Re: Forfeited match and the stats

Phil. wrote:
Mike Holmans wrote:
England were of course nailed-on certainties to win the Test at The
Oval. After all, Bell had failed to score a century in the first
innings and was therefore due one in the second innings, so England
would have finished with a lead of about 150 after which Panesar,
bowling from the Hair end, would have taken nine for 37 (6 lbw and the
rest adjudged bat-pad, including the one which bounced but was caught
one-handed so it still counted), while the famed middle order
contrived a runout for the other wicket.

The forfeiture therefore makes no real difference, does it?

But if you find the above to be a little open to mild debate, then you
might begin to ponder whether you can make any sense of including the
figures from this match in the overall figures for "useless centuries"
(under the rsc definition of having been scored when the team lost) or
"wickets taken in a victory", when the result of the match had nothing
whatsoever to do with the individual performances except in so far as
they prolonged the proceedings enough for the incident which decided
the match to occur.

I suppose that if Inzamam botched his protest and inadvertently
forfeited the match under the Laws, it should go down in his column as
a loss while captain because it's incompetence like failing to work
out that you have to score one more run than the D/L number to win the
match or you lose, but I don't quite see how it's fair to say that
Yousuf's ton was useless or that the England bowlers' figures should
be held to represent match-winning performances.

After all, it's a bit bloody odd when the team which has lost a Test
has scored more runs and lost fewer wickets than the team which has
won.


Interesting addition to the list of Tests won after conceding a lead of
more than 300! ;-)

By the way where did you see the ICC charges piece there's nothing on
their site yet?


"Pakistan has been charged under Level two of the Code of Conduct, 2.10, which relates to changing the condition of the match ball."

http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc-media/content/story/257069.html

Colin Kynoch
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Forfeited match and the stats
    ... innings and was therefore due one in the second innings, ... "wickets taken in a victory", when the result of the match had nothing ... whatsoever to do with the individual performances except in so far as ... it's a bit bloody odd when the team which has lost a Test ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: First Test Redux- India
    ... wickets in 169 overs while England could not get 20 wickets in 173 ... Did not entirely see the England second innings but presumably they ... On balance the Indian attack was as good as the ... would have lost. ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Forfeited match and the stats
    ... England were of course nailed-on certainties to win the Test at The ... innings and was therefore due one in the second innings, ... "wickets taken in a victory", when the result of the match had nothing ... it's a bit bloody odd when the team which has lost a Test ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Videos England vs New Zealand
    ... Videos England vs New Zealand ... England put into bat by Stephen Fleming after he won the toss, lost ... then 4 quick wickets fell and england in spot of bother at 136/7 then ... partnership and innings ending at 209/7. ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
  • Re: A bowlers series
    ... Although Australia have lost 79 out of 80 wickets there have been four run outs ... so the England bowlers can only claim 75. ...
    (uk.sport.cricket)
Loading