Rain hampers title chase and raises system issues

10:31am Friday 11th July 2008

Comments (0)   Have your say »

WITH league fixtures on both Saturday and Sunday, and with several of the top teams meeting each other, last weekend promised much. And there were some close matches and potentially important results.

Walshaw edged out Little Hulton by the narrowest of margins in Saturday’s match of the day between second and third.

Daisy Hill, meanwhile, made up for their defeat to Darcy Lever by beating Edgworth in a last-ball thriller in Sunday’s only completed match.

Edgworth, despite this defeat, gained the most points over the weekend with 18, but by far the dominant force over both days was the weather, with almost all games at best shortened, and, at worst, cancelled.

With heavy showers continually interrupting play, many teams batting second were chasing revised targets. It is easy to forget how recently (only three years ago) the Bolton Association introduced the concept of deciding matches by run rate, and revising targets during rain-affected games, and few would argue that this has been a step in the right direction.

The Association was one of the first local leagues to introduce this system, and many other leagues have followed suit over the past couple of seasons.

There have been surprisingly few complaints about the formula used to calculate these revised targets.

Most people I have spoken to suspect that the formula slightly favours the team batting second, but I am constantly surprised at how often the result is actually the other way round.

One big advantage for the team bowling second in a reduced over game is that their best bowlers are often able to bowl unchanged without becoming too fatigued.

Twelve good overs by a top bowling professional, Walshaw’s Jon Fielding for example, in a 24-over game can often be the difference. Overall, though, the system is pretty good when it comes to calculating revised targets.

Where the formula does fall down, however, is when rain ends a match prematurely. Under the current rules, if the team batting second has batted for 24 overs there has to be a result.

Take the match between Daisy Hill and Edgworth on Sunday. Daisy Hill scored 168 in their 44 overs, and Edgworth’s target was amended to 110 in 24 overs.

This sounds reasonable enough, until you examine what may have happened if Edgworth had batted for 24 overs before the rain came and finished the match. Here, if they were 108-0, they would have lost. Likewise, had they scored 112-9, they would have won.

Neither scenario would remotely reflect the true situation of the game at the time. At 108-0 with 20 overs remaining, a team chasing 168 would usually win, at 112-9, they would almost always lose. All first-class one-day cricket now uses the Duckworth Lewis formula to calculate results and targets during rain-interrupted encounters.

This takes into account wickets lost as well as runs scored when calculating the revised target or result.

However, while the formula used in the Bolton Association can be worked out on the back of an envelope, Duckworth Lewis is a complex formula that requires access to a computer and software.

It would certainly be costly for the league, or for the clubs, to purchase this technology, but I am sure it would be a more than worthwhile investment in the long term, ensuring the fairest possible outcome in rain-affected matches.