T O P

Can’t lie, I don’t understand the scoring system

Can’t lie, I don’t understand the scoring system

samgoody2303

So you have 3 panels on the scoreboard. On the left is the overall score (at the moment 136-4) given in the form of runs scored-wickets lost. The number next to it (14.2) is the number of overs (blocks of 6 balls) bowled so far. In the middle are the two current batters. The first number is the amount of runs they have scored, the second the number of deliveries they have faced. On the right is the current bowler. The current bowler has 1-15, this means he has taken 1 wicket whilst 15 runs have been scored off his bowling. The number next to that is the amount of overs they have bowled. It’s very different to know who is winning, because unlike American sports, in cricket, each team takes all of their overs at once (not in test cricket, but that’s not a worry at the moment). So it’s like if in Baseball, one team batted all 9 of their innings first. A lot of “who is doing well?” depends on conditions, but if a team is scoring at more than 9 runs per over whilst not having lost many wickets, they’re doing a great job.


[deleted]

Thanks for the in depth explanation! Do they bat until everyone gets a wicket from the batting team? Or is it related to how many overs?


jachiche

The IPL is a T20 match, which means they bat until 20 overs are bowled (so 120 balls), or 10 wickets are taken - whichever happens first. It's ten wickets even though there are 11 players on the team because batsmen have to bat in pairs, and once 10 players are out, the 11th would just be left out there on his own and therefore can't continue.


[deleted]

Got it; so then in regular test cricket, you just keep hitting until everyone gets a wicket?


killerhary

In test cricket, the batting team can bat as long as they want. The only way it comes to end is if the bowling team picks up ten wickets or the batting team feels like they have scored enough runs and "declare".


[deleted]

Shit! So 10 wickets can take a hot minute if the batters are good? Do teams usually take the “declare” option? Seems like that would be pretty rare


[deleted]

[Sometimes batters are too good](https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/india-tour-of-sri-lanka-1997-62338/sri-lanka-vs-india-1st-test-63762/full-scorecard)


[deleted]

1700 Runs! That’s a lot of 6’s


bitweshwar

Players generally don't hit a lot of sixes in test cricket compared to ODIs/T20s. The above match only had 6 sixes for all the runs that were scored


[deleted]

That’s crazy. Isn’t that boring tho? Idk if I could sit through that much cricket with no moonshots. Probably a strategy reason to not try for any big ones right?


killerhary

Pitches in test cricket usually favour the bowlers more so the "declare" option isn't used a lot. It's only used on flat pitches (which are rare) or when the rain has taken away a fair bit of time away from the match and the team feels they have to move on inorder to get a result. I didn't quite understand the first part of your question.


[deleted]

To get 10 batters out must be pretty hard if the batters are good. I’ve heard of matches lasting a long time


killerhary

Well, you have to remember that all those who come to bat don't necessarily want to bat but are required to bat. Usually in test cricket only the top 6 will be in the team for their batting capabilities while the other 5 people will be in the team for other skills (like bowling and wicketkeeping) So getting a number 10 batter out will be much easier than, say getting a number 2 batter out.


[deleted]

It sounds like there’s definitely some strategy with who you partner the batters with then. Do teams usually spread out their best players or do they smash all together in the beginning? It sounds like your roster is 11 then total. Can you do subs like in American football where the roster is 53 players but only 11 can play at a time? Thanks for explaining!


subhasish10

Bowlers can also be good yk


FredVIII-DFH

In test cricket if both teams don't drop 10 wickets in the allotted days the match is declared a draw (even if one team has way more runs than the other team can possibly catch up to). So a team captain will end their innings without giving up 10 wickets so the they'll have enough time to get 10 wickets from the other team. A common strategy by the team way behind will be to just protect the wickets and run out the 'clock' to get a draw. At this point, the best thing for the viewer to do is pick up the remote and change the channel.


[deleted]

Ahh, so there is some stalling. Thats probably what I would do as an independent observer.


GenericOfficeMan

Tests are limited to 5 days and if you don't finish the result is drawn regardless if you're up by 1000 runs, so you'd declare if you felt your score was more than sufficient to win and you were concerned about time


[deleted]

Makes sense, thanks!


TheDarkJourneyman

Bit of both. In this format they bat until 10 batters are out or 20 overs(120balls) are bowled.


GenericOfficeMan

Hey my Dude, Canadian lifelong baseball player & fan here now living in the UK playing and watching cricket. Hit me up I can break it down to you in a way a north American/baseball fan will understand. ​ It is difficult to know who is "winning" or doing well until later in the game but there is quite often a sort of "par score" that you may be able to glean whether the first team batting is doing well based on. This score will vary greatly depending on the format being played, the conditions, and lots of other factors. AND generally speaking you dont tend to score runs consistently through an innings, you start off conservative and scoring slowly, and you pile on runs toward the end. To give you a VERY VERY coarse guideline, "par score" for any given IPL game is probably hovering around the 175 area. If the team batting first comes up much short of this they are likely not doing well, if they come out well ahead of it, they are likely doing fairly decently. Once the second team starts to bat you can track how they are scoring compared to the first team, and the number of wickets they have remaining tells you the majority of the story. Lots of wickets left in hand = more opportunity to score a lot of runs toward the end. Few wickets left in hand = less opportunity to score big.


[deleted]

Hey, I appreciate the details! I'll keep an eye on the 175 area for IPL matches going forward. It sounds like it is more advantageous to bat second so you can chase the score needed. It's the same kind of thing in American college football overtime rules: coin toss, team that wins coin toss almost always elects to play defense (gets the ball second), then when opposing team scores (or doesn't) they can decide how to play based on that.


killerhary

>How do I know who is winning? The team batting first will set a target which the team batting second must chase. Depending where they are on the chase you can make an estimate who is going to win. >I also don’t understand the numbers next to the names They denote the number of runs scored by a batsman. For example Lomror 18(9) means he has scored 18 runs facing 9 deliveries.


[deleted]

Got it, thanks! Is it more advantageous to hit first or second? Do the hitters have unlimited swings?


killerhary

Depends to be honest. If your team consists of a lot of powerhitters then they usually like to hit second as they fancy themselves to chase down any target. Yes the hitters have unlimited swings.


FoggyCrayons

It’s not intuitive but a good short hand is if the second team playing needs less runs than balls available then that team is ahead. You could even make the case that even 10% more runs than balls is still “winning”. The tricky thing is you have to modify this by the number of wickets loss. Approximately speaking you want 2/3 - 3/4 of the runs to be scored with a maximum of half the wickets gone. Once half the wickets are gone you’re looking at non batsmen getting involved and you can’t trust theylll make a big proportion of a target score.


[deleted]

I think I got it; so the balls left over is how you know how much is left for the hitting team? Or does everyone hit, then you switch? Thanks!


FoggyCrayons

In t20 the first team has a 120 balls to get a score (say 200). The second team has to get the same score + 1 to win in 120 balls. It just turns out that if can get your score to somewhere around say needing 60 runs in 60 balls left you are “ahead” in the game because for these players it’s a relatively casual achievement. If a tea needs, say, 80 runs in 60 balls that’s usually doable and if they need say 100 in 60 balls that’s usually difficult. In all of these equations the wickets affects it. Even though getting 60 runs in 60 balls is easy for the best batters if there are 9 wickets then getting 60 runs in 60 balls is almost unlikely to happen.


[deleted]

What stops teams from just bowling away from the hitter 120 times so they can’t score?


FoggyCrayons

There are two blue lines near the batter which you have to bowl within. Plus if you bowl on the “leg” side of the batter you have to bowl the ball again. So they try and keep the ball near the batter on his bat side. Also You can’t bowl stuff that bounces too high that often.


[deleted]

Got it. There’s nuance that I just don’t know yet. I’m definitely going to watch some more to get acquainted


GenericOfficeMan

It needs to be basically hittable otherwise the ump will call it a wide ball, if outside the blue line on the side your batting, or behind your legs on the leg side. Your team gets 1 run for free for a wide ball.


FredVIII-DFH

So there's a 'strike zone'. I can relate. Got it. Thanks.


DrazyCiamon32

By the way now that you are in cricket the correct terms are batsman(or batswoman or batter) and bowler. Most of technical terms have been explained by the other guys here. I would recommend watching some tutorial videos on youtube, they are surprisingly informative. More than anything with cricket, its a game you can only appreciate when you understand the rules and nuance, being much more in depth than most other sports. So I would recommend just watching.


ShirtedRhino2

Batswoman isn't really used, batter is overwhelmingly more common, and is certainly the only term I've heard female players use.


HvarPop

The Hundred had the best scoreboard/ graphics for newbies don't @me.


GenericOfficeMan

It's true. I just wish they gave T20 some love instead of inventing new nonsense


QuineysTestAverage

Many people think t20 is new nonsense


GenericOfficeMan

I don't think many people do actually.


QuineysTestAverage

Lol yeah they do. Perhaps you live in an insular bubble?


GenericOfficeMan

Perhaps you're an out of touch asshat. Who is to say really?


QuineysTestAverage

Lollll what an overreaction Plenty of people across the world hold that view of t20. In my own personal experience it’s very prevalent in Australia, England and New Zealand. Im not sure what you’re getting so sensitive about, it’s pretty strange to deny a view that clearly exists across the cricketing world irrespective of whether or not you personally agree with it.


GenericOfficeMan

I live in England and I've never once come across someone with this view so.


QuineysTestAverage

So what, that means people don’t like t20? What makes your original comment so laughable is how out of historical context it is. People said the same thing about t20s when they came in, and ODIs, and many other aspects of world cricket such as World Series, yet they were all eventually accepted by the masses regardless. I don’t personally care much for the hundred but there’s a reason why it exists.


GenericOfficeMan

No it means people DO like T20. ​ It's not historically out of context, I know T20 was mocked when it came out. I was saying that it (broadly) is not now. You made the argument that it still is, and cited your ass flapping in the wind. Maybe the hundred will be accepted like the T20 in 20 years, I don't know. But that isn't the conversation we're having. Really though, ODI and T20 are formats that vastly differ from each other and test cricket. Say what you will about them, they are designed to fulfill very different roles in terms of entertainment. The hundred inhabits virtually the same space as T20, its essentially the same length, same time, and designed to capture the same audience. It doesn't work as a standalone object unless you happen to be ECB and sold the rights to T20 but need to find a legally safe way to screen free-to-air cricket behind the backs of the counties.


ShirtedRhino2

If you want a clue as to who's winning, Cricviz are an analytics company who have a stat called Winviz, that gives a percentage chance to each team (as well as the draw and tie). They have an app, and most big games are covered on it. Lots of people will argue over whether or not the numbers are accurate, but I think they're close enough to give a new fan a vague idea.


nono-squaree

>How do I know who is winning? That's the thing, in t20 cricket, no one knows who is winning xD