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



Not quite right.


Case 1) Team A scores 220 runs in 50 overs and loses all 10 wickets, Team B scores 221 runs in 35 overs and loses 2 wickets.


Case 2) Team A scores 280 runs in 50 overs and loses 9 wickets, Team B scores 281 runs in 49.4 overs and loses 6 wickets.


By your reckoning both teams won by 1 run. Case 2 is close, Case 1 isn't but you say they both won by 1 run.


The only way you can say runs decide the game is if both teams bat 50 overs in full.


Can't compare to Rugby as Rugby is played for 80 minutes all the time, crickets game length can vary.


Or what about the case in a cricket game where Team B chasing the runs takes 49 overs and loses 6 wickets but are always in front v Team B chases the runs in 40 overs and loses 6 wickets. Is one a bigger win than the other?