How is this possible.
I wont try to decrypt the merits of the Duckworth-Lewis system but in cases like this it’s a bit of a farce.
The gist of the whole system is about the ‘resources’ available to the team batting second. Which basically are the overs the team faces and the number of wickets in hand.
After an initial target is set when the chase begins, as the team starts to loose wickets and start running out of overs, the target is adjusted based on variables that no living human except Duckworth and Lewis understands.
What gets my goat is that after the first team has batted and the second team is set a target, there comes a point when the total needed is greater than the first teams score.
Of course the argument is that India were batting with a mindset of playing 50 overs. Had they known in advance it was going to be a 22 over slog fest they may have gone after the bowling more.
In the end these are all speculations. Cricket is a simple game which has been over complicated by too many rules and by laws.
The opposition having to score more than the other team to win a game is defeats all logic. Its not Englands fault that it rained and the game was curtailed.
How can anyone understand cricket when you have games like this. A team scores an x amount of runs and the other team scores more than the x amount of runs but still looses.
God help the yanks trying to figure that one out.
Overall I like the Duckworth-Lewis system, I think its fair way of gauging the targets.
But I also think there has to be threshold when calculating the runs needed, it should not exceed the total of the opposition. Whenever the total is readjusted it should never be greater than the initial total of the team that batted first otherwise it just ends up in a comical farce.
Maybe this is one non-variable that can be added into the whole equation.
Duckworth Lewis is not perfect and we should all challenge the system when things like this happen, in the least so that the yanks understand us.