The Very Special People


Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Duckworth/Lewis method explained

Well believe it or not this method is something been cricket's hidden mystery for long and never ending puzzle for both the cricket followers as well as cricketers themselves. So, i found some source on how it works in brief.Have a look at this strange yet so popular way fo getting results in the Rain-cut/delayed ODI's.

The Duckworth-Lewis method, which is used for revising targets in abridged ODIs, is an intricate solution — certainly the best at the moment — to a complex problem. The Hindu attempts to throw light on it by answering some of the key questions:

What principle does the method work on?

The D/L method works on the basis that teams have two resources to make runs with: the number of overs to be bowled and the number of wickets in hand. From any point in an innings, a team’s ability to make further runs depends on a combination of both resources.

When a match is shortened, the resources of one or both teams are affected. The D/L method sets targets based on the relative resources available to the teams.

Why does the team batting second sometimes have to score more runs than the team batting first in the same number of overs? Why for instance was England chasing 198 in the fourth ODI at Bangalore and not India’s 166?
Duckworth and Lewis, who have answered a series of frequently answered questions on the ICC’s website, say: “When the interruption occurs during the first innings, so that the match is shortened to one of fewer overs per side than it was at its start, Team 1 (side batting first) are usually more disadvantaged than Team 2 (side batting second). Before the stoppage they had been pacing their innings in the expectation of receiving say 50 overs and would not have taken the risks of scoring as fast as they would have done had they known their innings was to be shortened.

“Team 2, on the other hand, know from the start of their innings that they have the reduced number of overs and can pace their entire innings accordingly. Team 2 are set a higher target to compensate Team 1 for this disadvantage.”

Why does the team batting second sometimes have to score fewer runs than the side batting first in the same number of overs when the first innings is interrupted?

Duckworth and Lewis say that their method “makes appropriate allowance for the comparative resources lost by the stoppage” during first-innings interruptions. They explain with the following example: “Suppose Team 1 started well in the style of the renowned Sri Lankan 1996 World Cup winning team but the wheels fell off and they were 150/9 in 30 of the 50 overs. On average Team 1 would be all out shortly, leaving Team 2 to score at the rate of around 3 per over for their full 50 overs.

“If rain interrupted play at this point and 19 overs were lost per side, then on the resumption Team 1 would have only one over to survive and their run rate would then be close to 5 per over. By all the ‘old’ methods, for 31 overs also, Team 2 would have to score around 150, around 5 per over, to win — in other words Team 1 would have been greatly advantaged by the rain interruption changing a required scoring rate of 3 per over to 5 per over for Team 2.

“By the D/L method, this advantage to Team 1 would be neutralised so that the target for Team 2 would be well below 150 in this circumstance, and fairly so, which maintains the advantage Team 2 had earned before the stoppage.

“In other words, and quite logically, Team 2 have to get fewer runs than Team 1 scored to win in the same number of overs.”

Is a computer needed to determine targets in international matches?

The Standard Edition of the D/L method — in use before 2004 — needed no more than a calculator and a set of tables that listed the resources remaining. The calculations required to arrive at the target were performed by consulting the tables.

A criticism of the Standard Edition was its use of a quantity known as G50, the average score in a one-day match. Critics claimed that G50 would differ from ground to ground. The Professional Edition, which is used in international cricket these days, doesn’t have the G50. But it requires a computer program.

For more information on the D/L method, including worked examples of revising targets, visit To read Duckworth and Lewis’s FAQ, go to Reference from

--Vivek Nanda

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Is Performance No More A Criteria For Promotions??

This is one trend which i m noticing in the industry for sometime when i joined my very first job that is seeing people not getting promoted even after working so hard and performing very good.At initial part of my professional life i was wondering that perhaps there is more expected out of them to get to the most expected fruitful promotion or there is a stiff competition which has left them out this time and next time it will be there day of glory.But soon i have felt these decisions taking in alot of factors in the notion to device the most wanted path for promotion for an individual other than PERFORMANCE.I believe there are multiple parameters on which a person should be rated and then only with successful evaluation he or she can be promoted or given a hike but within these all parameters the "P" word, yes the "P" for "PERFORMANCE" should be the main word in the individual's evaluation sheet.Sadly, i have seen a bit too much around me here and there which is diminishing my confidence that the most wanted-- "Performance" is loosing its sheen.There are multiple reasons why we see this in industry some people must see them as justified but mostly will feel bullied with it.

No, i m not at all blaming to the good old classical reason of all this mishaps called "Politics" somehow this has become a very known factor and the mother of all reasons which causes the unavoidable surprises of injustice.But for the moment with the discussion over here i m just keeping it aside and would want to discuss other curses in the path of promotions.The most significant reason which the firm's are taking into account is to retain the employee, to cut down the attrition.I would clearly agree there is alot of attrition in the IT sector but companies should never ever try to retain all of its employee which also includes the non performing lot. The black cloud of attrition on the firms head should not hide the low performing employees and the firm should strickly not try to retain such people. Thats a good thing that company is not firing every now and then but at the same time firms need not be overcautious of giving good hikes or promotions to non-performing people.I seriously have felt that in a team if at all the managers are not awarding the promotions to the actual result oriented people of the team, the team starts dis-integrating. If at all the manager have moved away from the "PERFORMANCE" factor in delegating his budget for hikes than its the team in the first place who gets to know that its not the performing people who have got the hike.Once, such trend is induced in the team even the non-performing member of the team starts expecting it because he knows that its not just performance.Its a clear cut fact, a manager cannot promote or give good hikes to all his team members at once but this wrong feeling being inculcated has set every members sight on manager's only positive feedback.Its a human nature everybody knows about himself or herself that how much contributions they are making with the real work, even a lier knows that even though he might be saying that he did work but deep inside he knows there are other people who have done well and they deserve it.If he does not get good hike as compared to those people thats pretty much acceptable.

The old experience enriched folks in the team are the major pillars of the team since their experience lends great support to the team. But a manager should never make them the curse of their teams as and when they start becoming non-performing, managers need to show them the red flag.Since its a team and everyone has to do their part. All members of the team cannot perform at equal scale of efficiency but everyone atleast is required to fulfill their alloted stuff.Some bad playing managers have developed a strategem of playing on the patience of the employee working under them.The strategy is to find the happy go lucky or never complaining but working people of the team and not giving them good hikes or promotions to them until they get frustrated with it and make a foul cry to their manager.Frankly, speaking this is the worst play in industry despite performing and performing consistently, is not assuring success or promotions.The effects of this are only bad for the manager and the firm.
--Vivek Nanda