Could you explain that second paragraph though? It seems as if you're trying to compare the game to baseball though, which it does have similarities to, but doesn't have quite the same rigidity in structure

The bowlers change every over (6 deliveries). At the end of each over the fielding team swap ends so the new bowler will bowl the following over from the opposite end and one bowler can't bowl consecutive overs. In one day matches, each bowler is only allowed 10 overs maximum. Typically a bowler will bowl 2-4 overs in a row (that is, one will bowl the 1st, 3rd and 5th over and the other will bowl the 2nd, 4th and 6th over) before they have a break or spell. That is just an example though and is not a requirement and may change depending on the situation.

While a lot of people do mostly enjoy watching their team bat, the bowling/fielding aspect is equally as interesting. You're right that cricket relies on big chunks of batting rather than split innings. So from youre perspective it might be like a baseball game where they play all 27 outs in a row and then the other team has 27 outs to beat that score. It's a very nuanced sport and can be hard to know what to look out for but one dayers are relatively straightforward, at least from a cricket fans perspective.

Historically the magic number is 300. There are 300 balls bowled in a match (50oversx6=300) and scoring at 6 runs per over is usually seen as quite a safe and defendable score. This has changed (as in the number is probably higher now) over the years due to a number of reasons (bat power, smaller fields, flatter pitches, changing rules, different formats being introduced) but a score of 300 will still more often than not not be chased down.

There is no typical amount of overs before wickets fall. In the first innings there will often be wickets early (the new ball swings, the bowlers are fresh, the field is up, the batting team needs to set a platform). Then the middle overs generally see a consolidation period where they try and get to a good score so that the last few overs can be dedicated to big and risky hitting to try and increase the total over and beyond the 300 mark (or whatever total is good on the day). This means you'll also see a lot of wickets in the last few overs as the riskier shots are played and wickets become less important than runs. Again, this is just an example and is not a sure thing. A team could go the whole innings without losing a wicket (which is basically their aim) or they could lose several wickets early and try to scrape to a total of less than 200.

Baseball is my frame of reference, but I know it's not the same. What I'm saying is that I understand if my team is doing well if they're batting (they're scoring runs at a fast pace), but I can't tell if they're doing well while in the field--unless, of course, they're getting a lot of outs. But if the other team is scoring runs, but not necessarily at a fast rate, how can I tell if my team is doing well?

Thank you. This is exactly what I was wondering. If you swap a bowler for another bowler (i.e. not one of the two), can you put that first bowler back in later? As a frame of reference, in baseball, when you pull a pitcher, he's done for the day.

While a lot of people do mostly enjoy watching their team bat, the bowling/fielding aspect is equally as interesting. You're right that cricket relies on big chunks of batting rather than split innings. So from youre perspective it might be like a baseball game where they play all 27 outs in a row and then the other team has 27 outs to beat that score. It's a very nuanced sport and can be hard to know what to look out for but one dayers are relatively straightforward, at least from a cricket fans perspective.

Historically the magic number is 300. There are 300 balls bowled in a match (50oversx6=300) and scoring at 6 runs per over is usually seen as quite a safe and defendable score. This has changed (as in the number is probably higher now) over the years due to a number of reasons (bat power, smaller fields, flatter pitches, changing rules, different formats being introduced) but a score of 300 will still more often than not not be chased down.

There is no typical amount of overs before wickets fall. In the first innings there will often be wickets early (the new ball swings, the bowlers are fresh, the field is up, the batting team needs to set a platform). Then the middle overs generally see a consolidation period where they try and get to a good score so that the last few overs can be dedicated to big and risky hitting to try and increase the total over and beyond the 300 mark (or whatever total is good on the day). This means you'll also see a lot of wickets in the last few overs as the riskier shots are played and wickets become less important than runs. Again, this is just an example and is not a sure thing. A team could go the whole innings without losing a wicket (which is basically their aim) or they could lose several wickets early and try to scrape to a total of less than 200.

Yeah, I now it might be inconsistent, but I just need some clue to what I'm watching. Cricket is a game with a ton of offense in comparison to baseball. If teams scored runs (or even got hits) at the rate cricket players do, it would be a disaster for the fielding team.

England did well last night.



You Aussies, don't know how lucky you have it!

India's fielding is elite rn. Radical change from the Ganguly era when they were all kinda slow and chubby