So New Zealand beat England overnight in a shortened T20 international. There was lightening, plenty of rain, the players left the field, the Duckworth Lewis system came into play, and Stuart Broad complained.
“”To be polite, there was some distinctly average decision making out there,”, Not really; Brendon McCullum realised there was rain around and took 16 off an over to ensure New Zealand got above the Required Run Rate. As it happens it was Broad who bowled that over. Had he holed out England would have won.
But no; The Times moaned “England rue Duckworth/Lewis as they are scuppered by storm”. Sky Sport UK whined “England came out on the wrong side of the Duckworth-Lewis calculations after New Zealand had reached 51-1 after 5.2 overs”
Nobody likes a shortened cricket match; the viewer feels cheated and it is not a full contest between two sides. But, contrary to what is implied in a lot of reporting….
RAIN IS NOT CAUSED BY THE DUCKWORTH LEWIS METHOD.
Please feel free to suggest where the DL method has skewed a result. Yet after every shortened match in the 15 or so years it has been used there is always a headline claiming the DL Method was the deciding factor in a match. A convenient headline, but a lazy one.
Prior to its introduction there were some shockers; most noticeably when South Africa suddenly required 22 runs off one ball in a World Cup semi-final. There were other matches where the calculation used at the time had a discernable impact on the outcome.
Take this match when the rule used was a simple pro-rata system. NZ scored a respectable 253 over 50 overs, and England needed 132 from 26. Think of T20 scores to see how challenging that total wasn’t.
So complain about the rain, complain about the requirement to have a result, complain about TV schedules dominating things, but please leave the Duckworth Lewis method alone.