Tuesday, 4 May 2010

... more like the Disgrace-Lewis method...

At the change of innings in the West Indies - England T20 game yesterday, I made a few notes about how England's innings was amongst the best T20 innings around. England fired in the powerplay through first Michael Lumb, and then Craig Kieswetter. They then consolidated during the 'middle overs', with Wright and Morgan keeping the run rate ticking over without losing wickets. After getting their eyes in and finding the pace of the pitch, they then teed off over the final few overs, with a 95 partnership and the highest score of the World T20 so far in 191.

England performed brilliantly, and the innings from Morgan was one of the best T20 innings in the situation. He, alongside the much maligned Luke Wright (whose contribution in changing the momentum should definitely not be ignored) turned the game in England's favour, setting a target which would have been defended 999 times out of 1000.

And then it rained.

It's got to be said that I'm a fan of the Duckworth-Lewis method. Nobody wants to have games where teams need 22 from one ball. And normally, in ODIs, the Duckworth-Lewis method is fair. However, Twenty20 is a very different contest from ODIs. And to be set 30 from 22, after the opposition have posted the highest score just isn't right. While I am not pretending that I have the mathematical know how to even comprehend the vagaries of the D-L method, there must be a few x's and y's that can be moved for T20 games to make it fair for both sides. The advantage for the chasing team with D-L is unbalanced, which was seen as England crashed out of last years World T20 at the hands of (again) the West Indies, who took advantage of a much simpler total to chase.

While England's prospects in the tournament will probably be unaffected by the loss, Mr Duckworth and Mr Lewis should be expecting a call from the ICC telling them to have a rethink about their method for T20 games. England lost in a relatively unimportant group game, but if it's not amended, there could be a much more major victim at a later point in the tournament.

And don't even get me started on the decision to hold an international cricket tournament in Guyana during the rainy season...


  1. England had a chance last year at the oval to be helped by duckworthlewis. But they chose to bat first so they shouldn't moan too much.

  2. But the point is that it shouldn't matter if a team bats or bowls first - there should be equality between the two in DL. However, I agree with you , Collingwood would have known about the batting second advantage and should have played the system to England's benefit. But he didn't. So we lost.

  3. At least rain wasn't the reason ye were knocked out of the tournament. That's a sickener.

    But England were unlucky with the D/L system, it just isn't suited to Twenty20. It is usually pretty fair to ODI's, but just not Twenty20's.

  4. In a way England got lucky with the rain in that had the weather not intervened, you would have knocked us out!

  5. I know, and then ye went on to win...!