Cricket .. explain??

[Wardy]

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.

Is the correct answer. Better to be 190 / 9 then 189 / 0.

 

[John Bumlick]

to fully appreciate cricket, you need to take a slightly more zen-like approach.

they won by 5 wickets because they did.

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

Would it not make more sense to say they won with two balls to spare?

 

[turienzo's lovechild]

Would it not make more sense to say they won with two balls to spare?

no!

it's the way it is because that's the way it is

it doesn't make much difference anyway

 

[Goldstone Rapper]

no!

it's the way it is because that's the way it is

it doesn't make much difference anyway

Well, it is the way it is because that's the way it is.

Asking whether it would make more sense another way is a different thing altogether.

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

In limited-over cricket, if the team batting second wins, I think you need to give the number of wickets left and the number of balls left to get a clear indication of the result. For example one team may win on the last ball of their innings with all ten wickets left, while another team may win with twenty balls left but lose five wickets in the process. By describing the result only in terms of the number of wickets left, it would appear the first team in the example won by more - when in fact that game would have been the closer of the two

 

[drew]

It would be the most logical to say "won 3 and 2". Wickets are totally irrelevant. Unfortunately, it is illogical to try and apply logic when talking about cricket. Lets not forget this is the sport that plays 5 day games that end in draws or when a series can be decided by the weather!!!!! Role on the new footie season.

 

[sten_super]

The manner in which wins are described in one day games are simply the way they are because they mirror the way results are in 4/5 day games. In the longer form of the game a team has 10 wickets to win and no time constraints. Hence they win by a number of wickets.

I agree that for limited overs cricket it would make more sense to use wickets and balls remaining.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

to fully appreciate cricket, you need to take a slightly more zen-like approach.

they won by 5 wickets because they did.

I like this approach. So, can you hear a fielder catch with one hand ??

 

[the viscount]

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?

Best thing for you two do is buy the book.


CRICKET FOR DUMMIES IT IS PRICED £9-99 AND YOU CAN GET IT AT SUSSEX BOOKSHOPS .ENJOY.

 

[Seagull over NZ]

It would be the most logical to say "won 3 and 2". Wickets are totally irrelevant. Unfortunately, it is illogical to try and apply logic when talking about cricket. Lets not forget this is the sport that plays 5 day games that end in draws or when a series can be decided by the weather!!!!! Role on the new footie season.

There is just so much wrong in this post I don't know where to begin. Of course wickets are relevant when making a run chase. Chasing 189 if the team was 190 for 1 at the end of the game compared to 190 for 9 its an easier win, irrespective of the number of balls left when they reached the target.

And how does weather decide a series, please explain.

 

[bhafc99]

It's simple. You're in until you're out, then the other team is in. But sometimes you can be not out while you're in, but it's still time to be out so the other team can be in. It's even possible to be out without anyone's who's in ever being out.

 

[Box of Frogs]

For those of you who have ever watched a cricket match and not understood the rules, I have written them out below clearly and concisely.

There are two sides. One in and one out. Each man in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in then the next man goes out 'till he's out.

When the side that's in is all out, the side that's been out comes in and the side that has been in goes out and tries to get out the side that's coming in.

Sometimes you get men still in and not out when the side that is in is finally out. When both sides have been in and out, including those who are in not out, that's the end of the game.

Now hasn't that made it easier to follow?

 

[Andrew]

Its pretty much how many wickets they have left, not that hard. If your chasing a total of 380 lets say. And you get 381-5 in the chase, you win by 5 wickets.

 

[Nottseagull]

I dont get it

How are we supposed to "sell" the game to the Americans if even we can't understand it?

 

[bryanfuller]

Thanks

thanks you for this live update.

 

[Storer68]

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.

or how - if it was rainaffected game you can score less runs than the first team and STILL Win

 

[Robot Chicken]

Duckworth Lewis...

How does it work? It confuses me a little.

 

[drew]

There is just so much wrong in this post I don't know where to begin. Of course wickets are relevant when making a run chase. Chasing 189 if the team was 190 for 1 at the end of the game compared to 190 for 9 its an easier win, irrespective of the number of balls left when they reached the target.

And how does weather decide a series, please explain.

Sorry, when exactly do wickets count? Yes, it is easier to make a run chase with plenty of wickets in hand but at the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether you win by only losing one wicket or nine. It's like Albion v Walsall. Where in the table doesn't it indicate this was done with only 9 men on the pitch for Walsall and did they get more points for doing. Simple answer is no and you know that. Same with the wickets.

So, with regard to weather determining the outcome of a test series, are you suggesting that no Test series has been decided because a match has been washed out, ie a team win the first test and, in theory (and I'm not sure if this has happened) the remaining matches are lost to the weather. The Team that lost the first test could be thrashing the other in two of the remaining tests but if the weather intervenes and the games aren't concluded, they lose the series. Is that simple enough for you to understand.

 

[drew]

For those of you who have ever watched a cricket match and not understood the rules, I have written them out below clearly and concisely.

There are two sides. One in and one out. Each man in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in then the next man goes out 'till he's out.

When the side that's in is all out, the side that's been out comes in and the side that has been in goes out and tries to get out the side that's coming in.

Sometimes you get men still in and not out when the side that is in is finally out. When both sides have been in and out, including those who are in not out, that's the end of the game.

Now hasn't that made it easier to follow?

You forgot to add that sometimes both teams don't get the chance to go out and stay in(side) because it's raining!!!!