Monthly Archives: July 2019

Who are Duckworth and Lewis and why ICC adopted their method?

The Duckworth-Lewis Method instantly comes to our minds whenever a limited overs cricket match gets affected by rains. It’s a formula that decides the fate of a match in such situations. This is all I know about it as I am yet to come across anyone who perfectly understands the calculation. So we will not go into that.

But the bigger question which has been lingering in my mind is, who exactly are Duckworth and Lewis and why their calculation has been adapted by the International Cricket Council [ICC]?

I decided to explore this. Hence, this article is also a personal learning for me as I went searching on the internet about Duckworth and Lewis.

As it turns out the method has been named after Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis, the duo which brought about the calculation in rain affected matches.

*********************

Frank Duckworth:

Born in 1939, Frank Duckworth is a retired statistician from Lancashire, England. He has a BSc Hons in Physics and PhD in Metallurgy from the University of Liverpool. He has worked as a mathematical scientist for the nuclear power industry in the UK and is the editor of the Royal Statistician Society’s monthly news magazine called RSS News.

Apart from contributing in the Duckworth-Lewis method, he also singlehandedly developed the ‘Duckworth Scale,’ which can be read about HERE.

Tony Lewis:

The life of Tony Lewis has been pretty much the same. Born in 1942, he also hails from Lancashire and holds degrees in statistics and mathematics from Sheffield University in the 1960s. He was a lecturer in Quantitative Research methods at Oxford Brookes University and University of the West of England. Currently, he is the chairman of the Western Operational Research Discussion Society.

*********************

Apart from this, nothing much is known about their personal lives. But recently there was an interesting article published in Dawn.com, which narrates how the two of them formed a duo and developed the Duckworth-Lewis Method.

To understand this, it is important to know the back story of rain affected matches in cricket. When ODI cricket was in its initial stages in the early 1970s, the cricket governing body adopted the rule of taking into consideration the run-rate of the teams.

It was an unfair method because it didn’t consider the number of wickets lost by a team. For example, if a team is chasing a score of 200, it should have at least 100 runs on board by the 25^th over in order to be declared winners. However, the team will qualify to win even if it has lost 9 wickets to reach the score of 100 in 25 overs.

This rule was done away with in the 1990s and ‘Most Productive Overs’ rule was adopted, which turned out to be an embarrassment after the 1992 World Cup Semi-Final between England and South Africa. For the uninitiated, the latter needed 22 runs in 13 balls to win when the rains poured in. After resuming, as per the new method, needed 22 off just 1 ball.

In between in the 1980s, Duckworth had sent his own scoring formula to decide the fate of rain affected matches but it was rejected by the cricket governing body for being ‘too complicated.’

But he saw his chance after the debacle of the 1992 Semi Final. When he was giving a presentation of his method at Royal Statistical Society few months later, Tony Lewis, who was sitting in the audience, got interested in it.

Also read: WC Final 2019 – Cricket won, ICC lost

The two got together, worked out their formula, which came to be known as Duckworth-Lewis Method, and presented it to the cricket governing body which, was then called the ICC. Their formula was accepted since it also took into account the number of wickets lost by teams.

Their method was first implemented on 1 January 1997 in the England v/s Zimbabwe match at Harare. See the scorecard HERE.

Over the years, the method has received numerous criticisms for being unfair. In the same interview with the Dawn, Duckworth also honestly accepts that the method is not foolproof since it doesn’t take into consideration the identity and ability of batsmen who are yet to bat.

Their formula is reviewed and updated every two years. Duckworth and Lewis gave up looking after their formula six years ago as they decided to retire. They handed over its responsibility to Steven Stern, an Australian professor of statistics. Hence, the formula got a new name – DLS method – with the ‘S’ signifying Stern.

Duckworth and Lewis were appointed Member of the Order of the British Empire [MBE] by Queen Elizabeth II in 2010.

Additional reading:

When hearing issues stopped India from winning against England

How Pakistan was saved by rains from a difficult situation in 1992 World Cup

WC Final 2019: Cricket won, ICC lost

1 Reply

There is no doubt that we got to see one of the most exciting and tension-filled one day internationals yesterday between England and New Zealand. And this happening in the final of a tournament as huge as the ICC Cricket World Cup [2019] makes it immortal for cricket fans around the world.

The final of the most coveted cricket trophy being a tie and on top of that the Super Over also being a tie was unthinkable. In the end, I felt the luck was on England’s side as they just managed to sneak through as the new World Champions courtesy that infamous overthrow that got them 6 runs.

But the revelation by the former umpire Simon Taufel today that it was an error by the onfield umpires to grant six runs to England has made me feel too bad for New Zealand. As the ball hit Stokes’ bat before he completed the second run, it should have been only five runs.

See the incident again in the video

I don’t need to spell out the importance of that one run. That error was the reason why the men in Blue were holding the World Cup at the iconic Lords balcony yesterday.

It is still understandable for the umpires to make mistakes because they had to pay attention to too many things simultaneously. But why can’t the third umpire intervene in such situations? Or why did the onfield umpires didn’t deduct the one run after watching it on the big screen?

During India’s ODI against Australia in the DLF Cup in Kulala Lumpur in 2006, umpire Mark Benson gave Sachin Tendulkar out caught behind off Glenn McGrath.

However, as soon as he saw on the big screen that the ball had clearly hit Tendulkar’s shoulder, he called him back. Commentator Ian Bishop pointed out that the umpire has the right to change his decision if he does that promptly.

See the Sachin Tendulkar incident here

So, what stopped the onfield umpires and the third umpire from deducting one run? I am sure the third umpire must have seen the numerous replays. Why not use them for minimization of errors? And to think that this one decision stopped New Zealand from lifting the trophy makes me feel bad despite me not being a New Zealander.

The umpiring has been pathetic in this World Cup. On top of that, ICC has done nothing to solve it and is tight-lipped about it. In fact, they also went ahead and appointed Kumara Dharmasena as the umpire in the final despite his dismal run in this world cup.

But this is not the only factor where ICC messed up. Till yesterday I was unaware about this rule of the team with the most numbers of boundaries winning the match if the Super Over is a tie.

How on earth a team hitting more boundaries be declared a winner when it scored exactly the same amount of runs as the other team? Scoring the runs is important. It is irrelevant how they scored it.

A joke that is going around on social media is that England can say the won the World Cup but what if someone asks them by how many runs?

By the way, what would have happened if both teams had hit exactly the same number of boundaries? Make both the team compete in Gili Danda at the iconic Lords?

Also read: World Cup Final: Ben Stokes makes up for major slip up 3 years ago

The old saying ‘Game of cricket is the winner’ suits yesterday’s 2019 World Cup Final. The game indeed won.

But is it the ICC which has lost because of its unforgivable stupidity.

Not to forget, instead of such pressing issues, they were more concerned about the logo on Indian wicket-keeper Mahendra Singh Dhoni’s gloves.

By: Keyur Seta

Additional reading:

Yuvraj Singh’s 3 heroic TEST innings that have been forgotten: See videos

When hearing issues stopped India from winning against England

World Cup Final: Ben Stokes makes up for major slip up 3 years ago

1 Reply

The ICC Cricket World Cup 2019 Final, where Ben Stokes emerged a hero, has left us speechless like anything, no matter which corner of the world you live in. England and New Zealand have produced a match which was simply unthinkable!

I won’t believe if anyone claims to have expected the World Cup Final to end in a tie. On top of what, who would have expected the Super Over to end up in a tie as well. If anyone says that the 2019 World Cup Final was fixed, just laugh at him or her. You can’t script or fix such a match ever!

In the end, one does feel bad for New Zealand, more so because of the Super Over rule of team hitting more boundaries wins the match. [See the full scorecard HERE.]

One person who stood in between New Zealand and the World Cup was Ben Stokes with the bat. The all-rounder kept his nerve and played a brave knock of 84 not out to take England so close to the target. Of course, England were lucky to get that overthrow off Stoke’s bat, which was unintentional.

Ben Stokes in World Cup Final — Photo source: Cricinfo.com

It is obvious that stokes would be delighted with the result and why not! This is the first time that England has won the 50 over World Cup. But this final was also a moment of redemption for Stokes.

Let’s go back to 2016 at the Eden Gardens in Kolkata for the 2016 ICC World T20 Final between England and the West Indies. The English men looked good to pull the match off when West Indies needed as many as 19 off the last over with Ben Stokes about to bowl it.

Also Read: When Australia played against Australia in this World Series

The England all-rounder was devastated when Carlos Brathwaite hit him for four 6s in the first four balls of the over to get his side him in the most dramatic fashion.

The visuals of Stokes literally weeping after the last 6 was hit are still fresh in our memories. Although it was T20, it was a world title nevertheless.

But today Stokes made up for it in a tournament much bigger in stature.

By: Keyur Seta

Additional Reading:

When hearing issues stopped India from winning against England

How Pakistan was saved by rains from a difficult situation in 1992 World Cup

World Cup Final 2019 — Photo source: ICC Facebook page

World Cup: Only 2 interesting FINALS in last 6 editions

When Australia played against Australia in this World Series

6 Replies

Australia has been a powerful force in ODIs over the decades, more so in world tournaments. They have won five World Cups so far while no other team has lifted the cup more than twice. Not to forget that they have reached the finals seven times in the 11 World Finals that have taken place till now.

In the mid-1990s the world witnessed Australia’s tour de force in the 1994-1995 World Series in the most unexpected way. Four teams took part in the tournament – Australia, England, Zimbabwe and, guess who, Australia A!

Yes, you read it right. Australia fielded two teams in the series. This is something that took the cricketing world with a jolt. Such a thing had never happened before and has never happen after that till date.

Sending two teams in a series, obviously, spoke volumes about the strength of the team. It meant that the cricket scenario in the country was such that all talented cricketers couldn’t fit in one team.

The series turned out to be very interesting. Zimbabwe was the weakest team of all and was out of the race for the finals. But surprisingly as well as interestingly, England also couldn’t make it to the finals. This meant that the final was between Australia and Australia A. [See results of all matches HERE]

The last match of the league stage was like a semi-final between Australia A and England. The former managed to thump the latter and entered the final to play against their own countrymen.

It was quite amusing to see two teams of the same country battling against each other in the tournament called World Series.

This World Series, like other ODI tournaments in Australia, followed the format of the best of three finals. Australia won the first one easily whereas they had to struggle to win the second since Australia A put on a good fight.

Also read: When hearing issues stopped India from winning against England

Although both teams represented the same country, they played with the same spirit that they would if the opposing team was from another country. This can be seen from the highlights videos carried with the article.

I had seen the highlights of one of the two finals few years later on TV. I have a vague memory of watching a heated exchange of words between the bowler and the batsman, despite both being from the same country.

For this World Series, Australia consisted of players like Mark Taylor, Michael Slater, Mark Wagh, Steve Waugh, David Boon, Shane Warne, Glenn McGrath, Ian Healy, Craig McDermott, etc.

On the other hand, Australia A had the likes of Matthew Hayden, Ricky Ponting, Michael Bevan, Damien Martyn, Justin Langer, Greg Blewett, etc.

Needless to say, these players from Australia A later went onto become heroes for their country in tests and ODIs, including World Cups.

By: Keyur Seta

Additional reading:

He was selected for 1983 WC, but had to wait till ‘99 to play for India

Yuvraj Singh’s 3 heroic TEST innings that have been forgotten: See videos

10 years of blogging, 10 years of addiction

1 Reply

I can’t pinpoint any one moment when I felt I should start a blog. It was largely due to the need to get a platform where I can put out my thoughts and views without being answerable to any boss. The job I was in didn’t have enough opportunity to do the same [such was the structure of the publication, so that’s understandable].

At that time, movies was the only topic I was comfortable writing on. After a prolonged strike of the Hindi film industry, finally a big movie released in the form of Kabir Khan’s New York (2009). I wrote its review rather late on July 4, 2009. It was a co-incidence that I wrote on New York on American Independence Day.

I wanted to a put a name that suits me. Just a year ago Neeraj Pandey’s A Wednesday was released. Apart from becoming a worshipper of that film, I was also mesmerized by the lead character called Stupid Common Man played by Naseeruddin Shah. Hence, it was an easy decision. [Read more about it HERE]

It was just the excitement to see my work published that compelled me to write regularly from then on. Slowly I ventured into other topics like personal experience and current affairs. But soon I found a new motivation to write regularly because of a boost to the new age Marathi cinema, that started roughly in 2004 with Shwaas.

The first month of 2010 saw Harishchandrachi Factory and few other films released in quick succession. The film also played a major role in taking my interest in cinema to a much higher level. At the same time, writing about Marathi films became a major reason for the blog getting somewhat known.

Incidentally, the 2011 Cricket World Cup also took place the next year where India triumphed. This prompted me to write on cricket which I have somehow still continued.

As if like a film script, Anna Hazare’s India Against Corruption [IAC] movement gained huge momentum the same year in August. After taking part in it regularly, the blog became a medium to cover first hand reports of the rallies. [Read more about it HERE].

Not surprisingly, I have been asked numerous times as to why I don’t monetize my blog. To tell you honestly, I did try doing that by signing up for Google adsense but they kept rejecting my request. Funnily enough, the most common reason given by them is that my blog has ‘adult’ content.

But I did manage to earn some money and a lot of vouchers through a lot of blogging activities and contests on few blogging platforms. I had a ball of a time meeting new bloggers and also earning by doing something that didn’t require much hard work.

But after a point of time, it dawned upon me that this is not the reason I had started my blog for. The aim was to get a platform where I could voice my thoughts. Hence, I decided to stick to the original motto. This doesn’t mean that there is a strict no-no for contests. If the contest is such that it naturally motivates me to write on something, I will have no problems taking part in it.

But co-incidentally, blogs have started becoming obsolete since few years with more and more penetration of social media and video content. This also meant that activities on these blogging platforms have reduced and have slowly become next to nothing.

Naturally the page views on my blog have also started declining considerably. Currently, the numbers I get is way lesser than what I used to get around four or five years ago. So, in such a scenario, I have been asked if there is any point in keeping my blog active if the number of readers have lessened to this extent.

My answer to these questions is a resounding yes without a stroke of hesitation. To answer it in simpler terms, a serious drug addict needs regular doses of drugs in order to be sane. That’s how it is for me. It’s an addiction without any side effects and, on the contrary, plenty of benefits which cannot be measured in monetary terms.

By: Keyur Seta