In a game with limited overs and won by wickets, why aren't each teams' wickets taken into consideration for the final score?
Example: In the East Asian Cup South Korea recently beat China by 7 wickets: China 768 (20.0) South Korea 803 (11.1)
Technically shouldn't South Korea have won by 5 wickets in this case?

 Joined: August 4th, 2012, 4:06 pm
Yes, I realize that. But I am meaning to ask is there a technical reason behind this? It seems to me it would make more sense to take into account both wicket amounts to give a more accurate score.

 Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm
That doesn't make sense. It's possible for the second team to win by losing more wickets than the first team, as cricket is a measure of batting ability (number of runs scored) as well as bowling ability (number of wickets taken) in a predefined number of overs (1 over = 6 balls bowled).
For example,
This score would be possible
China 761 (20.0)
South Korea 803 (11.1)
South Korea won by 7 wickets) (in your system, they would win by minus 2 wickets which doesn't make sense).
In the above hypothetical match, China were too cautious in their approach (too worried about losing wickets) and thus paid the price by scoring too few runs.
As far as the "accurate score" is concerned, a formula is required which also takes into account the number of overs till left at the time of the win, and also the number of overs in a full innings (20 in this case). For example, if South Korea had won on the last ball of the game (losing the same 3 wickets), the score would go down as the same (a win by 7 wickets), but the actual "margin of victory" would be much less.
In the real match, the formula I use would give a score of China 134234 South Korea (i.e., the equivalent of South Korea winning by 100 runs in a 50over match), as South Korea still had 8.5 overs left when they reached their target (in cricket, the number after the point is not a decimal, but the number of balls in that inning  11.1 overs = 11 overs (of 6 balls each) + 1 ball of the 12th over. That's why the number after the point is never higher than 5 (11.5 would be the 5th ball of the 12th over, 12.0 would be the number of overs after the next ball is bowled).
For example,
This score would be possible
China 761 (20.0)
South Korea 803 (11.1)
South Korea won by 7 wickets) (in your system, they would win by minus 2 wickets which doesn't make sense).
In the above hypothetical match, China were too cautious in their approach (too worried about losing wickets) and thus paid the price by scoring too few runs.
As far as the "accurate score" is concerned, a formula is required which also takes into account the number of overs till left at the time of the win, and also the number of overs in a full innings (20 in this case). For example, if South Korea had won on the last ball of the game (losing the same 3 wickets), the score would go down as the same (a win by 7 wickets), but the actual "margin of victory" would be much less.
In the real match, the formula I use would give a score of China 134234 South Korea (i.e., the equivalent of South Korea winning by 100 runs in a 50over match), as South Korea still had 8.5 overs left when they reached their target (in cricket, the number after the point is not a decimal, but the number of balls in that inning  11.1 overs = 11 overs (of 6 balls each) + 1 ball of the 12th over. That's why the number after the point is never higher than 5 (11.5 would be the 5th ball of the 12th over, 12.0 would be the number of overs after the next ball is bowled).

 Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm
I also take similar things into account in baseball (i.e. if a team wins 100 after 7 innings (mercy rule calling the game short of the full 9 innings), I count it as better than winning 100 after a full 9 innings (would be equivalent to something like 140 after 9 innings). In baseball, there are half innings as well (i.e. it is possible to win if the team batting first is 010 down after their 7th inning, and the winning team does not have to bat, and therefore has only batted 6 innings), but I've just counted this as 7 innings batted, as it is often not marked in historical results which team batted first, and would be impossible to know.

 Joined: April 7th, 2007, 12:28 pm
If I may my lobotomized thoughts to Mark's more loquacious replies, the wicket count of the losing team is largely irrelevant whereas the remaining wicket count of the winning team is more representative of a "winning margin". The actual winning margin is of course, one run (or one score), but the number of wickets remaining is given to indicate how close the losers were to not losing, if that makes sense.abramjones wrote:
Yes, I realize that. But I am meaning to ask is there a technical reason behind this? It seems to me it would make more sense to take into account both wicket amounts to give a more accurate score.

 Joined: August 4th, 2012, 4:06 pm
TheRoonBa wrote:
That doesn't make sense. It's possible for the second team to win by losing more wickets than the first team, as cricket is a measure of batting ability (number of runs scored) as well as bowling ability (number of wickets taken) in a predefined number of overs (1 over = 6 balls bowled).
For example,
This score would be possible
China 761 (20.0)
South Korea 803 (11.1)
South Korea won by 7 wickets) (in your system, they would win by minus 2 wickets which doesn't make sense).
In the above hypothetical match, China were too cautious in their approach (too worried about losing wickets) and thus paid the price by scoring too few runs.
As far as the "accurate score" is concerned, a formula is required which also takes into account the number of overs till left at the time of the win, and also the number of overs in a full innings (20 in this case). For example, if South Korea had won on the last ball of the game (losing the same 3 wickets), the score would go down as the same (a win by 7 wickets), but the actual "margin of victory" would be much less.
In the real match, the formula I use would give a score of China 134234 South Korea (i.e., the equivalent of South Korea winning by 100 runs in a 50over match), as South Korea still had 8.5 overs left when they reached their target (in cricket, the number after the point is not a decimal, but the number of balls in that inning  11.1 overs = 11 overs (of 6 balls each) + 1 ball of the 12th over. That's why the number after the point is never higher than 5 (11.5 would be the 5th ball of the 12th over, 12.0 would be the number of overs after the next ball is bowled).
Ah yes, i read the score wrong (i am just learning cricket scoring). This explanation helps immensely. What is the formula you use for achieving the score 134234?
That doesn't make sense. It's possible for the second team to win by losing more wickets than the first team, as cricket is a measure of batting ability (number of runs scored) as well as bowling ability (number of wickets taken) in a predefined number of overs (1 over = 6 balls bowled).
For example,
This score would be possible
China 761 (20.0)
South Korea 803 (11.1)
South Korea won by 7 wickets) (in your system, they would win by minus 2 wickets which doesn't make sense).
In the above hypothetical match, China were too cautious in their approach (too worried about losing wickets) and thus paid the price by scoring too few runs.
As far as the "accurate score" is concerned, a formula is required which also takes into account the number of overs till left at the time of the win, and also the number of overs in a full innings (20 in this case). For example, if South Korea had won on the last ball of the game (losing the same 3 wickets), the score would go down as the same (a win by 7 wickets), but the actual "margin of victory" would be much less.
In the real match, the formula I use would give a score of China 134234 South Korea (i.e., the equivalent of South Korea winning by 100 runs in a 50over match), as South Korea still had 8.5 overs left when they reached their target (in cricket, the number after the point is not a decimal, but the number of balls in that inning  11.1 overs = 11 overs (of 6 balls each) + 1 ball of the 12th over. That's why the number after the point is never higher than 5 (11.5 would be the 5th ball of the 12th over, 12.0 would be the number of overs after the next ball is bowled).
Ah yes, i read the score wrong (i am just learning cricket scoring). This explanation helps immensely. What is the formula you use for achieving the score 134234?
Last edited by abramjones on November 10th, 2016, 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

 Joined: October 31st, 2006, 5:16 pm
It's based on the DuckworthLewis formula. If you do some searching, you can find it online. It is basically a table that gives hypothetical percentages of scores that would be expected at a certain point of an innings, based on a teams "resources" (i.e. number of wickets and overs left). So, for example, it might be that a team who has batted 15 of 20 overs, but still has 9 wickets left, might have only 60% of a hypothetical final total (if they batted on to the end of their 20th over  which of course they wouldn't have to if they had already won in 15 overs). If the team has only 1 wicket left, however, they may have scored 95% of their hypothetical final total. I use a slightly modified version of the ballbyball DuckworthLewis table (which gives percentages for every ball of an innings, not just every over) along with an added variable which takes into account the "easiness of the chase" (i.e. if the first team is all out and scores only 10 runs, the team batting second could just hit 2 sixes and win, which would make their hypothetical final total massive. It would be highly unlikely that they would be able to hit a six in every ball until the end of the 20 overs). I use a lookup formula on Excel to consult the DuckworthLewis table, and then apply the added "easiness of chase" calculation tot he percentage obtained from the lookup. It took me quite a while to work it out, because I wasn't familiar with cricket scoring at first (at all). So I learned this while adding the results to my site a few years ago, and then decided it would not be possible to do a ranking system due to the perceived complexity (then changed my mind and developed the method into a workable Excel sheet over a few weeks).
It's also necessary to use this calculation in matches cut short by rain, though it can be complicated when there have been multiple interruptions.
For example, a team who scores 2505 in a full 50 innings would get a score of 250.
A team who scores 2505 in 40 innings (before rain cut their total short) would thus be expected to have achieved a higher score in a full 50 innings, so would get something like 300 in the adjusted total in my Excel sheet. However, the team batting second would bat knowing that they were only going to get 40 overs (not 50), so would be expected to score at a quicker rate, and their total would have to take this separate fact into account. So, in the real match, their "target" would not be 251, but probably something like 265, even though they would be batting the same number of overs (40). The difference is in how many overs they THOUGHT they were going to bat at the start of the innings.
Also, it's possible that their innings could be interrupted by rain also, and their total overs might be reduced to, say, 35, but this might happen after they have already played 20. This severely complicates the calculation, and in general, I don't bother too much about these details, as data concerning when the match was stopped, how many overs were played at that time, etc. are not always available.
It's also necessary to use this calculation in matches cut short by rain, though it can be complicated when there have been multiple interruptions.
For example, a team who scores 2505 in a full 50 innings would get a score of 250.
A team who scores 2505 in 40 innings (before rain cut their total short) would thus be expected to have achieved a higher score in a full 50 innings, so would get something like 300 in the adjusted total in my Excel sheet. However, the team batting second would bat knowing that they were only going to get 40 overs (not 50), so would be expected to score at a quicker rate, and their total would have to take this separate fact into account. So, in the real match, their "target" would not be 251, but probably something like 265, even though they would be batting the same number of overs (40). The difference is in how many overs they THOUGHT they were going to bat at the start of the innings.
Also, it's possible that their innings could be interrupted by rain also, and their total overs might be reduced to, say, 35, but this might happen after they have already played 20. This severely complicates the calculation, and in general, I don't bother too much about these details, as data concerning when the match was stopped, how many overs were played at that time, etc. are not always available.
Last edited by TheRoonBa on November 10th, 2016, 6:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.

 Joined: August 4th, 2012, 4:06 pm
It's based on the DuckworthLewis formula. If you do some searching, you can find it online. It is basically a table that gives hypothetical percentages of scores that would be expected at a certain point of an innings, based on a teams "resources" (i.e. number of wickets and overs left). So, for example, it might be that a team who has batted 15 of 20 overs, but still has 9 wickets left, might have only 60% of a hypothetical final total (if they batted on to the end of their 20th over  which of course they wouldn't have to if they had already won in 15 overs). If the team has only 1 wicket left, however, they may have scored 95% of their hypothetical final total. I use a slightly modified version of the ballbyball DuckworthLewis table (which gives percentages for every ball of an innings, not just every over) along with an added variable which takes into account the "easiness of the chase" (i.e. if the first team is all out and scores only 10 runs, the team batting second could just hit 2 sixes and win, which would make their hypothetical final total massive. It would be highly unlikely that they would be able to hit a six in every ball until the end of the 20 overs). I use a lookup formula on Excel to consult the DuckworthLewis table, and then apply the added "easiness of chase" calculation tot he percentage obtained from the lookup. It took me quite a while to work it out, because I wasn't familiar with cricket scoring at first (at all). So I learned this while adding the results to my site a few years ago, and then decided it would not be possible to do a ranking system due to the perceived complexity (then changed my mind and developed the method into a workable Excel sheet over a few weeks).
It's also necessary to use this calculation in matches cut short by rain, though it can be complicated when there have been multiple interruptions.
For example, a team who scores 2505 in a full 50 innings would get a score of 250.
A team who scores 2505 in 40 innings (before rain cut their total short) would thus be expected to have achieved a higher score in a full 50 innings, so would get something like 300 in the adjusted total in my Excel sheet. However, the team batting second would bat knowing that they were only going to get 40 overs (not 50), so would be expected to score at a quicker rate, and their total would have to take this separate fact into account. So, in the real match, their "target" would not be 251, but probably something like 265, even though they would be batting the same number of overs (40). The difference is in how many overs they THOUGHT they were going to bat at the start of the innings.
Also, it's possible that their innings could be interrupted by rain also, and their total overs might be reduced to, say, 35, but this might happen after they have already played 20. This severely complicates the calculation, and in general, I don't bother too much about these details, as data concerning when the match was stopped, how many overs were played at that time, etc. are not always available.
Ah yes, I have heard about this formula (and another one that I can't remember) while trying to learn cricket scoring, but never looked into it. Thanks for your insight though, it helps. At least it will be much simpler to do with baseball.
It's also necessary to use this calculation in matches cut short by rain, though it can be complicated when there have been multiple interruptions.
For example, a team who scores 2505 in a full 50 innings would get a score of 250.
A team who scores 2505 in 40 innings (before rain cut their total short) would thus be expected to have achieved a higher score in a full 50 innings, so would get something like 300 in the adjusted total in my Excel sheet. However, the team batting second would bat knowing that they were only going to get 40 overs (not 50), so would be expected to score at a quicker rate, and their total would have to take this separate fact into account. So, in the real match, their "target" would not be 251, but probably something like 265, even though they would be batting the same number of overs (40). The difference is in how many overs they THOUGHT they were going to bat at the start of the innings.
Also, it's possible that their innings could be interrupted by rain also, and their total overs might be reduced to, say, 35, but this might happen after they have already played 20. This severely complicates the calculation, and in general, I don't bother too much about these details, as data concerning when the match was stopped, how many overs were played at that time, etc. are not always available.
Ah yes, I have heard about this formula (and another one that I can't remember) while trying to learn cricket scoring, but never looked into it. Thanks for your insight though, it helps. At least it will be much simpler to do with baseball.