Cricket... the game, not the insect

[Jimmy Higgins]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!]

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/

 

[Tigers!]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Kings went 159-5 so definitely a manageable chase.

However, Patriots big bats in Lewis and Gayle out early, and the Patriots stand at 20-2 after 5 overs. Kings are in the driver's seat at the moment.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What a final. St Kitts and Nevis's top two batters out early. 70-3 mid-way, needing 90 more. However, they did just enough, not playing too aggressively. They make it to the final over needing 9 runs. Then they need 1 on the last ball to win, after getting a boundary, with the game drawn. Drakes manages and is the hero for the Patriots.

This isn't quite England's ODI World Cup comeback, but it was pretty sweet.

For a bonus, Willow's stream failed between the 16th and 19th overs. EEK! They got it back by the final over.

 

[bilby]

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.

That's why there are two umpires on the field.

 

[atrib]

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.

The umpire at the bowler's end watches the bowler's foot to call no-balls. After the ball is delivered, he shifts his eyes to the batsman to watch for LBW and edges from the bat to the keeper or the slips. The second umpire positioned on-side watches for run-outs - to see if the batsmen had reached the crease before the stumps were touched with the ball.

I played cricket for four years at Auburn with international students from India and Pakistan. It was a lot of fun even though I was not good at it. There is a lot of skill involved, and to be a good player you have to start at an early age. As someone starting out late, who had previously played some baseball, the hardest part for me was learning how to hold the bat and wield it effectively, and judging what the ball would do after it bounced. It was completely different from baseball. But I had a natural talent for keeping wickets, so I did that a lot.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Probably not too hard to judge the line, but the transition to the ball tracking, I still think it must not be an easy job. Those umps are pretty sharp.

I was reading an article about the CPL final and one note was on Cornwall. When he was finally taken out, he had 40+ but over 30 balls. Which sounds good, but even ignorant me knows that isn't enough for him. In addition to the relatively low strike rate, it was a bunch of possible 2's were 1's because Cornwall is not the quickest out there. He needs to be whacking a 200% strike rate to justify being on the pitch. That was one of the small things that helped hold St. Lucia to a lower score.



Still newish to cricket, I've got a good feel on batting and bowling tactics, but fielding has me greatly confused, especially in Test Cricket. At some points you've got fielders everywhere. Sometimes four or five fielders behind the batter. Sometimes fielders surrounding the batter, with one of them getting a piggyback ride from the batter.

 

[bilby]

Probably not too hard to judge the line, but the transition to the ball tracking, I still think it must not be an easy job. Those umps are pretty sharp.

I was reading an article about the CPL final and one note was on Cornwall. When he was finally taken out, he had 40+ but over 30 balls. Which sounds good, but even ignorant me knows that isn't enough for him. In addition to the relatively low strike rate, it was a bunch of possible 2's were 1's because Cornwall is not the quickest out there. He needs to be whacking a 200% strike rate to justify being on the pitch. That was one of the small things that helped hold St. Lucia to a lower score.

View attachment 35324

Still newish to cricket, I've got a good feel on batting and bowling tactics, but fielding has me greatly confused, especially in Test Cricket. At some points you've got fielders everywhere. Sometimes four or five fielders behind the batter. Sometimes fielders surrounding the batter, with one of them getting a piggyback ride from the batter.

Fielding strategy is determined by both the bowling style, and the batsman's skill and confidence. Broadly speaking, when a batsman is facing slower deliveries, or the pitch is old, or the fielding side are hoping to intimidate the batsman, the field will be close in. This gives them a better chance of catching a poorly struck ball, but risks giving away more runs to a well struck ball, as nobody's on the boundary to stop four, and the outfielders may take longer to retrieve the ball even if it's not going to the boundary, so the batsmen might steal an extra run.

Against a highly confident batsman on a good pitch facing fast bowling, a close-in field is just an invitation to score lots of boundaries. In such conditions, more outfielders to catch lofted boundary attempts, and to push down the strike rate, with a slip cordon to catch edges, is a better strategy.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well that seems terribly less complicated than I expected.

 

[bilby]

Well that seems terribly less complicated than I expected.

"Broadly speaking" covers a multitude of sins.

There are a lot of other factors that enter the equation. Lower strike rate is great for the fielding team at the start of a test match, but when taking wickets becomes more important than preventing runs, there's a big psychological element to field settings, such as trying to tempt batsmen into rash behaviour, or to make them impatient or frustrated. There's even an element of ego; setting a field for a star opening batsman that he would expect you to set for a nervous rookie tail-ender can cost you a lot of runs - but it can also make him go for deliveries he should leave, or loft balls he should drive along the ground, in an attempt to 'teach you a lesson' by scoring loads of quick runs.

In the context of a test match, conceding sixteen runs per over for a couple of overs and then getting a wicket, is a much better result than letting the opponent's star batsman score a century or more, off an eighty over plus, low strike-rate innings. Of course the risk is that their star is patient, and scores twelve runs an over for five or six overs while never chasing the wider deliveries or lofting balls to places where the fielders have a chance to catch them, and then 'digs in' for a day or two before declaring at 600/3.

Furthermore, the quality of the pitch declines dramatically over a five day test, and the ball behaves very differently as it ages, so the field that you set for the opening batsmen in their first innings with a new ball might be dramatically different from that on day three or four, when the pitch is breaking up and the ball is starting to exhibit reverse swing.

The variety of pitch conditions, bowling action, ball age and condition, batsman experience and attitude, and scoring situation vs time remaining in the match, amongst other factors, make the exact field setting a very complicated decision indeed, particularly at the highest levels. And of course the skills of the fielders also needs to be considered. There's no point putting a man at a close in fielding position like silly point, if his reaction times are such that he drops any catching opportunity that comes his way. (Any position labelled 'silly' is a strong indication that the fielder in that spot needs super fast reflexes and a very poor sense of self-preservation).

 

[Harry Bosch]

Sorry to get political, but the below story on Cricket in Pakistan is interesting. Pakistan is obsessed with cricket. But the country believes that the international community is punishing them through cricket for it's support of the Afghan Taliban.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/world/asia/pakistan-cricket-england-new-zealand.html

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

England and New Zeeland both recently cancelled T20 tours in Pakistan. International Cricket in Pakistan isn't very common. An attack on the Sri Lanka team (as in gunfire from 12 attackers) in 2009 was somewhat of a hot button issue with other nations on coming to Pakistan where the security is umm... well... they do try at least. Before 2009 it wasn't very common and it took several years for someone to show up again.