Indian software professional V Jayadevan, the creator of the VJD method, has written an open letter to the International Cricket Council president Sharad Pawar for a neutral review of this method following the ICC's decision to reject his system. Below is the copy of Jayadevan's letter.
I humbly request you to kindly go through these few lines and act duly if you find any substance in my words. Ever since its inception in 1998 at the international level, the Duckworth/Lewis Method has been under severe criticism for its controversial results. It continues even in the 14th year of its existence. The best challenger of D/L system so far has been the VJD System developed by me. Many people in the cricket community, including the legendary Mr. Sunil Gavaskar, believe that the VJD System is a better system than the D/L. For the last 12 years, I am trying hard to convince the authorities about this.
V Jayadevan, the creator of the VJD method, has written an open letter to Sharad Pawar.
In 2005, as directed by ICC, an expert conducted a comparative study of both systems and submitted a report favouring D/L. I had not seen the report before it was placed in the committee and the committee approved that report. Later, the ICC sent me the report and I found that it was full of factual mistakes and the natural inclination of the reviewer also was very clear in that. I replied to ICC stating all these facts.
Generally, every system improves when newer versions come. But the Wincoda 2.0 version of the D/L system, introduced in 2009, was a dreadful product, not worth using even for school cricket.
I made a comprehensive study of its flaws and submitted the report to the ICC. Mr. David Richardson, ICC’s general manager (cricket), found that there are points in my arguments and invited me to Hong Kong for a presentation of the alternative system I had proposed.
The expert I mentioned earlier was again a member on the panel that heard my presentation. When I was pin pointing the errors in D/L system, the so-called expert was getting annoyed and he stated that I need not mention all those points because Messers Duckworth & Lewis have already rectified those mistakes and asked me to tell them about VJD system.
I really felt as if he had not come as a referee but as a spokesman of the D/L. After the presentation, the panel entrusted the same expert to make a comparative study between VJD System and the modified system (Wincoda 3.0) that D/Ls were going to submit.
I expressed my unhappiness over engaging the same person to do the study again. But Mr. Richardson promised me that his report would be shown to me and my reactions to that also would be considered before taking a decision.
The impression the panel gave me was that everything would be completed by September 2011 and the best system would be used from October 2011. But D/L submitted their system only in September 2011, and the expert’s study continued till March-2012. In the meantime, Wincoda 3.0 was implemented probably under the certificate of the expert that it had no more errors.
Mr. David Richardson sent me the new version of Wincoda 3.0 as soon as it was available. In the first look itself I found that many more mistakes in it were left unresolved. But I kept quiet.
I got the report of the expert in the last week of March 2012. His general conclusion was that both systems gave sensible results under most occasions, but the D/L system was mathematically and statistically more robust and hence more confidence should be restored in D/L results and that there was no need for a change at that point in time.
That report was a very shallow and premeditated one. There was virtually no attempt to find out whether there were any shortcomings in the D/L system. On the other hand, the expert deliberately exaggerated a few small and rectifiable shortcomings in VJD system.
In response to that report, I prepared a 20-page comprehensive report in which I have peeled off with solid examples the false image of the D/L system that claims mathematically and statistically robust. Also, I have clearly illustrated that the reviewer is a blind supporter of the D/L system. Since it is a long report I am afraid most of the members might not have read it.
I had requested Mr. David Richardson to invite me for the meeting, mainly because this reviewer is also a member in the ICC Cricket Committee and naturally he would be doing everything to defend his review report, and in my absence he could do it very easily as the other committee members, with due respect to them, do not know much about both the systems as it is a very technical thing.
I feel that it is the commitment of ICC to provide the best available system to the cricket community. I have no hesitation in saying that the said expert’s strong favoritism to the D/L system deprives the ICC from getting the best available method for the last so many years.
Also I do not want any special consideration as an Indian. But just because of being an Indian, I should not be deprived of natural justice.
Hence, I humbly request you to take necessary steps to get the two systems evaluated by a neutral person, an expert neither from India nor from England, at the earliest. A reputed umpire or scorer with good mathematical background will be an ideal person.
Expecting a prompt action from your goodself.