D/L needs updating


It’s been a while since the ODI rules have been changed. The supersub rule has been tried out and dumped already. In the meantime, several new scoring records have been set. New Zealand, of all countires, nearly missed chasing a score in the vicinity of 330 against Australia at the end of last year, but followed it up by chasing a world-record 331 in the very next game a couple of days later. Then, of course, there was THAT game. Australia scored a record 434 in an innings, only to see South Africa chase it down.

The pattern of higher scores because of the rule changes is quite clear, and that is only expected given that there are more overs with fielding restrictions now. So, why then hasn’t the Duckworth-Lewis system been updated to reflect this? Until it is, any team chasing under D/L will be at a disadvantage.


5 Responses to “D/L needs updating”

  1. scribbler Says:

    How about we let ODI cricket be taken over by 20-20? That’s a thought! Anyway, ODI has become rather predictable not matter what the pitch is like or the teams playing are like. There needs to be some unpredictable games… like the 434, for eg, but that’s not happening again for another 20 years! (Or will I put foot in mouth?)

  2. Amar Says:

    Scribbler, I think you are jumping the gun a little bit. ODI cricket is here to stay and it is highly improbable that it will be replaced by 20-20 any time soon, if at all.
    As far as the D/L system, well, ICC did change it after 1992. The system is much better than what it used to be. Anybody remember the ridiculous D/L rules that were applied in the 1992 world cup? Remember the semi-final b/w SA and Eng where SA needed 22 runs from 13 balls before it started pouring. With the D/L rule, they suddenly needed 22 from ONE ball!!! They got no run compensation AT ALL. That was absurd. Probably cost SA a place in the WC final.
    Having said that, could the D/L system be tweaked a little bit? Absolutely. I’m all for reforms in the game. But, it takes a good governing party to make such decisions, unlike ICC, who basically like to sit on their laurels and count the dough.

  3. Pratik Says:

    The rain rule used in the 92 WC was not the D/L system, was it? At least that’s the impression I was under. I believe that rule was conceived by Richie Benaud, and replaced by D/L because of that fiasco.

    Anyway, it needs to be updated again.

  4. Amar Says:

    Nope, it WAS the D/L system – a terrible one at that.

  5. Pratik Says:

    Nope, it wasn’t.

    It was devised by Richie Benaud.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: