Print

[cheese]

No wonder you guys couldn't stay number 1 for long 

3-1 in your own back yard ring any bells?
 

[Jenko]

3-1 in your own back yard ring any bells?
 

Oh I'm sorry and what happened between lets say 1989 and 2005 

[The_Bird]

Oh I'm sorry and what happened between lets say 1989 and 2005 

You sound like a Liverpool fan 

[Jenko]

Im guessing thats a bad thing hahaha

[Buzz]

Oh I'm sorry and what happened between lets say 1989 and 2005 

time warp, like the 2006/7 series!

[The_Bird]

Im guessing thats a bad thing hahaha

Most Liverpool fans are ok, but the annoying ones harp on about past glories when in truth they weren't even alive when Liverpool dominated domestically and in Europe. Not saying you didn't witness the Aussies destroying us for 20 years or so tho.

 

[Jenko]

Fair enough! All tongue in cheek from me....as much as it pained me to watch you guys beat us in the Ashes, fair play you were the better team. Just hope we can build a decent side for next year and ge some of our quicks FIT and some stability in our batting....may well be another series loss otherwise!

[The_Bird]

Can't wait for the back to back ashes, hopefully it'll be as historic as the last 3 series (06/07 didn't happen).

[joeljonno]

Taking two wickets in two
consecutive deliveries is
occasionally known as a brace,
or (more commonly) being on a
hat-trick . Four wickets in four
balls is referred to in cricket
literature and record books as
four in four but the term
double hat-trick has also been
used in the media, as it will
contain two different,
overlapping sets of three
consecutively dismissed batsmen.

In my opinion, as a bowler, to get a double hat-trick by taking 4 in 4 is akin to a batsman saying "I got a double 50" when he got 51 runs. 1-50 and 2-51 being two overlapping scores of 50.

But that's jst me. Perhaps if I was a bowler, I would think differently.

[ammo]

a double hatrick is 4 wickets in 4 balls but it should not be.

[trypewriter]

I remember Alan Ward getting four in four for Derbyshire and it was reported as four wickets in four balls.

[Ciaran]

Can't wait for the back to back ashes, hopefully it'll be as historic as the last 3 series (06/07 didn't happen).

I'm hating the back to back ashes! Its overkill of what should be a brilliant series.

Oh n also Im not sure Australia will win one match across both

[tim2000s]

a double hatrick is 4 wickets in 4 balls but it should not be.

While the logical sequence is wickets 1,2,3 and 2,3,4 the reality is that this shouldn't be considered a double hat-trick as wickets 2 and 3 are not unique in both sequences. Just because something is very unlikely (i.e. six in a row) doesn't mean that giving something the wrong name is correct. The reality is that with this measure, a centruy is 100 runs and a double is 101 runs, which no-one will agree with, but that's because double centuries occur more commonly than six wickets.

It seems to be a term that is pretty much entirely a Southern Hemisphere one, coined because you need to call 4 in a row something, however incorrect that may be... A true double, whether it is a hat-trick or century, is six wickets or 200 runs, each of which is unique.

[Number4]

While the logical sequence is wickets 1,2,3 and 2,3,4 the reality is that this shouldn't be considered a double hat-trick as wickets 2 and 3 are not unique in both sequences. Just because something is very unlikely (i.e. six in a row) doesn't mean that giving something the wrong name is correct. The reality is that with this measure, a centruy is 100 runs and a double is 101 runs, which no-one will agree with, but that's because double centuries occur more commonly than six wickets.

It seems to be a term that is pretty much entirely a Southern Hemisphere one, coined because you need to call 4 in a row something, however incorrect that may be... A true double, whether it is a hat-trick or century, is six wickets or 200 runs, each of which is unique.

In your opinion of course

[Jenko]

Ive always wondered why double centuries, triple centuries etc dont get put as 2 hundreds/3 hundreds to the batsmens record. I know then you could argue that if they get 150 it could go down as one hundred and a fifty, but to me scoring 100 is hard enough so 200 should go down as two centuries....haha

And its totally a double hatrick