Editing Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method (section)

==Target score calculations==
Using the [[notation]] of the ICC Playing Handbook,<ref name="ICCPH"/> 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.

{| class="wikitable" style="float: right; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align:center; width:25%;"
|+ Percentage total resources remaining reference table (D/L Standard Edition)
|-
! rowspan="2" style="background: #ffdead;" | Overs remaining
! colspan="5" style="background: #ffdead;" | 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===

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.<ref name="DLMethod"/> However, the resource remaining figures used in the Professional Edition are not publicly available,<ref name=FAQ/> 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 [[subtraction|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% &minus; 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% &minus; 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% &minus; 52.4% = 25.4%, so its total resource available was 100% &minus; 25.4% = 74.6%.

'''[[File:DuckworthLewisDiag1.png|300px|DuckworthLewisDiag1]]''' 
[[File:DuckworthLewisDiag2.png|330px|DuckworthLewisDiag2]] 
[[File:DuckworthLewisDiag3.png|360px|DuckworthLewisDiag3]]

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 &minus; 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:<ref name="DLMethod"/>

<!--<div style="background: white; border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding: 2px;">-->
<div style="background: white; border: 2px solid rgb(0, 255, 0); padding: 2px;">
{|
|-
|''Total resources available'' = '''100%''' &minus; '''('''Resources lost by '''1st''' interruption''')''' &minus; '''('''Resources lost by '''2nd''' interruption''')''' &minus; '''('''Resources lost by '''3rd''' interruption''')''' &minus; '''<big>...</big>'''
|}
</div>

which can alternatively be written as:

<!--<div style="background: white; border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); padding: 2px;">-->
<div style="background: white; border: 2px solid rgb(0, 255, 0); padding: 2px;">
{|
|-
|''Total resources available'' = '''100%''' &minus; Resources remaining at '''1st''' interruption + Resources remaining at '''1st''' restart &minus; Resources remaining at '''2nd''' interruption + Resources remaining at '''2nd''' restart &minus; Resources remaining at '''3rd''' interruption + Resources remaining at '''3rd''' restart &minus; '''<big>...</big>'''
|}
</div>

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===

'''Standard Edition'''

*If R2&nbsp;<&nbsp;R1, reduce Team 2's target score in proportion to the reduction in total resources, i.e. '''S&nbsp;×&nbsp;R2/R1'''.
*If R2&nbsp;=&nbsp;R1, no adjustment to Team 2's target score is needed.
*If R2&nbsp;>&nbsp;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&nbsp;+&nbsp;G50&nbsp;×&nbsp;(R2&nbsp;–&nbsp;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&nbsp;×&nbsp;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 (cricket)|powerplay]] overs] and rain caused a drastic reduction in the overs for the match.'<ref name=FAQ/> 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<ref name="ICCPH"/> gives the values of G50 to be used each year when the D/L Standard Edition is applied:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| width="160pt" align="center" | Period 
| width="180pt" align="center" | Matches involving [[List of International Cricket Council members#Full Members|ICC full member nations]]
| width="180pt" align="center" | Matches between teams that play [[first-class cricket]]
| width="100pt" align="center" | Under-19 internationals
| width="100pt" align="center" | Under-15 internationals
| width="180pt" align="center" | Matches between [[List of International Cricket Council members#Associate Members|ICC associate member nations]]
| width="100pt" align="center" | [[Women's One Day International cricket|Women's ODIs]]
|-
| align="center" | 1999 &minus; 31 August 2002<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.rediff.com/sports/1999/sep/16guest.htm|title= The dummy's guide to Duckworth-Lewis|author=Dr Srinivas Bhogle|date=16 September 1999|work=Rediff on the Net}}</ref>
| rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |225
| rowspan="2" colspan="5" style="text-align: center;" | ?
|-
| align="center" | 1 September 2002 &minus; 2006<ref name="DLM2002">{{cite web|url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/page/409996.html |title=The Duckworth-Lewis Method (2002)| author1=Frank Duckworth|author2=Tony Lewis|year=2002|work=Cricinfo|publisher=ESPN Sports Media}}</ref>
| rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |235
|-
| align="center" | 2006/07<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.toxovolia.com/downloads/cricket/ICC%20HB%20E-Book2.pdf|title=ICC Playing Handbook 2006-07|access-date=18 April 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303224031/http://www.toxovolia.com/downloads/cricket/ICC%20HB%20E-Book2.pdf|archive-date=3 March 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref>
| rowspan="3" colspan="3" style="text-align: center;" |235
| rowspan="3" align="center" | 200
| rowspan="3" align="center" | 190
| rowspan="3" align="center" | 175
|-
| align="center" | 2007/08
|-
| align="center" | 2008/09<ref name="ICCPH"/>
|-
| align="center" | 2009/10<ref name="ICCPH"/>
| rowspan="5" colspan="2" style="text-align: center;" |245
| rowspan="5" colspan="4" style="text-align: center;" |200
|-
| align="center" | 2010/11<ref name="ICCPH"/>
|-
| align="center" | 2011/12<ref name="ICCPH"/>
|-
| align="center" | 2012/13<ref name="ICCPH"/>
|-
| align="center" | 2013/14<ref name="ICCPH"/>
|}

Duckworth and Lewis wrote:{{blockquote|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.<ref name=FAQ/>}}

'''Professional Edition'''

*If R2&nbsp;<&nbsp;R1, reduce Team 2's target score in proportion to the reduction in total resources, i.e. '''S&nbsp;×&nbsp;R2/R1'''.
*If R2&nbsp;=&nbsp;R1, no adjustment to Team 2's target score is needed.
*If R2&nbsp;>&nbsp;R1, increase Team 2's target score in proportion to the increase in total resources, i.e. '''S&nbsp;×&nbsp;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.'<ref name=FAQ/> Therefore, Team 2's target score can be simply increased in proportion to the increase in total resources when R2&nbsp;>&nbsp;R1,<ref name=FAQ/> and there is no G50.

===Example Standard Edition Target score calculations===
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 (resources lost at start of innings)====

{| class="wikitable" style="float: right; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align:center; width:25%;"
|+ Percentage total resources remaining reference table (D/L Standard Edition)<ref name="DLMethod"/>
|-
! rowspan="2" style="background: #ffdead;" | Overs remaining
! colspan="5" style="background: #ffdead;" | Wickets in hand
|-
| '''10''' || '''8''' || '''6''' || '''4''' || '''2''' 
|-
| '''31''' || 76.7 || 68.6 || 54.8 || 33.7 || 11.9
|-
| '''30''' || style="background: #ACE1AF;" | 75.1 || 67.3 || 54.1 || 33.6 || 11.9
|-
| '''29''' || 73.5 || 66.1 || 53.4 || 33.4 || 11.9 
|-
| '''28''' || style="background: #ACE1AF;" | 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 [[2003 ECB National League]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/131395.html|title=Full Scorecard of Lancashire vs Hampshire Pro40 League|date=18 May 2003|work=Cricinfo|publisher=ESPN Sports Media}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Lancashire/Scorecards/76/76989.html|title=Lancashire v Hampshire National League 2003 (Division 2)|publisher=Lancashire County Cricket Club|via=CricketArchive|date=18 May 2003}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/131394.html|title=Hampshire struck by Lightning inbetween the showers|author=Victor Isaacs|date=18 May 2003|work=Cricinfo|publisher=ESPN Sports Media}}</ref> 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.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| rowspan="2" colspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |Step 1
| Total resources available to Lancashire (R1)
| align="center" | 30 overs and 10 wickets
| align="center" | 75.1%
|-
| Total resources available to Hampshire (R2)
| align="center" | 28 overs and 10 wickets
| align="center" | 71.8%
|-
| rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |Step 2
| Hampshire's par score
| align="center" | 231 x R2/R1 = 231 x 71.8/75.1
| align="center" | '''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 &minus; 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 restarted, their resource can be found from the general formula above as follows (Hampshire's is similar): Total resources = 100% &minus; Resources remaining at 1st interruption + Resources remaining at 1st restart = 100% &minus; 100% + 75.1% = 75.1%.

{{anchor|SLvSA}}

====Reduced target: Team 1's innings completed; Team 2's innings cut short (resources lost at end of innings)====

{| class="wikitable" style="float: right; margin: 1em 1em 1em 1em; text-align:center; width:25%;"
|+ Percentage total resources remaining reference table (D/L Standard Edition)<ref name="DLMethod"/>
|-
! rowspan="2" style="background: #ffdead;" | Overs remaining
! colspan="5" style="background: #ffdead;" | Wickets in hand
|-
| '''10''' || '''8''' || '''6''' || '''4''' || '''2''' 
|-
| '''50''' || style="background: #ACE1AF;" | 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 || style="background: #ACE1AF;" | 14.3 || 9.4 
|}

On 3 March 2003, Sri Lanka played South Africa in [[2003 Cricket World Cup#Pool B|World Cup Pool B]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65272.html|title=Full Scorecard of South Africa vs Sri Lanka, World Cup, 40th Match|date=3 March 2003|work=Cricinfo|publisher=ESPN Sports Media}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/155875.html|title=South Africa v Sri Lanka|date=3 March 2003|work=Wisden|via=Cricinfo|publisher=ESPN Sports Media}}</ref> 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.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| rowspan="4" colspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |Step 1
| Total resources available to Sri Lanka (R1)
| align="center" | 50 overs and 10 wickets
| align="center" | 100.0%
|-
| Total resources available to South Africa at the start of their innings
| align="center" | 50 overs and 10 wickets
| align="center" | 100.0% 
|-
| Total resources remaining to South Africa when play abandoned
| align="center" | 5 overs and 4 wickets
| align="center" | 14.3%
|-
| Total resources available to South Africa (R2)
| align="center" | 100.0% &minus; 14.3%
| align="center" | 85.7%
|-
| rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |Step 2
| South Africa's par score
| align="center" | 268&nbsp;×&nbsp;R2/R1 =&nbsp;268&nbsp;×&nbsp;85.7/100.0
| align="center" | '''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 restarted), their resource is given by the general formula above as follows: Total resources available = 100% &minus; Resources remaining at 1st interruption = 100% &minus; 14.3% = 85.7%.

====Reduced target: Team 1's innings completed; Team 2's innings interrupted (resources lost in middle of innings)====
On 16 February 2003, New South Wales played South Australia in the ING Cup.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/368079.html|title=Full Scorecard of New South Wales vs South Australia, Australian Domestic One-Day Competition|date=16 February 2003|work=Cricinfo|publisher=ESPN Sports Media}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Scorecards/76/76554.html|title=Scorecard|website=CricketArchive}} {{subscription required}}</ref> 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).

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| rowspan="6" colspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |Step 1
| Total resources available to New South Wales (R1)
| align="center" | 50 overs and 10 wickets
| align="center" | 100.0%
|-
| Total resources available to South Australia at the start of their innings
| align="center" | 50 overs and 10 wickets
| align="center" | 100.0%
|-
| Total resources remaining to South Australia at the interruption
| align="center" | 31 overs and 8 wickets
| align="center" | 68.6%
|-
| Total resources remaining to South Australia at the restart
| align="center" | 17 overs and 8 wickets
| align="center" | 46.7%
|-
| Total resources lost to South Australia by the interruption
| align="center" | 68.6% &minus; 46.7%
| align="center" | 21.9%
|-
| Total resources available to South Australia (R2)
| align="center" | 100.0% &minus; 21.9%
| align="center" | 78.1%
|-
| rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |Step 2
| South Australia's par score
| align="center" | 273&nbsp;×&nbsp;R2/R1 =&nbsp;273&nbsp;×&nbsp;78.1/100.0
| align="center" | '''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 &minus; 174 = 39 runs.

As South Australia's innings was interrupted once and restarted once, their resource is given by the general formula above as follows: Total resources available = 100% &minus; Resources remaining at 1st interruption + Resources remaining at 1st restart = 100% &minus; 68.6% + 46.7% = 78.1%.

====Increased target: Team 1's innings cut short (resources lost at end of innings); Team 2's innings completed====
On [[2000–01 Australia Tri-Nation Series#7th match|25 January 2001, West Indies played Zimbabwe]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/65607.html|title=Full Scorecard of West Indies vs Zimbabwe, Australia Tri Series (CB Series), 7th Match|date=25 January 2001|work=Cricinfo|publisher=ESPN Sports Media}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Scorecards/71/71495.html|title=Scorecard|website=CricketArchive}} {{subscription required}}</ref> 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.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| rowspan="4" colspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |Step 1
| Total resources available to West Indies at the start of their innings
| align="center" | 50 overs and 10 wickets
| align="center" | 100.0%
|-
| Total resources remaining to West Indies when innings was closed
| align="center" | 3 overs and 4 wickets
| align="center" | 10.2%
|-
| Total resources available to West Indies (R1)
| align="center" | 100.0%&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;10.2%
| align="center" | 89.8%
|-
| Total resources available to Zimbabwe (R2)
| align="center" | 47 overs and 10 wickets
| align="center" | 97.4% 
|-
| rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |Step 2
| Zimbabwe's par score
| align="center" | 235&nbsp;+&nbsp;G50&nbsp;×&nbsp;(R2&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;R1)/100 =&nbsp;235&nbsp;+&nbsp;225&nbsp;×&nbsp;(97.4&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;89.8)/100
| align="center" | '''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&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;175 =&nbsp;77&nbsp;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% &minus; 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 restarted), their resource is given by the general formula above as follows: Total resources available = 100% &minus; Resources remaining at 1st interruption = 100% &minus; 10.2% = 89.8%.

{{anchor|AusvNL}}

====Increased target: Multiple interruptions in Team 1's innings (resources lost in middle of innings); Team 2's innings completed====
On 20 February 2003, Australia played Netherlands in the [[2003 cricket world cup#Pool A|2003 Cricket World Cup Pool A]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/match/65253.html|title=Full Scorecard of Australia vs Netherlands, World Cup - 20th Match|date=20 February 2003|work=Cricinfo|publisher=ESPN Sports Media}}</ref><ref name="AusNedReport">{{cite web|url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/126848.html|title=Potchefstroom ground staff help Australia to four points|author=Keith Lane|date=20 February 2003|work=Cricinfo|publisher=ESPN Sports Media}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/155844.html|title=Australia v Holland|date=20 February 2003|work=Wisden|via=Cricinfo|publisher=ESPN Sports Media}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/cwc2003/hi/newsid_2780000/newsid_2781400/2781435.stm|title=Australia v Holland: over by over|date=20 February 2003|work=BBC Sport}}</ref> 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

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| rowspan="9" colspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |Step 1
| Total resources available to Australia at the start of their innings
| align="center" | 47 overs and 10 wickets
| align="center" | 97.1% 
|-
| Total resources remaining to Australia at interruption
| align="center" | 22 overs and 8 wickets 
| align="center" | 55.8%
|-
| Total resources remaining to Australia at restart
| align="center" | 19 overs and 8 wickets
| align="center" | 50.5%
|-
| Total resources lost by interruption
| align="center" | 55.8%&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;50.5%
| align="center" | 5.3%
|-
| Total resources remaining to Australia at interruption
| align="center" | 16 overs and 8 wickets
| align="center" | 44.7%
|-
| Total resources remaining to Australia at restart
| align="center" | 8 overs and 8 wickets
| align="center" | 25.5%
|-
| Total resources lost by interruption
| align="center" | 44.7%&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;25.5%
| align="center" | 19.2%
|-
| Total resources available to Australia (R1)
| align="center" | 97.1%&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;5.3%&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;19.2%
| align="center" | 72.6%
|-
| Total resources available to Netherlands (R2)
| align="center" | 36 overs and 10 wickets
| align="center" | 84.1%
|-
| rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align: center;" |Step 2
| Netherlands' par score
| align="center" | 170&nbsp;+&nbsp;G50&nbsp;×&nbsp;(R2&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;R1)/100 =&nbsp;170&nbsp;+&nbsp;235&nbsp;×&nbsp;(84.1&nbsp;&minus;&nbsp;72.6)/100
| align="center" | '''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 neutralises 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 &minus; 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% &minus; 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<ref name="AusNedReport"/> that Australia had batted conservatively in their final 8 overs after the final restart, 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 restarted three times, their resource is given by the general formula above as follows:

Total resources available = 100% &minus; Resources remaining at 1st interruption + Resources remaining at 1st restart &minus; Resources remaining at 2nd interruption + Resources remaining at 2nd restart &minus; Resources remaining at 3rd interruption + Resources remaining at 3rd restart = 100% &minus; 100% + 97.1% &minus; 55.8% + 50.5% &minus; 44.7% + 25.5% = 72.6%.