Cricket scoring
Discussion
Right, could somebody explain to me why you have draws in a test match? I should rephrase that, I know why there are draws but why does there need to be? It seems somewhat daft that you can play a game for the best part of a fortnight or whatever and still be unable to find out which team is the better. Obviously I hate the whole American thing where there must be a winner and they have overtime etc but why, in the event of a cricket test series draw, dont they take account of the margins of victory and defeat in each test to determine the series winner?
Do people actually like it when their team loses 2 tests narrowly yet crushes the other side in the other 2 tests yet its still a draw?
Or have I totally misunderstood how cricket scoring works?
Do people actually like it when their team loses 2 tests narrowly yet crushes the other side in the other 2 tests yet its still a draw?
Or have I totally misunderstood how cricket scoring works?
deevlash said:
Right, could somebody explain to me why you have draws in a test match? I should rephrase that, I know why there are draws but why does there need to be? It seems somewhat daft that you can play a game for the best part of a fortnight or whatever and still be unable to find out which team is the better. Obviously I hate the whole American thing where there must be a winner and they have overtime etc but why, in the event of a cricket test series draw, dont they take account of the margins of victory and defeat in each test to determine the series winner?
Do people actually like it when their team loses 2 tests narrowly yet crushes the other side in the other 2 tests yet its still a draw?
Or have I totally misunderstood how cricket scoring works?
It's done that way to give your lot a chance to retain a trophy occasionally Do people actually like it when their team loses 2 tests narrowly yet crushes the other side in the other 2 tests yet its still a draw?
Or have I totally misunderstood how cricket scoring works?
suthol said:
deevlash said:
Right, could somebody explain to me why you have draws in a test match? I should rephrase that, I know why there are draws but why does there need to be? It seems somewhat daft that you can play a game for the best part of a fortnight or whatever and still be unable to find out which team is the better. Obviously I hate the whole American thing where there must be a winner and they have overtime etc but why, in the event of a cricket test series draw, dont they take account of the margins of victory and defeat in each test to determine the series winner?
Do people actually like it when their team loses 2 tests narrowly yet crushes the other side in the other 2 tests yet its still a draw?
Or have I totally misunderstood how cricket scoring works?
It's done that way to give your lot a chance to retain a trophy occasionally Do people actually like it when their team loses 2 tests narrowly yet crushes the other side in the other 2 tests yet its still a draw?
Or have I totally misunderstood how cricket scoring works?
Its an ethos.
There doesnt have to be a result. Why should there? What is wrong with a draw? A draw means you and your opponent have fought each other to a standstill. There is honour in a draw.
Yes, I like the fact that you can have winning and losing draws. They arent matches, they are *tests* as in the true sense of the word. A series of tests enables a narrative to be written, an arc develops for the story as a whole, this adds depth, complexity, context...colour to the whole affair.
A cricket test series examines a sportsman like no other contest in sport, it places demands like nothing else in sport. Its unique. And yes, we love it. Every now and then someone wants to promote some notion that test cricket is dying, it gains a little ground with people talking about pointless draws and then a proper Ashes series happens or an England v Bok series and suddenly the game is alive again.
There doesnt have to be a result. Why should there? What is wrong with a draw? A draw means you and your opponent have fought each other to a standstill. There is honour in a draw.
Yes, I like the fact that you can have winning and losing draws. They arent matches, they are *tests* as in the true sense of the word. A series of tests enables a narrative to be written, an arc develops for the story as a whole, this adds depth, complexity, context...colour to the whole affair.
A cricket test series examines a sportsman like no other contest in sport, it places demands like nothing else in sport. Its unique. And yes, we love it. Every now and then someone wants to promote some notion that test cricket is dying, it gains a little ground with people talking about pointless draws and then a proper Ashes series happens or an England v Bok series and suddenly the game is alive again.
I think I am right in saying that the original test matches were unlimited in time, both teams had 2 innings and there was always a result. However they could run to 7 days or so.
As things modernised there was a desire to fix the time, which introduced the concept of a draw, and watching the SA series it is easy to argue that it is a lot more exciting as that was some of the best cricket tension ever.
Seems a pity it's not unlimited time, for no other reason that non-playing nations would find it even more difficult to understand!
As things modernised there was a desire to fix the time, which introduced the concept of a draw, and watching the SA series it is easy to argue that it is a lot more exciting as that was some of the best cricket tension ever.
Seems a pity it's not unlimited time, for no other reason that non-playing nations would find it even more difficult to understand!
The OP is asking about drawn series as opposed to drawn tests I think. ie If a series finished 1-1 with two tests drawn, why not declare the winner of the series the team that had the biggest margin of victory in the test they did win??
The obstacle to that would be the margin of victory is expressed in different ways depending on whether the winning team batted first or second. What's the biggest margin out of these two matches...
Team A bats first in both matches.
- Team A beats Team B by 50 runs.
- Team B beats Team A by 2 wickets.
There isn't one.
Draws are good.
When I saw the title I thought the question was going to be about how complete the scorebook when a batsman is stumped on a wide ball or something.
The obstacle to that would be the margin of victory is expressed in different ways depending on whether the winning team batted first or second. What's the biggest margin out of these two matches...
Team A bats first in both matches.
- Team A beats Team B by 50 runs.
- Team B beats Team A by 2 wickets.
There isn't one.
Draws are good.
When I saw the title I thought the question was going to be about how complete the scorebook when a batsman is stumped on a wide ball or something.
Bing o said:
5pen said:
When I saw the title I thought the question was going to be about how complete the scorebook when a batsman is stumped on a wide ball or something.
Me too, I was about to reach for my copy of Tom Smiths...There was a time when test matches were played for as many days as it took to get a result. The longest went on for 10 days and would have continued had England not had a boat to catch. It ended as an agreed draw, in South Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_time_(cricket...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_time_(cricket...
Edited by Percy Flage on Friday 29th January 13:51
5pen said:
The OP is asking about drawn series as opposed to drawn tests I think.
Yes I was, I understand you can have a drawn game in cricket or, football, rugby or even boxing. It just seems odd that cricket will fly 2 countries together for a clash over several days and several tests and yet still fell happy without awarding victory on occasions where the rules say the series has been drawn. Even when one nation essentially has a far far worse "goal" difference. I wont mention the rain breaks which seemingly render a test match pointless when one team gets 2 shots at batting whilst the other only gets one. I simply dont understand how you could consider winning under such circumstances as any sort of achievement.
Your understanding of cricket is obviously somewhat limited.
Cricket cannot be understood merely from a Scorecard or a result.
Essentially it is like a game of chess - very tactical.
Take for example, an opening spell from a fast bowler to the opening batsmen of the opposing team. A new ball, slightly overcast. Ball beating the bat, not many boundaries, a couple of close calls - the batsman is under pressure, the captain put in some close fielders. Eventually the bowler gets his reward and induces an outside edge. The Batsman walks away with a low score, the opening bowler has done his job, the bowling team are in the ascendancy....
If the above means nothing to you, then the game is wasted on you.
Cricket cannot be understood merely from a Scorecard or a result.
Essentially it is like a game of chess - very tactical.
Take for example, an opening spell from a fast bowler to the opening batsmen of the opposing team. A new ball, slightly overcast. Ball beating the bat, not many boundaries, a couple of close calls - the batsman is under pressure, the captain put in some close fielders. Eventually the bowler gets his reward and induces an outside edge. The Batsman walks away with a low score, the opening bowler has done his job, the bowling team are in the ascendancy....
If the above means nothing to you, then the game is wasted on you.
Rags said:
Your understanding of cricket is obviously somewhat limited.
Cricket cannot be understood merely from a Scorecard or a result.
Essentially it is like a game of chess - very tactical.
Take for example, an opening spell from a fast bowler to the opening batsmen of the opposing team. A new ball, slightly overcast. Ball beating the bat, not many boundaries, a couple of close calls - the batsman is under pressure, the captain put in some close fielders. Eventually the bowler gets his reward and induces an outside edge. The Batsman walks away with a low score, the opening bowler has done his job, the bowling team are in the ascendancy....
If the above means nothing to you, then the game is wasted on you.
I understand the game, just not the mentality of the competitiors that would allow them to be happy with a "win" that owes as much to it happening to rain as it does to their play. Then conversley when they are playing for a team that over the course of a test series scored more runs and enjoyed more moments of success due to their play they will settle for a drawn series. Cricket cannot be understood merely from a Scorecard or a result.
Essentially it is like a game of chess - very tactical.
Take for example, an opening spell from a fast bowler to the opening batsmen of the opposing team. A new ball, slightly overcast. Ball beating the bat, not many boundaries, a couple of close calls - the batsman is under pressure, the captain put in some close fielders. Eventually the bowler gets his reward and induces an outside edge. The Batsman walks away with a low score, the opening bowler has done his job, the bowling team are in the ascendancy....
If the above means nothing to you, then the game is wasted on you.
Percy Flage said:
There was a time when test matches were played for as many days as it took to get a result. The longest went on for 10 days and would have continued had England not had a boat to catch. It ended as an agreed draw, in South Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_time_(cricket...
seems like a good idea really for a test series, its not like test players these days have to get back to their plastering jobs on a monday morning is it? They could play to a finish properly.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_time_(cricket...
Edited by Percy Flage on Friday 29th January 13:51
deevlash said:
5pen said:
The OP is asking about drawn series as opposed to drawn tests I think.
Yes I was, I understand you can have a drawn game in cricket or, football, rugby or even boxing. It just seems odd that cricket will fly 2 countries together for a clash over several days and several tests and yet still fell happy without awarding victory on occasions where the rules say the series has been drawn. Even when one nation essentially has a far far worse "goal" difference. I wont mention the rain breaks which seemingly render a test match pointless when one team gets 2 shots at batting whilst the other only gets one. I simply dont understand how you could consider winning under such circumstances as any sort of achievement.
Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff