Australia batted first and played 36 overs and scored 170, and now for the same 36 overs poor Dutchmen are required to score 198??? 
what kind of justice is this?
** Talk about stupidity, or have they gone mad?**](http://uk.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/WORLD_CUPS/WC2003/SCORECARDS/POOL-A/AUS_NL_WC2003_ODI20_20FEB2003_LIVE_MR.html)
AUSTRALIA TOTAL 170/2 OFF THE REDUCED 36 OVERS
For the second time the players were chased off the field after 28 overs had been bowled, this after the over limit had been reduced to 44 overs for the first interruption.
The three overs in the field had accrued 14 runs to the Australia total (123/2) with Martyn on 46 and Lehmann on 5.
The second interruption of 86 minutes further reduced the limit to 36 overs.
Martyn went to his 50 in 53 balls and 63 minutes striking five fours as he looked to up the run rate with only eight overs left in the innings.
The 150 was up in the 32nd over having taken 121 minutes and included 15 fours.
The third, and fastest 50-run partnership of the innings was posted in 57 balls and 31 minutes of which Lehmann had contributed 21 runs.
At the completion of the 36 overs Australia had totalled 170/2 with Martyn on 67 and Lehmann on 29.
**Duckworth/Lewis calculates the Netherlands target as 198 off 36 overs. **
The Netherlands bowlers acquitted themselves very well in restricting Australia to a total of under five runs to the over. Even with the reduction in overs and with Australia only two wickets down, they maintained a good line and should be more than pleased with their effort.
Holland all out 122.
Australia wins by 75 runs.
whata crap and whata "reward" to Dutch for restricting Australia to 170 in 36 overs.
So far I was happy with this method, it seemed to be better than “20 runs off 1 ball” required of SA in 1992 World Cup. But now it looks worse
I find DL method to be the fairest of 'em all. It is only appropriate to raise the total to 198 from 170/2. It gives the Dutch a Required Run Rate of 5.5 runs per over. A run rate of 5.5 means Aussies would have scored 275 had they batted the remaining 14 overs.
Had Australia been not interrupted and batted the 50 overs with 8 wickets in hand, they would have easily added 105 runs in the remaining 14 overs.
This is the best method to date.
Not necessarily they could have all got out for 200 as well. D/L method should not assume. Why 5.5? After all Australia had not scored at that rate.
Really D/L sucks.
With the same token, the Aussies could have scored 350 !
I know no method is perfect but this one seems to be the fairest of the "all". Usually in a rain forecasted match, teams would rather bat second because batting second has a slight advantage as you know what you are after. Whereas batting first, your overs keep getting deducted after every interruption.
You can say that same is the case with batting second but then again, you have a definite target and run rate to chase.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by funguy: *
With the same token, the Aussies could have scored 350 !
I know no method is perfect but this one seems to be the fairest of the "all". Usually in a rain forecasted match, teams would rather bat second because batting second has a slight advantage as you know what you are after. Whereas batting first, your overs keep getting deducted after every interruption.
You can say that same is the case with batting second but then again, you have a definite target and run rate to chase.
[/QUOTE]
I totally agree with Funguy.D/L metheod may not be the best but its the fairest of all.Those who dont think its good ,can the suggest anything better.
Whats so fair about it. Australia batted 36 overs and scored 170/2. Why should Holland be expected to score 198 in 36 overs. Where is the logic.
ehsan, we can sit and argue forever on DL methodology. There are no winners.
Keep in mind Australia didn't know til the 28th over that it's final asault overs will be reduced to only 8 overs.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ehsan: *
Whats so fair about it. Australia batted 36 overs and scored 170/2. Why should Holland be expected to score 198 in 36 overs. Where is the logic.
[/QUOTE]
There is lots of logic......
First of all when AUS started their batting they didnt know that ining will go upto 36 overs.Imagine a situation where you know right from begining that you have to play 36 overs OR another situation that after 25 overs you are told that your ining will last for another 11 overs. Approach of teams will be different.Holland has the luxury of knowing how many overs they ned to bat.
But you are missing one more point. D/L method doesnt only give you target base on overs it also gives varies wiht the number of wicket lost.So I dont quote understand when you say Holland was asked to score 198.Was it 198/0 or 198/10.
Typically... If you are batting 2nd and your match is reduced .... You get a sheet like this
This is just an example....
Wickets 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
No of overs
25 160 170 183 194 202 210 225
26 166 180 186 198 205 212 230
27
.
. 8 9 10
.
. 240 250 265
245 260 270
Please anyone who know is more correct me if I am wrong.
*
Again,What I am saying is that D/L may not be the best method but there is none better than this.Suggest me if you have any?*
Holland should have been asked to match the Australian run rate = 170runs / 36 overs. Fair enough. I am sure Australians knew the forecast so they should have kept that in mind.
Holland also knew the forecast..they won the toss too..they should have batted first if YOU THINK THE ADVANTAGE lies with the team batting first.
First it was stupid to hold the WC in rainy season. Duh!
Second, no teams are playing matches on successive days. They should have a reserve day for each match. Double Duh!
If at all, it rains and the match has to be reduced, then it can NEVER be fair, anyway. The losers will always feel cheated. In D/L they are assuming that since Holland knew from the first over of their innings how much they need to score, so they are in a better position to pace their innings, compared to Aussies whose innings was interrupted by rain and overs were reduced in tha fag end.
Its better than the crappy method they used in 1992, though if they have stuck to the simple averages method in vogue in 1980’s, life will be much easier. Just calculate the run rate and multiply by remaining overs. The team batting second wins or loses, whatever… Khisaa qatam. The advances in maths and stats has made this whole thing so complex and ludicrous. Waday mathematician banay phirday aaN aye cricket 'alay.. dur fittay moonh! samajh eii nayee lagdi ki karday payein ne
Well said :k:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by andha_qanoon: *
There is lots of logic......
First of all when AUS started their batting they didnt know that ining will go upto 36 overs.Imagine a situation where you know right from begining that you have to play 36 overs OR another situation that after 25 overs you are told that your ining will last for another 11 overs. Approach of teams will be different.Holland has the luxury of knowing how many overs they ned to bat.
But you are missing one more point. D/L method doesnt only give you target base on overs it also gives varies wiht the number of wicket lost.So I dont quote understand when you say Holland was asked to score 198.Was it 198/0 or 198/10.
[/QUOTE]
The Aussies very well knew they were going to be restricted as the match had been interrupted a number of times by the rain and they were trying to bat fast as they knew the overs will be restricted. The match was first reduced to 47 overs then after an interruption it was reduced to 44 and eventually to 36. So Australia knew they were going to bat 36 overs. I feel it is highly unfair and as Faisal said:
Waday mathematician banay phirday aaN aye cricket 'alay.. dur fittay moonh! samajh eii nayee lagdi ki karday payein ne.
Need I say more. :)
**
Australia 3 3 - - - 12 +2.343
England 4 3 1 - - 12 +2.081
India 3 2 1 - - 8 +0.329
Zimbabwe 3 2 1 - - 8 +0.040
Pakistan 3 1 2 - - 4 -0.126
Netherlands 3 - 3 - - 0 -2.044
Namibia 3 - 3 - - 0 -2.493
**
I must say Australia are England are looking quite good to qualify Unless some dramtics happen ofcourse.
India needs to win 2 out of remaining 3 to be sure of a birth.
Pakistans chances are gloomiest of all other teams. They need to win all three matches and that too with big margins.
Well lets suppose England loses both of its remaining matches (insha’allah)
India wins 2 out of its 3
Pakistan wins ofcourse 3 (no other choice possible) ot of its 3
Aussies wins all of its matches.
Zim wins 1 out of its 3.
If this happens…
**Congratulations, Pakistan and india are through to super sixes 
**
P.S1 Yeah i m night-dreaming, but just to feel better :D..
P.S2 heck , it should never have come down to it. 
hey saby
lets talk about the worst case scenario for Paksitan
If England loses both India and Aus(very likely) they will have 12 points
and if Pakistan loses(god forbid) to india, win against Zimb and Holland(very likely) . They also secure 12 points. Pakistan will earn 12 points.
Zimbwaw wins against holland and lose the rest. They also secure 12 points.
My point is even if Pakistan lose another game they can still squeeze it through super sixes on the basis of run rate. (assuming they beat Holland zimb with high margin). Hey I'm just pointing out the worst acse scenario.
From what I understand. I would like too see Eng loses the rest of the games. If they manage a win against Ind. THey are in . Everything wil be depended on India/Pak game for them to be alive in the race to be qualified for super sixes.
Question
Does the head to head rule apply if the two teams are tied or the run rate will be put into consideration first?