Cricket .. explain??

[goldstone]

Yesterday in the 20-20:

Warwickshire 187 for 5 in their 20 overs.

Somerset 190 for 5 in 19.4 overs.

Somerset won by 5 wickets.

No they didn't!!!

Both teams lost 5 wickets for pretty much the same score so Somerset certainly didn't win by 5 wickets! Not sure how their win should be described, but that makes absolutely no sense.

I know that is the way such results are always described, but it's just darned stupid.

Anyone got any better ideas?

 

[Publius Ovidius]

Yesterday in the 20-20:

Warwickshire 187 for 5 in their 20 overs.

Somerset 190 for 5 in 19.4 overs.

Somerset won by 5 wickets.

No they didn't!!!

Both teams lost 5 wickets for pretty much the same score so Somerset certainly didn't win by 5 wickets! Not sure how their win should be described, but that makes absolutely no sense.

I know that is the way such results are always described, but it's just darned stupid.

Anyone got any better ideas?

yes because they had 5 wickets in tact when they got the runs

 

[goldstone]

yes because they had 5 wickets in tact when they got the runs

But so did Warwickshire at the same point in their run accumulation?

 

[Highfields Seagull]

Somerset have 10 wickets to defend whilst they get the runs. By the time they get them they have 5 left - therefore they've won by 5 wickets.

 

[jordanseagull]

but so did Warwickshire? I so, so agree.

 

[the viscount]

Somerset have 10 wickets to defend whilst they get the runs. By the time they get them they have 5 left - therefore they've won by 5 wickets.

 

[Publius Ovidius]

But so did Warwickshire at the same point in their run accumulation?

but that didnt matter. In their overs they got x amount of runs losing y wickets.

Limited overs stuff is always described like that

 

[goldstone]

but that didnt matter. In their overs they got x amount of runs losing y wickets.

Limited overs stuff is always described like that

Maybe it is, but I say it's rubbish. The cricket guys need to come up with something better.

 

[Hiney]

Ignore the number of wickets lost for the time being.

Limited overs cricket is all about scoring as many RUNS as you can in the time allowed. In this case 20 overs.

In their 20 overs, Warwickshire scored 187 runs. In doing so, they lost 5 wickets but as I said, that's largely irrelevant.

In reply, Somerset scored 190 runs and reached their target with two balls to spare.

If the team batting second wins, the margin of victory is determined by the number of wickets they had left when victory was achieved, in this case 5.

So, Somerset won by 5 wickets.

If the team batting FIRST was to win, then the margin of victory is determined by how many runs the team batting second falls short of the total set by the team batting first.

So, if Warwickshire had scored 187 in their 20 overs and Somerset, in their 20 overs had scored 165, then Warwickshire would win by 22 runs.

Simple!

 

[Scoffers]

goldstone in "cricket laws are rubbish" shock

no shit, try the LBW rule

or how about the Duckworth Lewis method

 

[Titanic]

goldstone in "cricket rules are rubbish" shock

no shit, try the LBW rule

Tut, tut! There are no rules in cricket... there are Laws and Playing Conditions.

 

[Scoffers]

sorted

 

[Publius Ovidius]

goldstone in "cricket rules are rubbish" shock

no shit, try the LBW rule

or how about the Duckworth Lewis method

or the "hit ball with hand" rule


or the best one I heard was the rule that they were debating on TMS the other day about cows wandering on to a pitch and a bloke being caught out off a ball ricocheting off a cows head

 

[Scoffers]

Cricket is bonkers, but I love it !

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Somerset won with 2 balls to spare.

THAT describes:-
(a) who won; and
(b) how close it was.

 

[HG201]

I dont get it

 

[NF9]

I dont get it

Well if the opposition gets 187 in 20 overs and only uses 5 wickets of their 10 allowed then obviously the opposition get's exactly the same allowance and because they got the runs required with 5 wickets to spare out of the 10, its classed as a 5 Wicket win because they did not use all of their wickets.




Bare in mind im using one of my 10 posts to reply to this

 

[Dorset Seagull]

Somerset won with 2 balls to spare.

THAT describes:-
(a) who won; and
(b) how close it was.

Not really because they may have lost 9 wickets to Warwickshires 1 wicket. Doesn't really give a true picture does it

 

[Scoffers]

Somerset won with 2 balls to spare.

THAT describes:-
(a) who won; and
(b) how close it was.

Not really because they may have lost 9 wickets to Warwickshires 1 wicket. Doesn't really give a true picture does it

Quite, and it simply does not address that most important of stats, run rate

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Not really because they may have lost 9 wickets to Warwickshires 1 wicket. Doesn't really give a true picture does it

But the rules of the competition ALLOW teams to squander wickets in pursuit of as many runs as they can get in the time allowed.

You seem to think that the result should be described in a way that has people gawping in admiration at the performance of the losers, yet scoffing at how pathetic the winners were.

It doesn't work like that. The team that scores most runs in the twenty overs is the WINNER.