Reply With Quote20 years ago, yes.Originally Posted by Sir C
Essentially, now you have 10 wickets to get as many runs as you can, so you may as well use all of them
buit isn't 241-8 a 'better' score than 241 all out?
20 years ago, yes.
Essentially, now you have 10 wickets to get as many runs as you can, so you may as well use all of them
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.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.
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
We won get over it. Genuinely can't stop smiling this morning. People think I am ill
That's the thing. You'd never know. it's got all the proper words and that.Hmmm. Sounds interesting, but it appears to have been written by a girl
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
I'm pleased for you la, honestly I am!
It was absolutely ridiculous. The funny thing was, if we hadn't got over the line, I'd have been cursing Buttler and Stokes for not pushing the scoring along a bit earlier. I did feel they left us with too much to do - Stokes in particular was remiss, I felt. He made up for it with getting his bat in the way of that throw, though.
I can't help but feel bad for NZ, though. They have every right to feel aggrieved. They've been remarkably gracious considering.
New Zealand cricketers are genuinely wonderful people - all the absolute ****s play rugby and while I agree they were very hard done they can go **** themselves until at least one Kiwi shows any sort of remorse for the assault on Brian O'Driscoll in the 2004 Lions seriesIt was absolutely ridiculous. The funny thing was, if we hadn't got over the line, I'd have been cursing Buttler and Stokes for not pushing the scoring along a bit earlier. I did feel they left us with too much to do - Stokes in particular was remiss, I felt. He made up for it with getting his bat in the way of that throw, though.
I can't help but feel bad for NZ, though. They have every right to feel aggrieved. They've been remarkably gracious considering.
Posting Permissions
