ChatterBank2 mins ago
A Draw In Cricket
As an American , and even worse a female, can someone please explain how cricket is the only sport where the result of a contest can be a draw when one side has comprehensively outplayed another over the course of the match.
I thought a draw was where two opponents had the same score!
To take the current test series in South Africa, everyone seems to accept that the South Africans outplayed England in two of the three matches yet those were described as draws leaving the England team apparently one game up after only winning one match out of three?
It seems illogical to me that the system persists.
I welcome answers which are not patronising or abusive- I'd just like to know.
I thought a draw was where two opponents had the same score!
To take the current test series in South Africa, everyone seems to accept that the South Africans outplayed England in two of the three matches yet those were described as draws leaving the England team apparently one game up after only winning one match out of three?
It seems illogical to me that the system persists.
I welcome answers which are not patronising or abusive- I'd just like to know.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by toalisi. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hi toalisi - if you think that is illigocal, try this
The Game of Cricket: you have two sides; a team that's in and a team that's out.. two men in the team that's in go out and when one of the men who's in is out; the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out; the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in; the men who are out are trying to get him out; and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decided when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out; and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.
That's the wonderful game of cricket
The Game of Cricket: you have two sides; a team that's in and a team that's out.. two men in the team that's in go out and when one of the men who's in is out; the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out; the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in; the men who are out are trying to get him out; and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decided when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out; and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.
That's the wonderful game of cricket
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
I did enjoy it vibrasphere as I became involved in the obvious excitement of the crowd and commentators.
It was just I thought there would be a winner.
Is it possible therefore that the next match could also have South Africa outclassing England and still lose the series if they could not (quite) get England out twice.
Doesn't seem fair or equitable and yet the English press seem cock-a hoop.
Thanks for your reply.
It was just I thought there would be a winner.
Is it possible therefore that the next match could also have South Africa outclassing England and still lose the series if they could not (quite) get England out twice.
Doesn't seem fair or equitable and yet the English press seem cock-a hoop.
Thanks for your reply.
The bottom line in cricket is that it is for the team in the field to take 10 wickets per inning (just as you have 3 strikes in baseball) and that 5 days play has traditionally (though not always) been the duration of a test match; they have to draw a line somewhere because of scheduling, although very few matches would last beyond a 6th day if it there was no time limit. That's something you didn't point out - 5 days just for a draw!!!
The draws in tests like these are to be seen as a reward for the team that is having to defend with it's back to the wall rather than the "if you're not a winner then you must be a loser" mentality of American sport (don't get me wrong, I like baseball which can quite often be as dull and drag on as much as cricket often does)
The draws in tests like these are to be seen as a reward for the team that is having to defend with it's back to the wall rather than the "if you're not a winner then you must be a loser" mentality of American sport (don't get me wrong, I like baseball which can quite often be as dull and drag on as much as cricket often does)
Joggerjayne the end to this match was not boring at all.
I just wondered why they didn't allot points to each side so that if time did run out there would still ( more often than not) be a clear winner.
Could an impartial panel not allocate points to avoid the unsatisfactory result. How on earth do they decide who is the best team in the world if, on occasions, the superior team does not prevail?
I just wondered why they didn't allot points to each side so that if time did run out there would still ( more often than not) be a clear winner.
Could an impartial panel not allocate points to avoid the unsatisfactory result. How on earth do they decide who is the best team in the world if, on occasions, the superior team does not prevail?
I can't quite see the deal with cricket.
I went to Lords last summer because Sussex were in the Final of something or other.
It bacame quite clear, very early on, that we were being rubbish, and we were going to get stuffed (which we did) ...
... so at least we didn't have to sit through the whole match.
The food and drink was quite jolly.
I went to Lords last summer because Sussex were in the Final of something or other.
It bacame quite clear, very early on, that we were being rubbish, and we were going to get stuffed (which we did) ...
... so at least we didn't have to sit through the whole match.
The food and drink was quite jolly.
the batsmen piled on the runs but the bowlers couldn't take enough wickets (on either side). This could be because the bowlers weren't good enough, or because the state of the pitch wasn't lively enough (if it gets slightly worn-out and cracked as the days go on, the ball jumps around more and batsmen are more llikely to misjudge it and get out... but not in this match). They used to play matches right to the end - one in 1939 went on for nine days (now that would have been a bit boring) and still ended in a draw because the England team had to catch a boat home.
Playing for five days is also a test of a sportsman's character: how tired will he get, how long can he force himself to concentrate and play?
Playing for five days is also a test of a sportsman's character: how tired will he get, how long can he force himself to concentrate and play?
In many sports e.g. football one team can totally outplay the other but the result could still be 0-0.
In one day cricket where a match is played over a fixed number of overs there is always a result unless weather intervenes drastically or the scores are level in which case it is called a tie.
A TEST match is played over a fixed period of time and if the game is not completed in that time as has recently happened it is declared a draw.
In one day cricket where a match is played over a fixed number of overs there is always a result unless weather intervenes drastically or the scores are level in which case it is called a tie.
A TEST match is played over a fixed period of time and if the game is not completed in that time as has recently happened it is declared a draw.
I don't agree with your analogy to soccer Helpful Harry.
The 0 - 0 result, in which you say one team could outplay the other, still had the same score by both sides!
In the cricket South Africa far outscored England !
The two 'draws' are not the same other than in name.
Thanks for your interest in my question.
The 0 - 0 result, in which you say one team could outplay the other, still had the same score by both sides!
In the cricket South Africa far outscored England !
The two 'draws' are not the same other than in name.
Thanks for your interest in my question.
toalisi, they 'outscored' England because they took more time over it - too much time, as it turned out, because they didn't leave themselves enough enough to bowl England out. They left it too late to call off their own innings and get England's innings started. 'Timing' is one of the great arts of the game. My own guess is that the two teams are indeed evenly matched.
Toalisi- in the case of a game of cricket when the allotted time for the match is reached stumps (the wickets) are 'drawn' (pulled out).
This signifies the end of the match . The scores need not be identical for the result to be a draw. If they were it would be a tie.
Unfortunately in the professional age some gamesmanship has entered and sides can bowl deliberately slowly giving the batting side less time than they should have to complete a victory. It is possible that England were guilty of slowing things down in the test you were watching. The Captain will probably be fined but he won't care.
Keep enjoying the game it is generally played in good spirit.
This signifies the end of the match . The scores need not be identical for the result to be a draw. If they were it would be a tie.
Unfortunately in the professional age some gamesmanship has entered and sides can bowl deliberately slowly giving the batting side less time than they should have to complete a victory. It is possible that England were guilty of slowing things down in the test you were watching. The Captain will probably be fined but he won't care.
Keep enjoying the game it is generally played in good spirit.
-- answer removed --
