Men's Cricket ICC World Cup 2023

[heywoodu 16,004]

1 hour ago, Siddhartha Talukdar said:

If the team batting first wins, then the team is said to have won by difference of the runs scored by the two teams. For example, team A batting first scores 100 runs and team B scores 70 runs, then team A won by 30 runs.

If the team batting second wins, then the team is said to have won by number of wickets left as the game is stopped the moment team batting second scores more runs irrespective of number of overs remaining. For example, if team A batting second has scored more than team B but lost 6 wickets in the process, then team A won by 4 wickets as 4 more wickets were remaining

Right, that helps! So winning by overs or wickets says nothing about whether the victory was massive or tiny, the only thing it says is which team batted first.

[Dolby 754]

12 hours ago, phelps said:

Tomorrow, gameday #4 starts with the matchup between  and  at 10.30 a.m. CET in Chennai

Don't be surprised if  come up with another good performance. Chennai pitch should help spinners and  do have one of the best spin attack. 

[Dolby 754]

1 hour ago, heywoodu said:

Right, that helps! So winning by overs or wickets says nothing about whether the victory was massive or tiny, the only thing it says is which team batted first.

Yes and No. Winning by X runs/Y wickets does give some idea about whether victory was massive or tiny. For example, win by 100 runs is massive while win by 10 runs is tiny as the losing team was in with a chance for a longer time. Similarly, win by 1 wicket is marginal while win by 10 wickets shows domination. 

[heywoodu 16,004]

18 minutes ago, Dolby said:

Yes and No. Winning by X runs/Y wickets does give some idea about whether victory was massive or tiny. For example, win by 100 runs is massive while win by 10 runs is tiny as the losing team was in with a chance for a longer time. Similarly, win by 1 wicket is marginal while win by 10 wickets shows domination. 

Right, yes, but what I mean is that massive wins can be overs or in wickets and small wins as well. Whereas first I thought that maybe "won by X wickets" meant it was a small victory whereas "won by X overs" was a big victory, because of a different unit of measurement being used.

 

I still have 4,5 years or so to learn the basics...  

[phelps 8,285]

game #16,  beat  by 149 runs

 

not even close to a surprise, today...the Kiwis went 288/6 in the 1st inning and then  only scored 139 runs in 34.4 overs before they went all out

 

game details

https://www.cricketworldcup.com/match/102762

 

Tomorrow, game #17 will be on stage, with  facing  at 10.30 a.m. CET in Pune

[NearPup 3,496]

10 hours ago, heywoodu said:

Right, yes, but what I mean is that massive wins can be overs or in wickets and small wins as well. Whereas first I thought that maybe "won by X wickets" meant it was a small victory whereas "won by X overs" was a big victory, because of a different unit of measurement being used.

 

I still have 4,5 years or so to learn the basics...  

The way I think about it: the team batting first sets a target. There are two likely outcomes for the team batting second: either they fall short of the target (so team 1 wins by the number of runs team 2 fell short by) or team 2 reached the target with X wickets and Y overs to spare (so team 2 wins by X wickets).

Edited October 18, 2023 by NearPup

[Olympian1010 8,230]

Whenever someone tries to explain cricket to me, this scene comes to mind 

 

 

[Thagard 84]

So, there've been 12 "centuries" so far at this World Cup. South Africa has managed 3 against Sri Lanka and one against Australia. New Zealand scored 2 in the opening against England. England had one against Bangladesh and India benefit from Rohit Sharma against Afghanistan. Interesting, both Pakistan and Sri Lanka had 2 "centuries" in their match.

However, scoring over 100 points is not as excited as in T20 I think.

 

India must win tomorrow against Bangladesh to match New Zealand perfect record so far.

[Siddhartha Talukdar 244]

7 hours ago, Thagard said:

So, there've been 12 "centuries" so far at this World Cup. South Africa has managed 3 against Sri Lanka and one against Australia. New Zealand scored 2 in the opening against England. England had one against Bangladesh and India benefit from Rohit Sharma against Afghanistan. Interesting, both Pakistan and Sri Lanka had 2 "centuries" in their match.

However, scoring over 100 points is not as excited as in T20 I think.

 

India must win tomorrow against Bangladesh to match New Zealand perfect record so far.

In ODI, there are maximum 50 overs or 300 balls available for a team in an inning. Generally batsmen can score 80-90 strike rate (strike rate = runs scored * 100 / balls faced) without much risk once settled so a century is generally scored within 110-120 balls. 

But in T20 there are only 20 overs or 120 balls available and batsmen have to score at > 120 strike rate once settled which is much more risky. Therefore scoring 100 is rare because less number of balls available and risks involved. If a 100 does happen it generally is scored within 70-80 balls

[Thagard 84]

4 hours ago, Siddhartha Talukdar said:

In ODI, there are maximum 50 overs or 300 balls available for a team in an inning. Generally batsmen can score 80-90 strike rate (strike rate = runs scored * 100 / balls faced) without much risk once settled so a century is generally scored within 110-120 balls. 

But in T20 there are only 20 overs or 120 balls available and batsmen have to score at > 120 strike rate once settled which is much more risky. Therefore scoring 100 is rare because less number of balls available and risks involved. If a 100 does happen it generally is scored within 70-80 balls

I was cheering for Hyderabad Sunrisers some years ago when IPL was live on Youtube.

Too bad those free live coverage times are history.

 

I also followed the Division structures of international cricket, of course most of those countries without OD status.

 

Oh yes, and my team in Battrick is in the West Indies which I chose over the Scotland or Netherlands simply because they have a First Class championship and The Netherlands doesn't have. Also, the OD and FC matches in India were played in the morning here in Romania while I could follow live match text commentary if located in the Caribbeans during afternoon and evening hours at my local time.