Monday, 25 August 2008

It's as simple as 1 2 3

With the next One Day game between England and South Africa at Trent Bridge starting tomorrow at 2.30pm (BST), Nightwatchgirl has been made aware that there are some poor folks out there that are not so familiar with the rules of the game.

Nightwatchgirl therefore feels that this is the perfect opportunity to quickly go through the basics so that everyone can enjoy the match tomorrow.

Here beginneth the lesson. Please sit quietly.

The One Day game lasts 100 overs. One side will bat for 50 overs and then the teams swap and the other side will bat 50 overs. It is literally a game in a day (genius).

The side batting first must aim to score as many runs as possible, so that when it's their turn to field and defend their total, they have a chance to prevent the other side from scoring more runs than them. The team batting second just need to score one more run than the total set to win.

To win an ODI, one side must score more runs than the other. It really is that simple. And unlike in Test matches, to achieve a draw, the scores must be level (it doesn't matter how many wickets have been lost).

Now who said cricket was complicated?

Any further questions are welcome. Email


David said...

Ok can you tell me genius (without consulting google or anything on the internet) all the ways a bastmen can get out? ;)

The Nightwatchgirl said...

How many golds did GB win again?

David said...

nightwatchgirl, you are so lovely in the distance with your silhouetted body shimmering with the heat off the ground (you must be in aussie, was 37 here yesterday and 38 today ;))

May I turn your attention to...

An interesting interpretation. And you're right, GB won about 4/5 more medals than Australia, i'm sending you my congratulations :)

The Nightwatchgirl said...

Hang on a tic, what about Shane Warne and his bionic arm? And the fact that Glen McGrath is obviously a robot. And clearly Michael Clarke is only fed when he scores runs.

Trescothick and co. just have a sweet tooth. What's wrong with that?