@ac

With respect. Why is it that other countries are able to manage their history better than us? Do you think the decimation that is taking place with WI cricket would happen to football or cricket in the UK or basketball or baseball in the US? Why not?

@Hants

It is clear that the management structure managing regional cricket needs to be changed. We have changed captains, players, format of competitions etc, we have not changed the WICB.

I woke up at 3.30 this morning to watch a Formula 1 race. I am a Lewis Hamilton fan.
There was a time when I would do the same to listen (on the radio) to West Indies cricket when Sir Gary was still playing.

I would not get out of my bed to watch the current team play.

I must say the team should be praised for the efforts they are making .

I also do not understand why Tino Best was picked as a water boy.

@ David

My answer to our questions is a sort of ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘ yes’. Remember that traditionally for law Jamaican and Trinidadian students have come here after their first year. There was one Dean – in Barbados. Interaction was basically at the Faculty Board level. Barbados lecturers would act as Course Directors for the various courses including for those taught at first year level in Jamaica and Trinidad. It was a situation which doubtless caused much frustration in those places and, of course, did not permit the lecturers there to develop new courses. Examiners’ meetings would be corporate affairs but the paper was set at Cave Hill. Notionally there was inter-campus second examining but in practice it really didn’t take place and not least because there was a rule which said that in case of disagreement the first examiner’s mark prevailed – so that, eg, even the Course Director in Barbados could not over-rule the first mark of someone in Jamaica. Marking standards differed considerably. Cave Hill examiners often complained that the marks awarded in at least one other campus (I’m speaking of the first year) were way too high.
Until recently Barbados didn’t have a medical Faculty so our people had to travel to the other Campus’.

As you’ll see from what I’ve said, interaction between Campus’ was really pretty minimal though so far as syllabus’ were concerned, in principle all members of Faculty Board had a say in the way they were fashioned and even though the subject would not be taught in the other Campus’, ie for 2nd and 3rd year subjects.

Well, I could go on but I guess you get the drift. As I said, the structure of minimalism caused a lot of frustration in the other Campus’ – and basically explains why they decided to go it alone – as, of course, is the case for all other subjects. It’s posing many problems for Cave Hill – naturally – and ultimately it will mean a loss of something like 160 students or more a year over the two year (2nd and 3rd year) period.

The foundation problem is piss poor management by the WICB and Country Boards for NOT developing a cohesive and all encompassing plan in a professional manner. For instance, do players have to sign a professionally drawn up contract like other professional sports organisations demand at an early age eg Soccer, Basketball et al ? If not why not? Provision should be made for open window periods like IPL.( Or bonuses for NOT going to IPL et al). Would Peter Drucker advocate spending tons of time and money on cricketers development without locking them in to a ironclad contract where big money is paid to the organisation for a trade?

You say that the players are greedy unlike those of yesteryear BUT when Packer came along with deep pockets nearly every WI player (besides Kallicharan who became Captain) and players globally all desired to take the lucre. These WI were the very same guys who formed the greatest WI teams of that Golden generation starting in the mid 1970s.

While it appears to make sense that the WI is not or ever likely to be one political entity this is also a failure of the WICB for not having a PR Campaign pointing to the fact that no single WI country is in a position to go it alone for the long term. Right now T&T is performing well in T20 etc BUT this is because their current crop are the best they have ever had simultaneously and projecting this performance into the future would be a major error. The overriding fact is that the component countries NEED the WI on the global stage as this is OUR HERITAGE and is very likely the ONLY HOPE for dominance globally. We MUST STICK TOGETHER!

Maybe we still see cricket as simply a game, for many young cricketers it is a job, a career, therefore they must maximise their chances. It is such a frckle game the next game could be your last, through injury. The other thing we must look at, at 35 or 40 these guys cricketing days are over and they are still relatively young men, therefore I don’t blame them for making their money NOW. Finally, I’m sure these guys saw how the WICB threated great players like Mike Holding, Malcolm Marshall, Viv Richards, Gordon Greenidge, Desmond Haynes, and many others, so the commitment to the WICB is not that strong.

@ ac | March 25, 2012 at 5:06 PM |
You got my total support on this one.
The WICB is made of men with egos a million times bigger than their brains.
If this was in some other more ‘enlightened ‘ jurisdiction their heads would be called for and placed on platters for the fans to see long time ago. But we like it so! Crap rub in our faces even by our very own homegrown bullshitters.
A bunch of jokey tired men that can’t even make one run between the wicket off a long hop delivered as a no-ball.

@David
Still poor management by WICB because good managers NEVER let unions dictate the pace! This is exactly what happened in 1990 when Stemple of GM allowed the AWU to out negotiate him at a time when he should have said NO MORE and locked them out since he had loads of inventory in a recession. This led to eventual total hourly costs of $80 when the Japs were paying $55 with a better product, which resulted in BANKRUPTCY! ( admittedly there is more to the story BUT this is the CRUX). DUMB!

How come other professionally managed sports don’t have this problem?
See what happened to Basketball this season? The players through their money down the drain!

It must be accepted wordwide that test cricket is on its way out. Only a few tornaments like England vs Australia, can draw a good crowd, and that is tradition. True I love to watch test cricket, but how many young people are willing to sit for five days and see a game end in a draw? This is a fast food world and “fast food” cricket is the thing, therefore those who get a chance to make millions out of it should do so NOW. Patriotism and loyalty to a region cannot be taken to the supermarket for food or to a bank for money to build your home or school your children.

The longer this impasse went on the more time gayle had to sort on in his mind what is good for gayle. now what is happening is that the wicb thought that there fast bowling would have clean bowl gayle for a duck but instead gayle batting performance against wicb has been fierceless and this is a mighty six which gayle has delivered to the. them right outb the ballpark wicb has been backed in a corner and now it is up to them to accept gayles terms and conditions.they need gayle.gayle doesn,t need them

@onions
and if your prediction is right and the BLP wins all them problems you gloating about would be A well deserved gift from the DLP to the BLP.

@ ac
$5 Billion and nothing to show for it except feeding frenzies and summer camps.Granted the free bus fares for school children was a worthy idea, but the truth is we paid for them thru the increased gasoline charges.
True to Form..your stint was all about FAMILY FIRST…with no capital assets to show….Now the regular advertisement ….$ 5 million put aside in a Welfare Grant to held the disabled, and indigents…ac that sounds so bad. Have you heard of the embarrassment involved in visiting the outlet ? People say they rather bathe at the stan pipe and burn a kerosene oil lamp first.We are going forward or backward ?

Former Barbados Captain Ryan Hinds charged with rape.

Well done ALL….thankful it is over.

Look at all de asses that get mileage from all of this. If I were Gayle I would never had said what he did … NEVER

And Gayle is playing where he is a “superstar” and will make millions in fees and endorsements.

David you are right. The ICC and the Boards must change tour schedules to allow the cricketers to play IPL type tournaments and for their country.

4day match. Days 1 and 2. Barbados 223 and 116 for 5. Trinidad 84
This good bat and ball not cricket.

balance | March 26, 2012 at 6:07 AM |

I am publishing these comments on behalf of Mr Jeff Layne which suggests deficiencies in the application of the Duckworth/Lewis method to the resolution of rain affected cricket matches and his alternative proposals for bloggers to offer their opinions..

Why a New Method is Needed ?

From the inception, of one-day limited overs cricket. Resetting the target when play was lost has been problematic. Over the years seven methods have been tried. Coincidentally all of them were devised by the three countries; England, Australia and South Africa who formed the International cricket Council (ICC). Since 1999 the Duckworth- Lewis method (D/L) have been the ICC preferred choice. Yet it continues to produce some of the most controversial revised targets and results, therefore the Average Run Rate method (ARR) is still being widely used.

The D/L Method is a mathematical system, based on a premise that both sides have a combination of 50 overs and 10 wickets i.e. 100% of resources, but if play is lost after a match start the side batting last will have the advantage, that advantage has to be neutralized. The Neutraliser is a 50- over innings average score of 225.A table of resource percentages Computer program-CODA is the key to the application and the revision is in accordance to the run-scoring resources of the two sides.”

For instance, ICC 2010 Twenty 20 Championship match, Sri Lanka v Zimbabwe May 3. S L 173-7 full 20 overs, Zim with the minimum 5 overs was set a revised target of 43 official match target. (ARR exclusive) However,. S L 173/ 20 overs=8.65 ARR x Zim 5 overs=43 with all 10 wickets. (CODA show S L used 58.9% Zim had 18.4% 173×18,4/58.9%=54-run target 11 run differential.

ICC 2010 Twenty 20 Championship match, England v West Indies May 3, Eng 190-5 full 20 overs, W I with 6 overs was set a target of 60./6 overs=10 A R R x Eng 20 overs=200 scaled up score/20 overs=10 ARR same as W.I 60-run target. (CODA Eng 58.9% W.I 21.7% score 190×21.7%/58.9%=70). This match prompted Eng, Captain Paul Collingwood who said, “there Has to be a recalibration of the D/L method because it is clearly unfair to the side that bats first. And Frank Duckworth terse response, there will be no such recalibration, Mr, Collingwood is the only Descenter on two occasions in the 74 matches where the D/L were applied”. (However, the new D/L Professional Edition, speaks to the adjustment of the tables recalibration).

Tri-Series, West Indies v Zimbabwe Jan, 21, 2001 Australia. W I 235-5 in 47 overs, Zim with same 47 0vers was set a revised target of 253. Zim target253/47 overs=5.38 ARR x W.I 47 overs= same 253 scaled up score/47 overs=5.38 ARR same as Zim (CODA show W.I used 89.4% Zim had 97.4% Score235x97.4/89.4=256-253=3-run differential in targets which is the root of the controversies.

Average Run Rate method; W.I 47 overs 235-5/47 overs=5 ARR x Zim 47 overs=235+1 with all 10 wickets
.
JEFMAR method; W.I 47 overs 235-5, Zim same 47 overs target 235+ 1 with 5 wickets. W.I utilised 7 batsmen and 5 wickets, Likewise Zim must also utilise 7 batsmen and 5 wickets, The target shall be reached the loss of the 6th wicket.

The above comparison of the three methods show indisputably that The jefmar is the fairest. It was submitted to the ICC as an alternative. However, the response was unbelievable! “As we are in partnership with Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis, I have to send them your method for their views. This is our normal procedure.” Clive Hitchcock, Cricket Operations Manager.
Review of the D/L mathematics tri-series match: when rain stopped play, the first innings concluded and Zimbabwe had done exactly the opposite of what West Indies had done. i.e 47 overs, conceded 235 runs, took 5 wickets and lost its last 3 overs of bowling. So obviously could not have held an advantage.

First innings: W.I batted 47 overs scored 235 runs, lost 5 wickets used 89.4%
ZIM bowled 47 overs conceded 235 runs took 5 wickets used 2.6%
Totals 0 0 0 W.I 86.8%

Second Innings: ZIM batting 47 overs target 253 with 10 wickets had 97.4%
W.I bowling 47 overs target 253 with 10 wickets had 10.8%
Totals 0 0 0 ZIM 86.8%
First innings W.I batted used 86.8% more, second innings ZIM batted used 86.8% = 0 same(this is a wash). Therefore the D/L calculations unwittingly show the target 235+1 but with 5 wickets (match Equity vs Preserved) Rather that ZIM having used 2.6% to bowl 47 overs and W.I 10.6% to bowl its 47. This is farcical nevertheless, score 235× ZIM 97.4% ÷ W.I 89.4% = 256 target, 3-run differential in targets but ZIM target 253÷47 overs =5.38 ARR×W.I 47 overs =253 scaled up score, same as ZIM target ÷ W.I 47 overs = 5.38 ARR same as ZIM.

The D/L system is an ARR method. It neutralizes the runt-rates of the two teams which automatically scales up the first side score to suit the target. Even when the first side have batted its full quota of overs the side batting last has to score at a higher rate in order to win. How can this be fair?

Review Of The Below; (New) D/L Professional Edition

The review of these two matches show that the premise (combination of 50 overs and 10 wickets = 100%) is fundamentally flawed.
1. Overs and wickets cannot be combined, the batting side is utilizing its wickets, whereas the bowling side is utilizing its overs.
2. Once play is lost the side batting last will have fewer overs (New Edition) or the same number (Tri-Series)
3. The system is multifarious (a fair system is rigid), which is the root of the perennial controversies, almost every time it is applied. Since evidently whether the first side have scored smaller 173, 190 or greater 235, 359 than average, revised targets and results will be unrealistic. Because there is no such things as resource-percentages or neutralisers when a match is in progress the D/L is egregious and should be scrapped. That is why a new method is needed.

Bio
Jefmar

The D/L system widely regarded as the fairest way of settling games spoiled by the weather was deemed to b unfair. “After Australia scored a massive 359-2 in its 50 overs, setting India 360 to win World Cup 2003 final. India of 145-3 after 23 overs, were only four runs behind par. Losing no more wickets and scoring 12 runs in the next two overs followed by a terminal down pour would have ended the title to India. We have always been aware that when the first side total is greater than average that revise targets and par scores are unrealistic. Using the Nee Professional D/L Edition, India would have been 20 runs behind par. A match fairer reflection of the state of the game. This, mean the tables had to be adjusted.” Duckworth-Lewis said yesterday on the day ICC accepted the new method, October 2, 2003 (AP).

Australia 359-2 50 overs used 100%, India 157-3 after 25 overs used 57.1%, score 359 × 57.1% ÷100% = 205 as India target. India 205÷25 overs = 8.20 run rate × Australia 50 overs = 410 scaled up score ÷ 50 overs = 8.20 run rate same as India’s 205 target. So India could not have won after batting for only half of the quota. But would have won because whatsoever the D/L computer shows is treated as gospel.

However score 359 average score 225 = 134 runs greater than average, 134×57.1% ÷ 100% = 77 more runs, 134-77=57, 77-57=20 new par score, 134+20 = 154, Ind 205 target + 154 = 359+1 the original 50 over target India were chasing.

Now 205-154=51, 57-51=6 run differential÷57.1% =10+ old average 225=235 as the new average score. Which show that the tables have not been adjusted. (225×57.1% = 128, 235×57.1% = 134, 134-128=6 run differential) see matches since October 1, 2003. For instance: Cricket World Cup 2011 match, Pakistan vs Zimbabwe. Zim 151-7 in 39.4 overs used 79.1%, Pak with 38 overs had 88% and was set a target of 162. Score 151÷79.1% × 88% =168-162=6 run differential in targets.

But Pak target 162÷38 overs= 4.26 run rate × 39.4 overs =168 scaled up score ÷39.4 overs= 4.26 run rate same as Zim 38 over 162 target. Hence the perennial controversies, the system is multifarious. A fair system is rigid. The above confirm that the tables have not been adjusted but remain the same only the average score increased from 225 to 235.

The review shows that the D/L is fundamentally flawed. Once play is lost the side batting last will have fewer overs (new edition) or the same number (tri-series) and the revisions are multifarious (a fair system is rigid) so whether the first side have scored smaller 173/190 or greater 235/359 than average, revised targets and results will be unrealistic since there is no such thing as resource-percentages or neutralizers when a match is in progress.

The D/L is egregious and should be scrapped. That is why a new method is needed. But it would be some other reason. Rather than the D/L is the fairest available method and hence the Icc’s retention. Having seen The Jefmar comparison.

Jeff Layne was born and raise in a small village “Edey’s” in Christ Church, Barbados. Like almost every little bajan boy back in the 1950’s, he was attracted to the game of cricket. He represented his School” St. David’s as an opening batsman and at 15 his village in the Barbados Cricket League (BCL). Cricket is his passion; He follows it like a religion and is a visceral supporter of the West Indies Team.

It was in the wake of an English County One-Day Limited overs match in 1998 when he first saw the Duckworth-Method D/L implemented .and from the outset he realised that it could not be a fair system. Since the side batting last with fewer overs was set a target much higher than the first side score, and hence the Jefmar undertaking.

THE JEFMAR METHOD

The JEFMAR Method mirrors the fundamental principles of cricket.(game of glorious uncertainties). In the one- day limited overs version, when plays is lost while a match is in progress, inevitably, the side batting last will have fewer overs or the same number as the first side. Because of the time constraint adjustments are mandatory to preserve equity. therefore adjustments are made, only when the second side is batting, there is an interruption of play, overs are lost but play is resumed. However, should play be abandoned at any stage after the minimum overs for a completed match is or can be met the side that is ahead shall be the winner or the adjustments shall be made commensurate with the first side score at the same stage. In matches that end with equal scores the winner shall be the side that lost fewer wickets.

Cricketers are human beings. Two sides matching wit and finesse simultaneously. The side that is more resilient on the day/night will prevail in accordance with the law. (Please see examples and comparisons below and on following page.)

Example (1): CWC 2003 Australia vs. Holland. Australia batting first had scored 103-1 in 26 overs when play was interrupted. There was a resumption of play and Australia faced another 10 overs, therefore 14 overs were lost, Australia’s total was 170-2 in 36 overs. Holland with the same 36 overs was set a revised target of 198 with all 10 wickets.

Example (2): CWC 2003 South Africa vs. New Zealand. South Africa scored 306-6 in 50 overs. New Zealand were 182-1 in 31 overs when rain stopped play, on resumption a further 8 overs was possible giving New Zealand a total of 39 overs and a revised target of 225.with all 10 wickets.

Example (3): West Indies vs. New Zealand, Port-of-Spain Trinidad June 12, 2002 New Zealand batting first had scored 212-5 in 44.2 overs when play was interrupted, on resumption West Indies could only face 33 overs, and was set a revised target the same 212 with all 10 wickets.

Comparative Revisions of
The JEFMAR and Duckworth-Lewis Methods

JEFMAR Method Duckworth-Lewis Method
Australia vs. Holland CWC 2003
Australia 170-2 in 36 overs Australia 170-2 in 36 overs 74.3%
Holland’s target 171-2 in 36 overs. Target shall be reach before lost of third wicket. Holland with same 36 overs 85.5% was set a target of 198 with 10 wickets.

JEFMAR Method Duckworth-Lewis Method
South Africa vs. New Zealand CWC 2003
South Africa 306-6 in 50 overs South Africa 306-6 in 50 overs
New Zealand 182-1in 31 overs Play interrupted, Resumption of play, further 8 overs, total 39 overs. The revised target would be, South Africa’s 306 minus the total from the 11 overs lost between the 31st and 42nd overs which is equal to the period lost by New Zealand (see JEFMAR revision table over leaf) South Africa 306-6 in 50 overs 100%.

New Zealand 39 overs 73.5% and revised Target 225 with 10 wickets
West Indies vs. New Zealand
Port-of-Spain Trinidad June 12, 2002
New Zealand 212-5 in 44.2 overs New Zealand 212-5 in 44.2 overs
Play interrupted innings closed West Indies 33 overs, revised target would be New Zealand score at 33 overs. New Zealand 44.2 overs, 81.8%
West Indies 33 overs 81.5%
Revised target same 212 with 10 wickets

JEFMAR Revision Table “example”

South Africa vs. New Zealand CWC 2003

South Africa New Zealand

Explanation Score Wkts. Overs Explanation Target Wkts. Overs
South Africa 306 6 50
New Zealand 307 10 50
South Africa score equal to lost period ~~~ ~~~ 11 Score @ Interruption 182 1 31
Total runs From lost Overs 83* ~~~ ~~~ Required 125 9 19
Revised Score 223 6 39 Overs lost ~~~
~~~ 11
Total from Overs lost 83 ~~~ ~~~
Required 42 6 8

Match revised Target 224 6 39

Target shall be reach before the lost of the 7th wicket.

*This figure merely represents a hypothetical total at the commensurate stage.

Examples: glorious uncertainties of cricket

England vs. India Tri-nation final, Lords August 4, 2002
England scored 325-7, 50 overs. India on 145-5 in 35 overs seemed to be facing certain defeat. But amazingly went on and won, reaching 326-7 in 48.5 overs. Had the match been abandoned at that stage (with India on 145-5), England would have won using the revised Duckworth-Lewis Method; India’s target would have been 211 runs.

England vs. Australia CWC 2003
England scored 204-8 in 50 overs, Australia on 134-8 in 37 overs, would have lost, if the match were abandoned at that stage. The Duckworth-Lewis revised target would have been 171 runs, but Australia went on and scored the required 205-8 in 49.5 overs.

West Indies vs. South Africa Bridgetown, Barbados May 2004
West Indies needed one run from the last over with 3 wickets in hand. South Africa unbelievably took those wickets and won the match. If this match had rain-ended at that stage West Indies would have been the winner by the D/L.

West Indies vs. Sri Lanka Port of Spain, Trinidad April 2008
West Indies needed 10 runs from the last 2 balls with one wicket in hand and got those runs by hitting a 6 and a 4. If this match had rain-ended at that stage West Indies would have lost by the D/L. Let’s suppose these last two examples were rained off at the respective stages. The question to be answered is this: with 99% of these two matches completed. Why is there a need for a computer?

you simply cannot expect “loyalty” without paying enough to your employees. of course money is an important factor. Therefore, a person/ cricketer should give his highest priority to his country, no matter what the circumstance is. I love to see Gayle batting in IPL. he is getting bigger… even bigger than WICB!