• 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.

Wickets/Runs vs Runs/Wickets

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
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:

shaka

International Regular
Does it matter? it is only confusing for the first 10 runs then it is smooth sailing.
 

Dasa

International Vice-Captain
Of course it doesn't matter. I'm just interested in how (and why) it came about that the different notation was used.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
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.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
vic_orthdox said:
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.
 

Barney Rubble

International Coach
luckyeddie said:
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.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy
 

Burpey

Cricketer Of The Year
luckyeddie said:
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
 

howardj

International Coach
luckyeddie said:
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
 

Prince EWS

Global Moderator
burkey_1988 said:
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.
 

luckyeddie

Cricket Web Staff Member
burkey_1988 said:
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)
 

Burpey

Cricketer Of The Year
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
 

greg

State Captain
luckyeddie said:
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. :clapping:
 

greg

State Captain
burkey_1988 said:
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.
 

Burpey

Cricketer Of The Year
greg said:
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 :p
 

FaaipDeOiad

Hall of Fame Member
greg said:
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.
 

greg

State Captain
FaaipDeOiad said:
Eh? It's just saying they've lost three of their ten wickets and their score is 200.
Filling in the gaps -

English: The batting side have scored 200 (runs) for (the loss of) 3 (wickets)

Australian: The batting side are 3 for 200. Your example (above) leaves the "for" redundant.
 

greg

State Captain
Jamee999 said:
Or 3 wickets (have fallen) for 200 (runs)
This is becoming a bizarre conversation but it still doesn't work. The commentators will say "X are 3 for 200" or "X have scored 3 for 200". Your gap filling doesn't work.
 

Top