News24

Collingwood slams D/L method

2010-05-04 09:01

Guyana  - Frustrated England captain Paul Collingwood demanded change to the way rain-affected games are decided after his team lost to West Indies in their shortened Twenty20 World Cup game on Monday.

WIN the official Proteas playing shirt

England batted superbly for a score of 191 for five from their 20 overs but a rain delay meant West Indies won by scoring just 60 for two from 5.5 overs.

"It is very, very frustrating," Collingwood said. "Ninety-five percent of the time you are going to win with a score of 191 but the Duckworth-Lewis method somehow changed that," he said.

The Duckworth-Lewis method is the established calculation system for reducing a target total in a game affected by rain delays in one-day games.

In the Twenty20 version of the game a match can have a result after as few as five overs in an innings and the shorter spans can shift the balance heavily in favour of the team batting second.

Collingwood said Monday's game, where England lost despite scoring more than three times as many runs as their opponents, showed the system did not work in the shortest format.

"There is a major problem with Duckworth-Lewis for this form of the game," he said. "I've got no problem with it in one-day games but for Twenty20 the system has got to be changed.

"We played a near perfect game and lost."

West Indies captain Chris Gayle said he agreed with Collingwood that a review was needed.

"It was unfortunate for England to lose in this manner. I think it is something to look into.

"I support what Collingwood said -- I could have been in that situation too. It is something we need to address so it can be even-stevens for both teams," he added.

The day's other game was also decided after a rain-delay calculation. Sri Lanka batted first and made 173 for seven while Zimbabwe made 29 for one from five overs before the rain came down.

Had Zimbabwe managed just 15 more runs in those opening overs they would have beaten Sri Lanka and eliminated them from the tournament.

Gayle said the prospect of a recalculation had led him to start the innings in an ultra-aggressive manner.

"We knew that the weather was going to play a part and that first five could play a part so we decided to go hard," he said.

England can still make it to the Super Eight stage of the competition if they beat Ireland on Tuesday and Collingwood said he just wanted a full game.

"I pray for 20 overs v 20 overs and hopefully if we get that we can win," he said.

Reuters

Comments
  • The Oracle - 2010-05-04 09:22

    Thats strange, no1 was complaning when this happened to S.A back in 1992 and again 2003 world cup. Deal with it.

  • Poor Colly - 2010-05-04 09:23

    Funny how england did not mind about the d/l in 1992 wc semi's.

  • WC1992 - 2010-05-04 09:26

    yeah it should have been 21 off 1 ball

  • Jason - 2010-05-04 09:29

    Shoes on the other foot now pommies!! SA were screwed in a world cup because of the rain...at least your game was in the openeing rounds and you still have an opportunity to qualify...SA did not have that luxury. So suck it up and beat Ireland (if you can)

  • HJH - 2010-05-04 09:35

    And if they won against SA in this way, he would not have had any problems. There have been too many instances where England have been absolute ass-holes to other teams for me to feel any sympathy for them.

  • Jason - 2010-05-04 09:35

    Shoes on the other foot now pommies!! SA were screwed in a world cup because of the rain...at least your game was in the openeing rounds and you still have an opportunity to qualify...SA did not have that luxury. So suck it up and beat Ireland (if you can)

  • Emile - 2010-05-04 09:37

    No country has ever fallen pray to the D/L method more than South Africa. We took it on the chin every time like real men. Why are these guys complaining now? If its your turn, its your turn. Enjoy it !!! Must admit though, the D/L method is totally brainless and a typical example of what happens when "academics" start tampering with sport. The D/L method almost always seriously affects one team.

  • History@WC1992 - 2010-05-04 09:39

    Get a clue about cricket! D/L only came in after the '92 world cup, probably because of it!

  • Martin - 2010-05-04 09:41

    Absolutely shocking outcome... brilliant batting by England, and then ... sorry no cigar!

  • I actually read the article - 2010-05-04 09:41

    If you idiots actually read the article, you would see that Colly says he has no problem with it for the one day game, just the twenty20. Maybe read the artcile more thoroughly next time before writing comments.

  • Alex - 2010-05-04 09:42

    The D/L method was introduced AFTER the 1992 CWC, precisely because the previous method which determined the outcome of England vs SA in the semis was not appropriate!

  • Jan - 2010-05-04 09:43

    Agree with the comments about stop whining. I do however believe there is a fundamental error built into the DL system and it needs a total re-look / re-think.

  • Emile - 2010-05-04 09:43

    Must say, I'm getting really sick and tired of T20 cricket - it just never stops. From one competition to the next. Personally, I think the way T20 is taking over cricket could have a serious impact on the sport in a couple of year's time. If I'm already sick and tired of watching T20 every f@#kin day of the year, do you think I'm still going to watch 50 overs or test match cricket? In a couple of yours everyone will be sick and tired of constant T20 cricket and what then? T20 remains fun and has very, very little to do with actual skill.

  • Ronnie - 2010-05-04 09:45

    CRY BABY!!!! CRY BABY!!!!!!

  • Etienne - 2010-05-04 09:47

    England lose , Englnad moan, England lose, England moan

  • Mark - 2010-05-04 09:47

    DL method was not used in 1992, it was an older system used in that game... but hey... lets not talk about fair, then when it happens to SA, talk about it then. In my opinion there isnt a way of fairly deciding an interrupted game, its that simple!

  • Viljoen - 2010-05-04 09:49

    I agree with Collingwood, the West Indies got lucky and as cricket has changed for T20 the DL should be changed.

  • michael - 2010-05-04 09:50

    @WC1992; Poor Colly & Oracle. Can't you guys read. Both (Collingwood and Gayle) are questioning the DL system in the T20 version NOT the 50 over version!!

  • Grumpy - 2010-05-04 09:51

    Same old England, always whinging

  • G - 2010-05-04 09:59

    Welocome to our world mofo's. They also still a bit pi$$ed about their last tour here as they also got D/L against them. Saw loosers...

  • Rob - 2010-05-04 10:03

    Well said. The Oracle, Poor Colly and WC 1992. Short or selective memories the English squealers

  • Hammerhead - 2010-05-04 10:03

    @PoorColly - in 1992 we did not play 20/20. Collingwood said that the D/L does not work in 20/20 games, and he is quite right. 20/20 games are a bit of a lottery anyway, and D/L results in 20/20 are just a farce.

  • cricfan - 2010-05-04 10:07

    @Poor Colly Sorry dude but it was not the duckworth lewis then, that only came in in 1999, I think. Sharp

  • GeePMB - 2010-05-04 10:09

    The Duckwit and Clueless system was deemed the best thing since sliced bread when it was originally thrust upon the unsuspecting cricketing world. Two mathemeticians (probably using some calculous theory) decided that maths would be the best way to get a result at a cricekt match. Well we all know that it is bollocks. Best way if it rains, match drawn and points shared.

  • Haha! - 2010-05-04 10:11

    What goes around comes around! "South Africa to win need 21 runs of 1 ball"

  • Toffie - 2010-05-04 10:12

    The English are such a bunch of cry babies, always have always will be. Suck it up and move on.Next time it will be changed and then they will be on the receiving end and cry again.

  • Kevin - 2010-05-04 10:16

    Typical whinging pommy's! Bad losers! They would have been cock-a-hoop if they had won the match like this. I hope Ireland beat them today!

  • James - 2010-05-04 10:16

    I am not a supporter of England but he does have a point. He is talking about 20/20 here and not the 50 over game. That '92 WC game was played before the D/L system came into effect. 20 off 1 was farcical and it has changed since then. We could also find ourselves in Englands position, so he has a point, even the opposition agreed.

  • BC - 2010-05-04 10:16

    Agreed, nothing as short as an English sportsman's memory! In 1992 they thought the DL method was great!

  • Morne - 2010-05-04 10:18

    HAHA, nice to be on the receiving end for a change hey, Mr Collingwood! Bunch of complaining pansies!

  • Danny - 2010-05-04 10:19

    The D/L was not in effect in 1992 and was instituted because of that specific game, But I do agree with, WC1992 Poor Colly and the oracle. In the game in 1992 it was going to be 21 of 1 over but because the Aussie news had to happen in less than 3 minutes they suddenly changed it to 21 in one ball, should have been 4 in one ball.

  • ouklip - 2010-05-04 10:19

    @ WC1992, Poor Colly & The Oracle - You guys said it all. almost. The truth D&L is more fair than the previous method. In 1992 it was not the D&L as that started only in 1996/7. But, losing because of weather will always be a wet affair..

  • ouklip - 2010-05-04 10:19

    @ WC1992, Poor Colly & The Oracle - You guys said it all. almost. The truth D&L is more fair than the previous method. In 1992 it was not the D&L as that started only in 1996/7. But, losing because of weather will always be a wet affair..

  • Gary - 2010-05-04 10:20

    Pommie knobbers!! Love it when they get beaten - almost as good as when a Kiwi S14 or the All Blacks get beaten!! :-)

  • billyg123za - 2010-05-04 10:21

    Typical, I wonder what he would say if the shoe was on the other foot. Bad losers, the worst. I can't wait to see who will get blamed once England get kicked out of the soccer WC, which they will

  • Kevin Cadman - 2010-05-04 10:21

    Read what he said - he has no problem with it in the ODI format... the fact of the matter is that the system is most certainly flawed and definitely favours the team batting second. The only way this would be rectified is if the number of wickets remaining were changed too. It is unfair that the bowling team's "opportunity" to bowl out the batsmen is hugely shortened, but the batsmen's wickets aren't shortened at all. This means that caution can be thrown to the wind and the favour is definitely with them. It's a stupid, stupid system - especially in 20 overs. How often has a team got off to a blistering start only to capitulate to a 5 RPO total? I agree with Collingwood and it's good that Gayle agreed too. What is so wrong with just playing out the overs when the rain stops? Is it really that much of a logistical nightmare? Everyone is already at the ground, just carry on playing out the full 20 overs of share the points. Simple.

  • Craig - 2010-05-04 10:22

    They did not complain when they beat RSA in the early 90's because of the DL system - they are just poor loosers.

  • arnold - 2010-05-04 10:24

    Die wiel draai julle bliksems

  • rbgguy @ england - 2010-05-04 10:24

    mwahahaha

  • Reinardt Bronkhorst - 2010-05-04 10:26

    Yeah the rain calculation has ALWAYS been rediculous to say the least. Whoever came up with this nonsense really needs to just get a real job. Should be very simple. What was the required run rate? Score that in the allotted overs and you win.

  • Siyolo - 2010-05-04 10:29

    haha, the poms are crying cos the losed.well done to my brothers from west indies.

  • Rob - 2010-05-04 10:29

    Collingwood you loser dry your eyes. You love it when it works in your favour don't you? Nobody gives a s**t that England lost. We've been shafted by the D/L method often. Typical pom to whine.

  • D/L works - 2010-05-04 10:29

    I love it when England lose. Small payback for 1992. D/L wasn't used back in 1992, In fact 1992 was one of the reasons a new method was derived.

  • Thomas - 2010-05-04 10:30

    I agree, D/L sucks! It's unfair most of the time, and Proteas has suffered under it as well many a time. I'd say it should be dropped and something else should be worked out - either a draw, rematch, or continuation of game the next available rain-free day.

  • Nick - 2010-05-04 10:30

    Funny that most of the poms scribes called SA whingers when we complained about it.

  • Michael - 2010-05-04 10:32

    I dont think DL existed in 1992. I think in such a short format - provision should be made to ensure a full game.

  • Pierre - 2010-05-04 10:33

    At least it was not a semi final like in the 92 WC. Deal with it you big baby!!

  • D/L works - 2010-05-04 10:33

    I love it when England lose. Small payback for 1992. D/L wasn't used back in 1992, In fact 1992 was one of the reasons a new method was derived.

  • DL - 2010-05-04 10:35

    The Duckworth-Lewis method method did not exist in the 1992 WC, it was only adopted by the ICC in 2001.

  • Moersteen - 2010-05-04 10:35

    Dudes, D/L did not exist in 1992. It was created due to the horrid rain games results in that tournament. Only thing they should change is to make the limit 10 overs, not 5.

Report Comment