← Back to Blog

Picture this. You are watching a tense ODI. Team A has posted 280. Team B is cruising at 150 for 3 after 30 overs. The chase is perfectly set up. And then the skies open. Rain washes out the rest of the day. Who wins? How do you decide fairly?

This is exactly the kind of problem the Duckworth-Lewis-Stern (DLS) method was built to solve. It sounds complicated. People's eyes glaze over when you mention it. But here is the thing: once you understand the core idea, it is surprisingly intuitive. Stay with me.

Why Do We Need Rain Rules at All?

In Test cricket, rain is just rain. The match stretches across five days, and if time runs out, it is a draw. Everyone goes home. But in ODIs and T20s, each team gets one innings with a fixed number of overs. When rain steals overs, someone has to figure out a fair way to adjust the target.

Without a system, you'd be stuck with two terrible options. Abandon the match? Unfair to the team winning. Just declare the chasing team the winner if they're "ahead"? Ahead by what measure? You see the problem. Fairness in cricket, when nature intervenes, is genuinely hard to define.

The Problem with Simple Run Rate

The most obvious approach is the average run rate method. Team A scored 250 in 50 overs, that's 5.0 an over. Team B gets 30 overs due to rain, so set their target at 5.0 x 30 = 150. Simple, right?

Except it is deeply unfair to the team batting first. Think about how ODI innings actually work.

Teams pace their innings. A team might score at 4.0 an over for the first 30 overs (120 runs) while keeping wickets in hand, then explode to 8.0 in the last 20 (160 runs) to finish on 280. Their overall run rate is 5.6, but their entire strategy depended on having all 50 overs. Meanwhile, a team batting only 30 overs knows they have less time, so they can swing harder from ball one. Asking them to merely match the 50-over run rate gives them an easier task, not an equivalent one.

And here is the biggest flaw: wickets are completely ignored. A team at 150 for 2 after 30 overs is in a vastly stronger position than a team at 150 for 7. The run rate method treats them identically. That is absurd.

The run rate method punishes the team that batted first for pacing their innings sensibly. Cricket needed something much smarter.

The 1992 World Cup Disaster

If you want to understand why DLS exists, you only need to know one story. The 1992 Cricket World Cup semi-final. England versus South Africa, Sydney. South Africa, chasing 253, had fought back brilliantly to need 22 runs from 13 balls. Tense. Dramatic. Perfectly poised.

Then it rained. Just 12 minutes of rain. When play resumed, the "most productive overs" method recalculated the target. South Africa now needed 21 runs from just 1 ball. From difficult-but-possible to mathematically impossible. The crowd booed. The players stood in disbelief. South Africa were eliminated not by cricket, but by arithmetic.

That farcical moment changed everything. Two English statisticians, Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis, watched that semi-final and decided there had to be a better way. Five years later, they delivered one.

The Core Idea Behind DLS

The genius of Duckworth-Lewis (later updated by Professor Steven Stern, hence "DLS") comes down to one beautifully simple concept:

A team's ability to score runs depends on two resources: the number of overs remaining and the number of wickets in hand.

Think about it. At the start of a 50-over innings, you have 100% of your resources. All 50 overs, all 10 wickets. As you use overs and lose wickets, those resources decline. A team that has bowled 30 overs and lost 3 wickets still has plenty in the tank. A team that has bowled 30 overs and lost 7? They are in a completely different position, even though the same number of overs have gone by.

DLS captures this with a detailed table, built from analysing thousands of matches, that tells you exactly what percentage of resources remains for any combination of overs left and wickets lost. It reflects what we all know intuitively: more overs remaining means more resources, more wickets in hand means more resources, losing a wicket hurts more when you have fewer overs left, and losing overs hurts more when you still have plenty of wickets to use them aggressively.

How the Resources Table Works

Don't worry, we're not doing heavy maths here. But it helps to see the shape of the table. Here is a simplified version with illustrative numbers:

Overs remaining	0 wickets lost	2 wickets lost	5 wickets lost	8 wickets lost
50	100.0%	83.8%	49.5%	14.3%
40	90.3%	78.4%	48.0%	14.1%
30	77.1%	68.6%	44.7%	13.6%
20	58.9%	54.0%	38.6%	12.5%
10	34.1%	32.5%	26.7%	10.5%
0	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%

Look at those numbers for a moment. A team with 30 overs left and no wickets lost has 77.1% of resources. But with 5 wickets down and the same 30 overs? Only 44.7%. That is a massive difference. And it captures something we all know from watching cricket: a team 5 down simply cannot bat with the same freedom. The fear of getting bowled out changes everything.

Par Scores and Revised Targets

Using these resource percentages, DLS calculates two crucial things.

First, the revised target. If overs are lost before or during the second innings, DLS sets a new target that reflects the resources available to each team. If Team B has fewer resources than Team A had, the target comes down. And here is the part that surprises people: if Team B somehow ends up with more resources (say rain shortened Team A's innings), the target can actually go up.

Second, the par score. At any point during the second innings, DLS knows what score the chasing team "should" be on, given the resources they have used. If rain ends the match right there, the par score decides who wins. It is like a running scoreboard of fairness.

Worked Example 1: Rain Before the Second Innings

Let's start with the simplest case.

Situation: Team A bats their full 50 overs and scores 280. Rain then reduces Team B's innings to 40 overs.

Calculation:

• Team A used 100% of their resources (50 overs, all 10 wickets available at the start).
• Team B starts with 40 overs and 10 wickets. From the resource table, that is about 90.3% of resources.
• Team B has 90.3% of the resources Team A had, so their target is proportionally reduced: 280 x (90.3 / 100) = 252.84, rounded up to 253.
• Team B must score 253 from 40 overs to win.

Notice something important. The simple run-rate method would give 280 x 40/50 = 224. DLS gives 253. Why the difference? Because DLS recognises that Team A would have scored fewer runs if they'd only had 40 overs. Their pacing strategy used all 50. So the adjustment is less generous to Team B. Fairer, in other words.

Worked Example 2: Rain During the Second Innings

Now we get to the good stuff. This is where DLS really earns its keep.

Situation: Team A scores 250 in 50 overs. Team B is 120 for 2 after 25 overs when rain stops play permanently.

Calculation:

• Team A used 100% of resources.
• At the point rain stopped play, Team B had used some resources and had some remaining. With 25 overs left and 2 wickets lost, the table gives about 61.6% remaining.
• Team B started with 100% and has 61.6% left, so they have used 38.4% of their resources.
• The par score for having used 38.4% of resources chasing 250 is: 250 x (38.4 / 100) = 96.
• Team B has 120, which is above the par score of 96. Team B wins.

Now here is where it gets really interesting. Same scenario, but Team B is 120 for 6 instead of 120 for 2. With 25 overs left and 6 wickets down, the remaining resources drop to about 27.5%. That means Team B has used 72.5% of resources, giving a par score of 250 x (72.5 / 100) = 181. Team B's 120 is well below 181. Team A wins.

Same score. Same overs bowled. Completely different result. Why? Because wickets matter. That, right there, is the entire point of DLS. And that is what makes it so much fairer than anything that came before.

Worked Example 3: Multiple Interruptions

Situation: A 50-over match. Team A is batting and scores 150 for 3 after 30 overs when rain stops play for an hour. The match is reduced: Team A gets 40 overs total, Team B also gets 40 overs.

Calculation:

• When rain arrived, Team A had 20 overs left and 3 wickets down. Resources remaining at that point: about 48.4%.
• After the reduction, Team A has 10 overs left and still 3 wickets down. Resources remaining now: about 29.8%.
• Rain stole 48.4% - 29.8% = 18.6% of Team A's resources.
• Team A finishes their 40 overs on 210. They scored 210 using only 81.4% of normal resources (100% - 18.6% lost to rain).
• Team B gets 40 overs and 10 wickets = 90.3% of resources.
• Since Team B has more resources (90.3%) than Team A used (81.4%), the target is increased: 210 + (250 x (90.3% - 81.4%)) = 210 + 22 = 232. (The "250" here represents a reference score used in the DLS formula for resource differences.)

Yes, you read that right. The target can go higher than what Team A actually scored. This is the part that confuses most people, but it makes perfect sense when you think about it. Team A lost resources to rain, so their score underrepresents what they would have achieved with a full innings. DLS compensates them for that bad luck. It is only fair.

A Brief History

The story of cricket's rain rules is really a story of learning from mistakes.

Before the 1990s, various ad hoc methods were used, including the basic average run rate approach. Then came the "most productive overs" method (1991-1996), which stripped away the least productive overs from Team A's innings to set Team B's target. This was the method that gave us the 1992 World Cup fiasco. Enough said.

In 1997, Frank Duckworth (a statistician) and Tony Lewis (a mathematics lecturer) published their method. It was first used in international cricket in a Zimbabwe vs England match in January of that year. By 1999, the ICC had formally adopted it for all ODIs. In 2003, a "Professional Edition" with more sophisticated tables was introduced for international cricket, while a "Standard Edition" remained available for lower levels.

In 2014, Professor Steven Stern took over custodianship after Duckworth retired and Lewis passed away. The method was renamed DLS in his honour. Today, it is used in virtually all professional limited-overs cricket worldwide, and the ICC updates the tables regularly as the game evolves. T20 cricket, for instance, has very different scoring patterns from when the original tables were built.

Common Criticisms of DLS

No system is perfect, and DLS has its critics. Some of the criticisms are fair. Let's be honest about them.

"It's too complicated for fans to follow." This is the most common complaint, and it is hard to argue with. When rain interrupts a match, commentators fumble through explanations, and spectators in the ground often have no idea what the revised target is. The maths happens behind the scenes, and that lack of transparency can feel deeply unsatisfying.

"It doesn't account for pitch conditions." DLS uses historical averages, but every pitch is different. Chasing 280 on a flat road is one thing. Chasing 280 on a deteriorating turner is something else entirely. If rain arrives after the pitch has broken up, the chasing team faces a harder task than the resource tables assume.

"It can penalise teams for losing wickets to aggressive batting." This is a genuine edge case. If a team is 180 for 5 after 30 overs in a big chase, they might be right on track strategically. But DLS sees "5 wickets lost" as a resource drain. If rain ends the match, their par score is calculated as if they are in trouble, when in reality they were playing smart.

"It sometimes produces targets that feel wrong." In very short chases (under 10 overs) or matches with multiple interruptions, the revised targets can feel unintuitive. The maths may be sound, but cricket is ultimately a game of feel, and sometimes the numbers don't match the mood.

"It was built for ODIs, not T20s." The original tables were calibrated for 50-over matches. While Stern has updated them for shorter formats, some argue the model still fits T20 cricket less naturally. That's a fair point.

Why DLS Is Still the Best We Have

So with all these criticisms, why does DLS persist? Because it is the fairest system anyone has come up with. And nobody has proposed anything better.

Its core insight, that scoring potential depends on both overs and wickets, captures something fundamentally true about cricket. Every alternative either ignores wickets (unfair), requires subjective judgement (inconsistent), or is even more complicated (impractical). DLS found the sweet spot.

The principle itself is easy to state, even if the numbers are complex. Both teams should have an equivalent share of resources. The target should reflect that. When rain takes your resources, the target adjusts. When rain takes your opponent's, it adjusts the other way. Symmetrical. Fair. Grounded in data.

And the system keeps evolving. The ICC regularly updates the Professional Edition tables to reflect modern scoring rates. It is a living system, not a formula frozen in the 1990s.

Quick Reference: How DLS Decisions Are Made

1. Interruption happens. The match referee determines how many overs are lost.
2. Resources are calculated. Using the DLS tables, officials determine what percentage of resources each team has or had available.
3. Target is adjusted. If Team B has fewer resources than Team A, the target is reduced proportionally. If Team B has more resources, the target is increased.
4. If the match cannot continue, the par score at the point of stoppage determines the result. If the chasing team is at or above par, they win.
5. A minimum number of overs must be bowled for a result to be valid (usually 20 overs per side in ODIs, 5 in T20s).

Wrapping Up

Rain interruptions are an unavoidable part of cricket, especially in countries like England where the sport was born. DLS is not perfect, and it will never feel as satisfying as watching the full match play out. Nothing can replace that. But it takes a genuinely hard problem, how to fairly compare two innings that are not the same length, and solves it with remarkable elegance.

Next time rain stops play and a revised target flashes on screen, you'll know what's happening behind those numbers. Resources in, resources out, and a target that tries to keep the contest fair for both sides. That is all DLS is. And given the alternative? Twenty-one off one ball, anyone? No, thank you. Cricket is much better for having it.