# The batsman ran two <runs>. [cricket]



## English nerd

I had a question related to Cricket. Colloquially, where the context's obvious, can "runs " be dropped to avoid duplication?

The batsman ran two runs.
(When they actually "run " to score runs)

But can it be (in a obvious context)
The batsman ran two.

Thank you


----------



## london calling

I thought we said to score runs, not run runs, but wait for the experts.


----------



## English nerd

And can it be "take runs"?
The batsman took two runs.


----------



## Rover_KE

Except for boundaries and extras, it takes two to score runs in cricket, so 'The batsm*e*n ran two' is commonly said and heard.


----------



## English nerd

And has "runs" been dropped here?





Rover_KE said:


> The batsm*e*n ran two' is commonly said and heard.


Like:
How many runs can batsmen run?
(Does this sound okay?)


----------



## English nerd

Or is ot a shortened form of the "number of timese the batsmen ran"
And what do you think about these sentences:
The batsmen should go for two .
The batsmen should try for two.


----------



## Uncle Jack

English nerd said:


> And has "runs" been dropped here?


Yes. "The batsmen ran one/two/three" or "the batsman hit a four/six" are common.



English nerd said:


> Like:
> How many runs can batsmen run?
> (Does this sound okay?)


Not really. It is always "the batsmen", referring to the two of them in at that moment, not just any two batsmen, and there is an aversion to using "run"/"runs" if this can be avoided. Here there are other possible verbs, the most obvious to my mind being "get". However, "run" is not wrong.


English nerd said:


> And what do you think about these sentences:
> The batsmen should go for two .
> The batsmen should try for two.


These are fine. However, in this situation, by the time you (as a spectator) have realised where the ball has gone, the batsmen are probably well on their way to completing the first run, so it is probably more common to say they should go/try for a second.


----------



## English nerd

So maybe because of duplication it doesn't sound quite right.
But do you think:
"How many runs can the batsmen run?" sounds okay? Do you tgink a native moght use it? 

Of course your alternative will sound better:
"How many runs can the batsmen get?"


----------



## Uncle Jack

Don't worry about repeating "run"/"runs". Native speakers won't think about this; some will happily repeat it and others will instinctively avoid it.

If you can simply omit one of the "run"s, then I suggest you do. If you cannot simply omit it, as is the case with "How many runs will the batsmen run?", then don't worry about about looking for an alternative word if none comes readily to mind; "run" is not wrong.

However, I think this particular question is unlikely to be asked. Assuming you are looking at a possible two or three runs, the important questions are "how many will they try for?", and "will they make it?" It is the trying for runs that is interesting - they may quite easily be able to run one, but will they be willing to risk a second?


----------



## Barque

English nerd said:


> But do you think:
> "How many runs can the batsmen run?" sounds okay?


What's the situation? At what point do you want to say this?


English nerd said:


> I had a question related to Cricket.


_You have a question related to cricket. Cricket _is a common noun and there's no need to capitalise it if it isn't the first word of the sentence.


----------



## English nerd

Barque said:


> What's the situation? At what point do you want to say this?


I actually read a question online.


----------



## Barque

Yes, but what was the context in which the question was asked? Unless you know why a question was asked, the answer won't help much, and in any case this is the sort of question that needs context for a correct answer.


----------



## English nerd

No this question  was meant  to ask "how many runs can the batsmen score by running ".


Barque said:


> Yes, but what was the context in which the question was asked? Unless you know why a question was asked, the answer won't help much, and in any case this is the sort of question that needs context for a correct answer.


----------



## Barque

English nerd said:


> No


Sorry, but what are you saying "no" to?


English nerd said:


> this question was meant to ask  "how many runs can the batsmen score by running ".


I understood that but I can think of three situations in which the the idea behind that question might be expressed. You haven't told us what the situation in this case is. Just paraphrasing the sentence doesn't tell us what you're thinking of in this case - a little more detail is needed.


English nerd said:


> do you think:
> "How many runs can the batsmen run?" sounds okay?


I might use this in a specific context but I don't know if that's what you're asking about.


----------



## Andygc

"How many runs can the batsmen score by running" and "How many runs can the batsmen run?" are reasonable questions that do not have identical meanings, but the second does seem a little odd. As Barque says, there would need to be a specific context to hear the question asked that way.

The answer to the first is, of course, "Many. It depends on how many overthrows there are."


----------



## PaulQ

English nerd said:


> The batsman *made* two runs.
> (When they actually "run " to score runs)
> 
> But can it be (in a obvious context)
> The batsman *made* two.





English nerd said:


> No this question was meant to ask "how many runs can the batsmen score by running ".


How many maximum runs can we score in a single ball? - Quora


> Theoretically you can run as many runs between the wickets as you want until you get run-out. One such case is dated back to 1894 in Australia when the ball stuck in a tree and the batsmen ran 286 runs.


----------



## English nerd

No this isn't that question......


----------



## Andygc

> Theoretically you can run as many runs between the wickets as you want until you get run-out.


Untrue in two ways. It was never "until run out", and The Laws of Cricket were altered long ago to prevent this situation.


> *20.4.2 *Either umpire shall call and signal Dead ball when
> 20.4.2.10 satisfied that the ball in play cannot be recovered.


----------



## English nerd

So @PaulQ, don't you find "run" with "runs" natural?


----------



## Barque

English nerd said:


> No this isn't that question......


What's "that" question that this isn't?



English nerd said:


> don't you find "run" with "runs" natural?


I know your question was addressed to PaulQ but I think, till you explain what situation this question is being asked in, you'll get neither uniform answers nor one that you can be sure is appropriate for your situation. Does this refer to runs off a single ball, the runs needed to get to the target, or the runs the batsmen are physically capable of running?

In any case your original question was:


English nerd said:


> where the context's obvious, can "runs " be dropped to avoid duplication?


and this has been answered. It can.


----------



## English nerd

Rover_KE said:


> The batsm*e*n ran two' is commonly said and heard.


So doesn't this sound natural to you Paul?


----------



## heypresto

Although batsmen physically run runs, when we report on their having done so, we would usually say they _made_ them, _took_ them, or _scored_ them.

We are unlikely, for instance, to say 'They ran two runs.'

Slowly cross-posted.


----------



## English nerd

And what do you think about: "They ran two" heypresto?


----------



## PaulQ

English nerd said:


> And what do you think about: "They ran two" heypresto?


I don't know about heypresto, but


Barque said:


> till you explain what situation this question is being asked in, you'll get neither uniform answers nor one that you can be sure is appropriate for your situation. Does this refer to runs off a single ball, the runs needed to get to the target, or the runs the batsmen are physically capable of running?


So it is now time for you to do the work that you should have done at the very start...


----------



## English nerd

Okay.
So here's the context....

The batsmen are making runs by running between the pitch (the way batsmen run in the game of cricket).
I know that it can be called "making runs " or "scoring runs". But, since they are physically running,  can it be referred to as "run runs " as well? I mean it sounds odd because of duplication. But can it simply be :
The batsmen ran two.

(Rover said that it is natural and common,  so I guess yes)

And as for this question:
"How many runs can the batsmen run?" Is meant  to ask "How many runs can the batsmen make by running? " (Like a person wants to know this and asks this question)


----------



## PaulQ

English nerd said:


> And as for this question:
> "How many runs can the batsmen run?" Is meant to ask "How many runs can the batsmen make by running? " (Like a person wants to know this and asks this question)


If you are going to ask questions, it is always worthwhile reading the answers:


PaulQ said:


> How many maximum runs can we score in a single ball? - Quora Theoretically you can run as many runs between the wickets as you want until you get run-out.





Andygc said:


> Untrue in two ways. It was never "until run out", and The Laws of Cricket were altered long ago to prevent this situation.


It is worth reading the whole of the article that I linked to - some of the answers are quite informative. My extract was an example of the verb/noun.


----------



## Barque

English nerd said:


> And as for this question:
> "How many runs can the batsmen run?" Is meant to ask "How many runs can the batsmen make by running? " (Like a person wants to know this and asks this question)


You still haven't provided context. What's the situation in which you'd ask this question? That "a person wants to know this and asks this question" is clear to us too, but it doesn't tell us what situation he's asking this in. 

As Paul says, it's worthwhile reading the answers you get, and also providing the clarifications asked for.


Barque said:


> Does this refer to runs off a single ball, the runs needed to get to the target, or the runs the batsmen are physically capable of running?







English nerd said:


> But can it simply be :
> The batsmen ran two.


Yes. You've got answers from at least five people that indicate that this is possible, and often preferred.


----------



## Andygc

I think he has provided context.


English nerd said:


> The batsmen are making runs by running between the *stumps *(the way batsmen run in the game of cricket).





English nerd said:


> "How many runs can the batsmen run?" Is meant to ask "How many runs can the batsmen make by running? " (Like a person wants to know this and asks this question)


In that situation it is a reasonable way of asking the question.


----------



## Barque

Andygc said:


> I think he has provided context.



As I said above, I can think of different situations where such a question might be asked. I was hoping the OP would take the trouble to try and understand my question and provide clear context, especially as she doesn't seem satisfied with the answers she got in the first few replies, which I think answered her original question. I get the impression (and apologies to the OP if I'm wrong) that the OP doesn't have a specific context in mind at all but is asking an off-the-cuff question arising from a passing thought, and in that case there isn't much point to it.



English nerd said:


> And as for this question:
> "How many runs can the batsmen run?" Is meant to ask "How many runs can the batsmen make by running? "


As I said, there are different contexts in which a person might want to know how many runs the batsmen can make by running.

Possibly you meant context A below, which seems the most likely one, but the point I'm making is that (a) context is important, and we shouldn't have to guess at what you mean and (b) it'd be helpful to the people who spend time trying to help you if you made your questions as clear as possible and provided clear clarifications.

A. The speaker wants to know how many runs can be scored off a single ball specifically by running, as opposed to hitting boundaries (another way of scoring).

B. A team needs to get X number of runs to win off Y balls. It may need to hit a few boundaries to get those runs, given that in practice there's only a limited number of runs you can typically make off a single ball by actually running.

C. The speaker means the batsmen need to hurry up and hit a few boundaries in order to set a challenging target. He means that by just taking it easy and merely running between the wickets, and not hitting boundaries, they won't score much. _After all, how many can they score that way?_

D. (A variation of C) The speaker doesn't think the batsmen are fit enough to run hard on every ball even if they hit the ball into gaps, and might have to be satisfied with ones and twos where twos and threes might be possible. He's hoping they'll try and get a few boundaries instead, which will get them a higher number of runs without the effort of running.

This is what I meant when I asked what the situation was.


----------



## English nerd

And will it sound natural to use:
The batsmen took two. (runs)


----------



## Uncle Jack

Barque said:


> Possibly you meant context A below, which seems the most likely one, but the point I'm making is that (a) context is important, and we shouldn't have to guess at what you mean and (b) it'd be helpful to the people who spend time trying to help you if you made your questions as clear as possible and provided clear clarifications.


As I see it, @English nerd has provided sufficient context by referring to "The batsmen ran two", and the question matches none of yours, but is

E. The batsman has just hit a ball (or he missed, or the ball hit his leg but he has not been given out LBW), and the batsmen have started to run. The question is from one spectator to another asking how many runs he thinks they will make on this ball.

As I said in post #9, it is not a question likely to be asked, as the more important question at the time is how many they will try for, or whether they will try for a risky second/third.


English nerd said:


> And will it sound natural to use:
> The batsmen took two. (runs)


Yes, this is fine, although it is usually "batsman" (singular) unless you explicitly mention running, even though they obviously did run.


----------



## Barque

Uncle Jack said:


> and the question matches none of yours, but is
> E. The batsman has just hit a ball (or he missed, or the ball hit his leg but he has not been given out LBW), and the batsmen have started to run. The question is from one spectator to another asking how many runs he thinks they will make on this ball.


I don't know that this is more likely than any of the ones I suggested. But even if it is, my point is that English Nerd needs to tell us that herself. We shouldn't have to guess at the context and debate among ourselves as to which of five options she's thinking of.

Her question on "The batsmen ran two" is a different one. The one I was talking about was:


English nerd said:


> "how many runs can the batsmen score by running ".





English nerd said:


> "How many runs can the batsmen run?" Is meant to ask "How many runs can the batsmen make by running? "


----------



## Andygc

Uncle Jack 
Please edit your post. I said nothing of the sort.


----------



## Barque

Yes, I was going to mention that too. It's something I said but your name appears in the quote box.


----------



## PaulQ

English nerd said:


> had a question related to Cricket. Colloquially, where the context's obvious, can "runs " be dropped to avoid duplication?
> 
> The batsman ran two runs.
> (When they actually "run " to score runs)
> 
> But can it be (in a obvious context)
> The batsman ran two.





English nerd said:


> Or is ot a shortened form of the "number of timese the batsmen ran"
> And what do you think about these sentences:
> The batsmen should go for two .
> The batsmen should try for two.





English nerd said:


> How many runs can batsmen run?
> (Does this sound okay?)





English nerd said:


> No this question was meant to ask "how many runs can the batsmen score by running ".





English nerd said:


> And as for this question:
> "How many runs can the batsmen run?" Is meant to ask "How many runs can the batsmen make by running? " (Like a person wants to know this and asks this question)



There seems to have been quite a few questions as English Nerd adds them...


----------



## English nerd

Barque said:


> A. The speaker wants to know how many runs can be scored off a single ball specifically by running, as opposed to hitting boundaries (another way of scoring).


That's what I meant with the question:  "how many runs can the batsmen run in a single ball?".

(The last three questions are repetition of the same question Paul)


----------



## Barque

English nerd said:


> That's what I meant with the question: "how many runs can the batsmen run in a single ball?"


Thank you for the clarification. You'd have seen from the way I worded it how you could have provided detail and made it clearer.

You could use that sentence in speech if you emphasised the word "run". I also suggest "on" instead of "in".


----------



## sound shift

Barque said:


> You could use that sentence in speech if you emphasised the word "run". I also suggest "on" instead of "in".


I would use "off".
See "ran three off the next ball" at 9.42 PM (outlookindia.com).


----------



## Andygc

sound shift said:


> I would use "off".
> See "ran three off the next ball" at 9.42 PM.


I would too.


----------



## Uncle Jack

Andygc said:


> Uncle Jack
> Please edit your post. I said nothing of the sort.


Sorry about that. I have no idea how it happened, as I didn't edit the quote at all. I've corrected it now.


----------



## Barque

I'd use "off" with "score" or "make", but with "run", I prefer "on".

Since you've quoted an Indian webpage, let me quote a couple of British ones.  
_Welch ran two on the final ball of the innings..._
Matfen's defeat is huge boost to Allendale
_...he twice ran three on the first ball of an over.  _
Heroic Holder negates Anderson's joy - Cricket365.com

But to be fair, from a British novel (but set in the 19th century):
_...got a great cheer when he ran two off the fourth._


----------

