Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Cricket... the game, not the insect

  1. Top | #11
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    23,690
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,163
    Rep Power
    99
    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.

  2. Top | #12
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,739
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,489
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    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.

  3. Top | #13
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    23,690
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,163
    Rep Power
    99
    Quote Originally Posted by bigfield View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    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.

  4. Top | #14
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,739
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,489
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    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.

  5. Top | #15
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    23,690
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,163
    Rep Power
    99
    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.

  6. Top | #16
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The North
    Posts
    9,147
    Archived
    9,514
    Total Posts
    18,661
    Rep Power
    46
    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.

  7. Top | #17
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    23,690
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,163
    Rep Power
    99
    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?

  8. Top | #18
    the baby-eater
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Straya
    Posts
    3,739
    Archived
    1,750
    Total Posts
    5,489
    Rep Power
    36
    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.

  9. Top | #19
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    23,690
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    66,163
    Rep Power
    99
    If T20 pisses bilby off, he isn't going to like this...

    100 balls

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

  10. Top | #20
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,555
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,032
    Rep Power
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy Higgins View Post
    If T20 pisses bilby off, he isn't going to like this...

    100 balls

    Oh... don't worry, it is​ safe for work.
    Not if your boss likes test cricket, it's not.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •