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.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.
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 knowluckyeddie 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 pricelessluckyeddie 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.
Im pretty sure hes not serious at all.burkey_1988 said:Is that serious ... I really don't know
burkey_1988 said:Is that serious ... I really don't know
lol.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.
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.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
We are a little backward down undergreg 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 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.
Filling in the gaps -FaaipDeOiad said:Eh? It's just saying they've lost three of their ten wickets and their score is 200.
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.Jamee999 said:Or 3 wickets (have fallen) for 200 (runs)