Duckworth Lewis System! Is It Effective?

Rain affected cricket matches have been a feature in international cricket since ages. There have been many interestingly poised cricket matches washed out with rains in all parts of the world. One day matches have been affected more directly due to the shorter nature of the game, and lack of sufficient time available to recover the match. Many people came up with different ideas to calculate the victors in these rain affected cricket matches. In the beginning, if we lost half an innings due to rain, people just calculated the run rate for setting the target in the next innings. This was however horribly misleading as most teams would be playing themselves in or consolidating in their first innings when the rain arrived. As a result, their run rate was lesser than what the final run rate was likely to be. It also did not take into account the number of wickets that were lost during the first innings.
Therefore, alternative methods were discussed for deciding the target for the team batting second. The method of "best scoring overs" was introduced but, we saw a ghastly flaw in this method during the 1992 world cup semi-final between South Africa and UK. The match was interestingly poised with South Africa needing 22 from 13 balls while chasing England's 6/252 from 45 overs. There was a small rain interruption and the revised target was South Africa needing 21 runs off 1 ball. This was ridiculous as everyone agreed, and an alternative method for avoiding these situations was sought.
The D/L method
The Duckworth Lewis system was introduced by two British statisticians called Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis. This method was first used in the second game of the England and Zimbabwe one day series in 1996-97. The method after a lot of deliberations was finally adapted by ICC in 1999 as a standard for calculating target scores in rain affected one day internationals. The main idea is to take into consideration the two main resources available for scoring runs, wickets available and the overs remaining. It is a statistical attempt to set a fair target for team batting second.
IMHO, the D/L method has been the closest to setting fair targets for the team batting second. The methods used previously have all been straight forward and rather naive at what the target should be like. There have been lesser complaints about the target not being a fair one for the team batting second, or even for the one batting first. We saw many matches using the D/L method in the recently concluded Champions trophy in England and there wasn't a single issue about the fairness of the target. This may also be due to the fact that the D/L method is now accepted by everyone. The method takes into account the number of wickets lost as well as runs scored within a specified number of overs. I reckon this is the best method available at the moment just because of this fact alone.
Criticism
The criticism of the D/L method has been that the wickets have been given more consideration than the overs bowled. As a result, if you are chasing larger targets and if there are prospects of rain, the winning strategy is to play for keeping wickets intact and at a run rate lower than one originally required. Another one is that the D/L method doesn't take into account the field restrictions. However, the main criticism is that the method is complex and may be misunderstood. In one of the West Indies-UK one day match in 2009; the WI coach John Dyson called his batsmen in, due to bad light thinking that his team was winning by a single run under D/L method. But West Indies lost a wicket on the last ball that was played and as a result the target was altered and the match referee awarded the match to England as WI was short by 2 runs due to the loss of wicket.
Conclusion
I reckon this is the best method available to date and taking into consideration all factors during a cricket match at any stage, the set target comes closer to what it should be. You just get a feeling that yes that's what the target should be. For this reason alone I think we need to stick by Duckworth Lewis method until something better and less complex is devised. It is difficult to imagine anything better coming up though.