The Duckworth-Lewis method of calculating rain-shortened matches provokes strong debate among cricket followers.
I am with Paul Collingwood. The Duckworth Lewis method is an inappropriate way to recalculate and decide rain-affected Twenty20 fixtures.
However, I believe it could be, and in time it will be, but right now, it is not quite there.
The problem, as I see it, is T20 is using a vehicle initially devised for one day internationals (ODIs).
In defence of his system's use in T20s, Frank Duckworth said in a recent cricinfo article: "The scoring patterns in Twenty20 matches fitted in absolutely perfectly with the formula that we'd always used satisfactorily with 50-over games."
That surprised me but he did go on to say that, as a result of recent reviews that have included a pot of T20 games, there needed to be a few very small changes to the numbers going into the formulae.
It is that statement which gives me hope. The Duckworth-Lewis Method can be confusing at times but it is the best and fairest way of ensuring the inevitable rain interruption does not rob the viewer of a fair and meaningful conclusion to the game.
In the early days of ODI cricket, rain interruptions led to some ridiculously unfair reduced target scenarios but the Duckworth-Lewis Method has, via review of a large ODI sample, managed to incorporate the all-important effect of wickets in hand into the calculation. Things are far fairer now.
However, one thing to consider here is that ODI cricket has become very formulaic. Players have worked it out, thus making a formulaic system to deal with the stoppages more appropriate for that game than a game like T20, which is still in its infancy.
Duckworth in the same cricinfo article makes the statement: "Wickets start to diminish in importance the shorter the game."
I disagree strongly with this. While Duckworth concedes that loss of a wicket diminishes momentum, I don't believe he gives that loss of momentum enough importance.
A T20 game can be won and lost in an over. It can be won and lost by one batsman - more so than in an ODI.
Risk-taking is so high in this game that losing an established batsman can cause a domino effect and thus one wicket can be all it takes to dramatically alter the course of a game.
There is simply no time for new players to play themselves in.
T20 is unpredictable and so there are major problems with a system that tries to predict based on a game (the ODI) that is far more predictable.
I've confidence the system will get there eventually if the administrators continue to review it as they say they do and the sample of T20s grows. Ideally, they need to build towards two Duckworth-Lewis Methods - one for 50-over matches; one for T20s.
Further, the current Duckworth-Lewis model used for ODIs must not rest on its laurels.
The game is constantly changing, as much because of T20 as anything else these days.
What used to be a total of 250 is now 300 and 300 is now 350 and the Duckworth-Lewis method must keep pace with that.
