Duckworth Lewis explained!

Rex Clementine at Pallekele

While spending time in New York during this year’s World Cup, this writer struck up an unlikely friendship with an American named Ryan. Naturally, as it happens when two worlds collide, he wanted cricket explained. So, gave him the simplest version that one could: “If the team that bats first scores 100 runs, the team batting second just needs to score one run more. Simple, right?”

Or so we thought. After the first ODI between Sri Lanka and West Indies, there was a text message from Ryan, calling yours truly a liar. Couldn’t help but laugh. West Indies had batted first and managed 185 for four in 38.3 overs, but Sri Lanka were given a revised target of 232 in 37 overs. “How in the world does that make sense?” Ryan demanded. He wasn’t alone – even die-hard fans in the stands were scratching their heads.

Enter the Duckworth-Lewis Method, a cricketing enigma wrapped in a riddle and dipped in algebra. Trying to explain Duckworth-Lewis to a novice is like trying to explain physics over a cup of tea.

Duckworth Lewis is like Donald Trump at a press conference: random, unpredictable, and by the end of it, you are more confused than when you started.

If that doesn’t resonate, perhaps it’s like Kanchana Wijesekara’s electricity tariff hikes—sudden, steep, and without an ounce of conscience for the common man. Fair play seems about as rare in Duckworth-Lewis as it does in Kanchana’s policies. And just like the long-suffering people of Matara are planning to teach him a lesson in the next election, cricket fans may wish someone would put the DLS method through a similar electoral test. A system that leaves everyone scratching their heads doesn’t belong in the game. Fair play, after all, should extend to the fans’ understanding as well.

The key principle behind Duckworth-Lewis is that if the team batting first hasn’t lost many wickets, the chasing team is handed a bigger target. If the first team has lost several wickets, then the target shrinks accordingly.

Before Duckworth-Lewis, rain-affected games were decided by methods even more ridiculous—like the ‘most productive over’ rule. It was so disastrous that cricket authorities had to scramble for a mathematical solution after the farcical 1992 World Cup semi-final between England and South Africa. In that infamous match, South Africa needed 22 runs from 13 balls when rain briefly interrupted play. When the covers came off and play resumed, South Africa needed 21 runs—from one ball.

Duckworth-Lewis is, admittedly, fairer than those methods. The problem is that nobody can explain it without reaching for a calculator. It’s now called the DLS method, after another statistician, Professor Steven Stern, joined to help fine-tune it. But for all its adjustments, it remains a mystery as baffling as cricket itself.