket has evolved but thus method hasn't.
Seemed daft ....surlely they clda played out the game....!!!
To be honest I don't agree with the idea of DL but in the 2nd ODI I think it wasn't too bad. Obviously it made the assumption that we would only have scored 20 runs in 24 balls, but as it was we needed 9/over and may well have lost as we were running low on wickets. As it was, the game changed completely when it became a case of us slogging for 13 balls with 3 wickets in hand.
I dont think
I dint think it changed the probability of us winning the game, but it did turn it into a bit of a farce. I dont think we could have been set any meaningful target in 13 balls that wouldn't have done the same. The way I see it if you can't finish the game it should be a draw.
I dont understandd why they didnt just play the extra 30min it would have taken to complete the game.
This silly rule of having a cut off time is kinda pathetic especially if you have less than 10 overs to bowl. If you have 50 Overs left then yes have a cut off time but not at the business end of the game.
Complete farce of a rule, it handed a game England looked like winning on a plate to the Black Caps.
The D/L rules need reviewing, time and again we see injustices and it will keep on happening unless the rule is changed. Dont ask me how lol
Complete farce of a rule, it handed a game England looked like winning on a plate to the Black Caps.
----
It was a farce but england were not favourites in that game. 7 Down with what almost 50 runs to get?
It was 60-40 in NZ favour before the rain and then went to 85-15 once the rain ended and the new target was set.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Duckworth Lewis Debacle!
Page 1 of 1
posted on 13/6/15
The formula is still stuck in the 90s. Cricket has evolved but thus method hasn't.
posted on 14/6/15
Seemed daft ....surlely they clda played out the game....!!!
posted on 14/6/15
To be honest I don't agree with the idea of DL but in the 2nd ODI I think it wasn't too bad. Obviously it made the assumption that we would only have scored 20 runs in 24 balls, but as it was we needed 9/over and may well have lost as we were running low on wickets. As it was, the game changed completely when it became a case of us slogging for 13 balls with 3 wickets in hand.
I dont think
posted on 14/6/15
I dint think it changed the probability of us winning the game, but it did turn it into a bit of a farce. I dont think we could have been set any meaningful target in 13 balls that wouldn't have done the same. The way I see it if you can't finish the game it should be a draw.
posted on 16/6/15
I dont understandd why they didnt just play the extra 30min it would have taken to complete the game.
This silly rule of having a cut off time is kinda pathetic especially if you have less than 10 overs to bowl. If you have 50 Overs left then yes have a cut off time but not at the business end of the game.
posted on 16/6/15
Complete farce of a rule, it handed a game England looked like winning on a plate to the Black Caps.
The D/L rules need reviewing, time and again we see injustices and it will keep on happening unless the rule is changed. Dont ask me how lol
posted on 17/6/15
Complete farce of a rule, it handed a game England looked like winning on a plate to the Black Caps.
----
It was a farce but england were not favourites in that game. 7 Down with what almost 50 runs to get?
It was 60-40 in NZ favour before the rain and then went to 85-15 once the rain ended and the new target was set.
Page 1 of 1