The Duckworth Lewis Method has been on everyone's mind ever since the Champions Trophy began, with the rain making unwanted and prolonged appearances in almost every match. The method has come under the scanner a number of times but is a significant improvement on the certain absurd techniques that prevailed before Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis decided change was necessary.
First came the Average Run Rate system which made Mathematical sense to the even the layman, which worked on the principle that the chasing team had to maintain the same average required run rate in the number of overs it played that the Average Run Rate was for the target they are chasing. So, a team would be set 126 to win in 25 overs, if the other team made 250 in 50. What this method failed to take in account was the wickets lost. If the same team scored a 126-9 in 25 overs and rain interrupted their chase, they would've deemed winners, as there was no concept of "par" that was introduced by DL method later on.
The "MPO" or the most productive over method, intended to make improvements to the existing method failed miserably. The 1992 world Cup Blunder that left South Africa to need 22 runs from 1 ball from getting 22 to 13 is the most famous example. Working on the principle that the least productive overs of the side batting first would be scrapped from the target given to the second team, the identification had been made from the experts that having the same number of wickets for lesser overs gave an advantage to the chasing team, hence a higher target was plausible, but this identification didn't agree with the math or the method they advocated. The 1992 blunder (in which South Africa bore the brunt of keeping their bowling tight to bowl 2 maiden overs) was one of the few pitfalls of this method.
Consider this- Team A make 200 all out of 30 overs, and rain forces the match to be curtailed to 30 overs. According to the MPO method, the revise target would've been 201, but in 30 overs. Team B's prize for tight bowling- a more difficult target. Even worse would've this situation- Team A makes 200 all out in 30 overs and Play is deemed impossible when Team B had made 175-0 in 30 overs with 20 overs in hand. The winner according to MPO method? Team A.
Clearly, changes were required, and apart from a few highly unlikely situations that may seem arbitrary, the DL method is the best we have, and have ever had. It takes into account the overs remaining and wickets in hand as resources with 100 being the most resources left and 0 being the least. The following chart shows these calculated as resources left when a particular number of overs are left and wickets have been lost.
The math behind how these numbers is a little too complicated for the layperson but the cricket enthusiast just needs to know that these resources determine the DL target or the par scores at different intervals. If a 50 over target gets curtailed to a 40 over target, a team has 89.3% resources to chase down a target that a team had 100% resources to score according to the table. Therefore the target to be chased will be 89.3% of the target. It is interesting to note that the number of wickets lost doesn't matter when 50 overs and played or the number of overs played while getting bowled out dont matter as the net resources used are 100% either ways. Similarly, the par scores are also calculated with the formula S*R2/R1 where R2 are the chasing team's resources, R1 are the batting team's and S is the number of runs made in the first innings. This method also accounts for first innings that are interrupted and ended by rain when the resources used are less than 100.
Therefore, the DL method is a significant improvement in the previous rules and takes into account the three most important things in cricket- Runs made, Wickets in Hand and Number of Overs Left. A concrete crystallised mathematical formula can only include these variables. What more can be done? The statisticians can be given a headache to examine the history of the ground- the average total batting first, and win percentage chasing or the percentage of times the team won the toss won the match. And, lets be honest, the list goes on to become more complicated and out of bounds for statisticians. The fact remains that the team batting second will always remain at an advantage and a higher target to account for the advent of T20s and more wickets in hand makes perfect sense.
This system isn't perfect but isn't every system? There will always be complications and variables that are unaccounted for, but the DL method attempts to make the best out of the game. Therefore, until something absolutely revolutionary comes along, DL method is all we have. It has already made the best of what it could. Let us accept its relevance and appreciate its effectiveness.
First came the Average Run Rate system which made Mathematical sense to the even the layman, which worked on the principle that the chasing team had to maintain the same average required run rate in the number of overs it played that the Average Run Rate was for the target they are chasing. So, a team would be set 126 to win in 25 overs, if the other team made 250 in 50. What this method failed to take in account was the wickets lost. If the same team scored a 126-9 in 25 overs and rain interrupted their chase, they would've deemed winners, as there was no concept of "par" that was introduced by DL method later on.
The "MPO" or the most productive over method, intended to make improvements to the existing method failed miserably. The 1992 world Cup Blunder that left South Africa to need 22 runs from 1 ball from getting 22 to 13 is the most famous example. Working on the principle that the least productive overs of the side batting first would be scrapped from the target given to the second team, the identification had been made from the experts that having the same number of wickets for lesser overs gave an advantage to the chasing team, hence a higher target was plausible, but this identification didn't agree with the math or the method they advocated. The 1992 blunder (in which South Africa bore the brunt of keeping their bowling tight to bowl 2 maiden overs) was one of the few pitfalls of this method.
Consider this- Team A make 200 all out of 30 overs, and rain forces the match to be curtailed to 30 overs. According to the MPO method, the revise target would've been 201, but in 30 overs. Team B's prize for tight bowling- a more difficult target. Even worse would've this situation- Team A makes 200 all out in 30 overs and Play is deemed impossible when Team B had made 175-0 in 30 overs with 20 overs in hand. The winner according to MPO method? Team A.
Clearly, changes were required, and apart from a few highly unlikely situations that may seem arbitrary, the DL method is the best we have, and have ever had. It takes into account the overs remaining and wickets in hand as resources with 100 being the most resources left and 0 being the least. The following chart shows these calculated as resources left when a particular number of overs are left and wickets have been lost.
The math behind how these numbers is a little too complicated for the layperson but the cricket enthusiast just needs to know that these resources determine the DL target or the par scores at different intervals. If a 50 over target gets curtailed to a 40 over target, a team has 89.3% resources to chase down a target that a team had 100% resources to score according to the table. Therefore the target to be chased will be 89.3% of the target. It is interesting to note that the number of wickets lost doesn't matter when 50 overs and played or the number of overs played while getting bowled out dont matter as the net resources used are 100% either ways. Similarly, the par scores are also calculated with the formula S*R2/R1 where R2 are the chasing team's resources, R1 are the batting team's and S is the number of runs made in the first innings. This method also accounts for first innings that are interrupted and ended by rain when the resources used are less than 100.
Therefore, the DL method is a significant improvement in the previous rules and takes into account the three most important things in cricket- Runs made, Wickets in Hand and Number of Overs Left. A concrete crystallised mathematical formula can only include these variables. What more can be done? The statisticians can be given a headache to examine the history of the ground- the average total batting first, and win percentage chasing or the percentage of times the team won the toss won the match. And, lets be honest, the list goes on to become more complicated and out of bounds for statisticians. The fact remains that the team batting second will always remain at an advantage and a higher target to account for the advent of T20s and more wickets in hand makes perfect sense.
This system isn't perfect but isn't every system? There will always be complications and variables that are unaccounted for, but the DL method attempts to make the best out of the game. Therefore, until something absolutely revolutionary comes along, DL method is all we have. It has already made the best of what it could. Let us accept its relevance and appreciate its effectiveness.
