Cricket... the game, not the insect

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, among the half dozen large global sporting events going on, the Cricket World Cup is in the UK right now. As things stand the top four teams will duke it out in a last man standing brawl or something.

I have never watched cricket before, but was intrigued and following along via BBC. Sling TV had an option of adding the Willow Cricket channel for $5 a month and I figured, what the heck. Two billion people can't be wrong and it is interesting to watch other nations be good at things.

It took a little searching, but I've got the general idea of the game, ie the structure and order of the play. I'm still learning about fielding and bowling tactics. The game is interesting, though I will say the biggest problem with cricket is the time. 6 to 7 hours for a game is a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time and I can't commit to that. Highlight shows are about an hour, and cricket is a natural game for highlights. The bowling is quick and it is easy to blast through those. I find it amazing how the batters bat... sometimes with power, others with finesse, sometimes (rarely) like baseball.

Australia, England, India, and New Zealand are the last standing squads. I'd have to say India seems to be the favorite as Australia appears to be manipulable based on opponent tactics (and they seem to have injuries too) and England... well... they usually choke in sports (except cycling, you guys are killing in France recently). England fell apart in the middle of the round robin, but brought things back together. Part of me wants India to win because it is nice when nations that aren't Western Civ can win something. England winning at home would be real cool as well. New Zealand is always a nice team to cheer for. Fuck the Aussies and their bounding animals.

So any other Cricket people out there... people that are fans?

 

[fromderinside]

Saw one. Squashed it!

 

[bilby]

So, among the half dozen large global sporting events going on, the Cricket World Cup is in the UK right now. As things stand the top four teams will duke it out in a last man standing brawl or something.

I have never watched cricket before, but was intrigued and following along via BBC. Sling TV had an option of adding the Willow Cricket channel for $5 a month and I figured, what the heck. Two billion people can't be wrong and it is interesting to watch other nations be good at things.

It took a little searching, but I've got the general idea of the game, ie the structure and order of the play. I'm still learning about fielding and bowling tactics. The game is interesting, though I will say the biggest problem with cricket is the time. 6 to 7 hours for a game is a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time and I can't commit to that. Highlight shows are about an hour, and cricket is a natural game for highlights. The bowling is quick and it is easy to blast through those. I find it amazing how the batters bat... sometimes with power, others with finesse, sometimes (rarely) like baseball.

Australia, England, India, and New Zealand are the last standing squads. I'd have to say India seems to be the favorite as Australia appears to be manipulable based on opponent tactics (and they seem to have injuries too) and England... well... they usually choke in sports (except cycling, you guys are killing in France recently). England fell apart in the middle of the round robin, but brought things back together. Part of me wants India to win because it is nice when nations that aren't Western Civ can win something. England winning at home would be real cool as well. New Zealand is always a nice team to cheer for. Fuck the Aussies and their bounding animals.

So any other Cricket people out there... people that are fans?

6-7 hours for a game is VERY short. Cricket is properly played over five days, though four is acceptable if you are in a hurry and don't expect any rain delays. The World Cup is the World Cup of One Day Cricket, which is a very abbreviated form of the game. Cutting the matches down to just 50 overs per team completely changes the strategy, and tactics - it favours batsmen who seek large numbers of boundaries and a high run-rate, over batsmen who seek to defend their wicket, putting on larger numbers of runs over a larger number of overs.

Don't even get me started on the travesty that they call T20.

Cricket isn't so much a sport as an experience. It's one enduring remnant of the glorious days before economic rationalism and 'greed is good' rapaciousness, when a gentleman could take a week off in midsummer, to watch his team play a friendly match in the sunshine and fresh air.

Fifty over cricket is fun; Test match cricket, like drinking tea, is a defining feature of civilization.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sure, one-day tests are "short" for Cricket... but still 6 to 7 hours. And as can be seen, all I really know is 50 over cricket.... and I didn't even know it was called Fifty over cricket... or if it isn't called that and you just called it that. Regardless, first semi is Tuesday.

I did read up on a two day match where a team was bowled out for 15 or some such runs... only to come back and win by quite a lot on the second day. Happened back in the 12th century BC or something.

 

[bigfield]

Cricket is perhaps the one sport where I actually dislike my national team to the point where I'm happy when they lose.

The Australian cricket team have a win-at-all-costs mentality, which manifests in the form of a constant stream of on-field verbal abuse and outright cheating. It's the antithesis of sportsmanship.

 

[bilby]

Cricket is perhaps the one sport where I actually dislike my national team to the point where I'm happy when they lose.

The Australian cricket team have a win-at-all-costs mentality, which manifests in the form of a constant stream of on-field verbal abuse and outright cheating. It's the antithesis of sportsmanship.

It's not cricket.

Cricket was never about winning, except in the most peripheral way. Cricket isn't a sport, it's a recreation. It should wash over you, leaving a gentle feeling of warmth and comfort.

Which is not to say that one should not appreciate a display of skill by any participant; But to consider mere skill or talent as central to the enjoyment would be an error; And to consider victory to be of great import would be barbaric.

So I wholeheartedly agree. Personally I blame the vile Packer clan for the ruinous state of Australian attitudes in regards to the game.

 

[Tigers!]

I still miss the cricket of old

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qJLi5y2d2w

 

[rousseau]

A few years ago I caught wind of the T-20 World Cup and really had a stern talking to from bilby.

I enjoy the game but in the past it hasn't been trivial to find a match, although since recently discovering Reddit Streams I have to wonder if I'll be able to find it on there.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Holy mother of duck!

What a final. Bowling was really good and the Kiwis appeared to have it for a while, as England were just not getting close enough. And then came Stokes who pulled off the greatest over I've ever witnessed.* A pair of 6's, including one that suffered from bad luck. They needed two runs on the final ball, got it and we have a "Super Over". Then England clobbers the Kiwis only to then get clobbered as well. Then rules be the rules and despite tying in the Super Over, England won the game. They tied on the last ball of the 50th Over and held the Kiwis to a single run in the last ball of the Super Over. Compelling stuff!

* - my history of cricket watching is limited to this World Cup

 

[Tigers!]

Holy mother of duck!

What a final. Bowling was really good and the Kiwis appeared to have it for a while, as England were just not getting close enough. And then came Stokes who pulled off the greatest over I've ever witnessed.* A pair of 6's, including one that suffered from bad luck. They needed two runs on the final ball, got it and we have a "Super Over". Then England clobbers the Kiwis only to then get clobbered as well. Then rules be the rules and despite tying in the Super Over, England won the game. They tied on the last ball of the 50th Over and held the Kiwis to a single run in the last ball of the Super Over. Compelling stuff!

* - my history of cricket watching is limited to this World Cup

It can have moments.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So The Ashes are on going, I have only been checking online about it. But the second test was a Draw. Despite Australia not equaling Britain... it is like the game ran out of time, so the result was "fuck it, no one wins". Four days and they just throw in the towel. That is nuts! It'd seem that England would need to aim at either getting wickets or concussions.

 

[bigfield]

it is like the game ran out of time, so the result was "fuck it, no one wins".

Yep. It's great. It leads to battles like the last day of the test where one side declares (just stops batting) because they want to give themselves a chance to get the other team out. Meanwhile, the other team has little hope of winning so their batting is entirely defensive. Which shouldn't be too hard, but batsmen lose their wicket to good bowling even when they aren't under pressure to score.

It'd seem that England would need to aim at either getting wickets or concussions.

That's precisely what they tried. Archer managed to hit Labuschagne right in the grill with a bouncer, and he made Paine play a stupid hook shot (which was taken brilliantly by Denly). However, Archer was the only bowler with the pace required to bounce the ball so viciously and accurately on the fifth-day pitch, so England had to try some other tactics as well.

Leach's spin bowling was quite good, but it took England too long to tempt Labuschagne into a silly sweep shot. Eventually that worked, but by then it was too late to wipe out the rest of the batting order.

BTW it's not Britain, it's just England. England, Scotland and Wales have their own teams, while Northern Ireland plays with the rest of Ireland.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

it is like the game ran out of time, so the result was "fuck it, no one wins".

Yep. It's great. It leads to battles like the last day of the test where one side declares (just stops batting) because they want to give themselves a chance to get the other team out.

Ah ha! That explains the "Dec." I had no idea what that was about. I assumed it meant the other team was being allowed to bat. Didn't know a team could just choose to give up while batting.

Meanwhile, the other team has little hope of winning so their batting is entirely defensive. Which shouldn't be too hard, but batsmen lose their wicket to good bowling even when they aren't under pressure to score.

The cricket version of "parking the bus" I suppose. Cricket is supposed to be a 'gentlemen's sport', so I would have thought such a tactic would be frowned upon.

It'd seem that England would need to aim at either getting wickets or concussions.

That's precisely what they tried. Archer managed to hit Labuschagne right in the grill with a bouncer, and he made Paine play a stupid hook shot (which was taken brilliantly by Denly). However, Archer was the only bowler with the pace required to bounce the ball so viciously and accurately on the fifth-day pitch, so England had to try some other tactics as well.

That's what it read like.

 

[bigfield]

Ah ha! That explains the "Dec." I had no idea what that was about. I assumed it meant the other team was being allowed to bat. Didn't know a team could just choose to give up while batting.

Meanwhile, the other team has little hope of winning so their batting is entirely defensive. Which shouldn't be too hard, but batsmen lose their wicket to good bowling even when they aren't under pressure to score.

The cricket version of "parking the bus" I suppose. Cricket is supposed to be a 'gentlemen's sport', so I would have thought such a tactic would be frowned upon.

Had England declared earlier and given Australia enough overs to make the target, then they may have batted more aggressively/dangerously in the hope of stealing victory.

No team is expected to bat like maniacs just to give the other side a better chance of winning. Gentlemen shouldn't offer anything but their best play, and sometimes the best play is to block out an innings.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So in the World Cup Ben Stokes pulled off a miracle in the final over. The Kiwis had a good total (241), but one that was reachable.

The Aussies completely blanked England in the first session of the third test match, batting for only 67. England would need 359 runs (though they weren't held back by a 50 over limit). The third day showed England just being stifled by good bowling, but they didn't panic and managed a not so high run total, but they only gave up two wickets. So the start of Day Four, 152-2, needing 207 runs. The day started poorly with Joe Root getting out quickly. England slowly slogged back, but the wickets began falling. Then it was 289-9. England, having a decent day, but 70 runs still needed with 0 wickets to give. A little luck here (Aussies called a challenge on the wrong play) and a Ben Stokes just unleashing a fury of hits that made the World Cup seem almost normal, England saw one of their best ever comebacks in a very long time.

England draw the Ashes even.

 

[rousseau]

Signed up for DAZN recently which is airing the Ashes, and am watching the fourth test. Yea.. this is a lot better than T-20.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Cricket has the issue of being viable to a new audience in the 21st century. Test cricket takes forever. T-20 attempts to remedy this by shortening up the game. T-20's biggest flaw is the 10 wickets. Pretty much T-20 can easily become home run (err... boundary) derby, which is quaint at first, but gets old quickly. 120 balls, 10 wickets? Have a swing at it! If they cut it down to 3 or 4 wickets, the games could be dangerously short, but it would reapply the game of cricket to cricket. I did catch the T-20 Canadian league final. So many 6's, they were causing inflation and they became only worth 3.

Test Cricket is interesting except when it isn't (fun at times but boring at times as well, especially when the losing team is trying to bat out enough overs to draw the game). Unlike baseball, Cricket does maintain a more consistent flow, every ball matters (though the commercials for wire transfers are getting old). 50 overs for the World Cup I think is a good balance, but still takes all day.

So it creates a conundrum. Do I really have time for this?

 

[bigfield]

Watching a whole test match live is a luxury. That's kind of the point, I think.

However, one can still follow the test without watching it live, as was the norm before live TV. People listen to the game on the radio at work, follow the action on cricinfo, and read the reports in the news (I recommend Geoff Lemon). Even if you don't see all of the action, you can still enjoy the broader strokes of the game.

The Ashes is currently being played on the opposite side of the world, about 10 hours behind my local time, so I miss many of the sessions. Yet this doesn't really affect my enjoyment of those sessions I do see, plus I also get to watch the highlights.

As for highlights, Jos Buttler's dismissal by Josh Hazlewood is an excellent example of seam bowling. Buttler leaves the ball thinking it's going to miss past off stump and/or bounce over the stumps, but the ball digs in and turns a corner.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If T20 pisses bilby off, he isn't going to like this...

100 balls

Oh... don't worry, it is​ safe for work.

 

[bilby]

If T20 pisses bilby off, he isn't going to like this...

100 balls

Oh... don't worry, it is​ safe for work.

Not if your boss likes test cricket, it's not.