Page 7 of 48
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 19:13 Sat 07 Dec 2013
by benread
LGTrotter wrote:I listened to Bell explain how England were going to save this match and why he shouldn't bat at 3.
I am sure only a few days ago he was explaining how happy he was to bat at 3! Did I misunderstand or mishear?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 19:18 Sat 07 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
benread wrote:LGTrotter wrote:I listened to Bell explain how England were going to save this match and why he shouldn't bat at 3.
I am sure only a few days ago he was explaining how happy he was to bat at 3! Did I misunderstand or mishear?
Or possibly I did. I do tend to zone out during this kind of stuff. TMS podcast was the source of my gloom. I do like being made miserable by Boycott though.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 19:20 Sat 07 Dec 2013
by benread
LGTrotter wrote:benread wrote:LGTrotter wrote:I listened to Bell explain how England were going to save this match and why he shouldn't bat at 3.
I am sure only a few days ago he was explaining how happy he was to bat at 3! Did I misunderstand or mishear?
Or possibly I did. I do tend to zone out during this kind of stuff. TMS podcast was the source of my gloom. I do like being made miserable by Boycott though.
I didn't doubt you for a minute! Only Bell, given England don't seem to know there ar*e from their elbow at present!
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:09 Sun 08 Dec 2013
by DRT
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:21 Sun 08 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
I recant Cook from the list.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:26 Sun 08 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
LGTrotter wrote:I recant Cook from the list.
Cook is one of the most prolific batsmen ever. So he's out of form? Big deal. He will presumably come good again. Let's not get carried away just because of a few atrocious results.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:32 Sun 08 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
djewesbury wrote:LGTrotter wrote:I recant Cook from the list.
Cook is one of the most prolific batsmen ever. So he's out of form? Big deal. He will presumably come good again. Let's not get carried away just because of a few atrocious results.
True, but to hook Johnson first up is pretty dumb.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:34 Sun 08 Dec 2013
by DRT
djewesbury wrote:Let's not get carried away just because of a few atrocious results.
I agree. Heaven forbid that anyone would ever get carried away with a few good or bad results. That wouldn't be very English, would it?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:35 Sun 08 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
I think the figures speak for themselves.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:38 Sun 08 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
DRT wrote:djewesbury wrote:Let's not get carried away just because of a few atrocious results.
I agree. Heaven forbid that anyone would ever get carried away with a few good or bad results. That wouldn't be very English, would it?
Schadenfreude is never an attractive quality Derek.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:39 Sun 08 Dec 2013
by DRT
Which figures?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:40 Sun 08 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
DRT wrote:Which figures?
All the figures!
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:41 Sun 08 Dec 2013
by DRT
LGTrotter wrote:Schadenfreude is never an attractive quality Derek.
I was not taking pleasure, simply pointing out that extreme reaction to good and bad is a national trait. And one that the rest of the world loves you for.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:42 Sun 08 Dec 2013
by DRT
LGTrotter wrote:DRT wrote:Which figures?
All the figures!
Very true.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 15:34 Mon 09 Dec 2013
by Alex Bridgeman
But this is just like the England team that I grew up watching and loving in the '70s when it was the West Indies who used to bowl them out for very little. How comforting to think that nothing changes.
Sack the lot of them, I say. Bring in the new blood. Sack the captain and manager. And coach. And the coach driver. A bunch of washed out has-beens.
At least I've resigned myself to another 5-0 whitewash and have gone into defensive mode. I now sleep through the night and listen to the re-run of the commentary that starts at 11am. By noon I am either apopleptic with rage at the radio (in which case no-one comes into my office) or reduced to tears of boredom as England drop yet more catches and Australia grind their way (for either the first or second time in a match) to a total that England will never reach.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 15:39 Mon 09 Dec 2013
by jdaw1
AHB wrote:Sack the lot of them, I say. Bring in the new blood. Sack the captain and manager. And coach. And the coach driver. A bunch of washed out has-beens.
Is this a measured and moderate response to a 2013 Ashes score that will be, at worst, one each?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 15:48 Mon 09 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
AHB wrote:But this is just like the England team that I grew up watching and loving in the '70s when it was the West Indies who used to bowl them out for very little. How comforting to think that nothing changes.
Sack the lot of them, I say. Bring in the new blood. Sack the captain and manager. And coach. And the coach driver. A bunch of washed out has-beens.
At least I've resigned myself to another 5-0 whitewash and have gone into defensive mode. I now sleep through the night and listen to the re-run of the commentary that starts at 11am. By noon I am either apopleptic with rage at the radio (in which case no-one comes into my office) or reduced to tears of boredom as England drop yet more catches and Australia grind their way (for either the first or second time in a match) to a total that England will never reach.
The difference between this team and the teams of the 70s and 80s is that in between he had the team of the 2000s. People who knew how to play cricket and obviously enjoyed doing so. Which makes this all so much more poignant and unbearable.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 16:10 Mon 09 Dec 2013
by Alex Bridgeman
jdaw1 wrote:AHB wrote:Sack the lot of them, I say. Bring in the new blood. Sack the captain and manager. And coach. And the coach driver. A bunch of washed out has-beens.
Is this a measured and moderate response to a 2013 Ashes score that will be, at worst, one each?
I believe this to be measured and proportionate - why would a response be better if it was moderate?
And I'm still writing my list of who to sack. Just added the staff who make the lunches.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 18:57 Mon 09 Dec 2013
by PopulusTremula
Is this a bad time to say "it's only a game"?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 22:15 Tue 10 Dec 2013
by benread
I think my Dad had the best approach. Last two weeks in hospital with little access to any commentary or news about the cricket! I fear for his health having been evicted from hospital today, just in time for the last rights to be read on our chances and 3-0 by Sunday I expect!
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 11:02 Thu 12 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
Some exciting cricket taking place. Ireland v Afghanistan. Afghanistan need 300+ runs, ireland have to get 9 wickets. Let's go!
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 13:12 Thu 12 Dec 2013
by Alex Bridgeman
djewesbury wrote:Some exciting cricket taking place. Ireland v Afghanistan. Afghanistan need 300+ runs, ireland have to get 9 wickets. Let's go!
And where can you hear commentary?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 13:48 Thu 12 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
AHB wrote:djewesbury wrote:Some exciting cricket taking place. Ireland v Afghanistan. Afghanistan need 300+ runs, ireland have to get 9 wickets. Let's go!
And where can you hear commentary?
There is a live stream on the cricketireland.ie website..
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 17:25 Fri 13 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
Could it simply be that Cook is not a very confident or imaginative captain?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 18:20 Fri 13 Dec 2013
by DRT
djewesbury wrote:Could it simply be that Cook is not a very confident or imaginative captain?
I don't know the answer to that, but I do know that the three hour period that I watched this morning had an air of inevitability about it. The heads were very definitely down by the time I woke up this morning, which doesn't bode well for what is about to come when they pull on the pads and gloves.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 20:31 Fri 13 Dec 2013
by Glenn E.
So... could someone explain cricket to me?
I mean, I sort of get it, but mostly don't. There's a bowler (sort of a baseball pitcher, I think) and a batsman and a wicket, but I'm not quite sure what the point is or how you prevent a game from going on forever. I mean, it's not like baseball in the sense that every pitch counts for something (either a ball or a strike) so that you're (mostly) guaranteed that you get closer to the end of the game with every pitch.
The bowler's trying to knock down the wicket, and the batsman's trying to stop that from happening? And in the process, the batsman has the option to run? But to where? And why bother?
How does runs vs wickets work?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 20:59 Fri 13 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
The batting team has to accumulate as many runs as possible.
There are always two batsmen. There is a wicket at each end of the pitch. The pitch is 22 yards long (a chain). When a batsman hits the ball and is able to take one run, the two batsmen run to each other's ends and the second batsman takes strike. Each batsman has his own score, there are also 'extras' which are scored when the bowler commits some kind of foul (like overstepping the line or something).
You can be out a number of ways. The bowler hits the wicket: out. The ball hits the bat and someone catches it before it hits the ground: out. The batsman protects the wicket with his leg instead of his bat: out.
There are a maximum of five days in a test match. The first team goes in and scores as much as they can; either they all get out, or they hit such a high score that they 'declare', to give themselves enough time to win the game. The other team comes in and they do the same. Each team has two innings. A game can be drawn: if all four innings are not completed it's a draw regardless of the score. This means a team that's so far behind that they could never win can still save the game by batting until time runs out. These games can sometimes be more exciting than straight wins: it's very tense as a team tries to hold on by their fingernails.
Is it boring? It can be. But it can also be the most absorbing rollercoaster of a game. Fortunes turn and turn again over five days. A game can be won or lost on the last ball. A series of three, four or five games can go right down to the wire.
Or, if you're England, you lose as soon as you put your kit on.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 20:59 Fri 13 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
Next time you're over we should go to a game.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 21:17 Fri 13 Dec 2013
by Glenn E.
djewesbury wrote:There are a maximum of five days in a test match. The first team goes in and scores as much as they can; either they all get out, or they hit such a high score that they 'declare', to give themselves enough time to win the game.
Aha! Now everything starts to make sense.
What's the runs vs wickets part? Are "wickets" the same as "outs," but you keep track of them as part of a tiebreaker or something?
It's just not cricket
Posted: 21:26 Fri 13 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
Hmm. It's not straightforward.
A score is always cited as "So many runs for so many wickets" - as in 250 / 7. They scored 250 runs and lost 7 wickets. But the wickets are mainly usually only for information, in a test match. In a one-day game, each side has only 50 overs to bat (an over is a set of 6 deliveries of the ball - after each over is finished, the bowling switches to the other end from the other bowler that's currently on duty, to face the other batsman). That means that at the end of their 300 balls, their score is recorded and yes, if there were a tie, the wickets lost would come into it. But that's very rare.
So wickets lost are really not used to calculate the 'score' as such in a test match: they're just used to show how much batting a team has left before they're all out. Usually, each team will bat until everyone's out in each of their innings (unless they declare). If a team is on 200 / 1 it's good. If they're on 100 / 8 it's less good.
EDIT: And they're called 'England'.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 21:27 Fri 13 Dec 2013
by DRT
Glenn E. wrote:So... could someone explain cricket to me?
Daniel has explained things very well. All I can add is that when you gain a rudimentary understanding of the rules it becomes much more interesting to watch, even when there is seemingly nothing happening.
One of the things I enjoy about watching it is the strategy. As you say the game could go on forever if the bowlers fail to put the batting team out. But the game is time bound, both in the length of play per day and the number of days. There are four innings to be played in five days otherwise no one wins, so it makes no sense for the first batting team to bat for three days, or two days, or a day and a half without taking account of what will follow. They must decide when to declare (end their own innings without being bowled out) to give themselves the chance of bowling out the other team twice whilst staying on top in terms of runs. That judgement call is tough and can be affected by the state of the pitch, the weather, the mental state of the team, the opposition or a key individual. Understanding the rules and then watching all of that play out can be intriguing. On certain occasions, it can also be an excellent cure for insomnia.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 21:35 Fri 13 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
What Derek said. There is a huge amount of skill needed from the captain - in this respect it's unlike a lot of games where the captain doesn't do so much. The captain of the fielding side must choose who will bowl, where to place the fielders, whether to attack or defend... It becomes very complex; left armed bowlers, right armed bowlers, bowlers who use sheer pace to get the batsman out, bowlers who bowl slowly and make the ball spin to one side or the other, bowlers who have different ways of delivering the ball and try and catch the batsman in a trick (like, bowl a lot of short balls to make the batsman come forward, and then bowl a full length ball so that they misjudge their shot and get caught), bowlers who can make the ball swing in the air, bowlers who can make the ball land on the seam so that it bounces a certain way (or unpredictably). It's like chess: if I get this guy to bowl at you, and put this fielder here, you'll try and play this shot; and then I'll change round and catch you out.
It's not just about brute strength. It's very mental. And it's extremely mentally wearing for the teams. They're out there for 2 hours at a time, three times a day (it's currently 40° Celsius in Perth) for a whole day, for five days. That takes concentration.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 21:53 Fri 13 Dec 2013
by jdaw1
Starting with baseball, there are a few big conceptual differences.
1. In baseball, a batsman’s turn is over quickly. Either there are strikes, or swings, or something, and then he walks or runs or is out. All done in a few minutes.
In cricket, swings are free. A batsman can swing at a ball, or not swing, and that costs nothing. Of course, if the ball hits the wicket behind the batsman (the three vertical ‘stumps’, or the two ‘bails’), batsman is out. Likewise if caught, or run out, and several other ways of being out. But a batsman can stay in, at bat, for longer than a whole day, racking up runs. Or be out for zilch.
2. There are two wickets. One batsman stands at each. To score a run they swap places. So one batsman is facing the bowler, and perhaps hitting the ball. The other isn’t.
3. The batsmen, including the one facing the bowler, are near the centre of the field, not in a corner. Hit the ball backwards, forwards, any which way.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 23:32 Fri 13 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:14 Sat 14 Dec 2013
by DRT
I wonder if tattooed arms are the secret?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:28 Sat 14 Dec 2013
by Glenn E.
Most excellent. Thank you for the explanations. It is beginning to make sense.
BTW the Captain's job sounds much like the Manager's job in baseball, especially the parts about knowing who to pitch to which batters and placing the fielders.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 00:31 Sat 14 Dec 2013
by DRT
Glenn E. wrote:the Captain's job sounds much like the Manager's job in baseball, especially the parts about knowing who to pitch to which batters and placing the fielders.
Ah, but can a baseball manager make tea and cucumber sandwiches?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 09:03 Sat 14 Dec 2013
by mpij
[quote="Glenn E."]So... could someone explain cricket to me?
[The following explanation of cricket has been used since the 1970s, to explain cricket
to Americans who had never seen a cricket match.
First developed in Seattle, it has been used throughout the USA.
Try it on your American friends...
if they understand baseball, they should be able to follow cricket with this handy guide!]
http://www.seattlecricket.com/history/crick.htm
Alternativly buy a teatowel!
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 10:15 Sat 14 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
Ah yes. The teatowel. I was hoping it wouldn't come to this.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 10:25 Sat 14 Dec 2013
by DRT
Back to the Ashes!
The last two hours definitely fall into the "cure for insomnia" category. Initially I thought England were simply scared to hit anything in fear of getting out, but towards the end I started to think they might already be thinking of a draw. Is it feasible that they would simply want to stretch this innings out for as long as possible whilst scoring very few runs to ensure the game cannot be won?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 10:45 Sat 14 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
I am not reading Derek's previous post as I have not checked last night's score. I intend to listen from 11 am and see exactly what England are able to do. It's all about today, they can lose the series today or hang on and survive.
Back later.
It's just not cricket
Posted: 10:52 Sat 14 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
Oh. They're not doing the usual ball-by-ball repeat of last night's commentary. It's some awful highlights package. Not sure how long I can listen to this.
EDIT: The BBC is staffed by geniuses. Immediately before broadcasting the ball-by-ball coverage starting at 11 am (which will be interrupted by football and rugby), instead of broadcasting the pre-match chat, they broadcast a badly-edited highlights package of the whole day: various commentators spliced together without interruption and shouting variations on "HE'S OUT!" and then giving the score. So now I know the close of play score. Thanks guys.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 11:15 Sat 14 Dec 2013
by DRT
djewesbury wrote:Oh. They're not doing the usual ball-by-ball repeat of last night's commentary. It's some awful highlights package. Not sure how long I can listen to this.
EDIT: The BBC is staffed by geniuses. Immediately before broadcasting the ball-by-ball coverage starting at 11 am (which will be interrupted by football and rugby), instead of broadcasting the pre-match chat, they broadcast a badly-edited highlights package of the whole day: various commentators spliced together without interruption and shouting variations on "HE'S OUT!" and then giving the score. So now I know the close of play score. Thanks guys.
Never has the title of this thread seemed more appropriate to the discussion as it is now.
So, now read my post and, if you can manage to shake of the depression, let me know what you think.
In case the BBC didn't tell you, Bell and Stokes are currently averaging just over 2 runs per over on a ground that traditionally yields just under 4.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 11:24 Sat 14 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
How depressing.. Yes, having lost two cheap wickets late on it's entirely possible that they would be this pessimistic. Bell, at any rate, now feels he has no licence to play each ball on its merits, as he normally would. He feels he has to protect Stokes as the senior batsman; he probably wanted to get through the day without further loss and regroup overnight. I hope that a signal has NOT gone out to try and draw - if it has then Flower and Cook have to explain why they would play so negatively. The only way to defend is to attack, from this starting point, surely.. OK, that doesn't mean to try and hook and pull every ball like idiots, but just to play normally and positively and naturally.. Bell should not be cramped up and asked to be a Mike Atherton..
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 11:42 Sat 14 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
Anybody think we've actually lost the series yet? Or are there those who think we still have a chance?
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 11:45 Sat 14 Dec 2013
by DRT
djewesbury wrote:Anybody think we've actually lost the series yet?
'fraid so old chap.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 11:46 Sat 14 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
DRT wrote:djewesbury wrote:Anybody think we've actually lost the series yet?
'fraid so old chap.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 15:33 Sat 14 Dec 2013
by LGTrotter
A very long shot, but Australia are not that good, they may manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of inevitable victory.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 15:40 Sat 14 Dec 2013
by djewesbury
LGTrotter wrote:A very long shot, but Australia are not that good, they may manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of inevitable victory.
This is what I'm clinging to. Am listening to the re-broadcast even though I know the outcome; Root was rather hard done by. We have to cleave to these injustices and perhaps from them we can build a new tomorrow.
Re: It's just not cricket
Posted: 15:54 Sat 14 Dec 2013
by DRT
LGTrotter wrote:A very long shot, but Australia are not that good, they may manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of inevitable victory.
Gordon's alive!!
Welcome back, Owen.