Random note on cricket

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Tiassa, Jul 12, 2008.

  1. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    I think this would explain why Americans have no clue about cricket:

    And it goes on. And on.

    Seriously—this makes no sense. I've known guys from England who could follow baseball. They just thought it was boring. Reading a cricket summary, though ... ye gads. It's not something that makes me want to actually watch the sport.


    Lillywhite, Jamie. "England v South Africa 1st Test". BBC News. Viewed July 12, 2008. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/7503572.stm
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ghost_007 Registered Senior Member

    lol - never realised it actually looks that complicated.

    Follow-on simply means the South Africans were made to bat again as their first innings (score) did not come near England's total. England would have been able to decide if they want the South Africans to bat again or they could to bat again themselves. At the end of day three they were still behind England's total (England's total in the first innings).
    13-0, that means 13 runs with no one out.

    An over consists of 6 balls and 68 overs is a very long time, quite a few hours. Prince and de Villiers partnership came to 78 runs, that's both of their totals added together, must have been a slow, boring innings but it is test cricket.
    3 of the previous batsmen were out within the first 90 minutes.

    Just as the batsman have their score, so do the bowlers. 4-74 means the South African's scored 74 runs off Panesar however he took 4 wickets - got 4 batsmen out. (Tea is the name given to a break (doesn't mean everyone drinks tea), there is a lunch break too).

    Prince was the ninth batsman to fall, he edged the new ball - this is introduced once the previous ball has been shagged silly. A new ball brings more bounce, balls are faster. When it comes to bowling there are two types, fast bowlers and spin bowlers. Spin bowlers are the guys that take a few steps and throw a much slower ball, however they can play with how it spins.

    Cricket is war without guns, a really strategic and tactical game. Once you get into it, that’s it. I really would recommend trying to get into it.

    It is. All you get is fat guys in saggy bottoms spitting and occasionally hitting a ball. A very slow game with too many anti-climaxes.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Ghost_007 Registered Senior Member

  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    I think cricket is the one game you have to be born into.
    Those who love and understand are passionate about the game.
    From the outside it must appear quite strange.
    Australia has had some top cricketers who were also very fine baseball players( Ian Chappell, Alan Border and more)

    Tiassa, all the subtleties of baseball are present, all the tactics and then some, and then some and then some more. Brilliant game.

    The basic equipment is quite beautiful. A beautifully stitched red leather ball and a bat of crafted willow.

    The game has poetic elements as well as viciously brutal.
  8. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    spud actually anyone who has been a decent batsmen can be a good baseball player, that being said the reverse is DEFINTLY not true because they always try to hit with a hozontal bat and get caught

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    tiassa if a team in a test match is more than 200 (i think) runs behind when they are all out the team who bated first can force them back into bat again.

    Lets take 2 teams, team A and team B

    Team A bats first and scores 500 runs before declaring (meaning that they declare there innings over even if they still have batsmen to come).

    Team B only scores 100 runs before being bowled out (losing all 10 wickets).

    Team A tells team B that they are going to bat again because there score is 400 runs under team A's score

    Team B scores 600 in innings 2 which means that they are now 200 runs ahead

    Team A goes in and scores 201 run and there for wins by however many batsmen they have left.

    If team A has scored LESS than 200 runs then team B would have won by however many runs they had left when they got team A out

    If team A hadnt scored 201 runs but team B hadnt managed to get 10 wickets either before the end of the game then the game would be a draw

    Now if team B had only scored another 100 runs in there second innings rather than 600 then team A would have won by an innings (because they still had another batting innings to go) and 300 runs

    One day and 20\20 cricket on the other hand is much less complicated,
    In one day cricket each team gets 50 overs (each over is 6 balls as spud said) and its who ever has the most runs after both teams have batted wether they are all out or not.

    20/20 is the same but insted of 50 overs its 20 overs each
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Like who, for example? The major leagues in the US draft worldwide. The pay is good.
    Somehow I am not surprised at this possibility.
    Can you still draw, after three days ?
    Did you point out to them that the score was important, and would decide the game probably on the very same day ?

    I would have more confidence in the descriptions of cricket as deeply strategical etc if they weren't so often accompanied by odd perceptions of baseball. That it's slow, for example.
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2008
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Hey, even crickets have no clue !

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  11. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    Iceaura, you can have a draw ( or even a tie[different result]) after 5 days, that's right 5 days.
    No Baseball analogy here but it's like a solid novel where everything else seems like airport drivel.

    And as for the smae day result, well that's what one-day cricket is for. Often decided in the very final play of the day.

    Please Iceaura, paying out on soccer is one thing but commenting on something you will never understand is beneath you.
  12. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    Ahh! Dave the cricket he is a legend down here, I kid you not!
  13. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    I can't say he was too thrilled about meeting me..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    Nice pics ( as per usual).

    Now back to the cricket.

    This time next year, the old enemy ( Australia and England) will be locking horns in a five test series, five scheduled days each and I promise a thread on this series. look out for it.
    There will be passion and mudslinging like you've never seen.
  15. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Never? Quitter. Enlighten me.

    But try to do it without saying things like "any decent batsman can be a good baseball player" without at least pointing to an example.

    My experience with people who find baseball slow and/or boring is that they don't actually "follow" the play of the game - they don't understand the role of physical fear and psychological confrontation in the plot of successive pitcher/batter meetings, for example, or the violence involved in hitting a professional fastball. They see no strategies, no tactical adjustments over the course of the at bat, inning, or game.

    Now what Tiassa has launched with is a simple confession of confusion, bafflement. What is going on with this game? And here was the first response:
    OK, so somebody who doesn't understand baseball is telling me that cricket is a much better game for possessing attributes that I can see they missed in baseball. How persuasive do you expect that to be ?

    edit in: I visited ghost's site for instruction in the basics, and found (among other things, including an attractively modest tone and omission of superlatives that intrigues, as being a sign of something good that doesn't need marketing) the following:
    A draw and a tie being two different things, I have already discovered.
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2008
  16. Spud Emperor solanaceous common tater Registered Senior Member

    No, that certainly wasn't me saying those things.

    I'll elaborate but later, way past a reasonable hour here.

    Buit first off your appreciation of baseball is right on track with cricket lovers' appreciation of cricket.
    The first beautiful thing; playing on a grass pitch for five days brings in an enormous amount of variability. Even the predicted weather conditions ( and actual) for the 5 day period have a large bearing on tactics.

    More later.

  17. synthesizer-patel Sweep the leg Johnny! Valued Senior Member

    in fact it takes 5 days to reach a draw, if the match only lasts 3 days then there will usually have been a definitive result - unless in the unlikely event that both sides play 2 full innings each and get exacly the same score.


    A test match is played over 2 innings for each side - that is each team may bat and bowl twice - there is no time limit set on the innings although the match is a maximum of 5 days.
    While 1 day cricket simply consists of a competition to see which team can score the most in 50 overs (and therefore has a tendency to favour agressive batsmen and defensive bowlers), the victory conditions in test cricket require a comprehensive victory in every aspect of the game - so in order to win not only do the batsmen need to score more runs than the opposition, but their bowlers and fielders also need to get every opposition batsman out in both innings before the time is up.

    So for example if team A get a combined score of 800 in their first 2 innings, and team B only score 400, but manage to hang on until the end of the final day without losing their last batsman, then the match is considered a draw - even though the batsmen of team A were up to the task, they were let down by their bowlers - make sense?
  18. Ghost_007 Registered Senior Member


    I spoke to this Canadian guy a while back and he was saying the success rate of a top batter against a pitcher is about 40%, he said something like the batter will take 3 strikes a few times before he actually gets a decent hit, and this was the top batters. He said that it was skill as well, not luck. If that is the success rate it is simply too low.

    I sort of understand the psychological confrontation between the pitcher and batter, you can feel the tension but if they pitcher gets 3 strikes it feels like too much of an anti-climax. I simply do not find the pitcher getting a third strike that satisfying. In cricket, a wicket can fall so quickly, so suddenly, to me, there is no better sound than that of a batsman being bowled, I fucking love that sound, almost gives me an erection. Have a listen:


    Shoaib Akhtar:




    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The top batsmen in cricket have averages of around 40-50. That is a good score, 40-50 runs is always a useful knock. Guys like Tendulkar, Brian Lara, Mohammad Yousuf can maintain an average of around 40-50 for their entire careers, they are master batsmen. Batsmen face many different types of balls , the range of different balls must outnumber the different types in baseball by a fair margin. Top batsmen are confident with every type of ball. Cricket is played in venues across the whole World so you get so many different pitches and these have various affects on deliveries. In cricket there are simply so many variables, so many things that affect the game, so many things that cause problems for the batsmen, the state of the ball, the condition of the pitch, the crease at both ends, the way fielders are deployed, the heat, even the weather can affect the flight of the ball – you could write books on each of these points. Top batsmen can overcome this all and maintain a very good average over their careers.
  19. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Don Bradmon retired with a batting average of 99

    It would have been 100 if he had scored anything but the duck he scored in his last innings, he used to practice by bouncing a golf ball on a stump

    And i dont really care about top baseball players, nither sport recurits from the other, but i have seen at a local level baseball TRY to play cricket and the reverse and those who STARTED in cricket are MUCH better batters than the oposite. People who start in base ball tend to get caught either skying the ball and caught by the keeper or caught at square leg trying to hit with a horozontal bat. The cricket players i have seen play baseball on the other hand tend to drive the ball with a straight bat over the top of the field
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

  21. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    hey sam, i got a hand made, english willow, oiled bat

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    It was one of the last bats the guy i bought it from ever made and its EXACTLY the right weight ect for me

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I have had to replace the grip every so often but the bat itself has lasted me more than 10 years so far

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  22. Ghost_007 Registered Senior Member

  23. Vkothii Banned Banned

    Cricket isn't the only game where the team that was in to get the other team out, goes out to try again, and they call it an innings?

Share This Page