I can remember reading somewhere that if you take a wicket with the last ball of a Test, and then say take two wickets with your next two balls in the next Test but in the same series that is a hat-trick.burkey_1988 said:Two of my mates got wickets with their last two balls on the weekend. They believe that they will be on hat-tricks this week. However, I'm pretty sure a hat-trick cannot be taken over two separate matches.
Can anyone help settle this for me?
burkey_1988 said:Two of my mates got wickets with their last two balls on the weekend. They believe that they will be on hat-tricks this week. However, I'm pretty sure a hat-trick cannot be taken over two separate matches.
Can anyone help settle this for me?
Richard, you have no soul. I suggest you take up another sport.Richard said:I ask again.
Is the term "hat-trick" defined in the rules?
As far as I'm aware - no, it's not. Please show me if it is.
Hat-tricks are tricks for showponies and attention-seekers (or those who seek to build people up in the same way as showponies and attention-seekers seek to build-up themselves) - they aren't really important. As far as the overall effect is concerned, there's essentially no difference between taking 2 wickets in 2 balls, then bowling a dot, then taking another.
(Yes, I'm aware that if you need 4 wickets in the final over it gives you another ball to get the last one, but really - how often does this happen?)
Because you seem to be stubbornly indifferent - nay, dismissive - of any aspect within our fair sport that excites pretty much anyone else.Richard said:I don't?
What caused that conclusion?
No worries...burkey_1988 said:Thanks to the people who contributed positively in this thread.
Actually there is a bit of history behind it.mundaneyogi said:Edit: I do agree, though, that 3 wickets in 3 balls is a hat-trick. It's not an "official" part of the game, just an invented point of interest for fans and anoraks. .
I suppose if he had got four wickets in four consecutive deliveries, the hat trick would have become a much morre difficult thing to achieveSJS said:Actually there is a bit of history behind it.
On 8th September 1858, H H Stephenson, playing for All England against 22 of Hallam and Staveley, became the first bowler ever to take three wickets of consecutive deliveries, in the second innings.
He was presented with a white "hat" for this unique accomplishment. The term do a hat-trick and get a hat evolved from this.
Hence the nervous 90sSJS said:I suppose if he had got four wickets in four consecutive deliveries, the hat trick would have become a much morre difficult thing to achieve
But to come to Richard's point, while it has no official definition or a particular significance as far as a game is concerned, it does have a historical significance and is clearly a much more difficult feat than two wickets in successive deliveries. Hence the fascination with it.
Same is the case with five wickets in an innings. Taking half the opposition out single handedly IS something to be admired. You wouldnt feel the same about getting 30% or 40% of the oposition out.
Then again, moving from 9 top 10 (getting into two digits), from 99 to 100 (getting a third digit in front of your name) is a landmark of sorts.
I suppose the significance of the fifty folows the significance of the hundred.
Where I would agree is the way we measure the relative 'greatness' (the stupidity of the very thought amazes me) two players from the number of 100's they scored. There is as much difference between a 98 and a 99 as there is betwen a 99 and a 100. While we may celeberate the 100 there is no need to add so much significance to it as to run down players (or aclaim them) purely on their ability to cross this arbitrary and dubious landmark
I suppose if we made the score of a Gross (dozen dozens or 144) as something special we would have had the "nervous-early-140's"archie mac said:Hence the nervous 90s
No, I don't get disappointed when someone's out for 99. I can absolutely gurantee you that if you offered a batsman 99 before most innings, he'd take it. 99 is usually a good score on all but the absolute flattest of wickets (Antigua etc.)mundaneyogi said:Because you seem to be stubbornly indifferent - nay, dismissive - of any aspect within our fair sport that excites pretty much anyone else.
Fast bowlers are overrated. Hat tricks don't matter. I suppose you don't get disappointed when a batsman gets out for 99?
These may be arbitrary and pointless facets of an amazing sport, but things like these are what keeps cricket amazing. Your Boycott-like dourness is depressing and impresses no-one.