Can you solve the cricket problem?

Associate
Joined
18 Jul 2015
Posts
439
Location
London
I am struggling to find the answer to this poser. I thought I had it, but not quite.

3 runs required in 2 balls to win with only one wicket left...
The batsman is on 98 and the non-striker is on 97.
How will both batsmen score a century as well as win the match?
 
Soldato
Joined
15 May 2007
Posts
12,804
Location
Ipswich / Bodham
Really? I think that there's an error in the question.

The batsman on 98 hits the penultimate ball for and completes two runs and goes for a third, but he's run out. The batsmen have crossed and changed ends.

The batsmen on 97, now on strike, scores three, four, five or six off the last ball, wins the match and completes their century. The new batsman at the non-strikers end hugs it out.
 
Caporegime
Joined
5 Sep 2010
Posts
25,572
Really? I think that there's an error in the question.

The batsman on 98 hits the penultimate ball for and completes two runs and goes for a third, but he's run out. The batsmen have crossed and changed ends.

The batsmen on 97, now on strike, scores three, four, five or six off the last ball, wins the match and completes their century. The new batsman at the non-strikers end hugs it out.

There's no error in the question. Only one wicket left so in your scenario the match is tied and only one batsman scores 100.

You gotta think "short".
 
Soldato
Joined
15 May 2007
Posts
12,804
Location
Ipswich / Bodham
There's no error in the question. Only one wicket left so in your scenario the match is tied and only one batsman scores 100.

You gotta think "short".

That's almost the same as my first response though. The first batsman runs for three, crosses, but is run out on his / her third run. The batsman on 97 is now on strike, and scores a minimum of 3 from the next delivery.
 
Caporegime
Joined
5 Sep 2010
Posts
25,572
That's almost the same as my first response though. The first batsman runs for three, crosses, but is run out on his / her third run. The batsman on 97 is now on strike, and scores a minimum of 3 from the next delivery.

There's only one wicket left. If the first batsman is run out the match is over.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Nov 2003
Posts
11,591
Location
Manchester, UK
That's almost the same as my first response though. The first batsman runs for three, crosses, but is run out on his / her third run. The batsman on 97 is now on strike, and scores a minimum of 3 from the next delivery.

If he's run out the innings is over, there's only 1 wicket remaining. You're almost there, he's not run out, see clue given above.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
17,494
Location
Gloucestershire
If they run 3, but one of them makes a short run on one of them, they will only be awarded 2 runs. But the change of ends will still count.

It has to be ruled an accidental short run, though. Deliberate would forfeit all 3 runs.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Oct 2008
Posts
12,466
Location
Designing Buildings
I am struggling to find the answer to this poser. I thought I had it, but not quite.

3 runs required in 2 balls to win with only one wicket left...
The batsman is on 98 and the non-striker is on 97.
How will both batsmen score a century as well as win the match?


Easy, like cricket though I'll answer in approximately 3 - 5 days depending on the length of the match :p
 
Caporegime
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
25,666
1st delivery - no-ball (1 run), delivery doesn't count.
2nd delivery - ball hit (1 run), batters change ends.
3rd delivery - ball hit (3 runs or more).

That would be my guess?

edit: I'm wrong, apparently no-balls don't count towards individual batsmen.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
14 Apr 2017
Posts
3,511
Location
London
Yes I can, in exactly the same way that I solve a darts or horse racing
problem, pick up the remote and click till cricket disappears.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 May 2007
Posts
12,804
Location
Ipswich / Bodham
Yes I can, in exactly the same way that I solve a darts or horse racing
problem, pick up the remote and click till cricket disappears.

So, you've actually made a decision and taken the time to compose two lines of commentary on an Internet forum posing a question on a sport that you clearly have no interest in, just to evidence that you really don't have any interest in it. And in doing so, you're not even able to provide a hint of the response you'd give to the question posed.

How's that lockdown working for you so far? I'm guessing that you're not watching cricket :)
 
Associate
OP
Joined
18 Jul 2015
Posts
439
Location
London
1st delivery - no-ball (1 run), delivery doesn't count.
2nd delivery - ball hit (1 run), batters change ends.
3rd delivery - ball hit (3 runs or more).

That would be my guess?

edit: I'm wrong, apparently no-balls don't count towards individual batsmen.
That was my initial guess. But I thought that the bowler crosses the crease (no ball) and the batsman strikes the ball and completes one run.
 
Soldato
Joined
14 Sep 2009
Posts
9,200
Location
Northumberland
I initially thought the one on 98 could get a single from a wide ball, taking it to a tie and them to 100. The other batter can just smash it for four. But, I don't believe the wide would count on the first batter's scoring.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
14 Apr 2017
Posts
3,511
Location
London
So, you've actually made a decision and taken the time to compose two lines of commentary on an Internet forum posing a question on a sport that you clearly have no interest in, just to evidence that you really don't have any interest in it. And in doing so, you're not even able to provide a hint of the response you'd give to the question posed.

How's that lockdown working for you so far? I'm guessing that you're not watching cricket :)

Yes, you’re right of course Abyss, I should have left well alone, but unfortunately cricket is one of those words that pushes my buttons, I find the game dismally boring, and just the thought of it brings out the worst in me.
I’m big enough and ugly enough to know that I should let it all wash over my head, but maybe the enforced isolation has tipped me over the edge.
In short, I apologise for rubbishing the sport, (really?, its a sport?), and promise to endeavour not to do it again.
 
Back
Top Bottom