Hi folks, I'm from Canada, and I love watching cricket 
I have a quick question about scoring terminology.
In the Ireland T20 win over West Indies yesterday, Ireland were said to have "won by 6 wickets". Now, the final scores were Ireland 117/4, and West Indies at 116/8. I do fully understand that "won by 6 wickets" is correct, and means that Ireland overtook West Indies with 6 wickets in hand remaining from their 10 allotted.
But wouldn't it really be a better reflection of the score, if Ireland were said to have "won by 4 wickets"? After all, Ireland reached exactly the same score, plus one run, as West Indies, but managed it whilst giving up FOUR LESS WICKETS than the West Indies, not SIX.
Look at it another way. Let's say Team A is 300/2 in 50 overs. Team B bats second, and scores 301/4 in 50 overs. In terms of batting, it was a very similar team performance for both sides. The sides were almost identical in this match. In fact, an argument could be made that Team B performed slightly WORSE than Team A, since they scored almost an identical number of runs, but made two more outs than Team A. But Team B is said to have "won by 6 wickets", which sounds like they won very handily.
Now in this case, I don't know what a better method would be to indicate the final score, since you couldn't say Team B "won by 2 wickets", since they were in fact 2 wickets WORSE than Team A. It just feels slightly inaccurate to have a score be completely non-indicative of "how much better" Team B was in comparison to Team A.
Just musing here whilst patiently waiting for the T20's in March What do you folks think?
I have a quick question about scoring terminology.In the Ireland T20 win over West Indies yesterday, Ireland were said to have "won by 6 wickets". Now, the final scores were Ireland 117/4, and West Indies at 116/8. I do fully understand that "won by 6 wickets" is correct, and means that Ireland overtook West Indies with 6 wickets in hand remaining from their 10 allotted.
But wouldn't it really be a better reflection of the score, if Ireland were said to have "won by 4 wickets"? After all, Ireland reached exactly the same score, plus one run, as West Indies, but managed it whilst giving up FOUR LESS WICKETS than the West Indies, not SIX.
Look at it another way. Let's say Team A is 300/2 in 50 overs. Team B bats second, and scores 301/4 in 50 overs. In terms of batting, it was a very similar team performance for both sides. The sides were almost identical in this match. In fact, an argument could be made that Team B performed slightly WORSE than Team A, since they scored almost an identical number of runs, but made two more outs than Team A. But Team B is said to have "won by 6 wickets", which sounds like they won very handily.
Now in this case, I don't know what a better method would be to indicate the final score, since you couldn't say Team B "won by 2 wickets", since they were in fact 2 wickets WORSE than Team A. It just feels slightly inaccurate to have a score be completely non-indicative of "how much better" Team B was in comparison to Team A.
Just musing here whilst patiently waiting for the T20's in March
What do you folks think?
At 42 now, I'm probably a little past my playing days anyway!
