Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.




20931 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

#208618 20-Feb-2017 07:26
Send private message

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


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
2165 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1722857 20-Feb-2017 07:32
Send private message

Ah, the joys of cricket.

 

Logically, and as a disinterested observer, I suppose that they had four wickets in hand. A bit like degrees of freedom in statistics, each remaining wicket is an independent variable capable of influencing the result.

 

The first team, having no opportunity to use their remaining wickets to influence the results, must win by runs instead.


3920 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1722858 20-Feb-2017 07:45
Send private message

Yip, the number of wickets remaining is the resource left to be consumed by the chasing team. If 10 wickets are consumed the chasing team loses.

A win chasing by 1 run or 5 runs doesn't show the level of dominance. A win chasing by 9 wickets is a thrashing, a win by 1 wicket is a nail biter.

Balls remaining generally only matters in limited overs cricket, it's not such a big deal in first class or test cricket.

 
 
 
 




20931 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1722882 20-Feb-2017 09:05
Send private message

Handle9: Yip, the number of wickets remaining is the resource left to be consumed by the chasing team. If 10 wickets are consumed the chasing team loses.

A win chasing by 1 run or 5 runs doesn't show the level of dominance. A win chasing by 9 wickets is a thrashing, a win by 1 wicket is a nail biter.

Balls remaining generally only matters in limited overs cricket, it's not such a big deal in first class or test cricket.

 

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?

 

 


134 posts

Master Geek


  #1722884 20-Feb-2017 09:09
Send private message

tdgeek:

 

Handle9: Yip, the number of wickets remaining is the resource left to be consumed by the chasing team. If 10 wickets are consumed the chasing team loses.

A win chasing by 1 run or 5 runs doesn't show the level of dominance. A win chasing by 9 wickets is a thrashing, a win by 1 wicket is a nail biter.

Balls remaining generally only matters in limited overs cricket, it's not such a big deal in first class or test cricket.

 

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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then SA would have won by 1 wicket


Banana?
4985 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

  #1722886 20-Feb-2017 09:16
Send private message

Looking at it from outside, it must seem a little confusing, but it makes perfect sense (to me anyway).

 

South Africa had 4 wickets in hand - they could have lost three more and still had a chance of winning the game. NZ needed to take 10 wickets to stop them winning, therefore NZ lost by not taking 4 wickets more than they did - SA won by 4 wickets.

 

If NZ had bowled SA out (taken all 10 wickets) NZ would have won by the number of runs SA still had to score, as that was the number of runs NZ had in hand.


903 posts

Ultimate Geek


  #1722892 20-Feb-2017 09:26
Send private message

I agree it must sound a bit silly to the non cricket person however it makes logical sense to me.

 

What an awesome game though it was good to see NZ put up a good fight (unlike the T20!). SA are a bloody good team its going to be a super tough series.


9736 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1722896 20-Feb-2017 09:40
Send private message

because if nz got one more wicket they wouldn't have won the game. to get a team out you need to take 10 wickets hence they won by 4 wickets as that's what nz failed to take


 
 
 
 




20931 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1722901 20-Feb-2017 09:47
Send private message

xcon:

 

tdgeek:

 

Handle9: Yip, the number of wickets remaining is the resource left to be consumed by the chasing team. If 10 wickets are consumed the chasing team loses.

A win chasing by 1 run or 5 runs doesn't show the level of dominance. A win chasing by 9 wickets is a thrashing, a win by 1 wicket is a nail biter.

Balls remaining generally only matters in limited overs cricket, it's not such a big deal in first class or test cricket.

 

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?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then SA would have won by 1 wicket

 

 

Thats my point

 

 

 

Last night, SA won on the second last ball, using only one more wicket than NZ, but thats a 4 wicket win. Big win, 4 wickets, its almost half the 10 required to be bowled out

 

But if we lost at the last ball using 2 wickets and SA used 9, its the same close match, but we out performed SA, albeit losing by a couple of runs at the extreme end of the match. My point is that the silly scoring dosnt reflect the game. Winning 21-20 is a close match, 21-12 is a very good win. By 4 wickets or in my example, by 1 wickets doesnt reflect the end result. But all semantics I guess




20931 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1722903 20-Feb-2017 09:48
Send private message

Jase2985:

 

because if nz got one more wicket they wouldn't have won the game. to get a team out you need to take 10 wickets hence they won by 4 wickets as that's what nz failed to take

 

 

No, SA got a 4 on second last ball, if that ball, we got a wicket, they get a 4 on the last ball and win


3451 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

  #1722907 20-Feb-2017 09:54
Send private message

Is it really worth arguing over this in a game that has googlys, silly mid-ons, cow corners and royal ducks? :P 





"I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there."         | Electric Kiwi | Sharesies
              - Richard Feynman


9736 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1722908 20-Feb-2017 09:58
Send private message

you missed the point, they in my statement that you bolded is nz.  nz had to get 4 wickets to win, they didn't so SA won by the amount of wickets nz didn't get.

 

if nz had won they would of won by the number of runs they were ahead of sa by




20931 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1722909 20-Feb-2017 09:58
Send private message

sidefx:

 

Is it really worth arguing over this in a game that has googlys, silly mid-ons, cow corners and royal ducks? :P 

 

 

And left right out, or is that baseball?  :-) 

 

You have probably answered my initial post!




20931 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1722914 20-Feb-2017 10:04
Send private message

Jase2985:

 

you missed the point, they in my statement that you bolded is nz.  nz had to get 4 wickets to win, they didn't so SA won by the amount of wickets nz didn't get.

 

if nz had won they would of won by the number of runs they were ahead of sa by

 

 

I'm not missing any point. In my two examples, they win by 4 wickets or 1 wicket, that does not reflect the actual game, as a 21-20  or 21-12 does. I fully get what a win by 4 wickets means, but in two VERY close games, you do not get a VERY close scoreline to reflect the result, thats all. 21-20 is VERY close, 21-12 isnt. In my example, we did FAR better, albeit just lost at the very end but you can't see that in the score, in that we lost 2 wickets and they lost 9 to get virtually the same score. 


9736 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

  #1722922 20-Feb-2017 10:17
Send private message

yes but the example you are using is rugby which has 1 variable, the score, cricket has 2 the score and the wickets

 

 

 

 




20931 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  #1722951 20-Feb-2017 10:57
Send private message

Jase2985:

 

yes but the example you are using is rugby which has 1 variable, the score, cricket has 2 the score and the wickets

 

 

 

 

 

 

My example wasnt rugby, it was a scoreline. Could be table tennis, or any sport that score 1 point per goal etc. Rugby actually has more than one variable as a try is 5 or 7, penalty is 3, so I didn't use rugby as an example. But even there 21-12 or 21-9 is more meaningful

 

 

 

I get the reason. As others have stated and I have already said. Cricket wickets dont reflect the game. If the game was won by the side batting first, then winning by 1 run or 50 runs is meaningful


 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic





Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Chorus completes the build and commissioning of two new core Ethernet switches
Posted 8-Jul-2020 09:48


National Institute for Health Innovation develops treatment app for gambling
Posted 6-Jul-2020 16:25


Nokia 2.3 to be available in New Zealand
Posted 6-Jul-2020 12:30


Menulog change colours as parent company merges with Dutch food delivery service
Posted 2-Jul-2020 07:53


Techweek2020 goes digital to make it easier for Kiwis to connect and learn
Posted 2-Jul-2020 07:48


Catalyst Cloud launches new Solutions Hub to support their kiwi Partners and Customers
Posted 2-Jul-2020 07:44


Microsoft to help New Zealand job seekers acquire new digital skills needed for the COVID-19 economy
Posted 2-Jul-2020 07:41


Hewlett Packard Enterprise introduces new HPE GreenLake cloud services
Posted 24-Jun-2020 08:07


New cloud data protection services from Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Posted 24-Jun-2020 07:58


Hewlett Packard Enterprise unveils HPE Ezmeral, new software portfolio and brand
Posted 24-Jun-2020 07:10


Apple reveals new developer technologies to foster the next generation of apps
Posted 23-Jun-2020 15:30


Poly introduces solutions for Microsoft Teams Rooms
Posted 23-Jun-2020 15:14


Lenovo launches new ThinkPad P Series mobile workstations
Posted 23-Jun-2020 09:17


Lenovo brings Linux certification to ThinkPad and ThinkStation Workstation portfolio
Posted 23-Jun-2020 08:56


Apple introduces new features for iPhone iOS14 and iPadOS 14
Posted 23-Jun-2020 08:28



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.