Cricket

[mickthecactus]

If anybody wants to know - happy to help...

[bixaorellana]

Resounding cluelessness!

You'll note my name barely appears in the sports thread as my sports ignorance knows no bounds.

Whenever I think of cricket, I think of Alan Bates in The Go-Between. That's enough sweaty sports involvement for me.

[Deleted]

Yes, I would indeed like to understand the basics, hoping that it would then not seem too ridiculous to me. I am not worried about offending the British with my ignorance, because I have plenty of ways to offend them but I would like to appear less ignorant in places like India and Pakistan.

Information like this makes rainbow coloured question marks spin around my head:

International Triangular Series
Sri Lanka: 104-2 (15.1 overs)
India: 103 (33.4 overs)
Sri Lanka beat India by 8 wickets

Clydesdale Bank 40
Durham: 244-5 (38.2 overs)
Warwickshire: 243-8 (40.0 overs)
Durham beat Warwickshire by 5 wickets

Essex: 168 (32.3 overs)
Derbyshire: 253-5 (40.0 overs)
Derbyshire beat Essex by 85 runs

Netherlands: 106-9 (22.0 overs)
Northamptonshire: 150-5 (27.0 overs)
Northamptonshire beat Netherlands by 32 runs (D/L)

[mickthecactus]

Not enough time today but I'll endeavour to explain later in the week.

it's not as difficult as it looks...

Incidentally, I played most sports and cricket was far and away the best (the fact that it was also my best sport does make me slightly biased....).

[mickthecactus]

Right here we go. I'll do it in stages so as not to confuse you too much. Questions welcome at any stage...

You have 2 teams of 11 players. One team bats and one team bowls. Usually played on hard rolled grass but can be artifical. This is 22yards long. At each end are 3 stumps called the wicket.

The object by and large is for one team to score more runs than the other (but there are variations on this).

There are 2 batsmen at any one time but only one bowler operating with a cricket ball (which is hard as numerous bruises and broken bones on my body can attest to). The bowler attempts to get the batsman out by various means, the batsman attempts to score runs. Runs are scored by the batsmen running between the stumps or hitting the ball over the boundary line which counts 4 if it bounces before the line or 6 if it goes over cleanly. There are 9 fielders and one wicket keeper operating for the fielding side who's job is to stop runs and get the batsmen out. The bowler bowls 6 balls at any one time (this is an over) before somebody else bowls an over from the other end.

The length of the game varies and can be 20 overs or 40 or 50 overs or even unlimited overs. Thus you can see from the scores above that Sri Lanka scored 104 runs, they lost 2 wickets and batted for 15 overs and 1 ball.

More tomorrow.

[Deleted]

Hmmmm... that makes no sense at all. Not your fault -- it's the fault of cricket.

First question: So the highest number of runs is what counts, not the other numbers? If so, is reporting the other numbers really pertinent?

[mickthecactus]

Quite a few similarities to baseball Kerouac.

Much easier to explain if we were watching as it all makes sense then. The score just gives an overall picture of the game and without seeing the game you can actually get an idea of how it went. Thus India took a long time to get 103 and lost all their wickets. Sri Lanka got the runs in half the time and only lost 2 wickets so we know Sri Lanka won very easily and were obviously the dominant side.

[Deleted]

Yes, I get your point. Frankly, I never really understood baseball either other than "innings" and "runs" -- the other stuff like "errors" remains a mystery to this day.

[mickthecactus]

Aug 27, 2010 7:49:28 GMT kerouac2 said:

Yes, I get your point. Frankly, I never really understood baseball either other than "innings" and "runs" -- the other stuff like "errors" remains a mystery to this day.

That does make it a tad tricky. Nevertheless I shall persevere.

More follows later..............

[bjd]

The bowler bowls 6 balls at any one time (this is an over) before somebody else bowls an over from the other end.

The other end of what?

When I think of cricket, I think of Bill Bryson's description of driving in Australia and hearing a cricket match broadcast on the radio:

As if to emphasize the isolation, all the area radio stations began to abandon me. [ . . . ] Eventually the radio dial presented only an uninterrupted cat's hiss of static but for one clear spot near the end of the dial. At first I thought that's all it was -- just an empty clear spot -- but then I realized I could hear the faint shiftings and stirrings of seated people, and after quite a pause, a voice, calm and reflective, said:

"Pilchard begins his long run in from short stump. He bowls and . . . oh, he's out! Yes, he's got him. Longwilley is caught legbefore in middle slops by Grattan. Well, now what do you make of that, Neville?"

"That's definitely one for the books, Bruce. I don't think I've seen offside medium-slow fast-pace bowling to match it since Badel-Powell took Rangachangabanga for a maiden ovary at Bangalore in 1948."

I had stumbled into the surreal and rewarding world of cricket on the radio.

After years of patient study (and with cricket there can be no other kind) I have decided that there is nothing wrong with the game that the introduction of golf carts wouldn't fix in a hurry. It is not true that the English invented cricket as a way of making all other human endeavors look interesting and lively; that was merely an unintended side effect. I don't wish to denigrate a sport that is enjoyed by millions, some of them awake and facing the right way, but it is an odd game. It is the only sport that incorporates meal breaks. It is the only sport that shares its name with an insect. It is the only sport in which spectators burn as many calories as players -- more if they are moderately restless. It is the only competitive activity of any type, other than perhaps baking, in which you can dress in white from head to toe and be as clean at the end of the day as you were at the beginning.

Imagine a form of baseball in which the pitcher, after each delivery, collects the ball from the catcher and walks slowly with it out to center field; and that there, after a minute's pause to collect himself, he turns and runs full tilt toward the pitcher's mound before hurling the ball at the ankles of a man who stands before him wearing a riding hat, heavy gloves of the sort used to handle radioactive isotopes, and a mattress strapped to each leg. Imagine moreover that if this batsman fails to hit the ball in a way that heartens him sufficiently to try to waddle forty feet with mattresses strapped to his legs, he is under no formal compunction to run; he may stand there all day, and, as a rule, does. If by some miracle he is coaxed into making a misstroke that leads to his being put out, all the fielders throw up their arms in triumph and have a hug. Then tea is called and everyone retires happily to a distant pavilion to fortify for the next siege. Now imagine all this going on for so long that by the time the match concludes autumn has crept in and all your library books are overdue. There you have cricket.

But it must be said there is something incomparably soothing about cricket on the radio. It has much the same virtues as baseball on the radio -- an unhurried pace, a comforting devotion to abstruse statistics and thoughtful historical rumination, exhilarating micro-moments of real action -- but stretched across many more hours and with a lushness of terminology and restful elegance of expression that even baseball cannot match. Listening to cricket on the radio is like listening to two men sitting in a rowboat on a large, placid lake on a day when the fish aren't biting; it's like having a nap without losing consciousness. It actually helps not to know quite what's going on. In such a rarefied world of contentment and inactivity, comprehension would become a distraction.

"So here comes Stovepipe to bowl on this glorious summer's afternoon at the Melbourne Cricket Ground," one of the commentators was saying now. "I wonder if he'll chance an offside drop scone here or go for the quick legover. Stovepipe has an unusual delivery in that he actually leaves the grounds and starts his run just outside the Carlton & United Brewery at Kooyong."

"That's right, Clive. I haven't known anyone start his delivery that far back since Stopcock caught his sleeve on the reversing mirror of a number 1 bus during the third test at Brisbane in 1957 and ended up at Goondiwindi four days later owing to some frightful confusion over a changed timetable at Toowoomba Junction."

After a very long silence while they absorbed this thought, and possibly stepped out to transact some small errands, they resumed with a leisurely discussion of the England fielding. Neasden, it appeared, was turning in a solid performance at square bowel, while Packet had been a stalwart in the dribbles, though even these exemplary performances paled when set aside the outstanding play of young Hugo Twain-Buttocks at middle nipple. The commentators were in calm agreement that they had not seen anyone caught behind with such panache sine Tandoori took Rogan Josh for a stiffy at Vindaloo in '61. At last Stovepipe, having found his way over the railway line at Flinders Street -- the footbridge was evidently closed for painting -- returned to the stadium and bowled to Hasty, who deftly turned the ball away for a corner. This was repeated four times more over the next two hours and then one of the commentators pronounced: "So as we break for second luncheon, and with 11,200 balls remaining. Australia are 962 for two not half and England are four for a duck and hoping for rain."

I may not have all the terminology exactly right, but I believe I have caught the flavor of it. (...)

No, the mystery of cricket is not that Australians play it well, but that they play it at all. It has always seemed to me a game much too restrained for the rough-and-tumble Australian temperament. Australians much prefer games in which brawny men in scanty clothing bloody each other's noses. I am quite certain that if the rest of the world vanished overnight and the development of cricket was left in Australian hands, within a generation the players would be wearing shorts and using the bats to hit each other.

And the thing is, it would be a much better game for it.

[Deleted]

That is an excellent piece of humour, and I am ashamed to say that from what I have ever seen or heard, that is pretty much the way it has appeared to me.

The apparent slowness of the plays with everybody just standing around looking at each other has indeed struck me in the past. The sport appears to be slower than baseball, and that is saying a lot.

[mickthecactus]

I think I'll retire.................

But I tried ;D

[mickthecactus]

P.S. (D/L)= Duckworth Lewis Method.

[bixaorellana]

No, no, don't go, Mick. Everyone here has been certified as at least low-level educable, so your excellent attempts to introduce us to one of the most impenetrable sports is necessary and appreciated.

(I also hugely appreciated the Bill Bryson bit, Bjd. I adore him.)

[mickthecactus]

I think it best Bixa............... ;D

Nevertheless, take it from me as somebody who has played most sports to a decent level, that cricket is far and away the best game.

[bixaorellana]

Hmmm ~~ where is Big Iain? Will you all duke it out (in a sporting manner, of course) when he sees this thread?

[bjd]

I too wouldn't mind knowing a bit more about cricket, as much as I enjoy Bill Bryson. Not that I have ever been interested in it, but it's always good to learn something new.

[Deleted]

I am waiting for more explanations as well.

For example, if I am forced to join a team and somebody tells me, "it's your turn to bowl" (or bat??), what exactly am I trying to do? Knock things down? Injure someone? Avoid other objects?

[Deleted]

Hmmmm... and now we have an international cricket scandal to contend with.

[hwinpp]

I got the basics.
The teams get to agree on the number of overs then the highest runs for the lowest overs count. During the match the number of overs the teams can play per day differ but in the end (the last day?) they both need to have bowled the same amount? Something like that?

Hmmmm... and now we have an international cricket scandal to contend with.

The Pakistanis should get kicked out of world cricket for that. Isn't it the second time they've done it in a couple of years? Also the scandal when they allowed the Sri Lankan cricket team to be attacked by spectators? That's why they have to play in England now, BTW.

You catch this kind of stuff when most of your friends are English...

[Deleted]

Yes, it seems to me that it was the Pakistanis the last time as well. Clearly their salaries are insufficient.

[mickthecactus]

Aug 27, 2010 18:05:39 GMT kerouac2 said:

I am waiting for more explanations as well.

For example, if I am forced to join a team and somebody tells me, "it's your turn to bowl" (or bat??), what exactly am I trying to do? Knock things down? Injure someone? Avoid other objects?

Well, you wouldn't be forced K. It's not compulsory. ;D

If bowling you are trying to get the batsman out. If you injure them it's not necessarily a bad thing...

If batting you have to hit the ball and avoid getting out.

[mickthecactus]

Sept 1, 2010 9:07:03 GMT hwinpp said:

I got the basics.
The teams get to agree on the number of overs then the highest runs for the lowest overs count. During the match the number of overs the teams can play per day differ but in the end (the last day?) they both need to have bowled the same amount? Something like that?

Hmmmm... and now we have an international cricket scandal to contend with.

The Pakistanis should get kicked out of world cricket for that. Isn't it the second time they've done it in a couple of years? Also the scandal when they allowed the Sri Lankan cricket team to be attacked by spectators? That's why they have to play in England now, BTW.

You catch this kind of stuff when most of your friends are English...

Not really hwinpp (that's very difficult to pronounce...). Let's take the simplest example - a 20/20 match. Each side can bat up to 20 overs but the bowling side will try to get them out in less than 20 overs and try to stop them scoring. The team with the highest number of runs wins.

Very pleased that you are taking note of the ongoing betting scandal.... ;D

[Deleted]

And now I am wondering how many DAYS a match can last? I would imagine that fans would like to see an entire match, but I can't really imagine devoting 3 days to it. Some of us have to work!

[mickthecactus]

Sept 1, 2010 12:47:13 GMT kerouac2 said:

And now I am wondering how many DAYS a match can last? I would imagine that fans would like to see an entire match, but I can't really imagine devoting 3 days to it. Some of us have to work!

Test matches e.g. England v Australia last 5 days....

[mickthecactus]

My grandsons practicing cricket...

[Deleted]

Without shinguards?

[mickthecactus]

They were using a tennis ball.

[hwinpp]

Good one Mick! ;D ;D ;D

Just call me hw. The 'inpp' means 'in Phnom Penh'.

[mickthecactus]

Thanks hw. I was having difficulty saying that.........