The working of D/L Method.

So there was a lot of confusion going around on why was Australia a winning team even after India had scored 11 runs more than them.

The answer to this confusion is simple, it’s because of the D/L method or the Duckworth Lewis and Stern method.

This article will clear your doubt on what exactly is D/L and how it is calculated.

History: Average run rate method was the most popular method to determine the winner in the rain affected matches.

This method had it’s own flaws, it did not account of number of wickets fallen, it was solely calculated on how quickly the runs were scored.

Another popular method used was most productive overs method. This method also took no account of wickets lost by the team batting second, and effectively penalised the team batting second for good bowling by ignoring their best overs in setting the revised target.

The D/L method was formulated by two British statisticians Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis.

The semi final game of the 1992 WC between South Africa and England where the productive overs method was used, South Africa were firmly on top needing 22 to win in 13 deliveries. But due to rain South Africa lose the over where England scored the least amount of runs, which was a maiden so now the target is revised to 22 off 7. By the time players enter the field they lose another over and now South Africa need 22 runs off 1 ball! England eventually win the game by 19 runs.

It was after this game the need of a fairer method came into being.

The D/L method was first used in International cricket in 1-1-1997, Zimbabwe vs England.

DL method: This is a mathematical concept used in a rain affected limited overs match to determine the number of runs the team batting second would have to score. It is the most fair and accurate method to calculate the second innings

Working of D/L method: The essence of this method is the resources. Resources include two factors that is

1- the number of overs

2- wickets in hand.

Example: Australia 300/7 in 50 overs.

India 170/5 in 30overs

Now according to the D/L table

India has 40% of resources available with it.

Using a simple formula

(Resources- resources available)

100 – 40 = 60

India’s target would be 60 percent of Australia’s total.

That is 60% off 300

Which equals to 180.

Par score is 180, India’s total is 170.

Result: Australia win by 10 runs (D/L method).

The first innings total can be revised under this method as well.

Example: India vs Australia 2018 1st T-20.

The game was interrupted once when Australia were batting at 153-3 in 16.1 overs. Later on when the game continued Australia scored 158-4 in 17 overs (revised overs). Had Australia knew earlier that the game was going to be of 17 overs they would have batted accordingly and this is when the D/L method comes into picture, India’s target was set to 173 and not 159.

Criticism: Critics argue that the wickets are given more importance than the overs, Many experts also say that this method is not apt to T-20s.

Even though these criticisms are present, D/L method is by far the best method to determine the winner, fair and square!



3 Comments Add yours

  1. psoans says:

    I think the VJD method is superior to the DLS method. The time has come when DLS has to be reviewed. Most sides especially in T20 can bat way down to 8. This makes the resources available nearly mute.


    1. cricdiss says:

      what you’re saying is correct. D/L does receive a lot of criticisms in 20/20. D/L method assumes that the scoring rate will keep on increasing at a certain rate which depends on your resources. Gives a lot of importance to the number of wickets even in 20/20!
      It also doesn’t take into consideration about the bowlers who lost the overs. For example, Bumrah couldn’t bowl his quota of 4 overs who is India’s best bowler!
      The VJD is said to be more apt in such circumstances.
      The VJD method was taken to the ICC but honestly I don’t know what happened after that. It was used in some league in Tamil Nadu as far as I know.

      -Amey Deshmukh


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s