General
13 Feb 03
14 Feb 03
Originally posted by latex bishopI think I understand-- you mean that a team which uses up all of its overs and doesn't score the winning run until its very last chance is said to have won by the same margin as a team that surpasses its opponent in the first few overs, right?
It is a hang over from test cricket and depends on who wins...
i think this is a bit unfair in limited overs games as you can win a game by 10 wickets but have the last ball of the game decide the game if your openers bat slowly but do not get out.
Hope that makes sense
Andrew
Is this distinction in scoring only cosmetic? Or does winning by wickets as opposed to runs actually make a competitive difference at times?
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
15 Feb 03
1 edit
Originally posted by jgvaccaroI think if there is a tie in the tables once all the first stage games have finished it is decided on run rate. The team that scores faster overall in the first stage games goes through. This is to encourage batting sides to be agressive and so the idea goes entertaining.
Or does winning by wickets as opposed to runs actually make a competitive difference at times?
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
15 Feb 03
1 edit
Originally posted by jgvaccaroYes thats right Jake, if say England need to get 250, if they get this required score and do not loose any wickets they will have won by 10 wickets regardless of if they hit a six off every ball or win off the last ball.
I think I understand-- you mean that a team which uses up all of its overs and doesn't score the winning run until its very last chance is said to have won by the same margin as a team that surpasses its opponent in the first few overs, right?
Andrew