[dspillett]

> Cricket will never make sense to me

Cricket is my analogy for life: a lot of standing around, interspersed by bouts of running back & forth often with people shouting at you, and a scoring system that seems almost as deliberately obtuse as Mornington Crescent (the true gentleman's game!).

[lelanthran]

> a scoring system that seems almost as deliberately obtuse

I don't even watch cricket, but even I find the scoring to be as simple as every other sport - 1 pt for each run a player does (batters two at a time).

When the score says "102 runs", that's exactly what it means.

[dspillett]

OK, so it isn't nearly as bad as I jokingly made out there (for a start I do understand the scoring for MC, though I don't have the inclination right now to explain it satisfactorily) but when are cricket scores ever a pair of simple run counts?

Some current scores picked arbitrarily by a quick Google search:

    Test 3 of 3, end of day three:
    NZ 438 & 120/3
    Eng 354

    Test 1 of 2, end of day three:
    Sri Lanka 308 & 51/1
    West Indies 626/9d

    Central Europe Cup (T20 4 of 6)
    Serbia 162/7 (20)
    Luxembourg 163/2 (13.1)

That is hardly “York 1, Grimsby Town nil”.

[lelanthran]

Okay, you got me there - that is difficult to understand, but that is not just the score, it's also game state. Think of it like "Bottom of the ninth and all the bases are loaded".

But, on reflection, you're right. A score involves overs, bowls (6 per over), runs and possibly wickets taken. I expect that I sort of know all this because I grew up playing cricket (and soccer). Commonwealth country, and all that.

[eszed]

If that's a serious question, it's because as printed scores are also communicating the game situation. It could be as simple as

    End of day three: NZ 558 - Eng 354

That's factually accurate, but wouldn't tell you much about where the match actually stands. Breaking the runs totals by innings and showing wickets taken lets a reader infer a great deal more detail.

I can't remember where I read it, but I recall a distinction being made between "open" games and "patterned" games. "Open" games, like football, have very few repetitive elements: action is continuous, and every possession is entirely different (eg, ball and players at different starting positions) than the next. Cricket has discontinuous action, and each passage of play begins in the same manner. "Open" games are difficult to notate, and not much about the game itself can be inferred from the scoreline alone; for instance, in your example, the Mariners might have dominated possession, had multiple shots turned away, and felt unlucky in defeat - or else the complete opposite! "Patterned" games are easier to notate, and more about them can be efficiently communicated, because there's much more shared state. Chess, the ultimate patterned game, can be written down in a more-or-less complete form for later study!

[Edit: Please take this thread into the MC weeds! Lol. I want to see HN heads explode.)