If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   Day two brought a batting collapse, an incredible last stand, a world record and some dubious umpiring decisions. So what will day three of the first Ashes test have to compete with that?   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 68
    More: Cool, England, Australia, hitter, Three Lions, Test Match Special, West Indies, Christmas Day, BBC Sport  
•       •       •

385 clicks; posted to Sports » on 12 Jul 2013 at 9:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



68 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-12 09:56:01 AM  
Been watching for this thread all morning. Let's go boys! Get some runs!

What do we reckon would be the minimum target for England before Oz' next innings? Current lead is 134, I'd love to see 250+.
 
2013-07-12 09:59:04 AM  
I knew a guy who took a job offer in England.  He was going to be there for three years.  He swore that he would leave understanding cricket.  When he came back, he said he still had no idea what the hell was going on, and that's after watching matches, talking to fans, and watching sports shows.

It is probably the most lingo-dense sport out there.  Hell, I downloaded Cricket Revolution on Steam to see if I could "get it."  I know some of the basics, but I'll be damned if I understand half of what that link tells me.
 
2013-07-12 10:11:01 AM  

jonathan_L: Been watching for this thread all morning. Let's go boys! Get some runs!

What do we reckon would be the minimum target for England before Oz' next innings? Current lead is 134, I'd love to see 250+.


I think a lead of 230 or so would be defendable. 250+ would be an excellent result from here. It depends completely on Bell and Prior staying together though, as there's not much batting talent after them.
 
2013-07-12 10:18:37 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: I knew a guy who took a job offer in England.  He was going to be there for three years.  He swore that he would leave understanding cricket.  When he came back, he said he still had no idea what the hell was going on, and that's after watching matches, talking to fans, and watching sports shows.

It is probably the most lingo-dense sport out there.  Hell, I downloaded Cricket Revolution on Steam to see if I could "get it."  I know some of the basics, but I'll be damned if I understand half of what that link tells me.


I understand the basics as well, especially in terms of the shorter versions of the sport. But I don't understand the strategy or decision making for the multi-day version like this.
 
2013-07-12 10:20:15 AM  

ThunderChild: It depends completely on Bell and Prior staying together though, as there's not much batting talent after them.


So much for that. :-(
 
2013-07-12 10:22:17 AM  
What are the numbers in parentheses after the batman's name?

eg:  Bell 48 (118)
 
2013-07-12 10:23:12 AM  

jonathan_L: What are the numbers in parentheses after the batman's name?

eg:  Bell 48 (118)


Never mind: looks like balls faced?
 
2013-07-12 10:37:37 AM  

jonathan_L: jonathan_L: What are the numbers in parentheses after the batman's name?

eg:  Bell 48 (118)

Never mind: looks like balls faced?


yep.

If you want to see fuller stats, check the text commentary from Cricinfo.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/the-ashes-2013/engine/current/match/5669 32 .html

You can toggle back and forth from the live action to the overall scorecard, etc.


I wish I understood placing of the fielders better.  Other than "put in slips and try to get a catch, and we don't care if the other team gets run", I don't get fielding strategy at all.
 
2013-07-12 10:44:58 AM  
And it's time for tea.
East Coast US = early lunch
West Coast US = take a shower
 
2013-07-12 10:50:11 AM  

jonathan_L: Never mind: looks like balls faced?


Yep, and the closer to a 1 to 1 ratio the better, and better than that ie more runs than balls faced is even better, though in test cricket it's rare. In ODI and Twenty20 where the limits on overs causes more aggressive batting you routinely see players with more runs than balls faced. In ODI the record for fewest balls faced for hitting a century, 100 runs, is 37. In test cricket the record for fastest century is 56 balls. And four players have scored fifty in less than 20 balls in ODI, hasn't happened in test cricket. Another measure of aggressive batting is the number of runs in an over, the test record is 28, the ODI record is 36, the maximum possible facing six balls. And five players have had 30 runs in an over in ODI.
 
2013-07-12 11:06:54 AM  

WhyteRaven74: jonathan_L: Never mind: looks like balls faced?

Yep, and the closer to a 1 to 1 ratio the better, and better than that ie more runs than balls faced is even better, though in test cricket it's rare. In ODI and Twenty20 where the limits on overs causes more aggressive batting you routinely see players with more runs than balls faced. In ODI the record for fewest balls faced for hitting a century, 100 runs, is 37. In test cricket the record for fastest century is 56 balls. And four players have scored fifty in less than 20 balls in ODI, hasn't happened in test cricket. Another measure of aggressive batting is the number of runs in an over, the test record is 28, the ODI record is 36, the maximum possible facing six balls. And five players have had 30 runs in an over in ODI.


You'll see statistics like "Eng RR" = average number of runs per over by England.  A good way to get a feel for how aggressive the batters are being.
 
2013-07-12 11:16:56 AM  

FrancoFile: You'll see statistics like "Eng RR" = average number of runs per over by England.  A good way to get a feel for how aggressive the batters are being.


Thanks Franc and Whyte. Great info.
 
2013-07-12 11:26:19 AM  

jonathan_L: Thanks Franc and Whyte. Great info.


One thing that is constant across all forms of cricket is that batsmen get aggressive whenever there is a no ball, which most simply put is an illegally bowled ball. Reason is on a no ball the numbers of ways to go out is reduced, so it becomes a free chance to really take a good hard swing. That is assuming the no ball is called early enough that the batter can react to the call. Also since a no ball results in one run being award to the batting team, it doesn't matter if the ball gets batted right to someone, not a waste of a swing.
 
2013-07-12 11:27:07 AM  

FrancoFile: I wish I understood placing of the fielders better. Other than "put in slips and try to get a catch, and we don't care if the other team gets run", I don't get fielding strategy at all.


You're trying to anticipate how the batsmen will hit or mis-hit the different bowling. When the ball is new and the bowling is fast, the batsman is very likely to deflect the ball back and to his off-side (where his bat is); so the slips and gullies are all back there to catch it - they're pretty far back because it's moving fast. When the bowling is slow and spinning the fielders huddle in around the batsman in case he fends it just into the air and forward - it won't go far unless he gets a really good hit, in which case they just let it go.

As the game goes on and a batsman settles in the strategy might have to change; you'll see the fielders start to spread out as they become less confident of getting the guy out and more concerned with stopping the ball reaching the boundary - and a more confident or aggressive batsman might hit big shots into the outfield that might be caught there.

There's a lot of analysis of each batsman and how he plays different bowling, his favourite shots are and where he tends to get out. Kevin Pieterson has a famous problem with left-arm spinners, so Ashton Agar was picked partly to psyche him out. Some of Agar's batting success yesterday reflects that England had never seen him bat before.

Now try to figure out how pitch conditions factor in...
 
2013-07-12 11:33:56 AM  
As for how aggressive ODI batting can get, in the 2006 Australia scored 434 runs to open the match against South Africa. South Africa responded by hitting for 438 runs. The whole match was just insane, with records set all over the place and performances that if not record breaking were certainly jaw dropping.
 
2013-07-12 11:35:17 AM  
It's all starting to settle down a bit now. England's run rate is pretty dire, but they've got two whole days left, so no reason to hurry. They should be pretty pleased with how things have gone so far today.

/Of course, the last time I posted, Aus took a wicket about 30 seconds later, so that could all change
 
2013-07-12 11:44:57 AM  
ENG is 201 ahead with 6 wickets remaining.  That might already be enough unless the Aussie batsmen bother to show up tomorrow.
 
2013-07-12 11:47:28 AM  

ThunderChild: It's all starting to settle down a bit now. England's run rate is pretty dire, but they've got two whole days left, so no reason to hurry. They should be pretty pleased with how things have gone so far today.

/Of course, the last time I posted, Aus took a wicket about 30 seconds later, so that could all change


Yeah, this partnership need to bat out the day, get at least 300 if not 320 for this innings.

Then tomorrow they push on and get an overall lead of 350 (which would be 415 for this innings) and bat until at least lunch, and hopefully tea.  I think they'd be confident they could bowl Australia out in the last day or day-and-a-half.
You can bowl 80-90 overs in a day during a Test match; Australia's first innings only lasted 65 overs.
 
2013-07-12 11:49:04 AM  

PowerSlacker: ENG is 201 ahead with 6 wickets remaining.  That might already be enough unless the Aussie batsmen bother to show up tomorrow.


6 wickets down.  only 4 remaining.
 
2013-07-12 11:54:10 AM  
I follow a fair bit of ODI on cricinfo, so I think I mostly understand the game at a reasonable level for an American.

But for Test matches, what does the "minimum overs remaining" indicate (up in the Run Rate section)?  It's Test, so that can't mean "if we don't get this far we go to Duckworth-Lewis."  It doesn't seem to mean "we're playing at least this many more today", because it was still a positive number at Stumps yesterday.  So what does that number mean?
 
2013-07-12 11:58:56 AM  

FrancoFile: PowerSlacker: ENG is 201 ahead with 6 wickets remaining.  That might already be enough unless the Aussie batsmen bother to show up tomorrow.

6 wickets down.  only 4 remaining.


Derp.  I need more coffee.
 
2013-07-12 12:01:39 PM  

TheEndIsNigh: I follow a fair bit of ODI on cricinfo, so I think I mostly understand the game at a reasonable level for an American.

But for Test matches, what does the "minimum overs remaining" indicate (up in the Run Rate section)?  It's Test, so that can't mean "if we don't get this far we go to Duckworth-Lewis."  It doesn't seem to mean "we're playing at least this many more today", because it was still a positive number at Stumps yesterday.  So what does that number mean?


In theory, 90 overs should be bowled each day in a test match.  Two overs are subtracted each time an innings ends (so that the teams can switch from batting to bowling and vice versa).

It was still positive yesterday because the over rate in this test match has been abysmal.  Even with an extra half hour they still couldn't get through the 88 overs.
 
2013-07-12 12:02:04 PM  

TheEndIsNigh: It doesn't seem to mean "we're playing at least this many more today", because it was still a positive number at Stumps yesterday. So what does that number mean?


That is what it means. The umpires will cut it short if the light is low, or add half an hour on the last day if there's a chance for a result (as opposed to a draw).
 
2013-07-12 12:03:23 PM  

TheEndIsNigh: I follow a fair bit of ODI on cricinfo, so I think I mostly understand the game at a reasonable level for an American.

But for Test matches, what does the "minimum overs remaining" indicate (up in the Run Rate section)?  It's Test, so that can't mean "if we don't get this far we go to Duckworth-Lewis."  It doesn't seem to mean "we're playing at least this many more today", because it was still a positive number at Stumps yesterday.  So what does that number mean?


Well, it's the number they are "supposed" to bowl for the rest of the day.
But they have these bizarre restrictions about "you can't play past 6:35 at this stadium", etc.  I think the TV contracts play into it too.

They actually fine the team captains in some matches if they don't bowl enough overs during the day.  In the ODI series in the West Indies that was just completed, one of the team captains got a 1-game ban because his team was too slow bowling their overs.  It usually happens because they have a predominance of 'fast' bowlers, who take those looooong run-ups before bowling.  Those guys remind me of the baseball pitchers who check each baserunner 6 times before they finally toss it at the batter.

There is no duckworth-lewis in multi-day cricket (either domestic or Test), as you surmised.

Check out some of the domestic 4-day games (English County Cricket) on Cricinfo - or listen to the BBC radio feeds.  I enjoy listening to Dave Callahan call the Yorkshire matches; he's got a nice, sonorous, deliberate tone of voice.  County Cricket is to Test cricket as MLS is to the World Cup, or NHL is to Olympic hockey.
 
2013-07-12 12:04:40 PM  
Clarke needs to bring himself on for a bowl here.
 
2013-07-12 12:11:28 PM  
Broad needs to smoke himself a bowl here.
 
2013-07-12 12:11:43 PM  
Thanks for all the explanations.
 
2013-07-12 12:12:00 PM  
another noob question.  what happens if australia is still trailing and isn't  out at the end of day 5?  draw?
is there some point where england would want to lay down to ensure that there is enough time to get australia out completely?
 
2013-07-12 12:16:22 PM  

johnny queso: another noob question.  what happens if australia is still trailing and isn't  out at the end of day 5?  draw?
is there some point where england would want to lay down to ensure that there is enough time to get australia out completely?


Yes, that would be a draw.  With two days left, that's not a likely outcome.  If England can bat for half of the day tomorrow though, they will want to declare their second innings over and try to get Australia out to win the match.
 
2013-07-12 12:17:08 PM  
sweet slide
 
2013-07-12 12:22:01 PM  
Warning for the English batters? For what?
 
2013-07-12 12:23:35 PM  

jonathan_L: Warning for the English batters? For what?


Running on the wrong part of the wicket (pitch) I would guess.
 
2013-07-12 12:24:56 PM  

Norfolking Chance: jonathan_L: Warning for the English batters? For what?

Running on the wrong part of the wicket (pitch) I would guess.


Correct.  You're not supposed to run on the area directly between the wickets, where the ball bounces as it's being bowled.
 
2013-07-12 12:25:19 PM  

Norfolking Chance: jonathan_L: Warning for the English batters? For what?

Running on the wrong part of the wicket (pitch) I would guess.


"Running on the pitch" was cricinfo's explanation.  That means specifically running on the dirt part where the bowler is supposed to bounce the ball, right?
 
2013-07-12 12:25:44 PM  

Norfolking Chance: jonathan_L: Warning for the English batters? For what?

Running on the wrong part of the wicket (pitch) I would guess.


Yep, and then a nice explanation from the commentator (right after my post, naturally). Apparently Australia gets 5 runs the next time it happens.
 
2013-07-12 12:26:05 PM  
Wow.  Aleem Dar needs to be investigated for match fixing after that decision.
 
2013-07-12 12:27:32 PM  

PowerSlacker: Wow.  Aleem Dar needs to be investigated for match fixing after that decision.


That was a big gift to England.
 
2013-07-12 12:27:48 PM  
And that ladies and gentlemen is why you don't waste your reviews on speculative stuff because when you do the umpire makes a howler and misses a simple catch
 
2013-07-12 12:28:18 PM  
Yeah what the hell was Aleem Dar looking at?
 
2013-07-12 12:29:24 PM  

Norfolking Chance: And that ladies and gentlemen is why you don't waste your reviews on speculative stuff because when you do the umpire makes a howler and misses a simple catch


That's true as well.  Always save one review for sheer umpiring incompetence.  Aleem Dar is so much better than that too.  Very suspicious.
 
2013-07-12 12:29:36 PM  
Why wouldn't the square leg umpire chime in on that?
 
2013-07-12 12:30:03 PM  
How was that not a wicket? Oh, wait, it was a wicket. It just wasn't called a wicket.
 
2013-07-12 12:31:05 PM  

macadamnut: Why wouldn't the square leg umpire chime in on that?


Actually scratch that. He would rule on whether it's a successful catch, not whether it'shiat the bat.
 
2013-07-12 12:31:49 PM  

aaronx: How was that not a wicket? Oh, wait, it was a wicket. It just wasn't called a wicket.


In other news, Angel Hernandez and Aleem Dar are the same person...
 
2013-07-12 12:31:50 PM  
Broad was about to walk off, too.
 
2013-07-12 12:33:03 PM  
Vaughan is right that the DRS should be initiated by the TV umpire.
 
2013-07-12 12:34:37 PM  
This would be the perfect moment for Koman Coulibaly to pop into a cricket thread.
 
2013-07-12 12:35:47 PM  

jonathan_L: This would be the perfect moment for Koman Coulibaly to pop into a cricket thread.


That would be a first for the greatest alt handle in the history of Fark.
 
2013-07-12 12:37:33 PM  

PowerSlacker: jonathan_L: This would be the perfect moment for Koman Coulibaly to pop into a cricket thread.

That would be a first for the greatest alt handle in the history of Fark.


I know it's too much to hope for, but it would make my weekend. Dude is awesome.
 
2013-07-12 12:38:21 PM  
Should Broad have walked there? He knew damn well he hit that. But I suppose that's the way the game is played these days - they've adopted the whole 'try and kid the umpire' attitude from soccer.
 
Displayed 50 of 68 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report