Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

IntoThePeople OP t1_jab2zy0 wrote

Only the 2nd time in 150 years of Test cricket a team has won by 1 run.

How can you watch a sport that goes for 5 days? Pretty damn easily if it’s as good as this!

127

5m1tm t1_jab5dr0 wrote

And plus, it's just the 4th ever instance of a team winning a Test match after being asked to follow-on.

I fucking love Test cricket!!!!!

48

leeeeerrroy_Jenkinks t1_jacqjx8 wrote

dont bring follow-on in this sub. Entire Cricketing world don't have enough braincells to explain Follow-on to Yanks.

10

AzLibDem t1_jadrvoa wrote

Yank here. I actually found the follow-on to be an easy concept.

Still wrestling with the Mankad controversy.

7

tyrannomachy t1_jabfore wrote

I realize this isn't what happened here, but wouldn't a team that bats second and trails to start their second innings normally win by one? Assuming they won, I mean.

6

BLAGTIER t1_jabhdcg wrote

The bowling team in the fourth innings wins by runs and the batting team winnings by wickets. So if England had score 2 more runs they would have won by 1 wicket. Basically whatever you are defending runs or wickets is what you win by.

29

ArthurFunkyMiller t1_jacts0v wrote

If the team that's batting second successfully chases down the total, they win by the amount of wickets they had in hand instead. In this case, if England won in that last over, getting to say 9/258, they would still have one wicket in hand, and that would be the margin.

3

TheNextBattalion t1_jadsy5t wrote

Great question but cricket logic says no: they win by wickets (left)

1