General Cricket (not the chirpy kind) Discussion Thread

[Liventia]

Also, Kieron Pollard just smashed 66 off 27 balls (two 4s, EIGHT 6s) to help Mumbai Indians smash Sunrisers Hyderabad. Mumbai added 50 runs in the 17th and 18th overs to go from 117-3 to 167-3 chasing 179.

[Cyborg Holland]

Fine. Keep Prior at 6, drop Bresnan and put Bairstow at 7. Root opens at County level, and only batted 3 for the Lions because Carberry and Chopra are very much openers, whereas Root has the ability to bat anywhere from 1-6.

Sorry Tim...

I think you've left a gap there somewhere but I'm not sure. Who comes in for Bresnan?

Forgot to say that Compton would come in at 6. But I'm inclined to have him open, as he's never really batted so low down.

I like Bresnan, and with a batting average of 30 in tests, but I'm not sure that we'll need the four pacemen and Swann against New Zealand. We have the quality to remove New Zealand with four bowlers, and enough quality batsmen to secure runs.

It's annoying, because all 12 in the squad deserve to play, but someone's gotta miss out. My money's on Bresnan.

[DesAnges]

Ha. Well they only relied on three in NZ – Anderson, Finn, Broad. Though I suppose to be fair Bresnan wasn't fit for that.

And that series was a draw, IIRC. They struggled to get through NZ's batting line-up in two of the Tests.

I suppose that since the days of 4 seamers + Swann they've lost Strauss to retirement and Pietersen to long term injury. With Bell showing up with a score every time someone rolls a 6 and having only three other experienced, senior batsmen it makes sense to have 6 batsmen. In that case...

Hmm. It's a home series, so Broad has to play. Anderson's our best bowler, so he's in. Between Finn and Bresnan? Depends on the ground. At Lord's? I don't know. Probably Bresnan, his ability to swing it on the slope would be invaluable. Save Finn for Headingley where he can hit the ground hard.

[Cyborg Holland]

Also, Kieron Pollard just smashed 66 off 27 balls (two 4s, EIGHT 6s) to help Mumbai Indians smash Sunrisers Hyderabad. Mumbai added 50 runs in the 17th and 18th overs to go from 117-3 to 167-3 chasing 179.

Watching that... Poor Thisara Perera, went for 55, he's one of my favourite overseas players...

[Liventia]

I saw Finn at Lord's on the second day when we (Middlesex) played Surrey in the championship earlier this month and he was struggling. His match figures from that: 34-9-102-1 (economy 3.00). He hasn't been in the best of form at all this season.

[Cyborg Holland]

I saw Finn at Lord's on the second day when we (Middlesex) played Surrey in the championship earlier this month and he was struggling. His match figures from that: 34-9-102-1 (economy 3.00). He hasn't been in the best of form at all this season.

If I'm not mistaken, but I believe that Steve Finn always has a slow start to country seasons. The pitches are still soft, and often are damp, and his height and bounce advantage is negated. But as the pitches harden and dry out he'll start to get good.

[Liventia]

Things won't be too different this weekend at Lord's though, which was my point adding on to what Des mentioned earlier about maybe not using Finn at Lord's.

[Cyborg Holland]

Things won't be too different this weekend at Lord's though, which was my point adding on to what Des mentioned earlier about maybe not using Finn at Lord's.

mmmm...Don't use Finn and let Tim get some swing...

I've always had a soft spot for New Zealand. They've got serious batting talent (The old guard in Taylor & McCullum, and several quality new batsmen in Rutherford (whom I seriously rate), Fulton, Watling and Williamson) and a bowling attack which showed that they could give the England order some serious trouble. It's just a shame that they're ranked so low, only Zimbabwe and Bangladesh beneath them, they really don't deserve it. Also they have a good left-armer in Trent Boult.

[DesAnges]

Things won't be too different this weekend at Lord's though, which was my point adding on to what Des mentioned earlier about maybe not using Finn at Lord's.

mmmm...Don't use Finn and let Tim get some swing...

I've always had a soft spot for New Zealand. They've got serious batting talent (The old guard in Taylor & McCullum, and several quality new batsmen in Rutherford (whom I seriously rate), Fulton, Watling and Williamson) and a bowling attack which showed that they could give the England order some serious trouble. It's just a shame that they're ranked so low, only Zimbabwe and Bangladesh beneath them, they really don't deserve it. Also they have a good left-armer in Trent Boult.

They'll start building on that rankings base soon, they have to. As will Bangladesh I suspect.

For the first Test, should have Anderson and Bresnan bending the ball sideways and leave the blood and glory to Broad. Lord's was notorious for us for years against the medum-pace of the Aussies et al, let's reclaim the place for a good long while. Finn can split the deck against Headingley, that's always a good hard wicket.

You know who I miss? Simon Jones. Now there was a bowler that could swing a ball.

[Cyborg Holland]

mmmm...Don't use Finn and let Tim get some swing...

I've always had a soft spot for New Zealand. They've got serious batting talent (The old guard in Taylor & McCullum, and several quality new batsmen in Rutherford (whom I seriously rate), Fulton, Watling and Williamson) and a bowling attack which showed that they could give the England order some serious trouble. It's just a shame that they're ranked so low, only Zimbabwe and Bangladesh beneath them, they really don't deserve it. Also they have a good left-armer in Trent Boult.

They'll start building on that rankings base soon, they have to. As will Bangladesh I suspect.

For the first Test, should have Anderson and Bresnan bending the ball sideways and leave the blood and glory to Broad. Lord's was notorious for us for years against the medum-pace of the Aussies et al, let's reclaim the place for a good long while. Finn can split the deck against Headingley, that's always a good hard wicket.

You know who I miss? Simon Jones. Now there was a bowler that could swing a ball.

Reverse-swing just annhialated the Aussies in 2005

[Liventia]

Matt Prior has just been named England Cricketer of the Year (Katherine Brunt Woman Cricketer of the Year) at the ECB awards.

[Mollary]

G'wan Somerset!

[Phocidaea]

What would you do if Arthur Dent showed up on the pitch?

That's all I know about cricket, other than the fact that it is possibly the most stereotypically British thing I can think of, surpassing even -our, -re, the queen, and tea and crumpets.

[Cyborg Holland]

Matt Prior has just been named England Cricketer of the Year (Katherine Brunt Woman Cricketer of the Year) at the ECB awards.

Bloody good for Matt. Quality batsman and quality gloveman, and a brilliant match-saving innings against the Kiwis. However, perhaps it should have gone to Cook, considering all the runs he's scored...well, everywhere...

[Disserbia]

Games take centuries...

[Liventia]

Games take centuries...

Says someone who has clearly never watched a twenty20, or any cricket for that matter, so why comment here? I don't see anyone going to the MLB thread and making snide remarks about baseball (which is a sport I love too).

[Phocidaea]

Games take centuries...

Says someone who has clearly never watched a twenty20, or any cricket for that matter, so why comment here? I don't see anyone going to the MLB thread and making snide remarks about baseball (which is a sport I love too).

Baseball takes forever too. So does American football, and rugby isn't much better. Really, the only popular (televised) team sports that don't take forever and ever are soccer (that's football for you Europeans) and, to a much lesser extent, basketball. With soccer, because once you get to the big leagues they hardly stop the game for anything. I think if the goalkeeper's head fell off they would just keep playing until they would replace him normally.

[Cyborg Holland]

Says someone who has clearly never watched a twenty20, or any cricket for that matter, so why comment here? I don't see anyone going to the MLB thread and making snide remarks about baseball (which is a sport I love too).

Baseball takes forever too. So does American football, and rugby isn't much better. Really, the only popular (televised) team sports that don't take forever and ever are soccer (that's football for you Europeans) and, to a much lesser extent, basketball. With soccer, because once you get to the big leagues they hardly stop the game for anything. I think if the goalkeeper's head fell off they would just keep playing until they would replace him normally.

Rugby is 80 minutes, Football is 90 :/

[Phocidaea]

Baseball takes forever too. So does American football, and rugby isn't much better. Really, the only popular (televised) team sports that don't take forever and ever are soccer (that's football for you Europeans) and, to a much lesser extent, basketball. With soccer, because once you get to the big leagues they hardly stop the game for anything. I think if the goalkeeper's head fell off they would just keep playing until they would replace him normally.

Rugby is 80 minutes, Football is 90 :/

Oh, right. Rugby is like American football played on a European football timetable.

I was trying to make a point, though - that American football takes forever. Just to point out that there are a lot of slow sports, not just cricket.

[DesAnges]

What would you do if Arthur Dent showed up on the pitch?

That's all I know about cricket, other than the fact that it is possibly the most stereotypically British thing I can think of, surpassing even -our, -re, the queen, and tea and crumpets.

Stick around and learn a little then.

I'll start ye off - Cricket teams have 11 players each (fun fact - organised association football started in the UK as a way of keeping cricket teams together through the winter - hence the 11 players). There are 3 primary roles players can perform, that of bowler, batsman and wicketkeeper. Bowler balls and tries to take wickets and keep runs down, batsmen tries to stay in and score runs, and the wicketkeeper aids the bowler by standing behind the wicket - which is formed by three long, upright 'stumps' and two short crosspieces or 'bails'. If your side is bowling and you are neither the wicketkeeper nor the bowler you are a fielder.

Batsmen can be gotten out in 10 different ways - the most common of which are to be bowled (whereupon the bails are dislodged from the stumps by a ball from the bowler - the bails must be dislodged for the batsman to be out), caught (where a player catches the ball after it has struck the batsman's bat or gloves (although the gloves must be touching the bat) without it hitting the floor) and LBW (which stands for leg before wicket. This one is pretty complicated, I'd suggest looking at Wikipedia). Prize to the man who can name the other 7.

The distance from wicket to wicket is 22 yards, and to score a 'run', a batsman must start with either bat or body part starting in one crease and place either bat or body part into the crease at the other end. If he does not, or if he or his partner are given out in some way, it does not count. A batsman may also get 4 runs by hitting the ball over the boundary rope with the ball having touched the ground, or a 6 (or maximum) if the ball does not bounce before it crosses the rope - both of these are known as boundaries. There are also rare occasions when 5 'penalty runs' can be awarded.

The basic form of timekeeping in cricket is an over, which is usually formed of 6 bowls/balls. Extra bowls are added for a no-ball, an infraction a bowler can incur in a number of ways, the most usual of which is by overstepping the crease from which he bowls, and a wide, which is given when the ball passes the batsman at a distance deemed too far away or too high by the umpire. If the batsman hits the ball, it cannot be a wide.

AFAIK you cannot be given out from a no-ball but I am by no means certain on all forms of being given out, the same runs true for wides.

There are 3 main forms of the international game, Test, One Day International (ODI), and Twenty20.

A Test Match last for 5 days, generally around 8 hours a day (during which time it is expected that 96 overs are bowled. This isn't always possible due to innings changes etc. but if a side is deemed to have a slow over/hour rate they are punished in some way (I cannot remember what the punishment is).

A Test Match innings lasts for as long as it takes for the batting side to lost 10 of their 11 batsmen, be that through injury or loss of wicket. Once they are all out, they bowl at the other team. Both sides get a maximum of two innings each, and the team with the most total runs for the game after all 4 innings wins (although it is possible to win in 3 if you outscore your opponent's two innings in one).

An ODI consists of 50 overs each, most runs wins. Pretty simple stuff. If you don't reach the total set in the 50 overs, you lose.

Twenty20 cricket is a new form of the game in which each side gets only 20 overs each. This is seen as somewhat vulgar by purists as it removes a lot of the skillset required for Test cricket and requires only that you can hit a lot of boundaries.

That about covers the basics, I think.

[Disserbia]

Games take centuries...

Says someone who has clearly never watched a twenty20, or any cricket for that matter, so why comment here? I don't see anyone going to the MLB thread and making snide remarks about baseball (which is a sport I love too).

I never said I didn't like it I said it takes awhile, though the longer it takes, the more beer for mah belleh. Also calm the fuck down, man.

[DesAnges]

Games take centuries...

And centuries take games - usually.

[Liventia]

Prize to the man who can name the other 7.

Stumped, run out (the next two most common); hit wicket, hit the ball twice, handled the ball, obstructing the field, timed out

AFAIK you cannot be given out from a no-ball but I am by no means certain on all forms of being given out, the same runs true for wides.

You can't be given out in either case only in a caught/bowled/stumped/lbw situation. You can be run out if you choose to run on a no-ball or wide.

[DesAnges]

Prize to the man who can name the other 7.

Stumped, run out (the next two most common); hit wicket, hit the ball twice, handled the ball, obstructing the field, timed out

AFAIK you cannot be given out from a no-ball but I am by no means certain on all forms of being given out, the same runs true for wides.

You can't be given out in either case only in a caught/bowled/stumped/lbw situation. You can be run out if you choose to run on a no-ball or wide.

Your prize is my approval.

And I wasn't sure on the run out point for no balls. Wides I was more certain on.

[Cyborg Holland]

Stumped, run out (the next two most common); hit wicket, hit the ball twice, handled the ball, obstructing the field, timed out

You can't be given out in either case only in a caught/bowled/stumped/lbw situation. You can be run out if you choose to run on a no-ball or wide.

Your prize is my approval.

And I wasn't sure on the run out point for no balls. Wides I was more certain on.

I believe you can also be stumped off a wide...at least I have been...