• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Cricket... the game, not the insect

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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?
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,723
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,455
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
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

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,723
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
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.
 

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
11,904
Location
Holocene
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

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
2,598
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
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

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,455
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
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

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,455
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
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. :D
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
11,904
Location
Holocene
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

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
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

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,455
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
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

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
If T20 pisses bilby off, he isn't going to like this...

100 balls

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

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Watching a whole test match live is a luxury. That's kind of the point, I think.
Isn't that, you need to live in luxury to see a whole test match live? I'd rather go to a curling tournament with multiple games on-going. Slow pace, but stuff happening more.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
So, watched a bit of the Caribbean T20 tournament, Canada T20, England v South Africa Test match, some BBL.

I know some feel strongly about T20, but cricket seems to allow for different types, each having an benefit. You have the longer and more pure tests, but T50 and T20 provide an ability for a game to happen within a fixed viewable time. The T20 experience seems to improve with better bowling. The Canadian T20 was a boundary fest and was kind of like eating a mountain of chocolate, fun at first, but became boring and dull afterwards.
 

4321lynx

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2006
Messages
1,384
Location
Ontario, Canada
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Jimmy Higgins said:
Cricket is supposed to be a 'gentlemen's sport',

According to a friend of mine that ended sometime in the 1950's ? at Middlesbourgh CC when Yorkshire bowlers were having trouble in getting some batsman out and Freddie Trueman was heard saying to his captain in a stage whisper "Ey-oop Len, giy-us t' ball and I'll pin 'is foockin' ears to t' foockin' saaght-screens"...
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Can someone explain what leads to a draw? I thought it was when the last batting side doesn't reach a required number of overs... but it sounded like if South Africa batted out the 90 overs, the game would have been a draw.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,271
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Can someone explain what leads to a draw? I thought it was when the last batting side doesn't reach a required number of overs... but it sounded like if South Africa batted out the 90 overs, the game would have been a draw.

First off, you're talking about Test Matches. They go for five days. When one side goes through their entire line up of batsmen, that's called an innings. Both teams have two innings batting. If the five days are up and both sides do not complete their two innings, the game is a draw. It's far less common for a draw to occur in one day-ers and 20/20 matches as they are the types of matches where the amount of overs are fixed.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Can someone explain what leads to a draw? I thought it was when the last batting side doesn't reach a required number of overs... but it sounded like if South Africa batted out the 90 overs, the game would have been a draw.

First off, you're talking about Test Matches. They go for five days. When one side goes through their entire line up of batsmen, that's called an innings. Both teams have two innings batting. If the five days are up and both sides do not complete their two innings, the game is a draw. It's far less common for a draw to occur in one day-ers and 20/20 matches as they are the types of matches where the amount of overs are fixed.
I thought I read that South Africa had 90 overs today. Does that indicate if they reach 90 overs without losing 10 wickets, they have drawn... in the context of being in the last of the 2nd innings, in South Africa's case?
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,271
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Can someone explain what leads to a draw? I thought it was when the last batting side doesn't reach a required number of overs... but it sounded like if South Africa batted out the 90 overs, the game would have been a draw.

First off, you're talking about Test Matches. They go for five days. When one side goes through their entire line up of batsmen, that's called an innings. Both teams have two innings batting. If the five days are up and both sides do not complete their two innings, the game is a draw. It's far less common for a draw to occur in one day-ers and 20/20 matches as they are the types of matches where the amount of overs are fixed.
I thought I read that South Africa had 90 overs today. Does that indicate if they reach 90 overs without losing 10 wickets, they have drawn... in the context of being in the last of the 2nd innings, in South Africa's case?

Don't think about the number of overs. A more accurate description would be if the fifth day ends and South Africa still hasn't completed their second innings, the game is a draw. The amount of overs in a test match is how many you can cram into a period of five days, so it varies from match to match.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I thought I read that South Africa had 90 overs today. Does that indicate if they reach 90 overs without losing 10 wickets, they have drawn... in the context of being in the last of the 2nd innings, in South Africa's case?

Don't think about the number of overs. A more accurate description would be if the fifth day ends and South Africa still hasn't completed their second innings, the game is a draw. The amount of overs in a test match is how many you can cram into a period of five days, so it varies from match to match.
Okay, so it comes down to getting the wickets. That part is pretty simple to understand. But...

The article I read noted a number of overs remaining, and there was an emphasis for England to get the wickets quickly. Here it is.
article said:
He removed Dwaine Pretorius and Anrich Nortje in consecutive balls before dismissing Vernon Philander to secure the win with just 8.2 overs remaining.
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,271
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
The 8.2 was an estimate. I suspect because it was late on the fifth day someone, probably the Umpire, decided, "right, we're going to bowl for nine more overs and then we're wrapping this up." It also means 8 overs and 2 balls, not "eight point two" overs, but that's neither here nor there.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Joined
Nov 10, 2017
Messages
8,074
Location
seattle
Basic Beliefs
secular-skeptic
I watched a documentary about a Jamaican or Bahamian all black team fighting its way to the top. In a league where sports conditioning was not high they trained like pro athletes and kicked butt.

Surprisingly the game can be quite aggressive and physical.

Back in the 70s and 80s before Internet I listened to shortwave radio for global news. I remember the BBC reporting Cricket scores from somewhere in India.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Saw an Middle Eastern league T10 game. WTF was that?!

Test Cricket - Pure sport
ODI - Can do it in a day
T20 - Within the time of an NFL game
T10 - For fans who have something better to do?
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,723
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Can I be the first to suggest T1 cricket?

One over per team. Matches could be completed between ad breaks on Channel 9.

It would be a complete travesty, but I bet WWoS would love it. They could promote it with "No play during ad breaks".
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,723
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Since you call a screwball a googly I guess I'm not surprised.

View attachment 25648

Lefties can do it too.

I thought the ball didn't hit the ground between bowler pitcher and batsman in baseball?

How could you possibly have it move in an unexpected direction after it hits the pitch, if it doesn't hit the pitch at all?
 

bigfield

the baby-eater
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
4,455
Location
Straya
Basic Beliefs
yeah nah
I don't think cricket has any delivery that is comparable to the screwball. That pitch requires the pitcher to impart lateral spin on the ball to make it turn laterally in the air.

Spin bowlers impart a lot of spin on the ball, but the spin is intended to make the ball turn ("break") when it hits the pitch.

Similarly, a normal delivery from a fast bowler has a bit in common with a fastball: in both cases, the bowler/pitcher imparts backspin on the ball. But that's where the similarity ends. The pace bowler applies the spin in line with the ball--same as in baseball--but in cricket the purpose is to make the ball land with the seam vertical rather than keep the ball aloft. When the ball lands on its seam, on a slightly uneven dry grass surface, it will bounce unpredictably and take the batsman by surprise.

A particularly skillful bowler can turn the seam slightly off to one side, and this creates aerodynamic drag, causing the ball to turn ("swing") before it bounces. Given a well-prepared pitch, a skilled bowler, and a ball in good condition (or terrible condition), these swinging, seaming deliveries make test cricket a fascinating battle between the batsman's defence and the bowler's attack. It relies on the bowler's ability to bowl the same ball repeatedly and let the swing and seam provide enough variation to draw the batsman into a mistake.

It's less relevant to Twenty20 cricket where the batsmen are premeditating their shots and swinging at everything. A T20 bowler's effectiveness relies on his ability to bowl variations, like a baseball pitcher, and a T20 batsman's effectiveness relies on his timing and the size of his bat.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
So... cricket was in the Olympics, but England won the Gold, Silver, and Bronze and the IOC said enough of that (only part of that is true).

So this leaves us with cricket outside of the Olympics. Not too much is going on. With England giving up on dealing with the pandemic, the decent sized crowds have helped pump some energy into the new Hundred format of Cricket which is a set of 20 overs of 5 balls each, which equals a total of 100 balls. This is slightly less than T-20, how much? Probably a half hour to an hour, which makes it a better tv slot, as cricket is desperate to squeeze cricket money from the cash cow.

The games have been pretty good. T20... I mean 100, has its pluses and minuses. A little too swing happy, but... when the bowlers are international level, it keeps the batters a bit more grounded. It is quicker, making it possible to watch. I'm a bit on time delay with the Olympics and just watched Ben Stokes squad go down four wickets way too early, on a massive chase, and no chance to win, to see them come within 6 run boundary of tying it on the last ball. Stokes had nothing to do with that part.

England are getting ready to head to Australia to lose in The Ashes and then participate in the T20 World Cup. Due to the craziness that is Australia being adults about the pandemic, the English team (those participating in both) would be stuck in hell (Australia) until mid-January, which has led to some wondering whether to pull out, as that is a long time to be away from the family.

The US starts their Minor League Cricket series in a couple days. Something like 27 teams from over 21* cities competing in a large tournament to try and grow a sport in the US that is less popular than well, any other sport (Akron actually has a cricket bowling strip in a park near me due to the small Nepalese population we have). There is supposed to be a Major League formed, I think. The pandemic stepped in the way of these plans. Also... this is the United States, which hates soccer because foreigners like it.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Watched Bangladesh knock away a paltry 104 runs in T20. Australia still only won by 3 bloody wickets. Glad, I didn't bother sitting for that.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
England saved by the rain in the first Test match against India.

And it appeared that England were likely on pace for a draw with India in the 2nd test match, as India were down to their last two wickets and their bowlers were batting. And then the bowlers completely owned England, with a ridiculous strike rate of something like 67% over many overs. It got to the point where India would declare instead of getting bowled out. England still could bat really well (with their 60 over limit) in their chase, except India all got on their bus, and then drove over the entire England Cricket team... repeatedly... or at least that is how it looked on the pitched as the Indians (actual Indians) bowled the fuck out of England to win outright in much less than 60 overs. Early on, England, at best clearly could, at best, only manage to draw. But the sweater tops continued unravelling as they kept giving up wickets like it was going out of style.

England are very weak at the moment. They can bowl, but they are relying way too much on Joe Root at the moment, and if he doesn't bat a century plus, England aren't in it.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
2,598
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
England saved by the rain in the first Test match against India.

And it appeared that England were likely on pace for a draw with India in the 2nd test match, as India were down to their last two wickets and their bowlers were batting. And then the bowlers completely owned England, with a ridiculous strike rate of something like 67% over many overs. It got to the point where India would declare instead of getting bowled out. England still could bat really well (with their 60 over limit) in their chase, except India all got on their bus, and then drove over the entire England Cricket team... repeatedly... or at least that is how it looked on the pitched as the Indians (actual Indians) bowled the fuck out of England to win outright in much less than 60 overs. Early on, England, at best clearly could, at best, only manage to draw. But the sweater tops continued unravelling as they kept giving up wickets like it was going out of style.

England are very weak at the moment. They can bowl, but they are relying way too much on Joe Root at the moment, and if he doesn't bat a century plus, England aren't in it.

Jimmy for a yank your knowledge of cricket is remarkable. You sound like you almost appreciate it.

Shame on you. :dancing:
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Yeah, I always thought hula dancing was about communication and telling stories. I have since learned it is simply prettied up signals for a boundary.

#themoreyouknow
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
India v England - Test 3

India goofed up and left the keys in the bus they ran over England in their second innings of the second test... in the bus. And England trashed them and won by an Innings in the third test.

India v England - Test 4

England held India well in the first innings and India was doing likewise against England in their first innings, something like 68-5, but then England finally opened it up and scored nearly 300 runs. India then shows up to bat in the second innings and hammers away at England on a pitch that wasn't helping the bowlers. England, needed an accessible, but record home chase over a day and half-ish, to win. They went something like 70-0 to the end of day 4, but while that number looked good, it was quite a bit slow, and at that rate it'd take I think 180 or so overs to pull off the chase. In other words, the bowlers were doing better than the batters, even if not getting wickets yet. Things slipped away quickly and as usual, when Root went out prior to a half century, the air in the sales are gone. The best chance England now had became drawing but needed the bottom of their order to manage 40ish overs to get there. They didn't.

India lead the series 2-1-1. A draw can be had if England can win the final test match. It has been quite a series, with some great and awful play. In cricket it can be hard to tell if a team is sucking or just being rolled over by a more on form squad. India definitely have the edge as they can live with a draw in the final test match. Also, they seem to be able to make it happen. And don't let the 2-1-1 fool you, it should be 3-1 as the weather saved England.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
ODI Tournament in Oman is saturating the Cricket Press these days. Can't go one article without seeing a reference to Papua New Guinea verses Oman.

In 2020 the US were playing in this and lost to Nepal 35 to 36/2. The US were bowled out in 12 overs in an ODI for 35 runs... which honestly, isn't something that'd be too surprising.

The US played PNG on Monday, same tournament, but 2021 and things went a little better, winning 158 to 159/3 with the US having over 20 overs remaining. They won heavily on the bat of Steven Taylor who had an impressive 82 on 55 balls. He was ripping boundaries like it wasn't that big of an issue.

Nepal took on PNG as well, and PNG PNG were bowled out for 134 in 33 overs. Nepal looked quite certain to win with an opening partnership of getting close to 50 runs. But the next three batters scored only 21 on 61 balls. Then Paudal steps on and slowly keeps things going, but no partnerships as two batters are dismissed back to back. Finally a partnership forms with Kami and that gets them to 135/8.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,723
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
USA nearly defeats Australia in International Cricket

The cricket world was stunned today by a massive 7 wicket victory by the USA over the nation that is geographically closest to Australia. This is the closest the US has ever come to defeating a major cricketing nation.

And now back to the baseball ...
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Hey! We have our eyes on Nepal and Oman next! Then maybe Canada.

On the other hand the US won gold in curling. Yes, the ice surface completely went to heck but still won the gold. If the US can win gold in curling, certainly we can beat New Australia or West India or Pakiland.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Firstly, how in the heck did officials handle No Balls and fielded balls thrown to the wickets before replay?

My other comment, I think Cricket should change the victory margin reporting. I realize they won't, the ICC isn't returning my calls again.

The US played Nepal in a warmup ODI. US went 230/9 over the full 50 overs. I should correct that to note that Patel went 100 from 114 and the rest of US went 130 from 186. Nepal were doing well, slowed down, and then picked up and obtained 231/5 in the 49th over.

Nepal wins by 5 wickets.

Zimbabwe play Ireland, another ODI. Zimbabwe are bowled out for 131 in 34 overs. Ireland (due to rain) win with 118/3.

Ireland win by 7 wickets.

So the Nepal/USA game was much closer than the Zimbabwe/Ireland game, but both show a victory via wickets.

It is easier to manage victory via wickets, but would it hurt to include Wickets and Balls remaining plus balls the losing team did not bat (so Zimbabwe would be 58 (Ireland balls remaining) + 16*6 (balls Zimb didn't get to))? This would result in:

Nepal 5 W - 10 Ball
Ireland 7 W - 154 Balls.

Ireland is a bit trickier due to the rain and the whole DLS thing, but looking at those scores above, it is very apparent by looking at them, what happened in the game instead of the:

Nepal 5 Wickets
Ireland 7 Wickets
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,723
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Firstly, how in the heck did officials handle No Balls and fielded balls thrown to the wickets before replay?

My other comment, I think Cricket should change the victory margin reporting. I realize they won't, the ICC isn't returning my calls again.

The US played Nepal in a warmup ODI. US went 230/9 over the full 50 overs. I should correct that to note that Patel went 100 from 114 and the rest of US went 130 from 186. Nepal were doing well, slowed down, and then picked up and obtained 231/5 in the 49th over.

Nepal wins by 5 wickets.

Zimbabwe play Ireland, another ODI. Zimbabwe are bowled out for 131 in 34 overs. Ireland (due to rain) win with 118/3.

Ireland win by 7 wickets.

So the Nepal/USA game was much closer than the Zimbabwe/Ireland game, but both show a victory via wickets.

It is easier to manage victory via wickets, but would it hurt to include Wickets and Balls remaining plus balls the losing team did not bat (so Zimbabwe would be 58 (Ireland balls remaining) + 16*6 (balls Zimb didn't get to))? This would result in:

Nepal 5 W - 10 Ball
Ireland 7 W - 154 Balls.

Ireland is a bit trickier due to the rain and the whole DLS thing, but looking at those scores above, it is very apparent by looking at them, what happened in the game instead of the:

Nepal 5 Wickets
Ireland 7 Wickets

It's a hangover from the good old days, when matches were played over four or five days, and an innings wasn't closed until either the tenth wicket fell, or the captain declared. A team that hadn't been bowled out twice couldn't be said to have lost, so draws were fairly commonplace, and winning margins needed only to tell you how many wickets remained to the winning side when they reached their opponent's run total, or how many runs short the losing team were at the fall of the last wicket.

A limited overs match basically forces the captain to declare at fifty overs (and only allows each team one innings), but the scores are recorded as though he had the option to keep batting.
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
2,598
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
Firstly, how in the heck did officials handle No Balls and fielded balls thrown to the wickets before replay?

My other comment, I think Cricket should change the victory margin reporting. I realize they won't, the ICC isn't returning my calls again.

The US played Nepal in a warmup ODI. US went 230/9 over the full 50 overs. I should correct that to note that Patel went 100 from 114 and the rest of US went 130 from 186. Nepal were doing well, slowed down, and then picked up and obtained 231/5 in the 49th over.

Nepal wins by 5 wickets.

Zimbabwe play Ireland, another ODI. Zimbabwe are bowled out for 131 in 34 overs. Ireland (due to rain) win with 118/3.

Ireland win by 7 wickets.

So the Nepal/USA game was much closer than the Zimbabwe/Ireland game, but both show a victory via wickets.

It is easier to manage victory via wickets, but would it hurt to include Wickets and Balls remaining plus balls the losing team did not bat (so Zimbabwe would be 58 (Ireland balls remaining) + 16*6 (balls Zimb didn't get to))? This would result in:

Nepal 5 W - 10 Ball
Ireland 7 W - 154 Balls.

Ireland is a bit trickier due to the rain and the whole DLS thing, but looking at those scores above, it is very apparent by looking at them, what happened in the game instead of the:

Nepal 5 Wickets
Ireland 7 Wickets

I am getting worried about you, Jimmy.

You sound like you like cricket? Soon your US citizenship will be rescinded.

Have a cup of tea, take 2 Bex and have a good lie down https://www.australianpharmacist.com.au/cup-of-tea-bex-good-lie-down/

:lol: :parrot:
 

Tigers!

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
2,598
Location
On the wing waiting for a kick.
Basic Beliefs
Bible believing revelational redemptionist (Baptist)
Firstly, how in the heck did officials handle No Balls and fielded balls thrown to the wickets before replay?
No balls were marked to the bowler who threw them.
No one cares about balls returned to the wickets. It is meaningless in its self. Runs, wickets are what counts.
My other comment, I think Cricket should change the victory margin reporting. I realize they won't, the ICC isn't returning my calls again.

The US played Nepal in a warmup ODI. US went 230/9 over the full 50 overs. I should correct that to note that Patel went 100 from 114 and the rest of US went 130 from 186. Nepal were doing well, slowed down, and then picked up and obtained 231/5 in the 49th over.

Nepal wins by 5 wickets.

Zimbabwe play Ireland, another ODI. Zimbabwe are bowled out for 131 in 34 overs. Ireland (due to rain) win with 118/3.

Ireland win by 7 wickets.

So the Nepal/USA game was much closer than the Zimbabwe/Ireland game, but both show a victory via wickets.

It is easier to manage victory via wickets, but would it hurt to include Wickets and Balls remaining plus balls the losing team did not bat (so Zimbabwe would be 58 (Ireland balls remaining) + 16*6 (balls Zimb didn't get to))? This would result in:

Nepal 5 W - 10 Ball
Ireland 7 W - 154 Balls.

Ireland is a bit trickier due to the rain and the whole DLS thing, but looking at those scores above, it is very apparent by looking at them, what happened in the game instead of the:

Nepal 5 Wickets
Ireland 7 Wickets
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
25,723
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Firstly, how in the heck did officials handle No Balls and fielded balls thrown to the wickets before replay?

Same way all sports handled decisions. The umpire on the spot made a call based on what he thought he saw, and that call was deemed to always be correct, regardless of any opinions other people might have on the matter.

An umpire who made a lot of calls in a lot of matches which a lot of people complained about might have his accreditation revoked. Or not.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
33,869
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
CPL T20 semis yesterday saw the Kings and Patriots win with relative ease. Gayle and Lewis opened strong which allowed the Patriots to stroll along and pick up boundaries here and there mid and late in the innings to manage a decent length chase to 179.

Final today, but they just tossed the tarp on the field. :(
Firstly, how in the heck did officials handle No Balls and fielded balls thrown to the wickets before replay?

Same way all sports handled decisions. The umpire on the spot made a call based on what he thought he saw, and that call was deemed to always be correct, regardless of any opinions other people might have on the matter.

An umpire who made a lot of calls in a lot of matches which a lot of people complained about might have his accreditation revoked. Or not.
Cricket, it seems nuts because the bowler's foot and the wickets two different places for your eyes for each ball as you need to track ball movement.
 
Top Bottom