Talk:Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"Criticism" in the opening paragraph

Unless there is some specific criticism of the _current_ D/L method, better yet with a link to a public statement of such, occasional cricket-fan "uncomfortableness" with D/L is covered in detail in the body of the article. Note that "generally accepted" includes "there are a couple of commentators who have raised largely insubstantial and uninformed criticisms" --Shannonr 22:40, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Search for non-copyright scoreboard image

IMO, what would really be cool here is if someone could post a shot of a scoreboard, somewhere, with the target score displayed... Anyone? --Shannonr 02:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

This picture is quite blurry, but it does show the Duckworth/Lewis target score (even though people are standing in front of 'D/Lewis'). Will it suffice? Deaþe gecweald 12:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice photo! But you're right -- people are standing right in front of the area we're interested in for this article! Shannonr 15:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

World Cup 2007 Pakistan/Ireland match

There's an interesting question over at Talk:2007 Cricket World Cup. Pakistan scored 132. Ireland were set 128 under the D-L. They scored a six to win when on 127, so ended up on 133. The 2007 Cricket World Cup article currently states that they won under the D-L method. But they won regardless right? So is it appropriate to say that they won, or do we have to qualify it with "under the D-L method"? Hesperian 05:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you'd still say they won under D/L, because effectively the target of 132 was irrelevant and shouldn't be considered. It certainly wasn't a consideration to Ireland when they were batting. They were trying to obtain a target of 128 and they got it, end of story. Good point, though. Kris 08:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Statistical questions on D/L

The method's use of statistics raises certain questions....

1. Does historical records/statistics used by D/L include the matches that were decided by previous net run rate or other methods? If yes, they do not accurately represent the proper use of resources (overs or wickets). That would create incorrect statistics.

2. How are the matches decided by D/L method iteself represented in future D/L statistics? Will it not skew the statistics in their own favour (because tragets are updated using D/L method now and have the capability of changing the "normal use of resource" behaviour in terms of overs remaining).

Ajhau 03:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Ajit

They are not included. Infact looking at the DL statistics they should be able to refine it. People are already pointing out that achieving +8 or above run rate becomes unrealistic as it would most likly require a boundry which isn't always obtainable depending on pitch conditions. For example if a team scores 330 in 50 overs, and the next side only has 20 overs, the target will be set at about 200 runs, requiring a run rate of 10 per over. Yet the results show that much higher percentage of teams can make 330 in 50 overs, and very little percentage of teams has ever successfull made 200 runs in 20 overs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.144.251.120 (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
Previous D/L matches are not included, and this is by design. A statistical method to determine what would have happen had the game gone on "normally" is what the D/L promises -- adding results determined by it would make it less fair. Also, in response to the "back of an envelope" example -- that is exactly the sort of calculation that the D/L does extremely well. The chasing team would not be set 200 in such an example. Firstly, let's agree that any team that makes 330 has done a great job batting, and the target set for the chasing team's 20 overs had better be high. Second, let's agree that the second team _knows_ they've only got 20 overs. With all ten wickets in hand, D/L would actually set the winning target at 194.37, or 195 to win. I cannot see how this is not completely fair, and more to the point, better than any previous method. --Shannonr 03:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Can someone give the formula used by the D/L method in calculating the score required by the team batting 2nd in a one-day game? I mean, how do people go about calculating the score required? I've heard it's an extremely complicated method. So can someone please give the formula or the steps involved in calculating the score?

You can find a simplified table online by searching for "duckworth lewis tables" on your search engine of choice. The full Simplified Table can be purchased, as can the full Professional version software package. Links in the article will take you there. --Shannonr 03:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

ICC World Cup 2007 final

Anyone want to add anything about the Australia/Sri Lanka final? Especially as it was fairly controversial.. I'm not that expert at cricket so I didnt do it myself Feudonym 00:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that the umpire confusion in that game helps to explain Duckworth-Lewis! And the explanation given on the Cricket World Cup 2007 page is probably enough. Least said, soonest mended, and all that. Although, if someone were to find a clever (and brief!) way to use that match as an example of "D/L gone wrong" I wouldn't object. Shannonr 07:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Update: I've made a comment about this in the "Criticism" section, as on further research I think the controversy Feudonym talks about is real and widespread. Shannonr 07:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Major Re-org

I've made a major reorganization of the page, attempting to achieve three things:

  • The use of the given example to cement the concept of "if the game had continued" removing the need for further explanation of this in the Theory section
  • A more natural "flow" -- the "upside down triangle" of information importance
  • The removal of unreferenced criticisms

I've also taken the opportunity to remove a couple of redundant qualifications, and removed (yet again!) the horrible "analogy" that keeps creeping back into the Theory section.

Please feel free to comment/criticize! Shannonr 07:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

These changes are barely literate. And do not improve the article. Revert. Stop the vandalism and stop putting spam back!62.64.201.211 13:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are odd to say the least, as much of the version you claim to prefer was written by me! There is no "vandalism" -- except your continual reverting to a version with spelling errors, grammar errors, and unreferenced statments -- just a sincere desire to improve the readability of this article. Thanks for your comments, but I feel the changes I've made are quite supportable. Lastly, a link to the publishers of the Duckworth/Lewis Table is hardly "spam". Shannonr 13:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
"statments" - is that how much care you take in your editing or is it a spelling mistake? If you limited yourself to "spelling errors, grammar errors, and unreferenced statments(sic)" that would be fine, but the article now has less readability and less structural logic. But let's leave it - rotten and disfigured as it is. I distain to involve myself in an edit war 62.64.208.148 23:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
One thing you said previously made me look again at Acumen Books. They no longer appear to have an exclusive on the D/L guide, so I'm removing the link. As an aside, you may want to check the spelling of "disdain". Cheers. Shannonr 08:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem prepared to receive comment or criticism. You seem to have decided to take over the article and have yet to improve it. The way you write is dismal. 62.64.207.121 09:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Another odd comment, as I think two good changes came about because I was prepared to wade through your personal attacks to find ideas for improving the article. Oh, and please do not add comments and try to pretend they are from other users -- it's obvious from the history who made the change. I still don't understand your hostility, and I certainly haven't "taken over" anything, but that's also obvious from the history. Many people have worked together to make this article. --Shannonr 16:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Tony Lewis

The article states clearly that Tony Lewis is a statistician, and the link points to Tony Lewis (mathematician). Thus I do not think it is worthwhile cluttering an already dense first paragraph with the information that this isn't an English cricketer from the 70s. Shannonr 01:32, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I'd agree with this. i'd always assumed that The Lewis was tony the cricketer and commentator- it required a tour throught the Tony Lewis disambiguation pages to disavow me of this notion. Epeeist smudge 12:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's what disambiguation pages are for. Mentioning in this article -- which is not about Tony Lewis, but about the D/L Method -- that the co-creator of this method is *not* someone he might be mistaken for by English cricket tragics of a certain age (and I use that term with the greatest of respect, I am myself a cricket tragic) really seems, to me, a waste of space. Let's stick to explaining the Method itself. Shannonr 12:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Everyone always assumed he was The Tony Lewis. -- Unsigned comment
See above. The disambiguation page covers this. --Shannonr 07:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

More General Additions to "Criticism"

It's getting rather pointlessly "busy" in the criticism section. Unfortunately, most of what's added is unsourced, and worse, it's original work. I'm proposing a general rule for "Criticism" as follows: unless it's sourced, it gets immediately deleted. --Shannonr (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

New Section Suggestion

Prior to Duckworth lewis there were two systems used, one used till the "infamous" 1992 World cup in ANZAC, and the 2nd that was introduced in the World Cup.

The first method looked at the run rate of the side batting first and adjusted it to the truncated overs (example if a side batting first made 250 runs in 50 overs and then rain interrupted and wiped of 20 overs, the side batting second had to make 150 runs in 30 overs, making it easy for them as they had all 10 wickets in hand). This method was very favourable to the side batting second,

Then in the 1992 World Cup the "Benaud" method ( Richie Benaud was a part of the think tank that thought of this method) was worked out to try and balance the advantage , but which created an imbalance that rewarded the side batting first- as was seen in the ridiculous Semi final farce where rain made South Africa get a target of 22 runs in a couple of deliveries. [1]

The Benaud method looked at the overs lost due to rain and while looking at a revised target removed the runs from the side bowling firsts most economical overs. ( example in a match between A & B if the side B was batting second had a rain interruption, and the rain reduced 5 overs for the side, then while reducing runs for the side B the runs were looked at from the 5 most economical overs of the first innings, if there were 5 maidens that B bowled to A in it's bowling then the target would remain the same while the overs available to the side batting second would reduce by 5).

So while there are criticisms of Duckworth Lewis, I think there should be a highlighting of the preceding methods that were so skewed and which were corrected by the Duckworth Lewis method.

Haphar (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed comments! If you look in the "History" section of the article, both those methods are covered. If you want to do articles on them, and link to them from here (as well as to the matches that used them) then feel free. I don't think they deserve more that they already have in this article, though. Thoughts? --shannonr (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

England v West Indies, 20th March 2009

This story should definitely be mentioned. Either as just a related story, or maybe of one that shows the complicated nature of the method? cricinfo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.254.250 (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, perhaps under "Criticism" right after "More common informal criticism from cricket fans and journalists of the D/L method is that it is overly complex and can be misunderstood.[10]" chandler · 03:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Undergrad Research Project?

There is a "citation needed" after stating that this method was an undergraduate final year project. How reliable is this statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.5.245 (talk) 03:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to have any kind of citation for this assertion at all. I'm not sure what the cut-off on these kinds of assertions is -- anyone? If it is still "citation needed" in a month I'll certainly remove the assertion myself. I recall messaging the original contributor of that statement for clarification, but didn't get a reply. --Shannonr (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Note that this assertion has now been up for over a year without any supporting citation and has now been removed. Please do not re-add without supporting evidence. Thanks. ----shannonr (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Controversy" and "controversial" in the opening paragraph

These two words are used in the opening paragraph, implying that the system is much more controversial than it is. The system is almost universally accepted by cricket statisticians, and most sensible commentators on the game. There are arguments against it's use, and some valid criticisms, but these should be assigned to the criticism section, rather than being emphasized in the first paragraph. Mykuhl (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

1992 World Cup semi-final, correct D/L score?

The article references a Bill Frindall column for BBC sport to say that the adjusted score under D/L would have been 236 from 43 overs (5 to win, 4 to tie from the last ball). However, the article about the 1992 world cup links both to this article and a cricinfo page that gives the target as 257 from 43 overs (i.e. 5 more than the method used):

http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65155.html

Anyone know which of these is correct? Maybe both should be mentioned like in the 1992 world cup page. If the cricinfo page is correct then it doesn't really support the idea that the D/L method is better than the previous methods so maybe a different example would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.254.229 (talk) 16:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Another D-L criticism?

D-L does not take into account the strength of the batsmen who are not yet out. For example, if a team's final three batsmen happen to be very capable, a team losing a rained-out match according to the D-L might have more than likely won the match. Not sure whether this is criticism or an oddity, because perhaps a team's winning or losing a game should not be judged on the strength of batsmen to follow, but rather the performance of those who have batted in the match. However, one thing is for certain: as a predictor of who WOULD HAVE won the match had it not rained, the D-L method can be vastly improved by looking at the strength of batsmen not yet out. Perhaps it would be useful to note that the D-L method cannot be used to predict who would have won a match had it not rained out, but rather who performed "better" during the play that actually took place. I have never heard anyone make this distinction, but i think it is a very important distinction to make, and one that might even affect the future development of D-L. -- Barryvz (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You make an interesting point, and I thank you for raising it here. You're right that the D/L method doesn't specifically try to assess the "strength" of the batsmen remaining, but it does do it indirectly through the averages of all team scores over ODI history which are at its heart. There is, IMO, at least one strong reason not to try and factor "strengths" in: it would be exploitable. As soon as the second team came out to bat, they would send in numbers 3 and 4, and "save" their "openers" (ie. their strongest batsmen) to lower the target score (eg. "Our two strongest bats haven't batted yet, they'd easily get those runs if the match went on...") But even assuming you could change the rules to prevent such a strategy (or similar) D/L is not designed to operate as a handicapping system (which factoring in the "strengths" of the batting in the two sides would make it into). The target score merely represents what the all-time average team would have got (with whatever variables of wickets and balls remaining). In that way it's fair for an above average team (who merely have to play to their standard to hit a low target) and a below average team (who have to play above their standard to even hit a "normal" target). -- Shannonr (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
In heavily truncated innings, D/L does replace the score that a team with a great depth of batsmen would probably have achieved with a more 'average' score based on performances by teams of all strengths (as it tends to 'average up' the likely final score of teams with just a few good batsmen when the innings ends very early). (A truncated innings also means that a strong bowling team did not get the chance to show its depth of bowling.) Has anyone done an analysis of % wins between teams when D/L is used against % wins when matches run their course? It might be a measure of how much D/L makes the performances of teams more 'average' (downwards and upwards). Are the averages different for test sides playing ODI and county sides? Arguably the figures used at each level of the game should be taken from matches at the same level of the game so that the D/L averages are as close as possible to the averages of the teams playing. The method is likely to be more unfair where the difference between the strength of the teams and/or the 'source' of the averages is greatest. In the end there is no perfect system that can replace a match played to the full number of overs, it is about balancing historic results (at whatever level of specificity) with what happened (as far as it happened) on the day - as well as taking into account ease of use of the system. There are lots of minor unfairnesses in sport, weather, injury, luck. The best teams show themselves as such over a period of time, when minor unfairnesses iron themselves out. Jagdfeld (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course any system that tried to factor in strength of remaining unused batsmen/bowlers would be just as prone to abuse - firstly what do you do about débutantes, and if a team sees rain as likely do they pick that batsman who luckily got a century on his one and only previous ODI and bat him at 11, so if rain comes in it would count them as having the best batsman in the world (average over 100!) waiting to smack out some runs. An attempt to make a system to figure in this sort of thing will be much worse than any formulation like D-L. There are probably improvements that can be made to D-L (like getting an idea of the difference in run rate/wickets falling in power plays and factoring that in), but it is correct to exclude anything that can't be measured like this. --Sfnhltb (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Theory: 11 September 2011 paragraph

I added a paragraph at the end of the theory section a couple of weeks ago, providing an illustration of the tie in action with the tied match between England and India on September 11 2011. I have been slightly irritated by some apparently 'competitive' editing of the final sentence of the paragraph, changing 'if it had ended one ball earlier, England would have won' to 'If it had ended one ball later, India would have won'. The latter wasn't actually correct in its original form (as it assumed England wouldn't have scored off that ball), so I reverted it. It was then edited again with a revised version having India winning (this time adding 'assuming England didn't score', so at least accurate). I would have no problem with these edits if I thought they were genuinely trying to improve the article, but the apparent motivation seems to be (I'm guessing) from an India fan trying to 'spin' the result into a more pro-India position? (As the "India would have won" version provided no extra insight whatever into the D/L method this paragraph was trying to provide). This seems a little lacking in the spirit of Wikipedia (from my relatively limited knowledge of it - I've contributed a few paragraphs here and there on various pages, plus a few hundred minor edits I guess). I've now added a final sentence which puts forward both versions, which will hopefully satisfy everyone! However, my original paragraph was in no way trying to put a 'pro-England' position, simply aiming to provide an interesting illustration of the D/L method. Although I do happen to be an England supporter, for what it's worth I thought India were unlucky not to get a win out of that match, and had the rain not forced close of play 7 balls early, my assessment is that India would very probably have won from that point on. But that's not really relevant to the point of this paragraph. I would like to think that the spirit of contributing to wikipedia is to offer a gift of information to future readers, not engage in spin battles between opposing sports fans? I just thought I'd mention this, as I found the apparently 'partisan' edits a bit depressing. DoctorMartin (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorMartin (talk • contribs) 22:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Big VJD Trim

Drastically trimmed the way-overlong VJD spiel, which was a) not NPOV, b) full of advertising language and unsupported claims and c) had no place here as this is the D/L article, and details about VJD surely belong on its own page? It's enough to say that VJD is a competing system and has been used (albeit in a very limited way). shannonr (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC) mnhhjmjmjjj

Perth Scorchers v. Melbourne Stars game

In the 12/12/12 game between Perth Scorchers and Melbourne Stars, Perth were all out for 69 in the first innings, and Melbourne got to 0 for 29 after two overs before a substantial rain delay shortened the match. Melbourne took to the ground after the delay to face only one ball before being awarded the win [2]. The article states "Most onlookers believed five overs had to be played to bring about a result, but the umpires ruled that as the Stars had already exceeded the necessary target needed at that point in the game (6), they were awarded the match."

So the statement in the Application section that "In Twenty20 games, each side must face at least five overs" does not appear to be technically correct, and I would also assume that the same applies to 50-over games. Is it more correct that in this case the second side would have to face at least five overs or alternatively exceed the five-over target? Even so, that doesn't explain why they had to face one more ball before being awarded the win. Chalky (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

According to this link [3], the last ball didn't need to be bowled, more that they thought it would look weird if they walked onto the field, called play, then walked straight back off. Apparently they needed to start play again so that they could apply D/L, I believe they needed to take the field and call play with enough time for them to potentially bowl the required 3 remaining overs. ThePizzaKing (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Entry heading

I'm a big cricket fan and I've almost exclusively seen this term written Duckworth/Lewis, not Duckworth-Lewis. The abbreviation is D/L not D-L, and if the hyphen were to be used surely it should be the middle hyphen –, not the Unicode -. I propose the title be changed accordingly (there is already a redirect from Duckworth/Lewis method), with this entry being redirected to it. Kris 20:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.168.18.255 (talk • contribs) .
Disagree. The ICC, Cricinfo, and Wisden use both Duckworth/Lewis and Duckworth-Lewis. Major media also seems to use both interchangeably. As "slashes" are sometimes problematic, I feel that the redirect here from Duckworth/Lewis should suffice. Shannonr 13:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree. I believe the problem is solved with the redirect. Oline73 (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Article organisation

I've just had a read through the article and it seems to be 'out of order'. Rather then simply editing the page I thought I'd suggest an alternative structure in case it needs discussion. I'm not suggesting changes under 'Application' so haven't included that in this section.

Currently, we have this: 

   1 Examples
       1.1 Stoppage in first innings
       1.2 Stoppage in second innings
   2 Examples in T20
   3 Theory
   4 Application

I'd like to propose something more along these lines: 

   1 Theory
   2 Examples
       2.1 Stoppage in first innings (ODI)
       2.2 Stoppage in second innings (ODI)
       2.3 Stoppage in second innings (T20)
   3 Application

Any other thoughts or suggestions for the reshuffle? kgoetz (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That looks like a good suggestion to me. Mmitchell10 (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Cricket

Isn't it amazing that the word "Cricket" hardly appears anywhere in this article. I've just edited it so that it appears now in the lead. The article seems to assume that anyone reading it will know straight away what the game is, or even that something to do with a game is being discussed. It's only when you get further down the article that cricket is mentioned (until now).  Jodosma  (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Article doesn't actually cover D/L

While the article has a lot of information *around* DL it doesn't seem to cover the specifics of how the system works. It includes a 'Combined resources' graph and table of 'Total resources remaining' yet fails to explain how these are applied to give the examples included in the article. Anyone else feel the Theory section should have more detail wrt the actual article? kgoetz (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I've been pulling some examples together of actual DL calculations for the last few months, on and off. I think examples should come from when the Standard Edition (SE) was in use rather than the Professional Edition (PE), as the resource percentages are pulled out of nowhere (by a computer) for the PE, and I'm not sure we would be able to find out what they were. Whereas for SE the resource percents come from the published table and can easily be looked up. However, the SE was only used for a few years before the PE was adopted for all internationals, so finding good well-documented SE examples is quite hard - it seems that only the internationals from that period have clear notes available regarding when the stoppages for rain etc were. I'm also struggling to find out what the value of "G50" was (the average 50-over total - used in the DL calculation when 1st innings was interrupted). Mmitchell10 (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Premature curtailment of Team 2's innings

A one-day match has been shortened to 14 overs per side before it commenced. Team 1 have scored 101 runs from their 14 available overs and Team 2 lose 9 wickets in scoring 77 runs in 12.3 overs. Play is then stopped by the weather, the rain refuses to relent and the match is abandoned. A decision on the winner is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.149.73.97 (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Abominable notation

The mathematical notation in this article was truly abominable. In particular, I found this:

  • If R2<R1, reduce Team 2's target score in proportion to the reduction in total resources, ie. S x R2/R1.

I changed it to this:

  • If R2 < R1, reduce Team 2's target score in proportion to the reduction in total resources, ie. S × R2/R1.

Note:

  • Variables are italicized; digits are not;
  • Proper spacing is used;
  • Proper subscripts are used;
  • "x" differs from "×".

This is codified in WP:MOSMATH. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC) . . . and a minus sign is not a stubby little hyphen:

wrong: A - B
right: A – B

Michael Hardy (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


I'm reverting these edits, because:

  • "R1", "R2" and "G50" aren't just random symbols, but are the official notation used in the ICC's playing handbook: http://www.icc-cricket.com/about/113/publications/playing-handbook Readers who know something of the formulas will be familiar with "G50", for example, and seeing it as G50 can only be confusing. I will add a comment to say this.
  • These changes haven't been made consistently throughout the article, so now there is a mixture of notation − above all things the notation in the article should be consistent.
  • The page WP:MOSMATH is for articles on mathematics, and this is not an article about mathematics.

Also, a little less language along the lines of 'cave men' and 'abominable' would be appreciated. Thank you. Mmitchell10 (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have now re-done my edits in a way that respect this reported convention of writing R1 rather than R1. But it is simply an error to write R1>R2 rather than R1 > R2, or R1+R2 instead of R1 + R2, to to write R1 x R2 instead of R1 × R2. These are standard conventions. The fact that an article is not on English literature is not a reason not to regard a misspelling of "dramaturgy" as an error. Michael Hardy (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
PS: Regardless of whether I use that kind of language, it's going to look to a lot of users like the gruntings of someone who can't spell if it says things like 5-3 instead of 5 − 3. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, that's great, I agree proper spacing, times signs, etc. is an improvement, thank you for the edit. Mmitchell10 (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

G50 example?

If anyone can find and include an example of a D/L calculation which includes G50 within it, I think it would help readers understand this part of the method. - 97rob (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added one I've had ready for a while. It's a bit complicated, so I was looking for an easier example to add in first, but can't find one at the moment. Mmitchell10 (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
It is a little complicated, but it's definitely more helpful than nothing! Thank you - 97rob (talk) 17:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duckworth–Lewis method. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

In-game strategy

Would it be appropriate to add a new section describing the best 'in-game' strategy for a game affected by D/L? Mmitchell10 (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Duckworth–Lewis method. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 September 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


Duckworth–Lewis method → Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method – This has been the official name since the 2014 edition and is used by the ICC and Cricinfo, and it seems that many media outlets have caught up with the new name (although most use the abbreviated "DLS"). Some examples from today:

I'm neutral on whether this should be moved and only listing it to get further opinions on whether we should move the article; it may be that familiarity means that DL is still the common name (at least for the time being). 86.130.177.238 (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment ESPN Cricinfo is not consistent: it still records the result as England won by 6 runs (D/L method)Spike 'em (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
As do Sky and Indian Express in links above. All three use "DLS" in the headline / body of article but "D/L method" in the result details, which makes me think they are all taking that from the same source. Spike 'em (talk) 08:29, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose I've been considering creating a move discussion about this for a while now. But both D/L and DLS seem to be used interchangeably, and for most of its lifetime, this has been called D/L. DLS is in my opinion too much of a recentism, and right now I don't believe that it's clearly the common name. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. D/L seems to be the term that is used more frequently. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the present per WP:COMMONNAME. I think this may need to be changed at a future date as usage of DLS grows and becomes consistent but not yet. Jack | talk page 11:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Section 3 (Examples)

Is Section 3 necessary? Does it add anything?? Most of the 'explanation' wording is repeated elsewhere, and there are examples of actual calculations lower down − I think the section is probably a hangover from before we had the calculation examples. Mmitchell10 (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Duckworth–Lewis–Stern_method/Archive_1&oldid=1136681040"