Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 20

Thread: Wickets/Runs vs Runs/Wickets

  1. #1
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955

    Wickets/Runs vs Runs/Wickets

    Why is the notation for writing the team score different in Australia? As far as I know, all other Test (I'm not sure about NZ) nations write their scores as say.. 129/7, whereas here we write it as 7/129...Does anyone know why this is so?
    Last edited by Dasa; 28-08-2005 at 09:58 PM.

  2. #2
    International Regular shaka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    auckland NZ
    Posts
    3,045
    Does it matter? it is only confusing for the first 10 runs then it is smooth sailing.

  3. #3
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Of course it doesn't matter. I'm just interested in how (and why) it came about that the different notation was used.

  4. #4
    Global Moderator vic_orthdox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    25,112
    Probably a bit like why the horses run in different directions around the racetracks in Melbourne as to what they do in Sydney. Australia just thinking of another way to thumb the custodians of the game, a "We'll do things our way" approach.


  5. #5
    Hall of Fame Member luckyeddie's Avatar
    Target Champion! Stuarts Xtreme Skateboarding Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    17,752
    Quote Originally Posted by vic_orthdox
    Probably a bit like why the horses run in different directions around the racetracks in Melbourne as to what they do in Sydney. Australia just thinking of another way to thumb the custodians of the game, a "We'll do things our way" approach.
    It was a system first devised by a second-generation Eastern European immigrant, and he clearly felt that as wickets were far more important (once ten have been reached, the innings is over, whereas there is no limit to the number of runs scored) they ought to be listed first.

    His name was Yarasfrum Eurelboe, but I'm not surprised if you've never heard of him.

    Most Australians don't know Yarasfrum Eurelboe.

  6. #6
    International Coach Barney Rubble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    All over the shop
    Posts
    10,190
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyeddie
    It was a system first devised by a second-generation Eastern European immigrant, and he clearly felt that as wickets were far more important (once ten have been reached, the innings is over, whereas there is no limit to the number of runs scored) they ought to be listed first.

    His name was Yarasfrum Eurelboe, but I'm not surprised if you've never heard of him.

    Most Australians don't know Yarasfrum Eurelboe.

  7. #7
    Cricketer Of The Year Burpey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,584
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyeddie
    It was a system first devised by a second-generation Eastern European immigrant, and he clearly felt that as wickets were far more important (once ten have been reached, the innings is over, whereas there is no limit to the number of runs scored) they ought to be listed first.

    His name was Yarasfrum Eurelboe, but I'm not surprised if you've never heard of him.

    Most Australians don't know Yarasfrum Eurelboe.
    Is that serious ... I really don't know

  8. #8
    International Coach howardj's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    brisbane
    Posts
    12,815
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyeddie
    It was a system first devised by a second-generation Eastern European immigrant, and he clearly felt that as wickets were far more important (once ten have been reached, the innings is over, whereas there is no limit to the number of runs scored) they ought to be listed first.

    His name was Yarasfrum Eurelboe, but I'm not surprised if you've never heard of him.

    Most Australians don't know Yarasfrum Eurelboe.
    That's priceless

  9. #9
    Global Moderator Prince EWS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Moving to Somalia
    Posts
    43,528
    Quote Originally Posted by burkey_1988
    Is that serious ... I really don't know
    Im pretty sure hes not serious at all.

    As far as I have always been told, it was to do with the Australian scoreboards that placed wickets to the left or above the runs. This caused people to read the wickets first and hence, say and eventually write them first.
    ~ Cribbage ~

    Rejecting 'analysis by checklist' and 'skill absolutism' since December 2009

  10. #10
    Hall of Fame Member luckyeddie's Avatar
    Target Champion! Stuarts Xtreme Skateboarding Champion!
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    17,752
    Quote Originally Posted by burkey_1988
    Is that serious ... I really don't know

    Yes... yes it is.

    (It's derived from an expression relating to the confusion of two different and fairly distinct parts of the body)

  11. #11
    Cricketer Of The Year Burpey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,584
    Maybe because bowlers figures are always read as 4-56 for example and it makes sense to do that with the innings total as well

  12. #12
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,746
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyeddie
    It was a system first devised by a second-generation Eastern European immigrant, and he clearly felt that as wickets were far more important (once ten have been reached, the innings is over, whereas there is no limit to the number of runs scored) they ought to be listed first.

    His name was Yarasfrum Eurelboe, but I'm not surprised if you've never heard of him.

    Most Australians don't know Yarasfrum Eurelboe.
    lol.

  13. #13
    International 12th Man
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,746
    Quote Originally Posted by burkey_1988
    Maybe because bowlers figures are always read as 4-56 for example and it makes sense to do that with the innings total as well
    Saying a bowler has "taken 4-56" is shorthand for saying that they have taken 4 wickets for 56 runs. Saying that a batting team have "scored 200-3" is shorthand for them having scored 200 runs for the loss of 3 wickets. The Australian system makes no sense.

  14. #14
    Cricketer Of The Year Burpey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,584
    Quote Originally Posted by greg
    Saying a bowler has "taken 4-56" is shorthand for saying that they have taken 4 wickets for 56 runs. Saying that a batting team have "scored 200-3" is shorthand for them having scored 200 runs for the loss of 3 wickets. The Australian system makes no sense.
    We are a little backward down under

  15. #15
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    Quote Originally Posted by greg
    Saying a bowler has "taken 4-56" is shorthand for saying that they have taken 4 wickets for 56 runs. Saying that a batting team have "scored 200-3" is shorthand for them having scored 200 runs for the loss of 3 wickets. The Australian system makes no sense.
    Eh? It's just saying they've lost three of their ten wickets and their score is 200.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •