text:
Minka Kelly
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Minka Kelly
Kelly at The Heart Truth's Red Dress Collection 2012
Born
Minka Dumont Dufay
(1980-06-24) June 24, 1980 (age 37)
Los Angeles, California, U.S.
Education
Valley High School
Occupation
Actress, model
Years active
2003–present
Parent(s)
Rick Dufay
Maureen Dumont Kelly
Relatives
Richard Ney (grandfather)
Minka Dumont Kelly (born Minka Dumont Dufay;[1] June 24, 1980) is an American actress. She is most known for her roles in the television shows Friday Night Lights (2006–2009), Parenthood (2010–2011), Charlie's Angels (2011) and Almost Human (2013).
Contents
[hide]
1 Early life
2 Career
3 Personal life
4 Filmography
4.1 Film
4.2 Television
4.3 Music videos
4.4 Video games
5 References
6 External links
Early life[edit]
Kelly was born in Los Angeles, California.[2] She is the only child of former Aerosmith guitarist Rick Dufay[3] and the late Maureen Dumont Kelly, and the granddaughter of actor and investment counselor Richard Ney. Kelly and her mother moved to various communities before settling in Chicago by the time Kelly was in junior high school.[4] She has French, Irish and Dutch-Indonesian ancestry.[5][6]
Career[edit]
After graduating from Valley High School in Albuquerque, New Mexico,[7] Kelly returned to Los Angeles.[4] While on a test shoot for a modeling agency, she was approached by a former Playboy Playmate who was interested in managing her, and who placed Kelly as a receptionist at a surgeon's office who would provide Kelly breast augmentation in exchange for hours worked. She ultimately decided against the procedure, leading to her being fired.[4] That exposure to the medical field prompted her to attend school for a year to become a surgeon's assistant; afterward, she worked as a scrub technician. During the four years she spent in that vocation she continued auditioning for film and television roles.[4]
In 2003, Kelly made her acting debut as an extra in the short film The Turbo Charged Prelude for 2 Fast 2 Furious, a six-minute introduction to the action film 2 Fast 2 Furious. This was followed by a guest appearance on Cracking Up. She has since appeared in a number of television shows such as Entourage, Drake & Josh and American Dreams. In 2005, Kelly landed a three-episode recurring role on The WB comedy series What I Like About You.
In April 2006, Kelly was cast as a series regular on the NBC drama Friday Night Lights. The show, based on the high school football film of the same name, follows a high school football team in the fictional small town of Dillon. Kelly played the role of high school student and cheerleader Lyla Garrity. In preparation for her role as a cheerleader she trained with the Pflugerville High School cheerleading squad. The series premiered on October 3, 2006, with Kelly receiving praise for her performance with The New York Times calling her performance "heartbreaking". At the end of the show's third season Kelly left the series as her character left for college.[8]
Kelly at the Paris Hilton: Marquee The Star Sydney 2012[9][10]
In 2006, Kelly starred in the horror slasher film The Pumpkin Karver, and had a bit role in State's Evidence. In 2007, she reunited with Friday Night Lights creator Peter Berg in the film The Kingdom in a cameo role as Ms. Ross alongside Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner.[11] In 2009, she also made a cameo in the film, 500 Days of Summer.
In August 2008, Kelly was cast as the protagonist in The CW pilot Body Politic. She played the role of Francesca "Frankie" Foster, who moves to Washington, D.C. to work for a senator and befriends a group of eager up-and-comers. Despite acclaim from critics who viewed the pilot,[12] The CW did not pick up the series. Kelly also appeared in the pilot for the short-lived CBS ensemble comedy series Mad Love playing the role of Kate, a Midwestern girl who falls in love with Henry at the top of the Empire State Building. When the show was picked up, Kelly was replaced by Sarah Chalke.[13]
In April 2010, Kelly appeared on the NBC drama Parenthood. She played the role of a behavioral aide to the child character Max who is diagnosed with Asperger syndrome. Kelly went on to appear in nine episodes of the show before making her final appearance in the episode "Taking the Leap" which aired on March 29, 2011. That same year, Kelly was named "Sexiest Woman Alive" in the annual Esquire magazine feature.[4] She accepted a role in the Off Broadway play Love, Loss, and What I Wore for an April 27–29, 2011, run with Conchata Ferrell, AnnaLynne McCord, Anne Meara and B. Smith.[14]
In December 2010, ABC announced that Kelly was cast in the planned reboot of the crime drama Charlie's Angels. She played the role of street racer Eve French. The pilot was filmed in March 2011 and the series was picked up on May 13, 2011. Charlie's Angels premiered on September 22, 2011, to over 8.76 million viewers. The series received unanimously negative reviews from critics. Despite a planned thirteen episodes, ABC cancelled the series after the premiere of the fourth episode due to low ratings.[15] The series concluded on November 10, 2011.
In February 2011, Kelly starred as the protagonist on the Screen Gems thriller film The Roommate. The film follows a college freshman whose roommate has an obsession with her that turns violent. The film also starred Leighton Meester and went on to make over $15.6 million in its opening weekend and over $40 million worldwide. The film was universally panned and was considered a "cheap remake" of the 1992 film Single White Female.
Variety announced that Kelly was cast as the lead in the mystery comedy film Searching for Sonny. The film follows two reunited friends who are suspects in a murder mystery that is similar to a play in which they appeared during high school. Production took place in May and June 2010 in Fort Worth, Texas. The film won the "Best Narrative Feature" Award at the Festivus Film Festival.
She joined an eight-day, four-country United Service Organizations tour in December 2011 with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey, Robert Horry, Jordin Sparks, Thomas Miles and Sergeant Major Bryan Battaglia.[16][17] In February 2012, she was one of the celebrities who modeled in red dresses for The Heart Truth Red Dress Collection show, part of New York Fashion Week. She wore a Diane von Fürstenberg dress.[18] In June 2012, Kelly appeared in the music video for "One More Night" by Maroon 5.[19] In 2013, Kelly appeared in the film The Butler as Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.[20]
In September 2017, it was announced that Kelly had been cast in the live-action television series Titans, as Dawn Granger / Dove.[21]
Personal life[edit]
From May 2008 to August 2011, she dated baseball player Derek Jeter.[22][23] Jeter and Kelly reunited briefly in early 2012 before separating again.[24]
Kelly's mother Maureen died in 2008, at age 51, from colon cancer.[25][26][27]
Filmography[edit]
Film[edit]
Year
Title
Role
Notes
2003 The Turbo Charged Prelude for 2 Fast 2 Furious The Girl Uncredited, short film
2005 Devil's Highway River
2006 The Pumpkin Karver Tammy Boyles
2006 State's Evidence Girl #3
2007 The Kingdom Miss Ross
2009 500 Days of Summer Autumn
2011 The Roommate Sara Matthews Nominated—MTV Movie Award for Best Scared-As-S**t Performance
Nominated—Teen Choice Award for Choice Movie Actress in a Drama
2011 Just Go with It Joanna Damon
2011 Searching for Sonny Eden Mercer
2013 The Butler Jackie Kennedy
2014 The World Made Straight Dena
2015 Papa: Hemingway in Cuba Debbie Hunt
2015 Away and Back Ginny
2017 Naked Callie Uncredited
2017 Nomis Filming
Television[edit]
Year
Title
Role
Notes
2004 Cracking Up Monica Episode: "Panic House"
2004 Drake & Josh Stacey Episode: "Movie Job"
2005 American Dreams Bonnie Episode: "Home Again"
2005 What I Like About You Ricki 3 episodes
2006–2009 Friday Night Lights Lyla Garrity Main role; 50 episodes
2009 Body Politic Francesca "Frankie" Foster Unaired The CW pilot
2010–2011 Parenthood Gaby 9 episodes
2010 Entourage Herself Episode: "Lose Yourself"
2011 Charlie's Angels Eve French Main role; 8 episodes
2013–2014 Almost Human Valerie Stahl Main role; 13 episodes
2015 Man Seeking Woman Whitney Episode: "Sizzurp"
2016 The Path Miranda Frank 4 episodes
2017 Jane the Virgin Abbey Whitman 3 episodes
2017 Bull Kara Clayton Episode: "School for Scandal"
2018 Titans Dawn Granger / Dove Filming
Music videos[edit]
Year
Title
Artist
2002 "If You C Jordan" Something Corporate
2002 "She Hates Me" Puddle of Mudd
2012 "One More Night" Maroon 5
Video games[edit]
Year
Title
Role
Notes
2018 Detroit: Become Human North
References[edit]
Jump up ^ According to the State of California. California Birth Index, 1905-1995. Center for Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento, California. Searchable at http://www.familytreelegends.com/records/39461
Jump up ^ "About Minka Kelly". Yahoo! Movies. Retrieved September 4, 2012.
Jump up ^ Sturtz, Rachel (November 2006), "Funny Joke from a Beautiful Woman", Esquire. 146 (5):41
^ Jump up to: a b c d e D'Agostino, Ryan (October 11, 2010). "Minka Kelly Is the Sexiest Woman Alive 2010". Esquire. Retrieved December 3, 2016.
Jump up ^ Andrews, Amy (October 11, 2010). "Watch out Derek Jeter, Minka Kelly is Esquire's sexiest woman alive". IrishCentral. Retrieved December 9, 2016.
Jump up ^ "Minka Kelly on Instagram". Instagram. Retrieved July 6, 2017.
Jump up ^ "Emarrassing Celebrity Yearbook Pics! Minka Kelly". Us Weekly. Archived from the original on April 8, 2011. Retrieved September 17, 2011.
Jump up ^ No byline (2006). "Full Biography", NYTimes.com. Retrieved October 2, 2007.
Jump up ^ J. Mo and Elle (April 1, 2012). "All the goss from Marquee opening party where celebs were wall-to-wall". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved January 19, 2013.
Jump up ^ Lynch, Kelly (March 30, 2012). "Kellan Lutz, Minka Kelly And More At Marquee's Opening". Socialitelife.com. Retrieved January 19, 2013.
Jump up ^ Heffernan, Virginia (December 29, 2006), "You Can Find 'Friday Night Light' on Monday, Tuesday … Even Friday Night". New York Times. 156 (53808):E37
Jump up ^ Abrams, Natalie (June 6, 2009). "The Body Politic: The Best Pilot You May Never See". E!. Retrieved December 1, 2013.
Jump up ^ Eng, Joyce (February 9, 2010). "It's True Love for Minka Kelly". TV Guide. Archived from the original on September 14, 2015. Retrieved March 1, 2017.
Jump up ^ Gans, Andrew (April 14, 2011). "Minka Kelly, Susan Sullivan Set for Love, Loss... Off-Broadway". Playbill. Archived from the original on April 20, 2011. Retrieved April 21, 2011.
Jump up ^ Derschowitz, Jessica (October 14, 2011). "ABC cancels "Charlie's Angels"". CBS News. Retrieved October 16, 2011.
Jump up ^ United Service Organizations (December 12, 2011). "@the_USO status". Twitter. Retrieved December 19, 2011.
Jump up ^ "Photos: Gen. Dempsey Sets Out on First USO Tour With Top Talent in Tow". United Service Organizations. December 20, 2011. Retrieved December 20, 2011.
Jump up ^ "Stars Hit the Runway for Heart Health". Shape. February 10, 2012. Retrieved February 10, 2012.
Jump up ^ Warner, Kara (June 26, 2012). "Minka Kelly Is Maroon 5's Latest Video Vixen". MTV. Archived from the original on March 11, 2016. Retrieved July 17, 2017.
Jump up ^ "The Butler". Comingsoon.net. Retrieved June 8, 2013.
Jump up ^ Andreeva, Nellie (September 7, 2017). "'Titans': Minka Kelly Cast As Dove In DC Live-Action Series". Deadline.com. Retrieved September 8, 2017.
Jump up ^ Derek Jeter, Minka Kelly wedding is just talk, says friend, Daily News, January 13, 2010
Jump up ^ Weiss, Shari (January 18, 2011). "Minka Kelly: I'm not marrying Derek Jeter – in the next month, at least". New York Daily News. Retrieved February 20, 2011.
Jump up ^ Larkin, Mike (January 3, 2012). "Minka Kelly and Derek Jeter Spotted in Paris". Daily Mail.
Jump up ^ Radar Staff (September 29, 2011). "Charlie's Angels Minka Kelly's Homeless Uncle Pleads for Help". Radar Online. Retrieved August 25, 2014.
Jump up ^ "How Minka Kelly's made peace with her stripper mother on her deathbed | Mail Online". Daily Mail. September 9, 2011. Retrieved August 25, 2014.
Jump up ^ "Maureen Dumont Kelly". Geni.com. January 4, 2015. Retrieved September 12, 2015.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Minka Kelly.
Minka Kelly on IMDb
Minka Kelly at the Internet Off-Broadway Database
Minka Kelly on Facebook
Minka Kelly on Twitter
Authority control
WorldCat Identities
VIAF: 2278662
LCCN: no2008070330
GND: 1015884679
SUDOC: 160548969
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minka_Kelly&oldid=819059393"
Categories:
1980 births
21st-century American actresses
Actresses from Albuquerque, New Mexico
Actresses from Los Angeles
American film actresses
American people of Dutch-Indonesian descent
American people of French descent
American people of Irish descent
American stage actresses
American television actresses
Living people
Hidden categories:
Use American English from January 2018
All Wikipedia articles written in American English
Use mdy dates from January 2018
Articles with hCards
Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers
Wikipedia articles with LCCN identifiers
Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
العربية
Asturianu
تۆرکجه
Dansk
Deutsch
Español
فارسی
Français
한국어
Հայերեն
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
Latviešu
मैथिली
Nederlands
नेपाली
日本語
Português
Română
Русский
Suomi
Svenska
Türkçe
中文
डोटेली
Edit links
This page was last edited on 7 January 2018, at 05:09.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: span

attrs: colspan style

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: href class

attrs: href title

value: td

values: Valley High School (Albuquerque, New Mexico)

values:
/wiki/Playboy_(magazine)
mw-redirect
Playboy (magazine)

values:
/wiki/Scrub_technician
mw-redirect
Scrub technician

values:
/wiki/Off_Broadway
mw-redirect
Off Broadway

values:
/wiki/Thomas_Miles_(entertainer)
mw-redirect
Thomas Miles (entertainer)

values:
headerSort
0
columnheader button
Sort ascending

values:
/wiki/Teen_Choice_Award
mw-redirect
Teen Choice Award

values:
/wiki/Jackie_Kennedy
mw-redirect
Jackie Kennedy

values:
/wiki/Daily_News_(New_York)
mw-redirect
Daily News (New York)

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1310368/
external text

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.facebook.com/MinkaKelly

values:
nofollow
external text
https://twitter.com/minkakelly

attrs: alt src width height style srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
nofollow
external text
https://viaf.org/viaf/2278662

values:
nofollow
external text
https://d-nb.info/gnd/1015884679

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.idref.fr/160548969

values: Category:Actresses from Albuquerque, New Mexico

values: Category:American people of Dutch-Indonesian descent

values: Category:American people of French descent

values: Category:American people of Irish descent

values: Category:Use American English from January 2018

values: Category:All Wikipedia articles written in American English

values: Category:Use mdy dates from January 2018

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with LCCN identifiers

values: Category:Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Minka_Kelly
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: مينكا كيلي – Arabic

values: مینکا کلی – Persian

values: Մինկա Կելի – Armenian

values: מינקה קלי – Hebrew

values: मिन्का केल्ली – Maithili

values: मिन्का केल्ली – Nepali

values: ミンカ・ケリー – Japanese

values: Келли, Минка – Russian

values: मिन्का केल्ली – Doteli

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Minka_Kelly rootpage-Minka_Kelly skin-vector action-view


text:
It Is No Secret
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
It Is No Secret (What God Can Do) is a Southern Gospel song composed by Stuart Hamblen in the 1950s.[1]
Contents
[hide]
1 The Bill Kenny version
2 The Elvis Presley version
3 See also
4 References
5 External links
The Bill Kenny version[edit]
In 1951 The Ink Spots lead singer Bill Kenny recorded It Is No Secret for the Decca label. His recorded version which also featured "The Song Spinners" was the first to make the US pop charts, reaching #18.[2]
The Elvis Presley version[edit]
Elvis Presley recorded his version in Radio Recorders Studio 1, Hollywood, on January 19, 1957.[3] It was released on Elvis' Christmas Album (RCA Victor LOC 1035) in November 1957.[4] The producer was Steve Sholes.[3] When heard by Paul McCartney, in early 1958, he took the chorus, as done for the first time by The Jordanaires, and included them in his first recording with the, then, The Quarrymen's, "In Spite of All the Danger", a song he feels was inspired, this time consciously, by another Presley song, "Tryin' to Get to You".
See also[edit]
Los Angeles Crusade (1949)
References[edit]
Jump up ^ ASCAP
Jump up ^ Stuart Hamblen rockabilly.nl
^ Jump up to: a b Sessions 1950s
Jump up ^ Elvis Presley Discography 1957
External links[edit]
Snopes.com article
[show]
v
t
e
Elvis Presley
Albums discography
Singles discography
Filmography
Studio albums
Elvis Presley
Elvis
Peace in the Valley (EP)
Elvis' Christmas Album
For LP Fans Only
A Date with Elvis
Elvis Is Back!
His Hand in Mine
Something for Everybody
Pot Luck
Elvis for Everyone!
How Great Thou Art
From Elvis in Memphis
From Memphis to Vegas / From Vegas to Memphis
Elvis Country (I'm 10,000 Years Old)
Love Letters from Elvis
Elvis sings The Wonderful World of Christmas
Elvis Now
He Touched Me
Elvis
Raised on Rock / For Ol' Times Sake
Good Times
Promised Land
Today
From Elvis Presley Boulevard, Memphis, Tennessee
Moody Blue
Live albums
On Stage
As Recorded at Madison Square Garden
Aloha from Hawaii Via Satellite
Elvis Recorded Live on Stage in Memphis
Having Fun with Elvis on Stage
Elvis in Concert
An Afternoon in the Garden
Soundtrack albums
and EPs
Love Me Tender (EP)
Loving You
Jailhouse Rock (EP)
King Creole
G.I. Blues
Flaming Star (EP)
Blue Hawaii
Follow That Dream (EP)
Kid Galahad (EP)
Girls! Girls! Girls!
It Happened at the World's Fair
Fun in Acapulco
Kissin' Cousins
Viva Las Vegas (EP)
Roustabout
Girl Happy
Tickle Me (EP)
Harum Scarum
Frankie and Johnny
Paradise Hawaiian Style
Spinout
Easy Come, Easy Go (EP)
Double Trouble
Clambake
Speedway
Elvis
That's the Way It Is
Viva Elvis
Compilation albums
Elvis' Golden Records
50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong
Elvis' Golden Records Volume 3
Elvis' Gold Records Volume 4
Elvis Sings Flaming Star
Let's Be Friends
Almost in Love
C'mon Everybody
I Got Lucky
Elvis: A Legendary Performer Volume 1
Elvis' 40 Greatest
Pure Gold
Elvis: A Legendary Performer Volume 2
The Sun Sessions
Welcome to My World
Mahalo from Elvis
Elvis: A Legendary Performer Volume 3
Greatest Hits Volume 1
Elvis' Gold Records Volume 5
Amazing Grace: His Greatest Sacred Performances
Command Performances: The Essential 60s Masters II
Elvis 56
Tiger Man
Memories: The '68 Comeback Special
Sunrise
Suspicious Minds: The Memphis 1969 Anthology
ELV1S: 30 No. 1 Hits
2nd to None
Elvis at Sun
Hitstory
Elvis Inspirational
Elvis Rock
Elvis Christmas
The Essential Elvis Presley
Christmas Duets
If I Can Dream
Way Down in the Jungle Room
The Wonder of You
The 50 Greatest Hits
Box sets
Worldwide 50 Gold Award Hits Vol. 1
The King of Rock 'n' Roll: The Complete 50's Masters
From Nashville to Memphis: The Essential '60s Masters
Walk a Mile in My Shoes: The Essential '70s Masters
Live in Las Vegas
Today, Tomorrow, and Forever
Elvis the King
The Complete '68 Comeback Special
The Complete Elvis Presley Masters
Bootlegs
Elvis' Greatest Shit
Feature films
Love Me Tender
Loving You
Jailhouse Rock
King Creole
G.I. Blues
Flaming Star
Wild in the Country
Blue Hawaii
Follow That Dream
Kid Galahad
Girls! Girls! Girls!
It Happened at the World's Fair
Fun in Acapulco
Kissin' Cousins
Viva Las Vegas
Roustabout
Girl Happy
Tickle Me
Harum Scarum
Frankie and Johnny
Paradise, Hawaiian Style
Spinout
Easy Come, Easy Go
Double Trouble
Clambake
Stay Away, Joe
Speedway
Live a Little, Love a Little
Charro!
The Trouble with Girls
Change of Habit
Biographical films
Elvis (1979 film)
Elvis (1990 series)
Elvis Meets Nixon
Elvis (2005 miniseries)
Elvis & Nixon
Documentaries
The Pied Piper of Cleveland
Elvis: That's the Way It Is
Elvis on Tour
This Is Elvis
The New Gladiators
TV specials
The Frank Sinatra Timex Show: Welcome Home Elvis
Elvis Presley's '68 Comeback Special
Aloha from Hawaii Via Satellite
Elvis in Concert
Stage shows
based on Elvis
Cooking with Elvis
All Shook Up
Elvis. The Musical
Elvis: The Concert
Viva Elvis
Top 10 singles
"Heartbreak Hotel"
"I Want You, I Need You, I Love You"
"Don't Be Cruel"
"Hound Dog"
"Love Me Tender"
"Love Me"
"Too Much"
"All Shook Up"
"(Let Me Be Your) Teddy Bear"
"Jailhouse Rock"
"Don't"
"Wear My Ring Around Your Neck"
"Hard Headed Woman"
"One Night"
"I Got Stung"
"(Now and Then There's) A Fool Such as I"
"I Need Your Love Tonight"
"A Big Hunk o' Love"
"Stuck on You"
"It's Now or Never"
"Are You Lonesome Tonight?"
"Surrender"
"I Feel So Bad"
"(Marie's the Name) His Latest Flame"
"Little Sister"
"Can't Help Falling in Love"
"Good Luck Charm"
"She's Not You"
"Return to Sender"
"(You're The) Devil in Disguise"
"Bossa Nova Baby"
"Crying in the Chapel"
"In the Ghetto"
"Suspicious Minds"
"Don't Cry Daddy"
"The Wonder of You"
"Burning Love"
Related people
Sam Phillips
The Blue Moon Boys
The Jordanaires
The Imperials
The Sweet Inspirations
TCB Band
J. D. Sumner
Stephen H. Sholes
June Juanico
Memphis Mafia
Colonel Tom Parker
George C. Nichopoulos
Lisa Marie Presley
Priscilla Presley
Judy Spreckels
Linda Thompson
Ginger Alden
Larry Geller
Related
Graceland
Audubon Street House
Cultural depictions
Cultural impact
Personal relationships
Impersonators
Elvis and Gladys
Elvis and Me
Elvis: What Happened?
Elvis-A-Rama Museum
Hit singles
Sun recordings
Million Dollar Quartet
List of Elvis Presley songs
Songs about Elvis
Elvis Presley Enterprises
Elvis Presley Lake
"Elvis has left the building"
Elvis Radio
FBI files on Elvis Presley
Army career
Eight Elvises
Triple Elvis
Elvis Presley's Pink Cadillac
Elvis Presley's guitars
Elvis Presley Forever stamp
Elvis sightings
Book
Category
Portal
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=It_Is_No_Secret&oldid=697343948"
Categories:
Christian songs
Songs written by Stuart Hamblen
Elvis Presley songs
Jo Stafford songs
Stuart Hamblen songs
Song recordings produced by Stephen H. Sholes
1951 songs
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Norsk
Norsk nynorsk
Edit links
This page was last edited on 29 December 2015, at 22:12.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

attrs: id class style

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: b

attrs: href class title

values:
/wiki/Southern_Gospel
mw-redirect
Southern Gospel

value: sup

value: p

attrs: role tabindex class

values: button 0 togglelink

value: li

values:
Elvis_Presley
fn
font-size:114%;margin:0 4em

values:
navbox-abovebelow
2
background: #EEEEEE;

values:
row
navbox-group
width:1%;background: #EEEEEE;

values: How Great Thou Art (Elvis Presley album)

values: Elvis in Person at the International Hotel, Las Vegas, Nevada

values: Elvis by Request: Flaming Star and 3 Other Great Songs

values: That's the Way It Is (Elvis Presley album)

values: Welcome to My World (Elvis Presley album)

values: Today, Tomorrow, and Forever (Elvis Presley album)

values: List of songs recorded by Elvis Presley on the Sun label

values: List of songs about or referencing Elvis Presley

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: nowraplinks vcard hlist collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

values: Category:Songs written by Stuart Hamblen

values: Category:Song recordings produced by Stephen H. Sholes

values:
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
catlinks mw-normal-catlinks
interface

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/It_Is_No_Secret
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-It_Is_No_Secret rootpage-It_Is_No_Secret skin-vector action-view


text:
Duckworth–Lewis method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the cricketing term. For the Irish pop group, see The Duckworth Lewis Method.
A rain delay at The Oval, England
The Duckworth–Lewis (D/L) method is a mathematical formulation designed to calculate the target score for the team batting second in a limited overs cricket match interrupted by weather or other circumstances. It is generally accepted to be the most accurate method of setting a target score. The D/L method was devised by two English statisticians, Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis.[1] After their retirements Professor Steven Stern became the custodian of the method. In November 2014, it was renamed the Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method (or D/L/S method).[2]
When overs are lost, setting an adjusted target for the team batting second is not as simple as reducing the run target proportionally to the loss in overs, because a team with ten wickets in hand and 25 overs to bat can play more aggressively than if they had ten wickets and a full 50 overs, for example, and can consequently achieve a higher run rate. The D/L method is an attempt to set a statistically fair target for the second team's innings, which is the same difficulty as the original target. The basic principle is that each team in a limited-overs match has two resources available with which to score runs (overs to play and wickets remaining), and the target is adjusted proportionally to the change in the combination of these two resources.
Contents
[hide]
1 History and creation
2 Theory
2.1 Calculation summary
2.2 Summary of impact on Team 2's target
2.3 Mathematical theory
3 Examples
3.1 Stoppage in first innings
3.1.1 Increased target
3.1.2 Decreased target
3.2 Stoppage in second innings
3.3 Stoppages in both innings
4 Use and updates
4.1 1996–2003 – Single version
4.2 2004 – Adoption of second version
4.3 2009
4.4 2015 – Becomes DLS
5 Target score calculations
5.1 Step 1. Find the batting resources available to each team
5.2 Step 2. Convert the two teams' batting resources into Team 2's target score
6 Example Standard Edition Target score calculations
6.1 Reduced target: Team 1's innings completed; Team 2's innings delayed (i.e. resources lost at the start of the innings)
6.2 Reduced target: Team 1's innings completed; Team 2's innings cut short (i.e. resources lost at the end of the innings)
6.3 Reduced target: Team 1's innings completed; Team 2's innings interrupted (i.e. resources lost in the middle of the innings)
6.4 Increased target: Team 1's innings cut short (i.e. resources lost at the end of the innings); Team 2's innings completed
6.5 Increased target: Multiple interruptions in Team 1's innings (i.e. resources lost in the middle of the innings); Team 2's innings completed
7 In-game strategy
7.1 During Team 1's innings
7.1.1 Strategy for Team 1
7.1.2 Strategy for Team 2
7.2 During Team 2's innings
8 Other uses
8.1 Ball-by-ball par score
8.2 Net run rate calculation
9 Criticism
10 Cultural influence
11 References
12 Further reading
13 External links
History and creation[edit]
Various different methods had been used previously to resolve rain-affected cricket games. The most common were the Average Run Rate method, and the most productive overs method.
These earlier methods had flaws that were easily exploitable. The average run-rate method took no account of how many wickets were lost by the team batting second, but simply reflected how quickly they were scoring when the match was interrupted. So if a team felt a rain stoppage was likely, they could attempt to force the scoring rate without regard for the corresponding highly likely loss of wickets, skewing the comparison with the first team. The most productive overs method also took no account of wickets lost by the team batting second, and effectively penalized the team batting second for good bowling, by ignoring their best overs in setting the revised target.
The average run-rate method had been replaced in the early 1990s by the most productive overs method,[3] developed by Australians after a 1989 World Series final between Australia and the West Indies.[4] Chasing Australia's 226/4 off 38 overs, the West Indies needed 180 off 31.2 overs. Rain stopped play for one hour and 25 minutes, and under the average run-rate method, the revised target was 61 runs off the 11.2 overs that remained. The West Indies won the match and the competition with 4.4 overs remaining and eight wickets in hand. Australian fans booed this unsatisfactory conclusion, which was criticised by the media and Australia's captain.[4] In this match, the D/L method would have increased the West Indies' target to 232 to take into account a two-hour rain delay during Australia's innings, and then revised the target to 139 after the second interruption.
D/L began in one-day internationals
The D/L method was devised by two British statisticians, Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis, as a result of the outcome to the semi-final in the 1992 Cricket World Cup between England and South Africa, where the most productive overs method was used. Rain stopped play for 12 minutes with South Africa needing 22 runs from 13 balls. The revised target left South Africa needing 21 runs from one ball, which was a reduction of only one run compared to a reduction of two overs, and a virtually impossible target given that the maximum score from one ball is generally six runs.[5]
Duckworth said, "I recall hearing Christopher Martin-Jenkins on radio saying 'surely someone, somewhere could come up with something better' and I soon realised that it was a mathematical problem that required a mathematical solution."[6][7]
The D/L method avoids this flaw: in this match, the revised D/L target would have left South Africa four to tie or five to win from the final ball.[8]
The D/L method was first used in international cricket on 1 January 1997 in the second match of the Zimbabwe versus England ODI series, which Zimbabwe won by seven runs.[9] The D/L method was formally adopted by the ICC in 1999 as the standard method of calculating target scores in rain-shortened one-day matches.
Theory[edit]
The essence of the D/L method is 'resources'. Each team is taken to have two 'resources' to use to make as many runs as possible: the number of overs they have to receive; and the number of wickets they have in hand. At any point in any innings, a team's ability to score more runs depends on the combination of these two resources. Looking at historical scores, there is a very close correspondence between the availability of these resources and a team's final score, a correspondence which D/L exploits.[10]
Using a published table or computer which gives the percentage of these combined resources remaining for any number of overs (or, more accurately, balls) left and wickets lost, the target score can be adjusted up or down to reflect the loss of resources to one or both teams when a match is shortened one or more times. The two teams' resource percentages are found, and used to calculate a 'par score' for the second team that is usually a fractional number of runs. The target score is this number rounded up to the next integer, and the score to tie (also called the par score), is this number rounded down to the preceding integer. If the second team reaches or passes the target score, then they have won the match. If the match ends when the second team has exactly met (but not passed) the par score then the match is a tie. If the second team fail to reach the par score then they have lost.
Calculation summary[edit]
In the version of D/L most commonly in use in international and first-class matches (the 'Professional Edition'), the target for the team batting second ('Team 2') is adjusted up or down from the total the team batting first ('Team 1') scored, in proportion to the two teams' resources (combination of overs and wickets available), i.e.
Team 2's par score = Team 1's score × Team 2's resources Team 1's resources . {\displaystyle {\text{Team 2's par score }}={\text{ Team 1's score}}\times {\frac {\text{Team 2's resources}}{\text{Team 1's resources}}}.}
If, as usually occurs, this 'par score' is a non-integer number of runs, then Team 2's target to win is this number rounded up to the next integer, and the score to tie (also called the par score), is this number rounded down to the preceding integer. For example, if a rain delay means that Team 2 only has 90% of the resources that were available to Team 1, and Team 1 scored 254, then 254 × 90% = 228.6, so Team 2's target is 229, and the score to tie is 228. The actual resource values used in the Professional Edition are not publicly available,[11] so a computer which has this software loaded must be used.
If it is a 50-over match and Team 1 completed its innings uninterrupted, then they had 100% resource available to them, so the formula simplifies to:
Team 2's par score = Team 1's score × Team 2's resources . {\displaystyle {\text{Team 2's par score }}={\text{ Team 1's score}}\times {\text{Team 2's resources}}.}
Summary of impact on Team 2's target[edit]
If there is a delay before the first innings starts, so that the numbers of overs in the two innings are reduced (but still the same as each other), then D/L will make no change to the target score. This is because both sides will be in the same position of having the same number of overs and 10 wickets available, and they will know this throughout their innings, thus having the same amount of resource available.
Team 2's target score is first calculated once Team 1's innings has finished.
If there were interruption(s) during Team 1's innings, or Team 1's innings was cut short, so the numbers of overs in the two innings are reduced (but still the same as each other), then D/L will adjust Team 2's target score as described above. The adjustment to Team 2's target after interruptions in Team 1's innings is often an increase, implying that Team 2 has more resource available than Team 1 had. Although both teams have 10 wickets and the same (reduced) number of overs available, an increase is fair as, for some of their innings, Team 1 thought they would have more overs available than they actually ended up having. If Team 1 had known that their innings was going to be shorter, they would have batted less conservatively, and scored more runs (at the expense of more wickets). They saved some wicket resource to use up in the overs that ended up being cancelled, which Team 2 does not need to do, therefore Team 2 does have more resource to use in the same number of overs. Therefore, increasing Team 2's target score compensates Team 1 for the denial of some of the overs they thought they would get to bat. The increased target is what D/L thinks Team 1 would have scored in the overs it ended up having, if it had known throughout that the innings would be only as long as it was.
For example, if Team 1 batted for 20 overs before rain came, thinking they would have 50 overs in total, but at the re-start there was only time for Team 2 to bat for 20 overs, it would clearly be unfair to give Team 2 the target that Team 1 achieved, as Team 1 would have batted less conservatively and scored more runs, if they had known they would only have the 20 overs.
If there are interruption(s) to Team 2's innings, either before it starts, during, or it is cut short, then D/L will reduce Team 2's target score from the initial target set at the end of Team 1's innings, in proportion to the reduction in Team 2's resources. If there are multiple interruptions in the second innings, the target will be adjusted downwards each time.
If there are interruptions which both increase and decrease the target score, then the net effect on the target could be either an increase or decrease, depending on which interruptions were bigger.
Mathematical theory[edit]
The original D/L model started by assuming that the number of runs that can still be scored (called Z {\displaystyle Z} ), for a given number of overs remaining (called u {\displaystyle u} ) and wickets lost (called w {\displaystyle w} ), takes the following exponential decay relationship:[12]
Z ( u , w ) = Z 0 ( w ) ( 1 − e − b ( w ) u ) , {\displaystyle Z(u,w)=Z_{0}(w)\left({1-e^{-b(w)u}}\right),}
where the constant Z 0 {\displaystyle Z_{0}} is the asymptotic average total score in unlimited overs (under one-day rules), and b {\displaystyle b} is the exponential decay constant. Both vary with w {\displaystyle w} (only). The values of these two parameters for each w {\displaystyle w} from 0 to 9 were estimated from scores from 'hundreds of one-day internationals' and 'extensive research and experimentation', though were not disclosed due to 'commercial confidentiality'.[12]
Finding the value of Z {\displaystyle Z} for a particular combination of u {\displaystyle u} and w {\displaystyle w} (by putting in u {\displaystyle u} and the values of these constants for the particular w {\displaystyle w} ), and dividing this by the score achievable at the start of the innings, i.e. finding
P ( u , w ) = Z ( u , w ) Z ( u = 50 , w = 0 ) , {\displaystyle P(u,w)={\frac {Z(u,w)}{Z(u=50,w=0)}},\,}
gives the proportion of the combined run scoring resources of the innings remaining when u {\displaystyle u} overs are left and w {\displaystyle w} wickets are down.[12] These proportions can be plotted in a graph, as shown right, or shown in a single table, as shown below.
This became the Standard Edition. When it was introduced, it was necessary that D/L could be implemented with a single table of resource percentages, as it could not be guaranteed that computers would be present. Therefore this single formula was used giving average resources. This method relies on the assumption that average performance is proportional to the mean, irrespective of the actual score. This was good enough in 95 per cent of matches, but in the 5 per cent of matches with very high scores, the simple approach started to break down.[13] To overcome the problem, an upgraded formula was proposed with an additional parameter whose value depends on the Team 1 innings.[14] This became the Professional Edition.
Examples[edit]
Stoppage in first innings[edit]
Increased target[edit]
In the 4th India – England ODI in the 2008 series, the first innings was interrupted by rain on two occasions, resulting in the match being reduced to 22 overs each. India (batting first) made 166/4. England's target was set by the D/L method at 198 from 22 overs. As England knew they had only 22 overs the expectation is that they will be able to score more runs from those overs than India had from their (interrupted) innings. England made 178/8 from 22 overs, and so the match was listed as "India won by 19 runs (D/L method)".[15]
During the fifth ODI between India and South Africa in January 2011, rain halted play twice during the first innings. The match was reduced to 46 overs each and South Africa scored 250/9. The D/L method was applied which adjusted India's target to 268. As the number of overs was reduced during South Africa's innings, this method takes into account what South Africa are likely to have scored if they had known throughout their innings that it would only be 46 overs long, and so the match was listed as "South Africa won by 33 runs (D/L method)".[16]
Decreased target[edit]
On 3 December 2014, Sri Lanka played England and batted first, but play was interrupted when Sri Lanka had scored 6/1 from 2 overs. At the restart both innings were reduced to 35 overs, and Sri Lanka finished on 242/8. England's target was set by D/L at 236 from 35 overs.[17] Although Sri Lanka had less resource remaining to them after the interruption than England would have for their whole innings (about 7% less), they'd used up so much resource before the interruption (2 overs and 1 wicket, about 8%), that the total resource used by Sri Lanka was still slightly more than England would have available, hence the slightly decreased target for England.
Stoppage in second innings[edit]
A simple example of the D/L method being applied was the first ODI between India and Pakistan in their 2006 ODI series.[18] India batted first, and were all out for 328. Pakistan, batting second, were 311/7 when bad light stopped play after the 47th over. Pakistan's target, had the match continued, was 18 runs in 18 balls, with three wickets in hand. Considering the overall scoring rate throughout the match, this is a target most teams would be favoured to achieve. And indeed, application of the D/L method resulted in a retrospective target score of 305 (or par score of 304) at the end of the 47th over, with the result therefore officially listed as "Pakistan won by 7 runs (D/L Method)".
The D/L method was used in the group stage match between Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe at the 20/20 World Cup in 2010. Sri Lanka scored 173/7 in 20 overs batting first, and in reply Zimbabwe were 4/0 from 1 over when rain interrupted play. At the restart Zimbabwe's target was reduced to 108 from 12 overs, but rain stopped the match when they had scored 29/1 from 5 overs. The retrospective D/L target from 5 overs was a further reduction to 44, or a par score of 43, and hence Sri Lanka won the match by 14 runs.[19][20]
An example of a D/L tied match was the ODI between England and India on 11 September 2011. This match was frequently interrupted by rain in the final overs, and a ball-by-ball calculation of the Duckworth–Lewis 'par' score played a key role in tactical decisions during those overs. At one point, India were leading under D/L during one rain delay, and would have won if play had not resumed. At a second rain interval, England, who had scored some quick runs (knowing they needed to get ahead in D/L terms) would correspondingly have won if play had not resumed. Play was finally called off with just 7 balls of the match remaining and England's score equal to the Duckworth–Lewis 'par' score, therefore resulting in a tie.
This example does show how crucial (and difficult) the decisions of the umpires can be, in assessing when rain is heavy enough to justify ceasing play. If the umpires of that match had halted play one ball earlier, England would have been ahead on D/L, and so would have won the match. Equally, if play had stopped one ball later, India could have won the match with a dot ball – indicating how finely-tuned D/L calculations can be in such situations.
Stoppages in both innings[edit]
During the 2012/13 KFC Big Bash League, D/L was used in the 2nd semi-final played between the Melbourne Stars and the Perth Scorchers. After rain delayed the start of the match, it interrupted Melbourne's innings when they had scored 159/1 off 15.2 overs, and both innings were reduced by 2 overs to 18, and Melbourne finished on 183/2. After a further rain delay reduced Perth's innings to 17 overs, Perth returned to the field to face 13 overs, with a revised target of 139. Perth won the game by 8 wickets with a boundary off the final ball.[21][22]
Use and updates[edit]
The published table that underpins the D/L method is regularly updated, using source data from more recent matches.
For 50-over matches decided by D/L, each team must face at least 20 overs for the result to be valid. For Twenty20 games decided by D/L, each side must face at least five overs. These minimum limits do not apply to innings where a team is bowled out or reaches its target early. If the conditions prevent a match from reaching this minimum length, it is declared a no result.
1996–2003 – Single version[edit]
Until 2003, a single version of D/L was in use. This used a single published reference table of total resource percentages remaining for all possible combinations of overs and wickets,[23] and some simple mathematical calculations, and was relatively transparent and straightforward to implement.
However, a flaw in how it handled very high first innings scores (350+) became apparent from the 1999 Cricket World Cup match in Bristol between India and Kenya. Tony Lewis noticed that there was an inherent weakness in the formula that would give a noticeable advantage to the side chasing a total in excess of 350. A correction was built into the formula and the software, but was not fully adopted until 2004. One-day matches were achieving significantly higher scores than in previous decades, affecting the historical relationship between resources and runs. The second version uses more sophisticated statistical modelling, but does not use a single table of resource percentages. Instead, the percentages also vary with score, so a computer is required.[24] Therefore, it loses some of the previous advantages of transparency and simplicity.
In 2002 the resource percentages were revised, following an extensive analysis of limited overs matches, and there was a change to the G50 for ODIs. (G50 is the average score expected from the team batting first in an uninterrupted 50 overs-per-innings match.) G50 was changed to 235 for ODIs. These changes came into effect on 1 September 2002.[25] As of 2014, these resource percentages are the ones still in use in the Standard Edition, though G50 has subsequently changed.
The tables show how the percentages were in 1999 and 2001, and what they were changed to in 2002. Mostly they were reduced.
Percentage total resources remaining: 1999[26] and 2001[27]
Overs remaining
Wickets in hand
10 8 5 3 1
50 100.0 83.8 49.5 26.5 7.6
40 90.3 77.6 48.3 26.4 7.6
30 77.1 68.2 45.7 26.2 7.6
20 58.9 54.0 40.0 25.2 7.6
10 34.1 32.5 27.5 20.6 7.5
5 18.4 17.9 16.4 14.0 7.0
Percentage total resources remaining: 2002[25]
Overs remaining
Wickets in hand
10 8 5 3 1
50 100.0 85.1 49.0 22.0 4.7
40 89.3 77.8 47.6 22.0 4.7
30 75.1 67.3 44.7 21.8 4.7
20 56.6 52.4 38.6 21.2 4.7
10 32.1 30.8 26.1 17.9 4.7
5 17.2 16.8 15.4 12.5 4.6
2004 – Adoption of second version[edit]
The original version was named the Standard Edition, and the new version was named the Professional Edition. Tony Lewis said, "We were then [at the time of the 2003 Cricket World Cup Final] using what is now known as the Standard Edition. ... Australia got 359 and that showed up the flaws and straight away the next edition was introduced which handled high scores much better. The par score for India is likely to be much higher now."[28]
Duckworth and Lewis wrote, "When the side batting first score at or below the average for top level cricket ..., the results of applying the Professional Edition are generally similar to those from the Standard Edition. For higher scoring matches, the results start to diverge and the difference increases the higher the first innings total. In effect there is now a different table of resource percentages for every total score in the Team 1 innings."[29] The Professional Edition has been in use in all international one-day cricket matches since early 2004.
The decision on which edition should be used is for the cricket authority which runs the particular competition.[30] The ICC Playing Handbook[31] requires the use of the Professional Edition for internationals.[32] This also applies to most countries' national competitions.[30] At lower levels of the game, where use of a computer cannot always be guaranteed, the Standard Edition is used.[33]
2009[edit]
In June 2009, it was reported that the D/L method would be reviewed for the Twenty20 format after its appropriateness was questioned in the quickest version of the game. Lewis was quoted admitting that "Certainly, people have suggested that we need to look very carefully and see whether in fact the numbers in our formula are totally appropriate for the Twenty20 game."[34]
2015 – Becomes DLS[edit]
For the 2015 World Cup, the ICC implemented the Duckworth–Lewis–Stern formula, which included work by the new custodian of the method, Professor Steven Stern, from the Department of Statistics at Queensland University of Technology. These changes recognised that teams need to start out with a higher scoring rate when chasing high targets rather than keep wickets in hand.[35]
Target score calculations[edit]
Using the notation of the ICC Playing Handbook,[31] the team that bats first is called Team 1, their final score is called S, the total resources available to Team 1 for their innings is called R1, the team that bats second is called Team 2, and the total resources available to Team 2 for their innings is called R2.
Percentage total resources remaining reference table (D/L Standard Edition)
Overs remaining
Wickets in hand
10 8 6 4 2
50 100.0 85.1 62.7 34.9 11.9
40 89.3 77.8 59.5 34.6 11.9
30 75.1 67.3 54.1 33.6 11.9
20 56.6 52.4 44.6 30.8 11.9
10 32.1 30.8 28.3 22.8 11.4
5 17.2 16.8 16.1 14.3 9.4
Step 1. Find the batting resources available to each team[edit]
After each reduction in overs, the new total batting resources available to the two teams are found, using figures for the total amount of batting resources remaining for any combination of overs and wickets. While the process for converting these resources remaining figures into total resource available figures is the same in the two Editions, this can be done manually in the Standard Edition, as the resource remaining figures are published in a reference table.[23] However, the resource remaining figures used in the Professional Edition are not publicly available,[11] so a computer must be used which has the software loaded.
If a team loses resource at the start of an innings (left hand image below), then this is simple. For example, if the first 20 overs of an innings are lost, then 30 overs and 10 wickets are remaining, which is 75.1% in the Standard Edition, so this is the resource available.
If a team loses resource at the end of its innings (centre image below), then the resource that was available to that team is found by taking the resources it had at the start, and subtracting the resources remaining at the point the innings was ended. For example, if a team starts with 50 overs and 10 wickets (100% of its resources), but its innings is ended with 20 overs and 8 wickets remaining (52.4% of its resources), then the resources it actually used is 100% − 52.4% = 47.6%.
If a team loses resource in the middle of its innings (right hand image below), then the resource that was available to that team is found by taking the resources it had at the start, and subtracting the resources remaining at the point the innings was interrupted (to give the resources used in the first period of the innings), then adding on the resource remaining at the restart. For example, if a team starts with 50 overs and 10 wickets (100% of its resources), but is interrupted when it still has 40 overs and 8 wickets remaining (77.8% of its resources), and restarted when it has 20 overs and 8 wickets remaining (52.4% of its resources), then the resources it actually used is 100% − 77.8% + 52.4% = 74.6%. Another way of looking at this is to say it lost the resources available between 40 overs and 8 wickets (77.8%) and 20 overs and 8 wickets (52.4%), i.e. 77.8% − 52.4% = 25.4%, so its total resource available was 100% − 25.4% = 74.6%.
These are just the different ways of having one interruption. With multiple interruptions possible, it may seem like finding the total resource percentage requires a different calculation for each different scenario. However, the formula is actually the same each time − it's just that different scenarios, with more or less interruptions and restarts, need to use more or less of the same formula. The total resources available to a team are given by:[23]
Total resources available = 100% − Resources lost by 1st interruption − Resources lost by 2nd interruption − Resources lost by 3rd interruption − ...
which can alternatively be written as:
Total resources available = 100% − Resources remaining at 1st interruption + Resources remaining at 1st restart − Resources remaining at 2nd interruption + Resources remaining at 2nd restart − Resources remaining at 3rd interruption + Resources remaining at 3rd restart − ...
Each time there's an interruption or a restart after an interruption, the resource remaining percentages at those times (obtained from a reference table for the Standard Edition, or from a computer for the Professional Edition) can be entered into the formula, with the rest left blank. Note that a delay at the start of an innings counts as the 1st interruption.
Step 2. Convert the two teams' batting resources into Team 2's target score[edit]
Standard Edition
If R2 < R1, reduce Team 2's target score in proportion to the reduction in total resources, i.e. S × R2/R1.
If R2 = R1, no adjustment to Team 2's target score is needed.
If R2 > R1, increase Team 2's target score by the extra runs that could be expected to be scored on average with the extra total resource, i.e. S + G50 × (R2 – R1)/100, where G50 is the average 50-over total. Team 2's target score is not simply increased in proportion to the increase in total resources, i.e. S × R2/R1, as this 'could lead to some unrealistically high targets if Team 1 had achieved an early high rate of scoring [in the powerplay overs] and rain caused a drastic reduction in the overs for the match.'[36] Instead, D/L Standard Edition requires average performance for Team 2's additional resource over Team 1.
G50
G50 is the average score expected from the team batting first in an uninterrupted 50 overs-per-innings match. This will vary with the level of competition and over time. The annual ICC Playing Handbook[31] gives the values of G50 to be used each year when the D/L Standard Edition is applied:
Period Matches involving ICC full member nations Matches between teams that play first-class cricket Under-19 internationals Under-15 internationals Matches between ICC associate member nations Women's ODIs
1999 − 31 August 2002[37] 225 ?
1 September 2002 − 2006[25] 235
2006/07[38] 235 200 190 175
2007/08
2008/09[31]
2009/10[31] 245 200
2010/11[31]
2011/12[31]
2012/13[31]
2013/14[31]
Duckworth and Lewis write, 'We accept that the value of G50, perhaps, should be different for each country, or even for each ground, and there is no reason why any cricket authority may not choose the value it believes to be the most appropriate. In fact it would be possible for the two captains to agree a value of G50 before the start of each match, taking account of all relevant factors. However, we do not believe that something that is only invoked if rain interferes with the game should impose itself on every game in this way. In any case, it should be realised that the value of G50 usually has very little effect on the revised target. If 250 were used, for instance, instead of 235, it is unlikely that the target would be more than two or three runs different.'[39]
Professional Edition
If R2 < R1, reduce Team 2's target score in proportion to the reduction in total resources, i.e. S × R2/R1.
If R2 = R1, no adjustment to Team 2's target score is needed.
If R2 > R1, increase Team 2's target score in proportion to the increase in total resources, i.e. S × R2/R1. The problem of early high scoring rates potentially producing anomalously high targets has been overcome in the Professional Edition, which is essentially 'a different table of resource percentages for every total score in the Team 1 innings.'[29] Therefore, Team 2's target score can be simply increased in proportion to the increase in total resources when R2 > R1,[36] and there is no G50.
Example Standard Edition Target score calculations[edit]
As the resource percentages used in the Professional Edition are not publicly available, it is difficult to give examples of the D/L calculation for the Professional Edition. Therefore, examples are given from when the Standard Edition was widely used, which was up to early 2004.
Reduced target: Team 1's innings completed; Team 2's innings delayed (i.e. resources lost at the start of the innings)[edit]
Percentage total resources remaining reference table (D/L Standard Edition)[23]
Overs remaining
Wickets in hand
10 8 6 4 2
31 76.7 68.6 54.8 33.7 11.9
30 75.1 67.3 54.1 33.6 11.9
29 73.5 66.1 53.4 33.4 11.9
28 71.8 64.8 52.6 33.2 11.9
27 70.1 63.4 51.8 33.0 11.9
On 18 May 2003, Lancashire played Hampshire in the National League.[40][41][42] Rain before play reduced the match to 30 overs each. Lancashire batted first and scored 231–4 from their 30 overs. Before Hampshire began their innings, it was further reduced to 28 overs.
Total resources available to Lancashire (R1) 30 overs and 10 wickets 75.1%
Total resources available to Hampshire (R2) 28 overs and 10 wickets 71.8%
Hampshire's par score 231 x R2/R1 = 231 x 71.8/75.1 220.850 runs
Hampshire's target was therefore 221 to win (in 28 overs), or 220 to tie. They were all out for 150, giving Lancashire victory by 220 − 150 = 70 runs.
If Hampshire's target had been set by the Average Run Rate method (simply in proportion to the reduction in overs), their par score would have been 231 x 28/30 = 215.6, giving 216 to win or 215 to tie. While this would have kept the required run rate the same as Lancashire achieved (7.7 runs per over), this would have given an unfair advantage to Hampshire as it's easier to achieve and maintain a run rate for a shorter period. Increasing Hampshire's target from 216 overcomes this flaw.
As Lancashire's innings was interrupted once (before it started), and then re-started, their resource can be found from the general formula above as follows (Hampshire's is similar): Total resources = 100% − Resources remaining at 1st interruption + Resources remaining at 1st restart = 100% − 100% + 75.1% = 75.1%.
Reduced target: Team 1's innings completed; Team 2's innings cut short (i.e. resources lost at the end of the innings)[edit]
Percentage total resources remaining reference table (D/L Standard Edition)[23]
Overs remaining
Wickets in hand
10 8 6 4 2
50 100.0 85.1 62.7 34.9 11.9
40 89.3 77.8 59.5 34.6 11.9
30 75.1 67.3 54.1 33.6 11.9
20 56.6 52.4 44.6 30.8 11.9
10 32.1 30.8 28.3 22.8 11.4
5 17.2 16.8 16.1 14.3 9.4
On 3 March 2003, Sri Lanka played South Africa in the 2003 Cricket World Cup Pool B.[43][44] Sri Lanka batted first and scored 268–9 from their 50 overs. Chasing a target of 269, South Africa had reached 229–6 from 45 overs when play was abandoned.
Total resources available to Sri Lanka (R1) 50 overs and 10 wickets 100.0%
Total resources available to South Africa at the start of their innings 50 overs and 10 wickets 100.0%
Total resources remaining to South Africa when play abandoned 5 overs and 4 wickets 14.3%
Total resources available to South Africa (R2) 100.0% − 14.3% 85.7%
South Africa's par score 268 × R2/R1 = 268 × 85.7/100.0 229.676 runs
Therefore, South Africa's retrospective target from their 45 overs was 230 runs to win, or 229 to tie. In the event, as they had scored exactly 229, the match was declared a tie.
South Africa scored no runs off the very last ball. If play had been abandoned without that ball having been bowled, the resource available to South Africa at the abandonment would have been 14.7%, giving them a par score of 228.6, and hence victory.
As South Africa's innings was interrupted once (and not re-started), their resource is given by the general formula above as follows: Total resources available = 100% − Resources remaining at 1st interruption = 100% − 14.3% = 85.7%.
Reduced target: Team 1's innings completed; Team 2's innings interrupted (i.e. resources lost in the middle of the innings)[edit]
On 16 February 2003, New South Wales played South Australia in the ING Cup.[45][46] New South Wales batted first and scored 273 all out (from 49.4 overs). Chasing a target of 274, rain interrupted play when South Australia had reached 70–2 from 19 overs, and at the restart their innings was reduced to 36 overs (i.e. 17 remaining).
Total resources available to New South Wales (R1) 50 overs and 10 wickets 100.0%
Total resources available to South Australia at the start of their innings 50 overs and 10 wickets 100.0%
Total resources remaining to South Australia at the interruption 31 overs and 8 wickets 68.6%
Total resources remaining to South Australia at the restart 17 overs and 8 wickets 46.7%
Total resources lost to South Australia by the interruption 68.6% − 46.7% 21.9%
Total resources available to South Australia (R2) 100.0% − 21.9% 78.1%
South Australia's par score 273 × R2/R1 = 273 × 78.1/100.0 213.213 runs
South Australia's new target was therefore 214 to win (in 36 overs), or 213 to tie. In the event, they were all out for 174, so New South Wales won by 213 − 174 = 39 runs.
As South Australia's innings was interrupted once and re-started once, their resource is given by the general formula above as follows: Total resources available = 100% − Resources remaining at 1st interruption + Resources remaining at 1st restart = 100% − 68.6% + 46.7% = 78.1%.
Increased target: Team 1's innings cut short (i.e. resources lost at the end of the innings); Team 2's innings completed[edit]
On 25 January 2001, West Indies played Zimbabwe.[47][48] West Indies batted first and had reached 235–6 from 47 overs (of a scheduled 50) when rain halted play for two hours. At the restart, both innings were reduced to 47 overs, i.e. West Indies' innings was closed immediately, and Zimbabwe began their innings.
Total resources available to West Indies at the start of their innings 50 overs and 10 wickets 100.0%
Total resources remaining to West Indies when innings was closed 3 overs and 4 wickets 10.2%
Total resources available to West Indies (R1) 100.0% − 10.2% 89.8%
Total resources available to Zimbabwe (R2) 47 overs and 10 wickets 97.4%
Zimbabwe's par score 235 + G50 × (R2 − R1)/100 = 235 + 225 × (97.4 − 89.8)/100 252.100 runs
Zimbabwe's target was therefore 253 to win (in 47 overs), or 252 to tie. It is fair that their target was increased, even though they had the same number of overs to bat as West Indies, as West Indies would have batted more aggressively in their last few overs, and scored more runs, if they had known that their innings would be cut short at 47 overs. Zimbabwe were all out for 175, giving West Indies victory by 252 − 175 = 77 runs.
These resource percentages are the ones which were in use back in 2001, before the 2002 revision, and so do not match the currently used percentages for the Standard Edition, which are slightly different. Also, the formula for Zimbabwe's par score comes from the Standard Edition of D/L, which was used at the time. Currently the Professional Edition is used, which has a different formula when R2>R1. The formula required Zimbabwe to match West Indies' performance with their overlapping 89.8% of resource (i.e. score 235 runs), and achieve average performance with their extra 97.4% − 89.8% = 7.6% of resource (i.e. score 7.6% of G50 (225 at the time) = 17.1 runs).
As West Indies' innings was interrupted once (and not re-started), their resource is given by the general formula above as follows: Total resources available = 100% − Resources remaining at 1st interruption = 100% − 10.2% = 89.8%.
Increased target: Multiple interruptions in Team 1's innings (i.e. resources lost in the middle of the innings); Team 2's innings completed[edit]
On 20 February 2003, Australia played Netherlands in the 2003 Cricket World Cup Pool A.[49][50][51][52] Rain before play reduced the match to 47 overs each, and Australia batted first.
Rain stopped play when they had reached 109–2 from 25 overs (i.e. 22 remaining). At the restart both innings were reduced to 44 overs (i.e. 19 remaining for Australia).
Rain stopped play again when Australia had reached 123–2 from 28 overs (i.e. 16 remaining), and at the restart both innings were reduced further to 36 overs (i.e. 8 remaining for Australia).
Australia finished on 170–2 from their 36 overs.
Total resources available to Australia at the start of their innings 47 overs and 10 wickets 97.1%
Total resources remaining to Australia at interruption 22 overs and 8 wickets 55.8%
Total resources remaining to Australia at restart 19 overs and 8 wickets 50.5%
Total resources lost by interruption 55.8% − 50.5% 5.3%
Total resources remaining to Australia at interruption 16 overs and 8 wickets 44.7%
Total resources remaining to Australia at restart 8 overs and 8 wickets 25.5%
Total resources lost by interruption 44.7% − 25.5% 19.2%
Total resources available to Australia (R1) 97.1% − 5.3% − 19.2% 72.6%
Total resources available to Netherlands (R2) 36 overs and 10 wickets 84.1%
Netherlands' par score 170 + G50 × (R2 − R1)/100 = 170 + 235 × (84.1 − 72.6)/100 197.025 runs
The Netherlands' target was therefore 198 to win (in 36 overs), or 197 to tie. It is fair that their target was increased, even though they had the same number of overs to bat as Australia, as Australia would have batted less conservatively in their first 28 overs, and scored more runs at the expense of more wickets, if they had known that their innings would only be 36 overs long. Increasing the Netherlands' target score neutralizes the injustice done to Australia when they were denied some of the overs to bat they thought they would get. The Netherlands were all out for 122, giving Australia victory by 197 − 122 = 75 runs.
This formula for Netherlands' par score comes from the Standard Edition of D/L, which was used at the time. Currently the Professional Edition is used, which has a different formula when R2>R1. The formula required Netherlands to match Australia's performance with their overlapping 72.6% of resource (i.e. score 170 runs), and achieve average performance with their extra 84.1% − 72.6% = 11.5% of resource (i.e. score 11.5% of G50 (235 at the time) = 27.025 runs).
After the match there were reports in the media[50] that Australia had batted conservatively in their final 8 overs after the final re-start, to avoid losing wickets rather than maximising their numbers of runs, in belief that this would further increase the Netherlands' par score. However, if this is true, this belief was mistaken, in the same way that conserving wickets rather than maximising runs in the final 8 overs of a full 50-over innings would be a mistake. At that point the amount of resource available to each team was fixed (as long as there were no further rain interruptions), so the only undetermined number in the formula for Netherlands' par score was Australia's final score, so they should have tried to maximise this.
As Australia's innings was interrupted three times (once before it started) and re-started three times, their resource is given by the general formula above as follows:
Total resources available = 100% − Resources remaining at 1st interruption + Resources remaining at 1st restart − Resources remaining at 2nd interruption + Resources remaining at 2nd restart − Resources remaining at 3rd interruption + Resources remaining at 3rd restart = 100% − 100% + 97.1% − 55.8% + 50.5% − 44.7% + 25.5% = 72.6%.
In-game strategy[edit]
During Team 1's innings[edit]
Strategy for Team 1[edit]
During Team 1's innings, the target score calculations (as described above), have not yet been made.
The objective of the team batting first is to maximise the target score which will be calculated for the team batting second, which (in the Professional Edition) will be determined by the formula:
Team 2's par score = Team 1's score × Team 2's resources Team 1's resources . {\displaystyle {\text{Team 2's par score }}={\text{ Team 1's score}}\times {\frac {\text{Team 2's resources}}{\text{Team 1's resources}}}.}
For these three terms:
Team 1's score: Team 1 will always increase Team 2's target by increasing their own score.
At the start of Team 2's innings, Team 2's resources will be 10 wickets and the number of overs available, and Team 1 cannot affect this.
Team 1's resources are given by:
Total resources available = 100% − Resources lost by 1st interruption − Resources lost by 2nd interruption − Resources lost by 3rd interruption − ...
If there will not be any future interruptions to Team 1's innings, then the amount of resource available to them is now fixed (whether there have been interruptions so far or not), so the only thing Team 1 can do to increase Team 2's target is increase their own score, ignoring how many wickets they lose (as in a normal unaffected match).
However, if there will be future interruptions to Team 1's innings, then an alternative strategy to scoring more runs is minimising the amount of resource they use before the coming interruption (i.e. preserving wickets). While the best overall strategy is obviously to both score more runs and preserve resources, if a choice has to be made between the two, sometimes preserving wickets at the expense of scoring runs ('conservative' batting) is a more effective way of increasing Team 2's target, and sometimes the reverse ('aggressive' batting) is true.
Percentage total resources remaining reference table (D/L Standard Edition)[23]
Overs remaining
Wickets in hand
10 8 6 4 2
50 100.0 85.1 62.7 34.9 11.9
40 89.3 77.8 59.5 34.6 11.9
30 75.1 67.3 54.1 33.6 11.9
20 56.6 52.4 44.6 30.8 11.9
10 32.1 30.8 28.3 22.8 11.4
5 17.2 16.8 16.1 14.3 9.4
For example, suppose Team 1 has been batting without interruptions, but thinks the innings will be cut short at 40 overs, i.e. with 10 overs left. (Then Team 2 will have 40 overs to bat, so Team 2's resource will be 89.3%.) Team 1 thinks by batting conservatively it can reach 200–6, or by batting aggressively it can reach 220–8:
Batting strategy Conservative Aggressive
Runs Team 1 thinks it can score 200 220
Wickets Team 1 thinks it will have in hand 4 2
Resource remaining to Team 1 at cut-off 22.8% 11.4%
Resource used by Team 1 100% − 22.8% = 77.2% 100% − 11.4% = 88.6%
Team 2's par score 200 x 89.3% / 77.2%
= 231.35 runs 220 x 89.3% / 88.6%
= 221.74 runs
Therefore, in this case, the conservative strategy achieves a higher target for Team 2.
Percentage total resources remaining reference table (D/L Standard Edition)[23]
Overs remaining
Wickets in hand
10 8 6 4 2
50 100.0 85.1 62.7 34.9 11.9
40 89.3 77.8 59.5 34.6 11.9
30 75.1 67.3 54.1 33.6 11.9
20 56.6 52.4 44.6 30.8 11.9
10 32.1 30.8 28.3 22.8 11.4
5 17.2 16.8 16.1 14.3 9.4
However, suppose instead that the difference between the two strategies is scoring 200–2 or 220–4:
Batting strategy Conservative Aggressive
Runs Team 1 thinks it can score 200 220
Wickets Team 1 thinks it will have in hand 8 6
Resource remaining to Team 1 at cut-off 30.8% 28.3%
Resource used by Team 1 100% − 30.8% = 69.2% 100% − 28.3% = 71.7%
Team 2's par score 200 x 89.3% / 69.2%
= 258.09 runs 220 x 89.3% / 71.7%
= 274.00 runs
In this case, the aggressive strategy is better.
Therefore, the best batting strategy for Team 1 ahead of a coming interruption is not always the same, but varies with the facts of the match situation to date (runs scored, wickets lost, overs used, and whether there have been interruptions), and also with the opinions about what will happen with each strategy (how many further runs will be scored, further wickets will be lost, and further overs will be used? How likely are the coming interruptions, when will they happen, and how long will they last – will Team 1's innings be re-started?).
This example shows just two possible batting strategies, but in reality there could be a range of others, e.g. 'neutral', 'semi-aggressive', 'super-aggressive', or timewasting to minimise the amount of resource used by slowing the over rate. Finding which strategy is the best can only be found by inputting the facts and one's opinions into the calculations and seeing what emerges.
Of course, a chosen strategy may backfire. For example, if Team 1 chooses to bat conservatively, Team 2 may see this and decide to attack (rather than focus on saving runs), and Team 1 may both fail to score many more runs and lose wickets.
Note also that if there have already been interruptions to Team 1's innings, the calculation of total resource they use will be more complicated than this example.
Strategy for Team 2[edit]
During Team 1's innings, Team 2's objective is to minimise the target score they will be set. This is achieved by minimising Team 1's score, or (as above), if there will be future interruptions to Team 1's innings, alternatively by maximising the resource used by Team 1 (i.e. wickets lost or overs bowled) before that happens. Team 2 can vary their bowling strategy (between conservative and aggressive) to try and achieve either of these objectives, so this means doing the same calculations as above, inputting their opinions of future runs conceded, wickets taken and overs bowled in each bowling strategy, to see which one is best.
Also, Team 2 can encourage Team 1 to bat particularly conservatively or aggressively (e.g. through field settings).
During Team 2's innings[edit]
A target (from a given number of overs) is set for Team 2 at the start of its innings. If there will not be any future interruptions, then both sides can play to a finish in the normal way. However, if there are likely to be interruptions to Team 2's innings, then Team 2 will aim to keep itself ahead of the D/L par score, and Team 1 will aim to keep them behind it. This is because, if a match is abandoned before the given number of overs is complete, Team 2 is declared the winner if they're ahead of the par score, and Team 1 is declared the winner if Team 2 are behind the par score. A tie is declared if Team 2 are exactly on the par score. (This is provided a minimum number of overs has been bowled in Team 2's innings.)
The par score increases with every ball bowled and every wicket lost, as the amount of resource used increases. As an example, in the 2003 Cricket World Cup Final Australia batted first and scored 359 from 50 overs. As Australia completed their 50 overs, their total resources used R1=100%, so India's par score throughout their innings was: 359 x R2/100%, where R2 is the amount of resource used to that point. As shown in the first line of the table below, after 9 overs India were 57-1, and 41 overs and 9 wickets remaining equates to 85.3% of resources, so 100% − 85.3% = 14.7% had been used. India's par score after 9 overs was therefore 359 x 14.7%/100% = 52.773, which is rounded down to 52.
During the six balls of the 10th over India scored 0, 0, 0, 1 (from a no ball), loss of wicket, 0.[53] At the start of the over India were ahead of the par score, but the loss of the wicket caused their par score to jump from 55 to 79, which put them behind the par score.
Overs used
1 wicket lost
2 wickets lost
India's actual score
Resources remaining Resources used (R2) D/L par score Resources remaining Resources used (R2) D/L par score
9.0 85.3% 14.7% 52.773 52 78.7% 21.3% 76.467 76 57-1
9.1 85.1% 14.9% 53.491 53 78.5% 21.5% 77.185 77 57-1
9.2 84.9% 15.1% 54.209 54 78.4% 21.6% 77.544 77 57-1
9.3 84.7% 15.3% 54.927 54 78.2% 21.8% 78.262 78 57-1
9.4 84.6% 15.4% 55.286 55 78.1% 21.9% 78.621 78 58-1
9.5 84.4% 15.6% 56.004 56 77.9% 22.1% 79.339 79 58-2
10.0 84.2% 15.8% 56.722 56 77.8% 22.2% 79.698 79 58-2
Other uses[edit]
There are uses of the D/L method other than finding the current official final target score for the team batting second in a match that has already been reduced by the weather.
Ball-by-ball par score[edit]
Many stadium scoreboards do not carry information about par scores during games
During the second team's innings, the number of runs a chasing side would expect to have scored on average with this number of overs used and wickets lost, if they were going to successfully match the first team's score, called the D/L par score, may be shown on a computer printout, the scoreboard and/or TV alongside the actual score, and updated after every ball. This can happen in matches which look like they're about to be shortened by the weather, and so D/L is about to be brought into play, or even in matches completely unaffected by the weather. This is:
To help spectators and players understand whether the chasing side are doing better or worse than they would need to do on average to reach the target score.
The score the batting team's score would be compared to determine which side had won, if the match had to be abandoned right then. It is the par score which is displayed, i.e. the score to tie. The target, to win, score is one run more than this. South Africa exited the 2003 World Cup after a resulting a draw with Sri Lanka by mistakenly believing the par score on the printout was the target score.[54][55]
Net run rate calculation[edit]
It has been suggested that when a side batting second successfully completes the run chase, the D/L method could be used to predict how many runs they would have scored with a full innings (i.e. 50 overs in a One Day International), and use this prediction in the net run rate calculation.[56]
This suggestion is in response to the criticisms of NRR that it does not take into account wickets lost, and that it unfairly penalizes teams which bat second and win, as those innings are shorter and therefore have less weight in the NRR calculation than other innings which go the full distance.
Criticism[edit]
The D/L method has been criticized on the grounds that wickets are a much more heavily weighted resource than overs, leading to the suggestion that if teams are chasing big targets, and there is the prospect of rain, a winning strategy could be to not lose wickets and score at what would seem to be a "losing" rate (e.g. if the required rate was 6.1, it could be enough to score at 4.75 an over for the first 20–25 overs).[57] The 2015 update to D/L/S recognised this weakness and changed the rate at which teams needed to score at the start of the second innings in response to a large first innings.
Another criticism is that the D/L method does not account for changes in proportion of the innings for which field restrictions are in place compared to a completed match.[58]
More common informal criticism from cricket fans and journalists of the D/L method is that it is unduly complex and can be misunderstood.[59][60] For example, in a one-day match against England on 20 March 2009, the West Indies coach (John Dyson) called his players in for bad light, believing that his team would win by one run under the D/L method, but not realizing that the loss of a wicket with the last ball had altered the Duckworth–Lewis score. In fact Javagal Srinath, the match referee, confirmed that the West Indies were two runs short of their target, giving the victory to England.
Concerns have been raised as to its suitability for Twenty20 matches, where a high scoring over can drastically alter the situation of the game and variability of the run-rate is higher over matches with a shorter number of overs.[61]
Cultural influence[edit]
"The Duckworth Lewis Method" is the name of a band formed by Neil Hannon of The Divine Comedy and Thomas Walsh of Pugwash, which recorded a self-titled concept album of cricket songs.[62][63]
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "A Decade of Duckworth–Lewis". BBC. 1 January 2007. Retrieved 21 March 2009.
Jump up ^ "Introducing Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method". Cricbuzz. 12 February 2015. Retrieved 30 March 2015.
Jump up ^ Duckworth/Lewis. "The D/L method: answers to frequently asked questions". ESPN Cricinfo. Retrieved 5 January 2017.
^ Jump up to: a b 3rd Final, 1988/89 Benson and Hedges World Series Cup
Jump up ^ "22 off one ball – A farcical rain rule leaves everyone bewildered", from Cricinfo.
Jump up ^ espncricinfo
Jump up ^ BBC
Jump up ^ "Stump the Bearded Wonder", Bill Frindall explains how D/L would apply to 1992 WC semi-final
Jump up ^ Scorecard of the 2nd ODI between England and Zimbabwe, 1 January 1997, from Cricinfo.
Jump up ^ Data Analysis Australia's detailed mathematical analysis of the Duckworth–Lewis Method daa.com.au.
^ Jump up to: a b espncricinfo D/L FAQ's Q15
^ Jump up to: a b c Duckworth, F.C.; Lewis, A. J. (1998). "A fair method for resetting the target in interrupted one-day cricket matches". Journal of the Operational Research Society. 49 (3): 220–227. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600524.
Jump up ^ Duckworth, F.C. (2008). "The Duckworth/Lewis method: an exercise in Maths, Stats, OR and communications" (PDF). MSOR Connections. 8 (3): 11–14.
Jump up ^ Duckworth, F.C.; Lewis, A. J. (2004). "A successful Operational Research intervention in one-day cricket". Journal of the Operational Research Society. 55 (7): 749–759. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601717.
Jump up ^ Scorecard for the rain-affected 4th ODI between India and England on 23 November 2008, from Cricinfo.
Jump up ^ Scorecard for the rain-affected 5th ODI between India and South Africa on 23 January 2011, from Cricinfo.
Jump up ^ Sri Lanka v England Scorecard
Jump up ^ Pakistan v India Scorecard, 6 Feb 2006
Jump up ^ Scorecard
Jump up ^ Report
Jump up ^ Perth v Melbourne scorecard
Jump up ^ Perth v Melbourne report
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Duckworth/Lewis Method of Re-calculating the Target Score in an Interrupted Match Archived 22 February 2014 at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ Rain affected rules from Cricinfo.
^ Jump up to: a b c The Duckworth-Lewis Method (2002) from Cricinfo.
Jump up ^ The Duckworth-Lewis Method (1999) from Cricinfo.
Jump up ^ The Duckworth-Lewis Method (2001) from Cricinfo.
Jump up ^ Tony Lewis, of Duckworth-Lewis, Interview: Journalists denigrate system by publishing 'rubbish' without understanding 27 August 2013
^ Jump up to: a b espncricinfo D/L FAQ's Q13
^ Jump up to: a b espncricinfo D/L FAQ's Q14
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i ICC Playing Handbook
Jump up ^ ICC Playing Handbook 2013/14 Section 6
Jump up ^ espncricinfo D/L FAQ's Q1
Jump up ^ Duckworth–Lewis to review their formula for T20 matches Archived 10 October 2012 at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ "Duckworth-Lewis method in new avatar for World Cup". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 7 July 2016.
^ Jump up to: a b espncricinfo D/L FAQ's Q4
Jump up ^ The dummy's guide to Duckworth-Lewis
Jump up ^ ICC Playing Handbook 2006-07
Jump up ^ espncricinfo D/L FAQ's Q6
Jump up ^ Scorecard
Jump up ^ Scorecard
Jump up ^ Article
Jump up ^ Scorecard
Jump up ^ Report
Jump up ^ Scorecard
Jump up ^ Scorecard
Jump up ^ Scorecard
Jump up ^ Scorecard
Jump up ^ Scorecard
^ Jump up to: a b Report
Jump up ^ Report
Jump up ^ Over by over
Jump up ^ Ball-by-ball description from espncricinfo
Jump up ^ South Africa left to lick wounds (BBC)
Jump up ^ Being Duckworth-Lewis: cricket's weather-break mathematicians (The Guardian)
Jump up ^ SportTaco.com
Jump up ^ Bhogle, Srinivas, The Duck worth/Lewis Factor, Rediff.com.
Jump up ^ Booth, Shane, quoted in For a Fair Formula Archived 22 March 2007 at the Wayback Machine., The Hindu.
Jump up ^ Varma, Amit, Simple and subjective? Or complex and objective?[permanent dead link], ESPNcricinfo
Jump up ^ Charlie Brooker, AV campaigners have created a stupidity whirlpool that engulfs any loose molecules of logic, dismisses the claim of the simplicity by citing the method's formula, The Guardian, 25 April 2011. Retrieved 28 April 2011
Jump up ^ The anomalous contraction of the Duckworth–Lewis method
Jump up ^ BBC news interview with The Duckworth Lewis Method
Jump up ^ Interview with band
Further reading[edit]
Duckworth, FC & Lewis, AJ "Your Comprehensive Guide to The Duckworth Lewis Method for Resetting Targets in One-day Cricket", Acumen Books, 2004. ISBN 0-9548718-0-4
Duckworth, F "A Role for Statistics in International Cricket" Teaching Statistics, (June 2001) Volume 23, No. 2 pp 38–44
Duckworth, FC & Lewis, AJ "A fair method for resetting the target in interrupted one-day cricket matches" Journal of the Operational Research Society, (Mar 1998) Volume 49, No. 3 pp 220–227 JSTOR 3010471
External links[edit]
ICC's D/L method FAQ
Cricinfo's D/L method FAQ
ICC's D/L method (standard edition) table of resource percentages
Cricinfo's explanation of the D/L method
BBC Sport's explanation of the D/L method
Web based Calculator for the Standard Edition of the Duckworth Lewis method
Calculator for the Stern Edition of the D/L method
Alternatives to D/L
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Duckworth–Lewis_method&oldid=804267206"
Categories:
Limited overs cricket
Scoring (cricket)
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template wayback links
All articles with dead external links
Articles with dead external links from December 2016
Articles with permanently dead external links
Use British English from February 2013
Use dmy dates from June 2017
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Afrikaans
বাংলা
Deutsch
Français
हिन्दी
Italiano
മലയാളം
मराठी
Nederlands
தமிழ்
Edit links
This page was last edited on 7 October 2017, at 21:27.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: role class

values:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

attrs: class style

values:
/wiki/One-day_international
mw-redirect
One-day international

values:
/wiki/South_African_cricket_team
mw-redirect
South African cricket team

values:
/wiki/One-day_cricket
mw-redirect
One-day cricket

values:
/wiki/The_result_in_cricket#Tie
mw-redirect
The result in cricket

values: vertical-align: -2.005ex; width:61.416ex; height:5.509ex;

values: vertical-align: -0.671ex; width:60.58ex; height:2.509ex;

values: Edit section: Summary of impact on Team 2's target

values: vertical-align: -0.338ex; width:1.691ex; height:2.176ex;

values: vertical-align: -0.338ex; width:1.34ex; height:1.676ex;

values: vertical-align: -0.338ex; width:1.675ex; height:1.676ex;

values: vertical-align: -1.838ex; width:31.856ex; height:4.843ex;

values: vertical-align: -0.671ex; width:2.66ex; height:2.509ex;

values: vertical-align: -0.338ex; width:1.008ex; height:2.176ex;

attrs: alt src width height data-file-width data-file-height

values: Scoring potential as a function of wickets and overs.

values: vertical-align: -2.671ex; width:29.951ex; height:6.509ex;

values:
/wiki/Indian_Cricket_Team
mw-redirect
Indian Cricket Team

values: Edit section: Stoppage in second innings

values:
/wiki/Pakistani_cricket_team
mw-redirect
Pakistani cricket team

values: Edit section: 1996–2003 – Single version

values: Edit section: 2004 – Adoption of second version

values: float: right; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align:center; width:25%;

values: Edit section: Step 1. Find the batting resources available to each team

values: background: white; border: 2px solid rgb(0, 255, 0); padding: 2px;

values: Edit section: Step 2. Convert the two teams' batting resources into Team 2's target score

values: List of International Cricket Council members

values: Edit section: Example Standard Edition Target score calculations

values: Edit section: Reduced target: Team 1's innings completed; Team 2's innings delayed (i.e. resources lost at the start of the innings)

values: Edit section: Reduced target: Team 1's innings completed; Team 2's innings cut short (i.e. resources lost at the end of the innings)

values: Edit section: Reduced target: Team 1's innings completed; Team 2's innings interrupted (i.e. resources lost in the middle of the innings)

values: Edit section: Increased target: Team 1's innings cut short (i.e. resources lost at the end of the innings); Team 2's innings completed

values: Edit section: Increased target: Multiple interruptions in Team 1's innings (i.e. resources lost in the middle of the innings); Team 2's innings completed

values:
/wiki/2003_cricket_world_cup#Pool_A
mw-redirect
2003 cricket world cup

values: border-width:0 0 0 3px;border-style:solid;border-color:pale grey;background:#ffdead;

values: float: center; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align:center;

values: English cricket team in West Indies in 2008–09

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3010471

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.duckworth-lewis.com

values:
nofollow
external text
http://dlcalc.codeplex.com

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Category:All articles with dead external links

values: Category:Articles with dead external links from December 2016

values: Category:Articles with permanently dead external links

values: Category:Use British English from February 2013

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values:
/wiki/Duckworth%E2%80%93Lewis_method
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: ডাকওয়ার্থ-লুইস পদ্ধতি – Bangla

values: डकवर्थ लुईस नियम – Hindi

values: ഡക്ക്‌വർത്ത്-ലൂയിസ് നിയമം – Malayalam

values: डकवर्थ-लुईस पद्धत – Marathi

values: டக்வோர்த் லூயிஸ் முறை – Tamil

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Duckworth–Lewis_method rootpage-Duckworth–Lewis_method vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view