Silly Cricket Scoring

Forums › Sports › Silly Cricket Scoring

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12766

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1722962 20-Feb-2017 11:12

There are two targets, the batting side targets runs, the fielding side targets wickets. If the batting target is 300 and they score 301 they win by one run. The fielders target 10 wickets. If one fielding team took 5 wickets and the other dismissed the batters then the second fielding side wins by a margin of 5 wickets.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

trig42

5889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2094

ID Verified

#1722967 20-Feb-2017 11:19

Wickets do reflect the game though.

Cricket is about scoring the most runs you can while you still have wickets (and overs in Limited overs games) in hand. If you lose all your wickets, you may not get all the runs you need.

You can slow down your run scoring to protect wickets (in theory), or ramp up you rate of scoring and potentially lose more wickets. It isn't just about scoring runs, it is about taking or preserving wickets.

Last night, SA won by 4 wickets. This suggests (and correctly so) that they did it reasonably comfortably, but not at a canter. It has the qualifier on it (but that wont appear in the history books) that they did it with one ball to spare, but that is enough.

In the world cup in 2015, NZ beat SA with a Six off the second to last ball in the Semi Final - the result went down that NZ won by 4 wickets in that game too. Only if you look deeper that you see it was off the penultimate ball. It is just a way to record the score and declare the winner. I'm not sure how else you could record it? In the records they have both teams scores, and the result (eg won by 7 runs, or won by 4 wickets) it tells the reader who was chasing.

Rugby scores can have similar seeming discrepancies - a team can dominate a game, but have a last minute try or two scored against them do the final result looks closer than the run of play actually was. For example - the 2015 Rugby WC Semi - NZ v SA - score was 20-18, but South Africa never looked like winning (well, I was never worried about it - the ABs were on top the whole game).

Jas777

840 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 111

#1722972 20-Feb-2017 11:27

If you want to say they won by a number of runs then the team batting second would have to carry on to all the overs they could face had finished.

But that wouldn't give a true reflection either as the team that had lost would give up and the team that had won would run up the score.

trig42

5889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2094

ID Verified

#1722976 20-Feb-2017 11:43

Jas777:

If you want to say they won by a number of runs then the team batting second would have to carry on to all the overs they could face had finished.

But that wouldn't give a true reflection either as the team that had lost would give up and the team that had won would run up the score.

And it wouldn't work in a test match as they are based on time - no set number of overs a team has to face (min. 450 overs per game total assuming no weather interference).

Jas777

840 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 111

#1722979 20-Feb-2017 11:52

Yes not in Test cricket. I should have said that as I was thinking of only white ball cricket.

With reference to the winning by wickets a lot of the time it is said that a team won by x wickets with y number of overs/balls to spare.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1722985 20-Feb-2017 12:29

Jas777:

Yes not in Test cricket. I should have said that as I was thinking of only white ball cricket.

With reference to the winning by wickets a lot of the time it is said that a team won by x wickets with y number of overs/balls to spare.

Which is perfect

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1722987 20-Feb-2017 12:48

MikeB4:

There are two targets, the batting side targets runs, the fielding side targets wickets. If the batting target is 300 and they score 301 they win by one run. The fielders target 10 wickets. If one fielding team took 5 wickets and the other dismissed the batters then the second fielding side wins by a margin of 5 wickets.

So, NZ scored 210/2, and SA scored 211/9 with one ball to spare. Thats a one wicket win. Last nights match was also even, it went to the wire, wickets consumed was 6 to 7, so all in all, it was a very even match, l almost same runs, almost same wickets, almost same balls faced. Practically a tie. But its a 4 wicket win. If SA had failed by o ne run, NZ win by 1 run. yet both results are almost identical. 1 run vs 4 wickets for a practuically identical match in every metric. Runs, balls faced, wickets.

Now a 21-20 win has the same meaning as a 21-20 loss. But apply the same to cricket and its wildy different, 4 wickets vs 1 run. Yes , I know sports, cricket etc, thats my only point.

We say that SA has 4 wickets left so they could have scored more so we say they won by 4 wickets. No. They ran out of time so the last 4 wickets has no reward or benefit, same as NZ had 3 wickets left but they also ran out of time, no reward or benefit. I just feel that runs scored for the winner and loser in the game time frame, i.e. 210 to 207 is more correct.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1722988 20-Feb-2017 12:51

Jas777:

If you want to say they won by a number of runs then the team batting second would have to carry on to all the overs they could face had finished.

But that wouldn't give a true reflection either as the team that had lost would give up and the team that had won would run up the score.

Team A won 210 to 207 with 4 overs to spare. The overs are a reward as its within the time frame, so that is worth being in the result as its unearned game time. Wickets remaining is not unearned game time as the game time has concluded, i.e. 50 overs.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1722995 20-Feb-2017 13:06

Last comment.

Team A gets 280/3 Team B in the last ball or so gets 282/3. For anyone, cricket fan or otherwise who reads the one liner result will see that Team B smashed Team A by 7 wickets. Thats my issue. But all semantics, and IMHO a sports oddity

trig42

5889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2094

ID Verified

#1723022 20-Feb-2017 14:39

Haha, yep. Cricket is an oddity. Not just the scoring.

MikeAqua

8024 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3818

#1723059 20-Feb-2017 15:06

A last-ball big-hit victory can be seen as either a near loss or a masterfully managed run chase or both.

At the end of the day we know who won and people who understand the game can interpret the information provided.

It simply comes down to how hard pressed was the team that won?

Balls remaining or wickets in hand are a fair indicator of this, but not perfect.

Mike

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557

#1723138 20-Feb-2017 16:27

tdgeek: I get that, and also that say a game was won with 5 overs left, you need to convert that to a number that shows the level of the result, much like Duckworth-Lewis adjusts the scores for parity, But SA didnt win with 5 overs left, they won by one hit, with 1 ball remaining. Winning by four wickets sound slike a big win, but NZ used just one wicket more

Still seems bizarre

What if NZ scored 210/2, and SA scored 211/9 with one ball to spare, whats the score then?

Don't bring Duckworth-Lewis into this - not even Duckworth and Lewis understand how that works.

Handle9

11925 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9675

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1723139 20-Feb-2017 16:29

tdgeek:

Last comment.

Team A gets 280/3 Team B in the last ball or so gets 282/3. For anyone, cricket fan or otherwise who reads the one liner result will see that Team B smashed Team A by 7 wickets. Thats my issue. But all semantics, and IMHO a sports oddity

Cricket isn't a sport which can be summarised in a one liner. There is no way you can make it as simple to understand as rugby or athletics.

To many of us that is part of its appeal. If you want a game that can be understood without nuances then cricket isn't a game you should really be interested in.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1723142 20-Feb-2017 16:36

If you're batting first, you are attempting to set a target that you think they can't meet, even using all their batsmen. If they win without losing all their wickets, then they've won by X wickets. If you win because they're all out without meeting your target, then you've won by X runs.

The number of wickets left is a bit like measuring something's length in terms of bits of string anyway (my desk is 5 bits of string long and 3 bits of string wide)... the last 4 batsmen in a team might have brought in a 100+ runs, or they might have been out for 10 runs.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1723313 20-Feb-2017 21:23

frankv:

If you're batting first, you are attempting to set a target that you think they can't meet, even using all their batsmen. If they win without losing all their wickets, then they've won by X wickets. If you win because they're all out without meeting your target, then you've won by X runs.

The number of wickets left is a bit like measuring something's length in terms of bits of string anyway (my desk is 5 bits of string long and 3 bits of string wide)... the last 4 batsmen in a team might have brought in a 100+ runs, or they might have been out for 10 runs.

Team A gets 280/3 Team B in the last ball or so gets 282/3. For anyone, cricket fan or otherwise who reads the one liner result will see that Team B smashed Team A by 7 wickets. Thats my issue.

Now, in a rugger game if its a good win its a good win. Say, 32-21 12-3 etc. The match last night, everything was close to even, but SA won by almost half the wickets of the team

I know cricket. Its a good win or its close. A 4 wicket victory is not close. My example above is CLOSE. Same balls faced, same wickets consumed, its dead even apart from a 2 run win, but its actually a 7 wicket victory.

As I said, its semantics, but I fail to see how a dead even example above, where the team that win scored 1% more runs is a 7 wicket victory. Every metric is even. So its fake. Its an alternative score... :-)

1 | 2 | 3 | 4