ARE THE I.C.C.-FINDINGS AND
CORRECT?
DECISION
V. Jayadevan
(The one who developed the VJD system)
In the ICC press release, two reasons were pointed out to decide to
continue with D/L system.
There are no evidences of significant flaws in D/L system
No improvements could be offered by the use of VJD method
The committee also expressed satisfaction over the thoroughness
and independence of the report submitted by the reviewer.
There are clear evidences of significant flaws in D/L results.
Somehow the creators have developed an impression in the whole cricket
community that it is a highly robust system, both mathematically and
statistically
The general inherent fear of people for mathematics discourages them from
questioning D/L system beyond a limit
But the truth is that it is just a mediocre system with several
shortcomings.
An example indicating serious statistical flaw in statistical analysis.
Situation
50 over projected
D/L target for
score of team-1,
team-2
D/L
for team-2
50 over
projected score
of team-1, VJD
VJD-target
Team-1, 50/0 when match
interrupted after 20 overs.
Team-2 get 20 overs
140
231
113
191
Team-1, 50/1 when match
interrupted after 20 overs.
Team-2 get 20 overs
115
188
108
181
Team-1, 50/2 when match
interrupted after 20 overs.
Team-2 get 20 overs
95
156
103
172
D/L target for
VJD-target for
team-2
team-2
Team-1 100/0 when match interrupted after 20 overs.
Team-2 get 20 overs
179
170
Team-1 100/1 when match interrupted after 20 overs.
Team-2 get 20 overs
172
164
Team-1 100/2 when match interrupted after 20 overs.
Team-2 get 20 overs
163
158
Situation
Difference in targets of team-2 for team-1’s score of 100
and team-1’s score of 50 for loss of wickets 0,1 and 2
D/L
VJD
For zero loss of wickets
T(100/0)-T(50/0)
39 (179-140)
57 (170-113)
For the loss of 1 wicket
T(100/1)-T(50/1)
57 (172-115)
56 (164-108)
For the loss of 2 wickets
T(100/2)-T(50/2)
68 (163-95)
55 (158-103)
D/L target for 50/0 in 25 overs is 118 which looks OK, the projected score
is 167 which also looks reasonable. But see the difference between 231
and 167; 64 runs just for a change of 5 overs.
Again, for 100/0 in 25, the D/L target is 193 (looks very high). The
difference in targets between 50/0 and 100/0 in 20 overs is just 39 runs.
But the difference between 50/0 and 100/0 in 25 overs, is 75 runs.
Very serious errors in par scores in case of T20 matches.
Situation: Comparison of par-scores corresponding to 5 overs (you can have a result at the
completion of 5 overs) in high scoring T20 matches.
Team-1’s Score
D/L Par scores at five overs corresponding to wickets 0-9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
200
46
49
53
59
67
78
95
119
150
181
220
52
55
58
63
70
81
97
121
156
195
240
58
60
63
67
72
81
96
119
157
206
260
64
65
67
70
74
82
94
115
154
212
280
70
70
71
73
77
82
92
111
147
213
Par score table for a T20 match where Team-1 make 250 runs
Overs
completed
Wickets down
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
5
61
63
65
68
73
82
95
118
156
210
8
98
99
101
103
106
112
121
136
165
210
10
123
124
125
126
129
133
139
151
172
211
12
148
149
149
150
152
154
159
166
182
212
15
186
186
187
187
188
189
190
194
201
218
113/5 in 8 overs is a winning score. In 15 overs, 202/8 is a winning score. Par-score
for 5 overs and 6 wickets is 95. Same is the par-score for a score of 200 (instead of
250). After 12 overs 148/0, 159/6 and 166/7 are equivalent scores!
Is not there any clear advantage by using VJD system?
Here are some solid examples from real match situations
Sl.no
1
2
3
4
5
Situation
England 176/5 after 36, 5 overs when match rescheduled to
46. Then after 37,5 overs when England were 181/5 again
rescheduled to 40 overs. England make 193/6 in 40. Target for NZ
in 40.
SA 226/3 in 42. Four overs lost 250 in 46, Target for India in 46
overs
India 226/8 in 47, 1 overs. Target for Pakistan in 33.
New Zealand 212/5 in 44, 2 overs, Target for W.I. in 33 overs.
Australia 96/1 in 19 when the interruption occurred. Rescheduled
to 29. Australia makes 183 in 29. Target for South Africa in 29
(debut of Wincoda 3.0)
D/L
VJD
226
212
271
260
202
211
187
201
223
209
D/L results were very severely criticized in cases #1,#2 and# 4. It was another
system which was in use while #3 was played. In #5, D/L just escaped
because, SA did not put any fight back. When Australia got most of the power
play overs and the final 10 overs, it makes no sense to give such a huge
increase in target.
There are very serious statistical and mathematical flaws in
D/L system
There are clear and definite advantages by switching over
to VJD system
The report of the reviewer is a shallow and prejudiced one
and he was misleading the committee to protect his special
interests.