Scoring method casts cloud over warm-up match

You may ask whether I may be talking about Warne and McGrath, Ambrose and Walsh, Muralitheran and Ranatunga or even perhaps Gough and Thorpe? If this was your guess I am afraid you are wrong as the names I am describing are Duckworth and Lewis. While I am not sure whether either of these gentleman walked when they used to bat, or even whether they were involved in any sledging in their days, I do know they regularly find themselves in hot water on and off the field these days. Against Bangladesh today I experienced my third run in with these lads, who are really causing me a great deal of puzzlement, sending my competitive cricket brain into something of a quandary.

When a heavy black cloud and its frustrating contents decided to halt play after 43.5 of our overs, the two not out Bangladeshee batsmen and my Middlesex teammates and I, legged it into the changing room. With the score at 203, Bangladesh were in a reasonable position on a fairly true Southgate C.C. pitch. After enjoying my lunch, I returned to the changing room to find out that due to our friends Duckworth and Lewis we need to score 236 off 43 overs to win the game. As we had lost an hour's play, Duckworth and Lewis were called to the scene to make matters more complicated than they ever had to be.

I am afraid it makes no sense to me that Bangladesh, on this occasion, were awarded an extra thirty-three runs from thin air. Suddenly a close encounter had been tipped into Bangladesh's favour by a simple push of a computerized button.

Last summer the rain came tumbling down in bleak, late afternoon conditions at Cantebury Oval in Kent, with the home side 3/115 with 12 overs remaining.

According to the ground announcer, the score board and the paperwork in Captain Mark Ramrakash's pocket, the game at this stage was to be declared a tie by Duckworth/Lewis calculations. Arguably a tie on this occasion was a fair result, so both teams decided to come off the ground before the floods came and take one point each.

Unfortunately though for Middlesex, Duckworth and Lewis, unbeknown to us, had a little trick up their sleeve. After we were all tucked up in the warmth of our changing room, we found out that Kent had actually been awarded the match by .73 of a run. Work that one out! If you can, you're a better mathematician than I am, I can't ever remember sweeping or cutting a ball for .73 of a run. Even the great Archimedes, Pythagoras, Newton and Einstein may have had trouble calculating this result.

On that day it was more of a farce than it was today, but even still it highlights the flaws in the system. There is no doubt that you have to have rules and guidelines, no-one will argue with that, but surely there is room for commonsense in cricket administration. If someone can explain clearly this system then it may make it easier for all involved, but as it stands it seems to leave everyone scratching their heads in bafflement

The question remains whether there is a better system? It is very hard to find a fair solution in these matters, ultimately because cricket can be so unpredictable, but in the cases like I have seen, I believe commonsense should prevail. With so much at stake in the World Cup every point will be vital to all the teams. Although each fixture can be played over two days, I just hope Duckworth and Lewis don't cause more trouble than they are worth.

All I can say is: "Rain, rain stay away, to keep Duckworth and Lewis from ruining our play!"

Back to current Personal View