Jump to content

All Cricket All the Time


infrared41

Recommended Posts

I would have liked to have more of conversation about the cricket world cup with him (or her?) I watched a one-hour highlights package of Sunday's India -South Africa match and I was mesmerized by all the Indian fans in the stands and I didn't notice until now the stumps and bail on the wicket light up when they are struck.

OK, now that I know that, I'm going to have to take a look at this cricket. Anyone know if Jamaica has a team?

EDIT: MLB should look into bats and balls that light up. It might help pass the time during those boring 4 hour games - which, come to think of it, is pretty much every baseball game these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have liked to have more of conversation about the cricket world cup with him (or her?) I watched a one-hour highlights package of Sunday's India -South Africa match and I was mesmerized by all the Indian fans in the stands and I didn't notice until now the stumps and bail on the wicket light up when they are struck.

OK, now that I know that, I'm going to have to take a look at this cricket. Anyone know if Jamaica has a team?

EDIT: MLB should look into bats and balls that light up. It might help pass the time during those boring 4 hour games - which, come to think of it, is pretty much every baseball game these days.

From what I've read, the lights are a relatively new thing. I like that it makes the umpire's decision clearer.

Jamaica is a part of the West Indies team.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Indies_cricket_team

I would say, let's take this conversation to the cricket thread, but... ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fraser Davidson along with a few other people made a little animation that briefly explains the sport very well -- http://www.cubstudio.com/cricket-world-cup/

That was awesome.

I had a Jamaican hallmate in college that tried to explain cricket to us. I'm not sure if it was because he turned out to be a seriously weird (but very entertaining) fellow, or if it was his accent, but it turned into LOLapalooza after the word "wicketkeeper."

It's really not that complicated at all, especially if you're familiar with baseball. It's like how you can explain rugby or Aussie rules by using a lot of "well, it's like football, except..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on CCSLC, altogether now. Sing it loud and proud (skip to 50 seconds if you are impatient).

For the record: I do actually love cricket. But I know I would be wasting my time trying to convert a bunch of people with no interest. I learnt that by being a big fan of American sports and trying to explain them to my friends here in England.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.icc-cricket.com/cricket-world-cup/match/cwc-2015/15

Here's what I DON'T understand about cricket. What the hell is the D/L method? What is 372/2? Why do you have to break out calculators in order to figure out how many you have to score to win?

I'm not the biggest cricket fan in the world but here it goes.

372/2 means that they scored 372 points with 2 outs (or wickets) in the maximum 50 overs (300 pitches in baseball terms).

The D/L method in short is a formula they use when a match is ended early due to weather or other circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duckworth%E2%80%93Lewis_method

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes a little more sense. But is it 372 runs in 2 outs, or 372 runs with two outs remaining?

The first one. 372 runs with only 2 wickets for the one team when they were batting.
That... seems like a landslide, correct? Or is that why this (Double hundred? Double century? for the one batter) was such a big deal?

Aforementioned Jamaican hallmate posted this to Facebook. That's where all these questions arose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes a little more sense. But is it 372 runs in 2 outs, or 372 runs with two outs remaining?

The first one. 372 runs with only 2 wickets for the one team when they were batting.

... and those two wickets happened on the second ball, and the last ball... I had to let that sink in a bit. Almost the entire West Indies inning was a Gayle/Samuels partnership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes a little more sense. But is it 372 runs in 2 outs, or 372 runs with two outs remaining?

The first one. 372 runs with only 2 wickets for the one team when they were batting.
That... seems like a landslide, correct? Or is that why this (Double hundred? Double century? for the one batter) was such a big deal?
Yeah, something of a landslide. Could have been worse. But yeah, one guy scoring 200 runs is a game is pretty special. Even 100 runs in a game for one batsman is pretty rare and cause for celebration, from what I understand. Keep in mind, though, that the West Indies are a cricket powerhouse, while Zimbabwe is not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That makes a little more sense. But is it 372 runs in 2 outs, or 372 runs with two outs remaining?

The first one. 372 runs with only 2 wickets for the one team when they were batting.
That... seems like a landslide, correct? Or is that why this (Double hundred? Double century? for the one batter) was such a big deal?
Yeah, something of a landslide. Could have been worse. But yeah, one guy scoring 200 runs is a game is pretty special. Even 100 runs in a game for one batsman is pretty rare and cause for celebration, from what I understand. Keep in mind, though, that the West Indies are a cricket powerhouse, while Zimbabwe is not.

A powerhouse that somehow lost to Ireland ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. So 200 runs is analogous to, say, a 3 HR/10 RBI day at the plate in baseball.

This D/L method thing still seems weird to me. I read the match report and saw that Zimbabwe's innings were interrupted due to rain and didn't get to bat all 50 overs. So... they basically pro-rate the score and say "nice try, but you wouldn't have gotten there anyway?" In a game with no time limit and theoretically unlimited scoring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All in all cricket is a game that is hard to understand if you have never seen it, there are three forms of the game.

TEST Matches. or Test Cricket.

Goes for 5 days, weather permitting or one team demolishing the other.

Both sides must complete 2 innings each to decide the winner unless one side forces the other side to follow on (bat again if they are more than 200 runs behind.)

Both sides have 11 players that must all bat unless their side declares (ceases their innings)

90 overs of 6 official ball overs must be bowled in a day's play ( unofficial ball are wides, no balls and any other ball that is unplayable by the batter)

Play is broken into three segments, Morning, After Lunch, Afternoon.

There are only 10 countries that are in the top echelon.

Though slow the game can speed up if one side can smell victory, the Tests are similar to chess very back and forth.

One Dayers. Or One Day Intenationals up later

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. So 200 runs is analogous to, say, a 3 HR/10 RBI day at the plate in baseball.

This D/L method thing still seems weird to me. I read the match report and saw that Zimbabwe's innings were interrupted due to rain and didn't get to bat all 50 overs. So... they basically pro-rate the score and say "nice try, but you wouldn't have gotten there anyway?" In a game with no time limit and theoretically unlimited scoring?

Chris Gayle's innings of 215 was the first time a batsman has hit over 200 runs in a 50 over World Cup match. His strike rate (runs per bowl/pitch) was pretty special too getting to 200 runs in just 138 deliveries. It's not the first time this score has been made by a batsman in 50 overs and is also not the highest score ever but he's done it at a major tournament.

The D/L method is only used in limited overs cricket. So there is a time limit in a way (50 overs or 300 balls) you're not just batting defensively all day until you reach a score (eg Test Cricket mentioned by fumbler above). In limited overs cricket it is more about achieving a "run rate" per over than simply reaching a set score. A lot of the time you can tell whether a team is well ahead or behind the rate at a given point of their innings. The thinking is that to achieve a higher run rate you have to take more risks and are more likely to lose a wicket. The better batsmen are usually at the top of the lineup. The D/L takes all of this into account and assigns weighting to scores based on how many wickets were used/are remaining etc. It can be seen as quite complicated but in general is considered to be the most reliable system possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. So 200 runs is analogous to, say, a 3 HR/10 RBI day at the plate in baseball.

This D/L method thing still seems weird to me. I read the match report and saw that Zimbabwe's innings were interrupted due to rain and didn't get to bat all 50 overs. So... they basically pro-rate the score and say "nice try, but you wouldn't have gotten there anyway?" In a game with no time limit and theoretically unlimited scoring?

Chris Gayle's innings of 215 was the first time a batsman has hit over 200 runs in a 50 over World Cup match. His strike rate (runs per bowl/pitch) was pretty special too getting to 200 runs in just 138 deliveries. It's not the first time this score has been made by a batsman in 50 overs and is also not the highest score ever but he's done it at a major tournament.

The D/L method is only used in limited overs cricket. So there is a time limit in a way (50 overs or 300 balls) you're not just batting defensively all day until you reach a score (eg Test Cricket mentioned by fumbler above). In limited overs cricket it is more about achieving a "run rate" per over than simply reaching a set score. A lot of the time you can tell whether a team is well ahead or behind the rate at a given point of their innings. The thinking is that to achieve a higher run rate you have to take more risks and are more likely to lose a wicket. The better batsmen are usually at the top of the lineup. The D/L takes all of this into account and assigns weighting to scores based on how many wickets were used/are remaining etc. It can be seen as quite complicated but in general is considered to be the most reliable system possible.

Aha! This is starting to make sense now. And it's fascinating, really.

So, West Indies winning 372/2 to 289 isn't that big of a landslide, because this was a limited overs match. I was stuck on "wow! West Indies scored 372 in only 2 wickets, while Zimbabwe only scored 289 in all 10!" But really, how many wickets lost didn't matter as much (unless you go all out), because each side was only going to get 50 overs/300 balls anyway (compared to a Test match, where West Indies would've kept batting).

...right?

One (okay, probably more than one) more question. I'm looking at the scorecard from this match. An over is 6 balls, 50 overs in this match = 300 balls. Dwayne Smith is shown as (batting against? facing? not sure of the correct terminology) 2 balls, Chris Gayle 147, Marlon Samuels 156. That's 305. I understand the concept of extras (there were 24)... but why is the total number of balls 305, not 300?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are things called no balls and wides. A wide is where the ball was bowled either too wide or too high for the batsman to hit. This is denoted by lines on the ground and head height. A no ball is usually when the bowler fully oversteps the line but can also be called for other reasons. Each time there is a no ball or wide the bowler must bowl an additional ball to compensate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.