Originally posted by FMFYes, the assumption that every innings needs ten wickets to fall is wrong.
If only two was required to win - and there was a wide or a no ball - maybe only 3 batsmen batted in the innings which was declared with scores level.
But I can still offer a solution which involves all 10 wickets falling.
Originally posted by FMFFrom the research I have done, it appears that 'batsmen' and 'batters' are both acceptable terms for a female cricketer who bats. Certainly, many female cricket commentators and players use the term 'batsman'.
I don't have the same fond regard for the 1950s as you appear to have, old chap.
I claw my way back into the 60s. Phew.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderHaving listened to a BBC podcast on the subject recently - http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/analysis/analysis_20130318-2100a.mp3 - I am not necessarily willing to subscribe to your perception of who is 100% woman and who is 100% man. Sorry.
Hang on a minute. Aren't you the same FMF that once claimed that Fred Perry was the last British [b]player to win a Wimbledon singles title?
At least I got past the 30s![/b]
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI gather the Kiwis thought Matt Prior was "morally" bowled.
The term bowled, in the laws of cricket, talks about the wicket being 'put down'. I think if the wicket remains intact, you are not only not out, but you would not have been bowled either (even allowing for the idea that you can be bowled and not out, as per the no ball suggestion).
Originally posted by FMFStrawperson argument.
Having listened to a BBC podcast on the subject recently - http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/analysis/analysis_20130318-2100a.mp3 - I am not necessarily willing to subscribe to your perception of who is 100% woman and who is 100% man. Sorry.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderThere's a definite whiff of red brick off Wikipedia. I am tackling this in elbow patches and armchair mode, with the tutor extemporizing into the middle distance, and me peering out of the casement window in his study at the 2nd XI on the square below, safe in the knowledge that my essay on 14thC ecclesiastical economics will probably get a 2.2. THAT'S where I am mentally with this cricket question.
Source : Wikipedia
Here's a variant. Every batsman in a men's team scores 3 off his first ball, does not make a scoring shot off the second ball, and is then bowled third ball. There are no extras conceded, there is no declaration, and the match has six ball overs. Who is last man out and what is the innings total?
No looking this up ~ that'd be NO fun at all.
Which of the following two 6-batsman teams would score more runs if all of them scored their career Test average?
Team A
Graeme Fowler
Mark Ramprakash
Alec Stewart
Phil DeFreitas
Martyn Moxon
Chris Lewis
versus
Team B
Tim Robinson
Kim Barnett
Nasser Hussain
Bruce French
Graeme Hick
Jack Russell
Originally posted by FMFThe last man out is number 11 with an innings total of 33, in a match lasting 5.2 overs. Number 10 is not out at the finish.
Here's a variant. Every batsman in a men's team scores 3 off his first ball, does not make a scoring shot off the second ball, and is then bowled third ball. There are no extras conceded, there is no declaration, and the match has six ball overs. Who is last man out and what is the innings total?
Originally posted by FMFMy instinctive view would be that the answer is B. So I should really plump for A, but will stick with B.
No looking this up ~ that'd be NO fun at all.
Which of the following two 6-batsman teams would score more runs if all of them scored their career Test average?
[b]Team A
Graeme Fowler
Mark Ramprakash
Alec Stewart
Phil DeFreitas
Martyn Moxon
Chris Lewis
versus
Team B
Tim Robinson
Kim Barnett
Nasser Hussain
Bruce French
Graeme Hick
Jack Russell[/b]