Wickets then runs or runs then wickets - which is correct?

[99.94]

Alright, let's settle this. When I watch matches that are being broadcact from overseas the score is generally runs then wickets, however matches broadcast from Australia are wickets then runs. What do you reckon? Surely it is wickets then runs right? You would refer to someone's best bowling as wickets followed by runs (eg. 8/24), so why not do the same for the scoreboard?

[gaurav92]

Aus Channel 9 telecasts Wickets then runs ,and I for one got confused many a times that there is a wicket fall when the score reads 0/1. Runs and then wickets is so much more cool :beee:

[Roshanrocks]

Well in cricket the team which has scored more number of runs wins, rather than the team who has taken more wickets.So obviously the first preference has to be given to the runs scored, SO.... runs should come first and then the wickets taken. For a bowler his major job in the game is to take wickets, so obviously his wickets come first and then the runs given

[pinkfreud]

Runs and then wickets is so much more cool :beee:

:agree: It's the same thing with dates too.

[gaurav92]

^:agree:

[Clarke]

Doesn't matter if you ask me. A legend like Ambrose can leave us confused either format with 7 wickets for a run.

[99.94]

You guys are all wrong :D

[ganeshran]

Runs and then wickets are cool. but whatever the format, keep it standard.

[diegovegaz]

doesn't make a difference but, its about runs, so runs/wickets is logical

[Sachin=GOD]

As long as the Indian batsmen make runs and the opposition bowlers don't take wickets, the format does'nt matter :D

[kabira]

we always say 100 runs for loss of 2 wickets. so it has to be 100/2

[vishalpachuau77]

It is runs then wickets. well it's the short version of saying 40 runs for 2 wickets. As we all know it is after all more of batsman game then a bowler so runs are more important i guess hehehe

[phaedrus]

Surely it is wickets then runs right? You would refer to someone's best bowling as wickets followed by runs (eg. 8/24), so why not do the same for the scoreboard?

because we are talking about a team's batting effort. besides its always ___runs for the loss of ___wickets

[yoda]

Well in cricket the team which has scored more number of runs wins, rather than the team who has taken more wickets.So obviously the first preference has to be given to the runs scored, SO.... runs should come first and then the wickets taken. For a bowler his major job in the game is to take wickets, so obviously his wickets come first and then the runs given

++

[kabira]

22 to 1, is this settled now??

[Sid]

:WTF:

[99.94]

Typical Indians.. putting all the emphasis on batting

[yoda]

Looks like 27/1 :hehe:

[Sir_Afridi]

Typical Indians.. putting all the emphasis on batting

You cant blame them. They never had a world class fast bowler who averaged in 20s and could bowl 90+ consistently.

[Laaloo]

You cant blame them. They never had a world class fast bowler who averaged in 20s and could bowl 90+ consistently.

+ 1