Talk:Result (cricket)

Title

This is not a page about Results in general, it's a page about results in Cricket. No-one looking for this information is likely to find it under its present title. Surely it should be renamed, or else merged with the main Cricket entry. rossb 07:45, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Until someone comes along and writes about some other kind of result there is no need to disambiguate.

This is clearly an unsatisfactory place for the article. For example, Placement exam, which has nothing whatever to do with cricket, links here. If there's a need for this to be a separate article - which I'm not sure about - then I'd strongly support a move to something like Results in cricket, though without knowing what other types of result have been written about elsewhere it's hard to know how the disambiguation page would work. Loganberry 02:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I've done a major copyedit and tidy of this article. It was unnecessarily verbose, had some convoluted language, and had a lot of extraneous detail about how to score runs which is best left on the linked-to run page. I've made each of the results begin with a similar introductory sentence for consistency and ease of reading. I also removed the wordy and redundant paragraph about deciding which team wins in various game configurations - it's sufficient to say that whichever team scores more runs when all the innings are completed is the winner. -dmmaus 22:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm - what is the result when a first-class match is abandoned (for example, due to rain, sometimes without a ball being bowled)? Draw? No result? -- ALoan (Talk) 09:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If a ball is bowled and then the game is abandoned, it's a draw. I believe if a game is abandoned without a ball being bowled there is no result at all (distinct from the game ending in a "no result") since the game never actually happened. It's usually written as "Abandoned without a ball being bowled". Maybe that's worth adding as another type of result. -dmmaus 23:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've now researched this and added the appropriate info to the article. Specifically, according to a 2004 ICC ruling, a match is now officially begun once the toss has occurred. If it's abandoned after that, even without a ball being bowled, it's a draw or no result. If it's abandoned before the toss, it's "abandoned". -dmmaus 09:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this article - cricket is the last thing I have expected - I will start writing an article about "results". Allthough it is so universial it might be doomed to be a stub. Iancarter 08:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Duckworth Lewis

I think something should be added about how the side batting second can actually win by a margin of runs, if play is stopped and they are above a D/L par score. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.195.110.73 (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else...?

Nope, still don't understand how England drew with Australia yesterday..... 80.193.130.5 (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Conceded

The present wording is rather convoluted and I feel it is not suitable for the general reader. I propose replacing it with a slightly amended version of an earlier wording. Here is what I suggest:

Law 21 allows a team to concede a match. This seldom happens, but it covers the situation where the scoreboard has in good faith displayed an incorrect score which is accepted by the “losing” team, who leave the field, thereby conceding the match to the opposition.

If I get no reaction in the next few days, I shall implement this change. LynwoodF (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I have now done this. LynwoodF (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

What does "not out" mean? Or how about explaining scores, not just results?

This is only about results, but what explaining scores that our not results, i.e. the scores after one day of an international test match? In other words, does it mean when the BBC announcer says something like "115 not out"? --180.190.67.236 (talk) 05:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Statement of Result in limited overs match

My understanding is that in many (most?) limited-overs matches, the overs is a tighter constraint than the wickets. If the team batting second passes their target, would the score be reported as "won by x wickets", or "won by y overs"? If "wickets", is this just an carryover from five-day matches? It seems like the less informative (that is, wrong) way to describe the result. 06:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rks13 (talk • contribs)

that is correct, in limited-overs games the result is still described in terms of wickets. Most scorecards will give the number of overs taken some prominence. As to this being "wrong" there are plenty of other places on the 'net to discuss this. Spike 'em (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)