Editing Duckworth–Lewis–Stern method (section)

==Criticism==
The D/L method has been criticised on the grounds that wickets are a much more heavily weighted resource than overs, leading to the suggestion that if teams are chasing large 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).<ref>{{cite web|author=Srinivas Bhogle|url=http://www.rediff.com/wc2003/2003/mar/06bhogle.htm|title=The Duckworth/Lewis factor|work=Rediff.com|date=6 March 2003}}</ref> The 2015 update to DLS recognised this flaw, 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.<ref>R Ramachandran {{usurped|[https://web.archive.org/web/20070322191327/http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1924/stories/20021206004410400.htm For a Fair Formula]}}, ''The Hindu'', 6 December 2002</ref>

More recent efforts have used ball-by-ball ODI databases of actually completed matches to evaluate the accuracy of the method.<ref>{{cite web |title=How accurate is the DLS method? A Data Scientist's take |url=https://medium.com/@erangadarora/how-accurate-is-the-dls-method-a-data-scientists-take-6fafe2fcc6a8|publisher=Medium|date=11 Mar 2023}}</ref> Those efforts have concluded that the DLS par score can have accuracies as low as 50 to 60% at predicting the eventual winner of the match when the team batting second bats between 20 and 24 overs and loses between 0 and 2 wickets.

More common informal criticism from cricket fans and journalists of the D/L method is that it is unduly complex and can be misunderstood.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Varma |first1=Amit |title=Simple and subjective? Or complex and objective? |url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/story/141952.html |work=Cricinfo|publisher=ESPN Sports Media|date=25 November 2004}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Brooker |first1=Charlie |title=The AV campaigners have created a stupidity whirlpool that engulfs any loose molecules of logic |url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/25/av-campaign-created-stupidity-whirlpool |work=The Guardian |access-date=28 April 2011 |date=24 April 2011}}</ref> For example, in a [[English cricket team in West Indies in 2008–09#1st ODI|one-day match against England on 20 March 2009]], the West Indies coach ([[John Dyson (cricketer, born 1954)|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 realising 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 also 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.<ref>{{cite web |title=The anomalous contraction of the Duckworth-Lewis method |url=http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/459431.html |work=Cricinfo|publisher=ESPN Sports Media|date=13 May 2010|author1=Rajeeva Karandikar|author2= Srinivas Bhogle}}</ref>