Now I'm no expert, obviously,

[Burney]

buit isn't 241-8 a 'better' score than 241 all out?

No. In absolute terms they're the same score. A few years ago it would have been considered 'better' in the sense that winning was decided on wickets lost, but now they've gone for an equally arbitrary means of deciding between tied teams.
The logic is that wickets lost unfairly penalises the chasing side because they will sometimes have to sacrifice wickets in order to achieve the total (as England did yesterday), while the side batting first won't generally do this. It's therefore considered better to use a measure that favours neither side and which encourages positive cricket.

Ultimately, any measure you use is silly and arbitrary, but you have to have something. After all, you could equally argue that NZ should have lost the Super Over on the basis that they lost a wicket and England didn't.

[Sir C]

No. In absolute terms they're the same score. A few years ago it would have been considered 'better' in the sense that winning was decided on wickets lost, but now they've gone for an equally arbitrary means of deciding between tied teams.
The logic is that wickets lost unfairly penalises the chasing side because they will sometimes have to sacrifice wickets in order to achieve the total (as England did yesterday), while the side batting first won't generally do this. It's therefore considered better to use a measure that favours neither side and which encourages positive cricket.

Ultimately, any measure you use is silly and arbitrary, but you have to have something. After all, you could equally argue that NZ should have lost the Super Over on the basis that they lost a wicket and England didn't.

I see, yes, hmm.

I have discovered a Great Undiscovered Nocel, by the way. Well, undiscovered by me, if not the millions of others who have read it since publication in 2004. I just don't understand why one doesn't here is spoken of as one of the great modern novels. It's simply wonderful... perhaps you're familiar with it and it has somehow just passed me by, but if not...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/03491394...iframe-wrapper

[Burney]

I see, yes, hmm.

I have discovered a Great Undiscovered Nocel, by the way. Well, undiscovered by me, if not the millions of others who have read it since publication in 2004. I just don't understand why one doesn't here is spoken of as one of the great modern novels. It's simply wonderful... perhaps you're familiar with it and it has somehow just passed me by, but if not...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/03491394...iframe-wrapper

Hmmm. Sounds interesting, but it appears to have been written by a girl

[Sir C]

Hmmm. Sounds interesting, but it appears to have been written by a girl

That's the thing. You'd never know. it's got all the proper words and that.

And I have another winner for you. I'm on a roll at the moment. (it's v digging this stuff out of course.) https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sisters-Bro...gateway&sr=8-1

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

I see, yes, hmm.

I have discovered a Great Undiscovered Nocel ............

Watchman now has me in its dark pitiless grip and will not let me go. A tour de force no doubt but I have read things I cannot unread and I am now compelled to finish it knowing I will only encounter yet more Dante-esque horrors

The privations of a Dickens are made to seem pleasant by comparison. It's back to Wodehouse for me after after this.