England T20 cricket and cricket scoring is still stupid

[Gazolba]

Well England were duly beaten in the first T20 match.
The official score was 'West Indies won by 6 wickets'. even though they lost 4 wickets and England lost 6, a difference of only 2 wickets.
Here was the scorecard:

England 182-6 (20 overs): Root 48 (36), Russell 2-36
West Indies 183-4 (18.1 overs): Gayle 100 not out

So logically the result could be stated as:
West Indies won by 1 run, or
West Indies won by 2 wickets, or
West Indies won by 1 over and 5 balls, or
Gayle beat England by 100 runs

This 6 wickets business is utter nonsense. The object of the game surely is runs not wickets.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

Said the person who has a poor understanding of the scoring process

...onwards & upwards PUSB

 

[Gazolba]

Said the person who has a poor understanding of the scoring process

In cricket, you don't score with wickets, you score with runs.

 

[SkyblueBazza]

In cricket, you don't score with wickets, you score with runs.

Until you win...then they say you won (because you scored more runs) but say it in terms of wickets you still have in hand. So it indicates that you could have gone on to win by 10 or 100 or 500 runs potentially.


...onwards & upwards PUSB

 

[philster11]

It's a very simple scoring method that anyone with half a brain can understand