Cricket-Lorgat defends DL System & criticizes Gavaskar for insinuating bias,do you agree,pl read details?

Both the existing D/L method and the new VJD method are quite complex and most of us can not compare them in much of a knowledgable way.

Having said that, it is however true that the D/L method is far from perfect and actually no method can indeed get near enough to perfection when a hypothetical imbalance is created due to loss of time and overs through one or more interruptions...... in fact, a greater issue is our inability to capture in any formula how the conditions of the wicket and the outfield change on account of rain or poor light....... under the circumstances, it is logical to believe that a fair trial of a new system, coined specifically to improve on the existing one, is warranted and advisable and to reject it outright without any trial whatsoever is indicative of a fixed or biased mind on the part of the administrators. Cricket is a game fraught with limitless variations and uncertainties and therefore a complex method such as recalibration of interrupted matches, can not be theoretically evaluated and rejected outright without any on-field trials for a fair assessment with a progressive bent of mind.

Having said that, it is however actual that the D/L strategy is far from perfect and actually no strategy can indeed get near enough to performance when a theoretical difference is developed due to decrease in some time to overs through one or more interruptions...... actually, a greater issue is our failure to get in any program how the conditions of the wicket and the outfield change due to rain or insufficient illumination....... under the conditions, it is sensible to believe that a affordable analyze of a new program, developed particularly to improve on the present one, is assured and suggested and to decrease it overall without any analyze at all is a indication of a set or one-sided ideas on the aspect of employees. Cricket is a action name loaded with endless editions and issues and therefore a complex strategy such as recalibration of disrupted matches, can not be theoretically examined and declined overall without any on-field assessments for a affordable assessment with a contemporary rounded of ideas.

I would have liked to see it trialled in conjunction with the D/L in one day games. That way comparisons could be made. Just to dismiss it out of hand seems silly, especially if it proves to work and be better than D/L.

It should of been implemented on a trial basis at least in some matches instead of rejecting it straightaway.

I personally don't like D/L method.

DL is best system.

i agree with logart

d/l is fine.

this should be tried....?