Cricket.

Hang · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:04 am **Posts:** 3756

You should have faithfully declared your support for Ireland, pgm. Great chase.

pgm · **Posted:** Mon Feb 16, 2015 2:11 am

Quinnsy Lohan wrote:

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

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?

Hang wrote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

That gives me some sort of reference point, thanks.

Quote:

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.

Hang · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:04 am **Posts:** 3756

pgm wrote:

Quinnsy Lohan wrote:

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

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?

The best way to know if the team batting second is on track is the run rate required (how many runs they need per over). If the first team scores 300 then the second team need 6 runs per over or 1 run every ball. You've got to also keep in mind that the batsman are in the top half of the order and the bowlers are down the bottom so the more outs you get the worse the batsman get and the harder it becomes. 6 per over is not particularly difficult towards the end of the game if you have outs in the bank. Something like 8-10 per over is quite a tough task and 10+ will require a pretty good performance. Again, the situation might change the difficulty of these scenarios.

pgm wrote:

Hang wrote:

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.

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.

A bowler can bowl at any stage of the match as long as it is not consecutive overs and may bowl later. The only limit is a bowler can only bowl 10 overs for the innings. Generally the better bowlers will open the innings (bowl in the first 10 overs) because you want to get off to a good start and utilise the new ball. The ball is very important in cricket (although less important in this format, this World Cup they are using two new balls, so one at each end) and the ball will swing as it wears and behave differently over time. The better bowlers will also try to close the innings (from 45-50) because the batsmen get a license to swing big at the end and you want to try and limit the runs then.

Quote:

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.

That gives me some sort of reference point, thanks.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

As someone who has tried to get into nearly every American sport and other sports, I can understand completely. On the surface, many sports seem so straightforward and it can be frustrating seeing a team not do something that you think looks easy. I think the easiest way is to watch it with a fan and ask questions as certain scenarios come up. It is quite a difficult sport to explain while not watching it.

Anpass · **Posted:** Mon Feb 16, 2015 1:20 pm

note to pgm, the batting strike rate is a critical element in limited overs cricket. And in bowling, but somewhat less so in limited overs. it just needs to be efficient.

so, a batter needs to be making as many runs as balls he has faced. if he is falling behind (and doing it slowly), start to worry. if he exceeds runs/balls alarmingly when he first starts off, be a little worried he will get out.

ODI lineup: 5 batsmen; 5 bowlers (minimum due to the 10 over limit); 1 keeper. But can be 4 bat; 4 bowl; 1 keeper; 2 all rounder. Or other mashup. What are the other mashups?

also, there is a limited number of new balls in ODI, no?

you won't learn a lot a lot about bowling in ODI and 20/20.

so, will nick be adding ireland to his international teams commentary?

Hang · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:04 am **Posts:** 3756

Australia played 3 bowlers, 3 all rounders, a keeper and 4 batsman against England.

There are two new balls this World Cup. One alternating from each end so the ball will never be more than 25 overs old.

Anpass · **Posted:** Wed Feb 18, 2015 12:20 am

making the runs when they count...
5.9 India's run-rate in the middle overs of an innings (overs 21 to 40) since 2013, the highest for any team. Among the Test nations, only Zimbabwe and Bangladesh score at less than five runs per over during this period of an ODI innings. http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-cricket ... 25491.html he, he, rahul's accent might be harding going for some.

he, he, india are good at chasing a large total cause their bowlers suck =] ... and they have fans wherever they play. well done mr smith for quasi racist commentary!

Nick · **Posted:** Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:03 am

England did well last night.

:godsave:

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

Jess · **Posted:** Fri Feb 20, 2015 9:54 am

My roommate is british and Indian so naturally he's a big cricket fan. I watched part of India v Pakistan with him as he explained the rules. I trolled him a little bit and kept confusing cricket for quidditch ("Right, I see, and so where does the seeker play?" And "ah so the bowlers must handle the bludgers. I think I'm starting to get it.") but I actually enjoyed it and my first impression was I like it more than baseball.

John G · **Posted:** Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:03 am

Nick wrote:

England did well last night.

:godsave:

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

brendon mccullum demolished england, and what was it, the last 6 england wickets for only 19 runs? whats going on nick, at this rate you'll be bringing back bob willis and beefy to try and retore some pride... :lol:

Hang · **Joined:** Mon Feb 28, 2011 11:04 am **Posts:** 3756

Rudy Rules · **Posted:** Sun Feb 22, 2015 3:34 pm

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

Nick · **Posted:** Sun Feb 22, 2015 6:15 pm

Kohli & Rahane are especially good. And Rayadu if he plays. I'm liking my flutter on India to win the tournie at 11/1 at the moment.

Yousha · **Posted:** Sun Feb 22, 2015 11:38 pm

Tim Southee's bowling the other day was just masterclass.

Also, I'm a little shocked by the India South Africa match. All those months in Australia paying off.

Quinnsy Lohan · **Posted:** Mon Feb 23, 2015 7:26 am

Rudy Rules wrote:

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

Maybe the only time anyone's been able to say that for more than 2 years

Couldn't believe the result when I saw it. Neither could my wallet. India bowled the other team out. Maybe john's right and global warming doesn't exist

John G · **Posted:** Tue Feb 24, 2015 7:54 am

Gayles double ton was ridiculous, 16 sixes... but he should have been out LBW first ball! :lol:

Cricket.

Who is online