So it is not a double punishment.

Consider the example of Haddin’s wicket last night. If it had come before the rain it would have effected the target, though last night it didn’t because it came after the rain. That is screwed.

And what you are saying is D–L assumes that a team will play the same way anticipating rain as they would chasing a revised target, so a wicket falling either before or after rain should have the same effect on the target.

One of the concepts behind D-L is that sides play anticipating rain. So a team that loses 3 wickets in 8 overs is clearly anticipating a shortened run chase (Yes, I know; NZ can do that anyway)

So it is not a double punishment.

Oh yeah, the Australians. I forgot they were involved.

If you lose 3 wickets in 1/6th of your chase you deserve to get pinged.

Of course, the loss of wickets is a ping in itself. To cut the target by just 3% when you’ve cut the number of overs by 10% is harsh when you have to deal with the fact that you’ve already lost half your top order. With a couple of overs of power play also lost, which I doubt is factored into the D–L calculation.

The whole D–L is screwed. And yet it is the best solution we have to rain interrupted ODIs.

If you lose 3 wickets in 1/6th of your chase you deserve to get pinged.

Games 2 and 3 were lost because of two age-old problems: 1) Insufficient contributions from the top three and 2) The inability of our batsmen to bat out time, something all too apparent at the test level. In both games, a healthy run rate was maintained throughout but there was no killer partnership, and too many soft dismissals when the player was well-set. Had NZ actually batted out the full quota of overs, they would no doubt have chase successfully in Auckland, and set a fairly imposing target in Hamilton.

It’s a reference to the harshness of the D–L adjustment on Saturday’s game. But no, obviously not a serious curse on Messrs D and L.