-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Can you take a hat-trick over two matches?
- Thread starter Burpey
- Start date
archie mac
International Coach
I can remember reading somewhere that if you take a wicket with the last ball of a Test, and then say take two wickets with your next two balls in the next Test but in the same series that is a hat-trick.burkey_1988 said:
But know your mates will not be on a hat-trick next game. Unless you are playing in a series against the same opposition?
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
burkey_1988 said:
That's the stupidest thing i've ever heard...
You don't have mates
Barney Rubble
International Coach
I thought you could take a hat-trick over any period of time, even 20 years if that was the timespan between bowling spells.
vic_orthdox
Global Moderator
No.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
Who actually defines what a hat-trick is?
As far as I and most people I'm associated with is concerned, hat-tricks are purely and simply about organised cricket - as long as a game has independent Umpires, scorers and is played by 11 against 11, it's a game of cricket.
Whatever the team is, who you're playing for and who your opponent is, 3 wickets in 3 consecutive balls is a hat-trick.
As far as I and most people I'm associated with is concerned, hat-tricks are purely and simply about organised cricket - as long as a game has independent Umpires, scorers and is played by 11 against 11, it's a game of cricket.
Whatever the team is, who you're playing for and who your opponent is, 3 wickets in 3 consecutive balls is a hat-trick.
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Let's knock this nonsense on the head before it gets any sort of foothold.
Of the hundreds of hat-tricks documented in first-class cricket, I challenge any member here to find any instance of a bowler being credited with taking one which started in one game and ended in another.
Of the hundreds of hat-tricks documented in first-class cricket, I challenge any member here to find any instance of a bowler being credited with taking one which started in one game and ended in another.
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
I ask again.
Is the term "hat-trick" defined in the rules?
As far as I'm aware - no, it's not. Please show me if it is.
Hat-tricks are tricks for showponies and attention-seekers (or those who seek to build people up in the same way as showponies and attention-seekers seek to build-up themselves) - they aren't really important. As far as the overall effect is concerned, there's essentially no difference between taking 2 wickets in 2 balls, then bowling a dot, then taking another.
(Yes, I'm aware that if you need 4 wickets in the final over it gives you another ball to get the last one, but really - how often does this happen?)
Is the term "hat-trick" defined in the rules?
As far as I'm aware - no, it's not. Please show me if it is.
Hat-tricks are tricks for showponies and attention-seekers (or those who seek to build people up in the same way as showponies and attention-seekers seek to build-up themselves) - they aren't really important. As far as the overall effect is concerned, there's essentially no difference between taking 2 wickets in 2 balls, then bowling a dot, then taking another.
(Yes, I'm aware that if you need 4 wickets in the final over it gives you another ball to get the last one, but really - how often does this happen?)
luckyeddie
Cricket Web Staff Member
Richard, you have no soul. I suggest you take up another sport.Richard said:
Russian Roulette's got a few vacancies.
Dick Rockett
International Vice-Captain
Because you seem to be stubbornly indifferent - nay, dismissive - of any aspect within our fair sport that excites pretty much anyone else.Richard said:
Fast bowlers are overrated. Hat tricks don't matter. I suppose you don't get disappointed when a batsman gets out for 99?
These may be arbitrary and pointless facets of an amazing sport, but things like these are what keeps cricket amazing. Your Boycott-like dourness is depressing and impresses no-one.
Edit: I do agree, though, that 3 wickets in 3 balls is a hat-trick. It's not an "official" part of the game, just an invented point of interest for fans and anoraks. IMO, that means Fidel Edwards is on a hat-trick right now.
Last edited:
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
No worries...burkey_1988 said:
33/3from3.3
International Vice-Captain
LOL @ benchy
@Burkey as long as you take 3 wickets on 3 consecutive balls against the same team that, in my veiw is a hattrick
@Burkey as long as you take 3 wickets on 3 consecutive balls against the same team that, in my veiw is a hattrick
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
Actually there is a bit of history behind it.mundaneyogi said:
On 8th September 1858, H H Stephenson, playing for All England against 22 of Hallam and Staveley, became the first bowler ever to take three wickets of consecutive deliveries, in the second innings.
He was presented with a white "hat" for this unique accomplishment. The term do a hat-trick and get a hat evolved from this.
SJS
Hall of Fame Member
I suppose if he had got four wickets in four consecutive deliveries, the hat trick would have become a much morre difficult thing to achieveSJS said:Actually there is a bit of history behind it.
On 8th September 1858, H H Stephenson, playing for All England against 22 of Hallam and Staveley, became the first bowler ever to take three wickets of consecutive deliveries, in the second innings.
He was presented with a white "hat" for this unique accomplishment. The term do a hat-trick and get a hat evolved from this.
But to come to Richard's point, while it has no official definition or a particular significance as far as a game is concerned, it does have a historical significance and is clearly a much more difficult feat than two wickets in successive deliveries. Hence the fascination with it.
Same is the case with five wickets in an innings. Taking half the opposition out single handedly IS something to be admired. You wouldnt feel the same about getting 30% or 40% of the oposition out.
Then again, moving from 9 top 10 (getting into two digits), from 99 to 100 (getting a third digit in front of your name) is a landmark of sorts.
I suppose the significance of the fifty folows the significance of the hundred.
Where I would agree is the way we measure the relative 'greatness' (the stupidity of the very thought amazes me) two players from the number of 100's they scored. There is as much difference between a 98 and a 99 as there is betwen a 99 and a 100. While we may celeberate the 100 there is no need to add so much significance to it as to run down players (or aclaim them) purely on their ability to cross this arbitrary and dubious landmark
archie mac
International Coach
Hence the nervous 90sSJS said:I suppose if he had got four wickets in four consecutive deliveries, the hat trick would have become a much morre difficult thing to achieve
But to come to Richard's point, while it has no official definition or a particular significance as far as a game is concerned, it does have a historical significance and is clearly a much more difficult feat than two wickets in successive deliveries. Hence the fascination with it.
Same is the case with five wickets in an innings. Taking half the opposition out single handedly IS something to be admired. You wouldnt feel the same about getting 30% or 40% of the oposition out.
Then again, moving from 9 top 10 (getting into two digits), from 99 to 100 (getting a third digit in front of your name) is a landmark of sorts.
I suppose the significance of the fifty folows the significance of the hundred.
Where I would agree is the way we measure the relative 'greatness' (the stupidity of the very thought amazes me) two players from the number of 100's they scored. There is as much difference between a 98 and a 99 as there is betwen a 99 and a 100. While we may celeberate the 100 there is no need to add so much significance to it as to run down players (or aclaim them) purely on their ability to cross this arbitrary and dubious landmark
Richard
Cricket Web Staff Member
No, I don't get disappointed when someone's out for 99. I can absolutely gurantee you that if you offered a batsman 99 before most innings, he'd take it. 99 is usually a good score on all but the absolute flattest of wickets (Antigua etc.)mundaneyogi said:
I am indeed a churle and a curmadgeon and make no apologies for it. I only rarely find cricket "exciting" - I find it hugely interesting, gripping, heartbeat-raising, etc. rather. As such, I prefer to point-out to people that there's nothing to get excited about at a bowler bowling a few 90mph deliveries or getting 3 wickets in 3 balls.