Quick poll on the D/L method

Not asking for a big debate cos I know it's all been said before, but I'd just like to know how many agree with the method and how many of you don't . . .

Please vote in the poll above.

Scientific methods applied to sport are almost inherently unfair. But they're unfair against everyone at some point.

The Duckworth/Lewis method is the worst rain rule except for all the others that have been tried from time to time.

The reason that it is inherently unfair is why it is there.

Just think of how ICC would think, fans stick around only if there is something to grumble. So they give them one more reason to.

Pity the person who voted, "I think there could be another way," didn't put what way that was!

Is it possible that the DL method could ever set a target for a team batting second that is in excess of anything that the team could physically reach?

Not likely, but possible?

Demelza wrote:Pity the person who voted, "I think there could be another way," didn't put what way that was!

Maybe they took you at your word when you said you didn't want a debate.

Good point!

So?

I thought the D/L winning total for the side batting second was more or less updated every ball and posted on the scoreboard. If not it should be, it'd stop complaints.

Not sure if it's on the scoreboard, but certainly both teams are given the spradsheet . . .

tac wrote:Not sure if it's on the scoreboard, but certainly both teams are given the spradsheet . . .

Spradsheet?

There will never be a completely fair rain rule, but D/L seems to be the best one there is.

Bump.
Only 13 votes so far

Generally it is fair ....but sometimes it comes up with some weird number that a team has to chase ...

Henry wrote:There will never be a completely fair rain rule, but D/L seems to be the best one there is.

Agree.

And the worst was the one used in '92 World Cup.

DumbarseLewis method -

Brilliant when it works in our favour.
Crap when it doesn't.

^^^

God you must lead a sad life, lardy.
Almost midnight in Tassie, and here you are trawling the forum from 7
years ago to find a tongue in cheek remark.

Go to bed FFS ...
...you'll be up again in 5 hours time to, once again, re-cast your pearls of wisdom around the forum!

Just showing it's better than your QuinzyQuonzy method

Merlin wrote:
God you must lead a sad life, lardy.
Almost midnight in Tassie, and here you are trawling the forum from 7
years ago to find a tongue in cheek remark.

Go to bed FFS ...
...you'll be up again in 5 hours time to, once again, re-cast your pearls of wisdom around the forum!

You couldn't possibly be as clueless as you project yourself to be, could you?

Not really.

Surely not.

It's a strange world.

lardbucket wrote:

Merlin wrote:
God you must lead a sad life, lardy.
Almost midnight in Tassie, and here you are trawling the forum from 7
years ago to find a tongue in cheek remark.

Go to bed FFS ...
...you'll be up again in 5 hours time to, once again, re-cast your pearls of wisdom around the forum!

You couldn't possibly be as clueless as you project yourself to be, could you?

its a double double bluff with full twist
he is that clueless and he thinks hes making himself look smart by pretending his twattery is irony. without realising that doing so just makes him look even more clueless
but you already know that

Just occasionally, as above, I entertain the possibility that an absolute Macchiavellian genius could unremittingly sustain the persona of a totally clueless, illiterate, and inept buffoon for ten years. It probably isn't possible.

lardbucket wrote:Just occasionally, as above, I entertain the possibility that an absolute Macchiavellian genius could unremittingly sustain the persona of a totally clueless, illiterate, and inept buffoon for ten years. It probably isn't possible.

im still getting away with it

no