Silly Cricket Scoring

Forums › Sports › Silly Cricket Scoring

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1723314 20-Feb-2017 21:25

Handle9:

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.

I agree, but its nit about nuances, the whole point of my post is that the given score is not representative of the game score.

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557

#1723318 20-Feb-2017 21:37

tdgeek: ...the whole point of my post is that the given score is not representative of the game score.

As you said in the original post:

NZ got 207/7 SA got 210/6

Those were the scores, so you can't get any more representative of the game score than that.

A team has ten wickets available before they're left with one guy out in the middle on his own. South Africa lost six of their wickets and had four left when they overtook New Zealand's score, so they won by those four wickets. Again, how is that not representative of the game scores?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1723325 20-Feb-2017 21:44

andrew027:

tdgeek: ...the whole point of my post is that the given score is not representative of the game score.

As you said in the original post:

NZ got 207/7 SA got 210/6

Those were the scores, so you can't get any more representative of the game score than that.

A team has ten wickets available before they're left with one guy out in the middle on his own. South Africa lost six of their wickets and had four left when they overtook New Zealand's score, so they won by those four wickets. Again, how is that not representative of the game scores?

Because everyone is giving Cricket 101 lesson

207/7 and 210/6 is VERY representative. SA winning by 4 wickets isn't.

A team has ten wickets available before they're left with one guy out in the middle on his own. NZ lost seven of their wickets and had three left when they were beaten by SA in the second last ball, so they lost by 3 runs. How is that not representative of the game scores? IT IS

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1723332 20-Feb-2017 21:54

tdgeek:

NZ got 207/7 SA got 210/6 with one ball remaining, how can that be SA won BY 4 wickets???

They won by 3 runs, using 1 wicket less, and with 1 ball remaining

Are you asking a serious question?

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1723334 20-Feb-2017 21:57

tdgeek:

andrew027:

tdgeek: ...the whole point of my post is that the given score is not representative of the game score.

As you said in the original post:

NZ got 207/7 SA got 210/6

Those were the scores, so you can't get any more representative of the game score than that.

A team has ten wickets available before they're left with one guy out in the middle on his own. South Africa lost six of their wickets and had four left when they overtook New Zealand's score, so they won by those four wickets. Again, how is that not representative of the game scores?

Because everyone is giving Cricket 101 lesson

207/7 and 210/6 is VERY representative. SA winning by 4 wickets isn't.

A team has ten wickets available before they're left with one guy out in the middle on his own. NZ lost seven of their wickets and had three left when they were beaten by SA in the second last ball, so they lost by 3 runs. How is that not representative of the game scores? IT IS

If ABs score 4 tries and England scores 9 dropped goals for a score of 28-27, ABs win by 4 tries to 0.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1723336 20-Feb-2017 21:59

joker97:

tdgeek:

NZ got 207/7 SA got 210/6 with one ball remaining, how can that be SA won BY 4 wickets???

They won by 3 runs, using 1 wicket less, and with 1 ball remaining

Are you asking a serious question?

Forget it

Yes I am. And I can count and I know cricket. If you can count you will see that most metrics are very even so the 4 wicket win is silly, hence my thread title.

You don't see a sport where the score was 21-20, being an obvious easy win as a 4 wicket victory apparently is, given that 4 wickets is almost half the lineup.

Explain how a 21-20 win is the same as a 4 wicket win, given that 4 wickets is near half the team lineup?

And forego the Cricket 101 lesson too

I wish some would read and comprehend instead of having a need "to be right all the time"

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1723337 20-Feb-2017 22:03

tdgeek:

joker97:

tdgeek:

NZ got 207/7 SA got 210/6 with one ball remaining, how can that be SA won BY 4 wickets???

They won by 3 runs, using 1 wicket less, and with 1 ball remaining

Are you asking a serious question?

Forget it

Yes I am. And I can count and I know cricket. If you can count you will see that most metrics are very even so the 4 wicket win is silly, hence my thread title.

You don't see a sport where the score was 21-20, being an obvious easy win as a 4 wicket victory apparently is, given that 4 wickets is almost half the lineup.

Explain how a 21-20 win is the same as a 4 wicket win, given that 4 wickets is near half the team lineup?

And forego the Cricket 101 lesson too

I wish some would read and comprehend instead of having a need "to be right all the time"

Incidentally I thought I just did ... see above

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1723339 20-Feb-2017 22:08

Ok hypothetically: Wimbledon tennis grand slam

score of 7-6 (10-8), 7-6 (12-10), 7-6 (54-52)

Wins by 3 sets to 0.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1723340 20-Feb-2017 22:11

in F1, NR could lead LH by 0.1s for 72 laps, on lap 72 NR punctures and gets lapped twice in a 73 lap race. LH wins by a 2 laps.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1723343 20-Feb-2017 22:23

joker97:
in F1, NR could lead LH by 0.1s for 72 laps, on lap 72 NR punctures and gets lapped twice in a 73 lap race. LH wins by a 2 laps.

NZ plays SA

NZ loses by 1 run, and is 2 wickets down. SA wins by 1 run, so it's a 8 wicket slaughter. But it's not a slaughter it's a very even game, could have gone either way.

Wickets don't matter, each side loses wickets, and what's left is after the finish. The game ends after 300 balls.
In my example above the winner is the one with the most runs, end of story. Does NZ get given credit for only losing 1 wicket? No. They had the choice to use wickets as did SA. So why reward remaning wickets? Reward the runs scored.

Tennis example, the scoreline shows it was a close match. 8 wicket victory doesn't.
F1, you can't compare a failure that causes a victory.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1723344 20-Feb-2017 22:29

AB's play the lions in June. Score is 2 tries to 1. Who wins? Might be better to mention the points as either could have won. It's the points that matter. Wickets is an after match discussion, no more. Like tries, conversions and penaltys

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1723348 20-Feb-2017 22:36

tdgeek: AB's play the lions in June. Score is 2 tries to 1. Who wins? Might be better to mention the points as either could have won. It's the points that matter. Wickets is an after match discussion, no more. Like tries, conversions and penaltys

Nobody asks you to compare the wickets?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1723352 20-Feb-2017 22:43

joker97:
tdgeek: AB's play the lions in June. Score is 2 tries to 1. Who wins? Might be better to mention the points as either could have won. It's the points that matter. Wickets is an after match discussion, no more. Like tries, conversions and penaltys

Nobody asks you to compare the wickets?

?

Maybe in rugby the maim stat is tries and penaltys and conversions, leave the actual scoreline for the fine print? Same thing. You win rugby if you score more points, and in cricket more runs. The wickets remaining is a low value metric, as shown last night.

andrew027

1286 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 557

#1723397 21-Feb-2017 00:15

You can't really compare cricket (where one team is trying to score while their opponent is trying to prevent them from scoring) with rugby (where both teams are basically trying to score and prevent the opposition scoring at the same time).

It's probably more like a penalty shootout in soccer, but where each team takes their penalties consecutively instead of taking turns as they do now. Say team A took five kicks but only scored one goal, then team B scores from their first two kicks. B wins 2-1, but that doesn't reflect how much better B was. It's an indication of B's superiority that they only needed two shots to beat what A did with five. Winning with three kicks left is meaningful, as is winning a cricket game with four wickets left.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1723425 21-Feb-2017 07:02

andrew027:

You can't really compare cricket (where one team is trying to score while their opponent is trying to prevent them from scoring) with rugby (where both teams are basically trying to score and prevent the opposition scoring at the same time).

It's probably more like a penalty shootout in soccer, but where each team takes their penalties consecutively instead of taking turns as they do now. Say team A took five kicks but only scored one goal, then team B scores from their first two kicks. B wins 2-1, but that doesn't reflect how much better B was. It's an indication of B's superiority that they only needed two shots to beat what A did with five. Winning with three kicks left is meaningful, as is winning a cricket game with four wickets left.

Very often if I want to see a result of a cricket match I end up having too scroll to the link for the scorecard. 4 wickets is meaningless, as is by 20 runs, but 210-207 means something as does 210 to 190 or 365 to 345, these tell me the story of the game if I just want to catch up with some results without reading everything.

Im sure if the AB's won by 9 we would want to know if it was 9-0 or 18-9 or 49-40

Yes, I do get the reasoning, but its silly, as by wickets or by runs doesnt tell any story, the score does. Tennis as Joker quoted, 3 sets to nil. Is that 6-2, 6-2, 6-2 or is it 7-6(10-8), 7-6 (10-8), 7-6 (10-8)

Cricket, Team A thing to score, Team B is also trying to score by way of wickets or reducing runs, then they switch. Its an even game, decided by runs.If the result was close, both lost 6 wickets, its close. By 4 wickets isn't close, but it actually was. The game is decided by runs, not wickets. Wickets are just part of the story, as is tries, penaltys or conversions. Part of the story, but what matters is we won 18-9

1 | 2 | 3 | 4