The Cricket Thread

[st_brendy]

Surrey are just getting towards something which they might be able to defend, if they can get a mixture of good bowling, bad batting, and a helpful day four pitch.

 

[woolstonian]

He won't - a hat-trick has to occur in the same match.

I was going by what the commentators said. I'm glad they were wrong as it did seem ridiculous.

 

[Lemons and Oranges]

He won't - a hat-trick has to occur in the same match.

I suppose it depends on how you define a hat-trick. If it is defined as taking three wickets in three consecutive balls, then taking two wickets with the last two balls of a match, followed by taking one wicket with the first ball of the next match, fulfills the definition.
If the definition is tighter than that, such that a hat-trick should only be three wickets with three consecutive balls, in the same over. Taking two wickets on balls five and six of an over, followed by a wicket on ball one of a subsequent over, should not be a hat-trick, but it is often described as such. So what definition of a hat-trick is correct, or at least accepted by cricket cognoscenti?