The D/L system, as transparent as mud

Australian captain Steve Waugh approves of Duckworth and Lewis, two South Africans who devised a method for adjusting team scores whenever rain interrupts a World Cup game.

But he admits he hasn8217;t got a clue how the infernally complicated scoring system works. 8220;We have a chart on the dressing room wall to help,8221; he says. 8220;It seems to be fair.8221;

It could only happen in cricket. Imagine the scenario: Australia and South Africa play out the World Cup final at Lord8217;s on June 20, a spot of rain comes down and nobody has a clue what the score is, or who is winning, until a computer lets us know.

With rain causing havoc in World Cup practise matches before the start of the tournament on Friday, Duckworth and Lewis couldplay as prominent a part in the tournament as Shane Warne and Sachin Tendulkar.

The game, of course, has been struggling for years to find a fair way of re-adjusting scores in rain-shortened ties.

The original system favoured teams batting second. Teams going first would be on point of accelerating their scoring after a cautious start when their innings would be ended prematurely by a downpour, giving their rivals an easy total to overhaul.

In 1992, in the search for justice, the World Cup tried a new system. If side A8217; scored 250 off 50 overs but there was only time for side B8217; to bat for 30 overs, the winning target was found by compiling side A8217;s 30 best scoring overs.

It proved a disaster.

South Africa, for instance, playing against England in the semi-final at Sydney, needed 22 runs off 16 balls when it began raining. As the teams prepared to take the field again, the target had been revised to 22 off seven.

Several minutes more were lost before the batsmen reached the crease and a newvictory target was announced 8212; 22 off a single delivery.

Enter budding rocket scientists D/L. Their system seems to take everything into account via a devilish mathematical formula. The outcome?

Normally a few runs added to the first innings total, which must be achieved in a few less overs.

Crucially, it8217;s fair. Disappointing, it8217;s as transparent as mud. But justice must have a price.

As Martin Johnson wrote in today8217;s Daily Telegraph: 8220;The D/L requires a computer programme comparable with the one which beat Kasparov at chess.8221;

8220;If the scientists really want to guard against every computer on the planet blowing up on January 1, it8217;s not the millennium bug they should be working on, but the Duckworth/Lewis.8221;