Overview
- The Main Difference: DLS calculates targets using a single curve (assuming constant acceleration), while VJD uses two curves based on “phases of play” (settling, stabilizing, and slogging).
- Why VJD is “Smarter”: VJD is often considered better for T20s and high-scoring matches. For example, if a team scores 350, VJD sets a steeper, harder target than DLS, which can be “sluggish” in adjusting for huge totals.
- Who Uses What: The ICC sticks to DLS for global standardization. The BCCI prefers VJD, using it in Indian domestic tournaments like the Vijay Hazare Trophy and TNPL.
- The Verdict: DLS treats players like robots (math-heavy); VJD treats players like humans (rhythm-heavy). Experts like Sunil Gavaskar prefer VJD, but DLS remains the international law.
If you have ever watched a cricket match where it rains, you have probably stared at the screen, scratched your head, and asked: “Wait, how did they calculate that target?”
For years, the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern (DLS) method has been the global boss of rain rules. But did you know there is an Indian-made challenger that many experts, including legend Sunil Gavaskar, argue is actually better?
It’s called the VJD Method (V. Jayadevan system).
So, is VJD actually better than DLS? Why does the BCCI use one while the ICC uses the other? Let’s break it down simply. No complex calculus required!
The Main Difference: Robots vs. Humans
To understand the battle between DLS and VJD, you have to look at how they view a cricket match.
The DLS Method (The Robot): DLS looks at two things: wickets and overs. It calls these “resources.” It uses a single curve to calculate the target. It assumes that a cricket team is like a car that accelerates smoothly and constantly as they get closer to the finish line. If you have wickets in hand, DLS assumes you can score faster, regardless of whether it’s the first over or the 40th over.
The VJD Method (The Human): The VJD method, created by Kerala civil engineer V. Jayadevan, understands that humans don’t just accelerate in a straight line. It knows cricket has “gears” or phases:
- Settling Down (Powerplay/Start)
- Stabilizing (Middle Overs)
- Slogging (Death Overs)
Because of this, VJD uses two different curves.
- Normal Curve: Tracks how the first team batted (setting the score).
- Target Curve: Calculates how the chasing team should bat (chasing the score).
The Analogy: Think of DLS like a GPS that assumes traffic always moves faster the closer you get to the city. VJD is like a GPS that knows there’s rush hour traffic in the middle of the journey and a clear highway at the end. VJD adjusts the route based on phases, not just distance.
The “Fairness” Test: Why VJD Might Be Better for T20s
The biggest complaint about DLS is that it was originally designed for 50-over cricket, not the high-octane world of T20s.
1. The High-Scoring Problem
DLS is known to be a bit “sluggish” when scores get huge. It doesn’t increase the chasing target enough for massive totals.
Let’s look at the numbers for a 20-over chase:
- If Team A scores 250: DLS sets the target at 154. VJD sets it at 142.
- If Team A scores 350: DLS sets the target at 174. VJD sets it at 182.
Did you spot the issue? In the DLS method, even though Team A scored 100 runs more (350 vs 250), the target for the chasing team only went up by 20 runs! VJD, however, increased the target by 40 runs, recognizing that chasing a score of 350 is much harder pressure-wise than chasing 250. VJD creates a steeper, more realistic target for high scores.
2. The T20 “Absurdity”
Cricket fans still remember the 2010 World T20 match between England and West Indies. England scored a massive 191/5. Rain interrupted, and DLS revised the target for West Indies to just 60 runs off 6 overs.
While 60 off 6 isn’t easy, it was much easier than chasing 191. VJD generally sets steeper targets in these short, explosive chases to balance the advantage the chasing team gets by knowing exactly how many runs they need over a short burst.
The Politics: Why isn’t VJD used in the World Cup?
If VJD handles modern phases and high scores better, why does the ICC stick to DLS?
It comes down to standardization and history.
- ICC’s Stance: The ICC has used DLS since 1999. They prioritize global familiarity. They once rejected VJD based on a report by David Kendix, which Jayadevan claims contained factual errors, but the ICC decided to stick with the “tried and tested” DLS to avoid confusion.
- BCCI’s Stance: The Indian cricket board (BCCI) actually uses VJD! It is the official method for domestic tournaments like the Vijay Hazare Trophy, Syed Mushtaq Ali Trophy, and the TNPL.
Legends like Sunil Gavaskar have openly advocated for VJD, arguing it is more scientifically suited to the way One Day and T20 cricket is actually played today.
Quick Comparison: Which One Wins?
| Feature | DLS Method | VJD Method |
| Logic | Uses “Resources” (Wickets/Overs). | Uses “Phases” (Start, Middle, Slog). |
| Math | Single Curve (One size fits all). | Two Curves (Normal vs. Target). |
| High Scores | Targets can be too low (Sluggish). | Targets are steeper and harder. |
| Used By | ICC (World Cups, IPL). | BCCI (Vijay Hazare, TNPL). |
| Best For | Standardization & Tradition. | Modern T20s & High Totals. |
The Verdict
So, is VJD better? If you are looking for a system that understands the rhythm of modern cricket, where teams play differently in the Powerplay compared to the middle overs, VJD is scientifically smarter. It fixes the “sluggish” targets in high-scoring games that DLS often messes up.
However, DLS wins on one major factor: Global Habit. The cricket world hates change, and DLS is deeply embedded in the ICC’s software and history.
For now, we have a split world: The ICC sticks to its single curve, while Indian domestic cricket relies on the two curves of VJD. But the next time you see a “weird” rain target in a T20 International, you’ll know there’s an Indian engineer who already solved that problem years ago!
Want more betting insights and cricket analysis? Stay tuned to Vipjee.com for the latest updates!
FAQs
1. How is the VJD method different from Duckworth Lewis?
Think of the difference as “Robots vs. Humans.”
• DLS (The Robot): The Duckworth-Lewis-Stern method calculates targets using a single curve. It assumes a team accelerates smoothly throughout an innings, regardless of the situation. It relies entirely on “resources” (how many wickets and overs you have left).
• VJD (The Human): The V. Jayadevan method uses two different curves (a “normal” curve and a “target” curve). It is smarter because it recognizes that cricket is played in phases: settling down (start), stabilizing (middle), and slogging (end).
Key Difference: While DLS treats the whole innings as one long acceleration, VJD adjusts the math based on whether the match is in the Powerplay, middle overs, or death overs.
2. What is the DLS rule for rain?
The DLS rule is basically a calculator that asks: “How many ‘resources’ did the batting team lose because of rain?“
In the DLS world, Resources = Wickets + Overs. When rain stops play, DLS calculates what percentage of these resources a team has left.
• If Team A batted 50 overs: They used 100% of their resources.
• If Team B only gets 20 overs: They have fewer resources, so their target is reduced proportionally.
The goal is to set a Par Score, a target that is statistically fair based on the wickets the chasing team has in hand and the overs they have left to face.
3. Is the DLS method fair?
It is relatively fair, but it has some major flaws in modern cricket.
• Why it’s Fair: It is much better than the old “Average Run Rate” rules, which didn’t care if you had lost 9 wickets or 0 wickets. DLS balances the game by penalizing teams heavily if they lose wickets before the rain comes.
• Why it’s Unfair: It struggles with T20s and high-scoring matches. Critics argue DLS is “sluggish” because it doesn’t raise the target high enough when the first team scores massive totals (like 300+). It sometimes produces easier targets for chasing teams in T20s, like the infamous 2010 World T20 where West Indies were given an easy 60 runs to win off 6 overs against England’s 191.
4. Is DLS accurate?
It is accurate for traditional ODIs, but many experts argue it is inaccurate for high-scoring games.
Here is the data that proves why VJD might be more accurate for modern hitting: If a team scores 350 runs (a huge score), DLS only increases the chasing target by about 20 runs compared to if they had scored 250. It assumes scoring those extra 100 runs doesn’t make the chase that much harder.
VJD is considered more accurate here because it sets a steeper, harder target for high scores, recognizing that chasing 350 is a massive pressure situation compared to chasing 250.
