[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Faisal: *
I already suggested something infinitely better, simple averages. Not because its fairer, but because rain is part of life and to use rocket-science mathematical formula and spending infinite mental calories with almost the same results (i.e one team feels cheated) is stupid. Cricket should be played with bat and ball by cricketers and not with calculators by Stanford Professors.
In the above scenario, team B will try to score 125 in 25 overs. If they do, well and good, if they don't, so be it. The team which loses will blame the weather anyway.. so why make it so complicated!
[/QUOTE]
I dont think any team felt cheated.No one complained about D/L and its been in use for years now..Unlike that crappy method of 1992 where everyone complained......
Why not use resources of stanford professor or a computer when its available..Simple input of data and you get a matrix of how much is needed in how many overs.
But nahi ji. Some hot shot Harward Professor decides ke main nay result nikaal ke hi chorna hai.
I bet in a few years someone will come up with an even more complex mathematical formula which will compare the batting averages, rating of the opponents, shots scored in different parts of the grounds, number of sleepless nights slept by both captains and the prescription medicines taken by the umpires to determine which team will win in case of rain. Then we won't even have to play a single ball and we can have World Cup Champion... Hurray!!!
I agree, WC should have been schedualed in June-july.
But just imagine, we have already had 3 or 4 matches effected from rain and we have some more to come, that will take extra month if we keep on having reserve days.
I agree, WC should have been schedualed in June-july.
But just imagine, we have already had 3 or 4 matches effected from rain and we have some more to come, that will take extra month if we keep on having reserve days.
[/QUOTE]
There are no reserve days in preliminary rounds but there are reserve days in super sixes and knockout stages so i guess That wont take extra month umair, coz reserve days are sandwitced in betweens.
No team is playing two matches on successive days. They could easily have reserved an extra day for each match. If no result in two days, good bye... on to the next match. :)
Now after looking at your equation..issues come how to determine decay constant b(w) .In case of D/L method these constant are determined by using historical data.
[/QUOTE]
well the formula comes from the previous matches played, i havent come out with n i dont have shauq to do that, i i guess the easiest way is the average run rate, very very simpe for all the cricket fans around the world!!!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by funguy: *
Ahmed, either you have never played cricket or started following it recently.
It is very easy to score 125 in 25 overs with all wickets in hand than score 250 in 50. Average alone doesn't quantify the amount of work required. DL method takes all factors into account. Resources available (overs, wickets, etc ) are all taken into account while calculating a target.
I hope you can understand but the way you asked the last question, I don't think I will be making any sense to you. :)
[/QUOTE]
funguy, i think you are short on intelligence. I wasn't saying that the averages method should be followed or not. I was simply asking a_q to expand on his reply to sharaabi. I've been following cricket since i was 6 so you don't have to worry about that. :)
Interesting debate going on here. As someone who did study mathematics though I am somehow not impressed by the arguments of the side that complains that D-L is not good because it makes you spend extra calories. As many people wouldn't need to do that. Plus the formula posted above isn't necessary for calculations. There are tables that can be used and are used. The formula is used to get the tables but the referees don't need to use it in every match.
That it has been use for several years and cricketing authorities have had no problems using it , is a proof that it is not too complex. So that argument just doesn't cut it. The focus should be on if it is fair or not. I think to take into account number of wickets lost is a good idea and in that the D-L is a good method. But it is definitely not perfect.
It's a simplistic argument to say that calculators and prfessors shouldn't be involved. They are involved in many aspects of the game, not just the D-L method. And not just in cricket, lots of sports use the scientific community for support with problems. It's part of sports, muc more than you guys think.
One reason why I opened this thread was so that people could get more informed about the so-called elusive duckworth-lewis method so that people would stop complaining unfairness of these methods etc. once they saw that it took into account the relevant stuff. But certainly an even better method can be derived, but then some people may have to spend even more calories :).
The method to simply calculate averages is definitely not a good or a fair method. it has many pitfalls like the infamous method used in WC'92 which was just a derivation of that. And guess what? that method didn't need any extra calories for understanding as it was a very simple one. But we know , what was the price for simplicity in that case.
There are other possible methods that I might suggest if no one does, but believe me between simple averages and D-L, the scenarios where the former falls down are much more then where the later does. So the later is infinitely better. :)
