Cricket: Are England improved?...

[Lobsang]

Or is it just that the West Indies are particularly bad lately?

Has This England side a chance of beating South Africa and Australia?

[lissener]

I know it's a convention of British English to use plural verbs for all group nouns, but doesn't a sentence that includes the word pair "are England" sound just a little bit retarded, even to you guys?

[Lobsang]

Sounds a bit strange but it is valid. Imagine 'England' to mean the team, not the country. The collection of players.


"Are the players in the cricket team of England"


"Is the players in the cricket team of England"

Version one is right.

[lissener]

Yes, version one is right because "players" is plural. There is only one team under discussion though, so, in American English, players are but team is.

I mean, it's not the case that "players" is the implied subject, like "you" is in "get the ball"; in "The team is home," there is no implied subject, there is an actual subject: team. I know that you're following British convention, but it's just wrong.

[Lobsang]

Ok. I've seen/heard it used by many a pundit.


Does it really look retarded though? To me it looks unique and that's why I phrased it like that.


Also "Is England improved" doesn't sound quite right. 'Are' was the best way to reword it without making it into a longer, less news-headliny title. I like news-headliny titles.

[Cicero]

England are impoving. However......

The West Indies side is the worst I have ever seen in a lot of years. They can at times pull off a performance which cons people into believing that they are back on track, but in batting, bowling, fielding, captaincy they are disgusting at all levels. Beating NZ was possible a better achievement, even allowing for it being at home and with NZ (again) not having Bond.

RSA have just lost to Sri Lanka. If it is agreed that Australia are tops for the moment, the second spot is quite open. Perhaps India, perhaps England....

England against Australia? Bob Willis has said that England has no chance. I think it will be competitive, but I'd still favour Australia. Giles and Harmison will find bowling to Ponting and co a different story, and Trescothick, Keys and Flintoff who have done well against the West Indies have previously been exposed against Australia.

Bring it on!

[Lobsang]

England against Australia?

Silly question obviously... But have they a chance of winning at least one test match?

When are the ashes?


When is the ashes?


(I like cricket when it's on but I am not keen enough to know things like that.)

And where?

[Cicero]

August 2005- England at home to Australia. England normally take a Test or two off Australia, so it should be a tight contest.

If I win Gold Lotto, I'll be there. :p

[Made in Macau]

I think England are an improved side - you can only beat what's in front of you - but in the past I think England would have beaten a poor side 2-1 or 3-1 - not 4-0.
So, I think the Windies are poor but England continue to improve.
The big tests will clearly be over the next 12 months.
My view - Giles has done well, but if they had a second high-quality spinner ....

[Duke]

I'm not going to start a rag with lissener, but "England are improved" is perfectly acceptable British English. As confirmed by all my rowdy friends over at the Oxford English Dictionary.

So, England. Yes, I think it's hard to judge their performance against the Windies, because, as Cicero says, the West Indies have been pretty horrible lately. Of more interest was England's 3-0 series win against New Zealand, because the Kiwis have been a reasonably good side of late. And even though the West Indies didn't play well, the mere fact that England secured the series sweep can't be ignored. I can't imagine the England of five or ten years ago completing the job. (Um, on preview, what Made in Macau said.)

Despite what Bob Willis said, I think England does have a chance. But they have to play to the best of their ability, while Australia has to be a little off, for it to happen. One thing is for certain: if Australia wins the first Test, the series might be over right off the bat. I'd foresee the English media turning on the team if they went down to defeat in the first match, and the old English self-doubt taking over from there. I also think they need to concentrate on what they've been doing well over the last seven Tests--namely, quality seam bowling--to have a chance against either South Africa this winter or Australia next year. It's not going to be often that the English have a glut of young seamers like Harmison, Anderson, and Jones; now they have to use them judiciously.

And no injuries this winter. That's critical.

[Lobsang]

I'd foresee the English media turning on the team if they went down to defeat in the first match

It doesn't help that the English media is owned by an Australian. :D



I don't think we English are the type to be put off by one Test match defeat when there are 5 more chances to win the series. Or maybe it's just me. When England is down one or two tests to Australia I for one sure root for the team to pull it back.

When they are losing it's still enjoyable to see the team get wickets and runs. Maybe that's the beauty of cricket - plenty of oportunity for the losing side to please the crowd.

[Lobsang]

P.S. Glad to know that "Are England improved" is acceptable. I was beginning to think I'd done a zoolander.



("school for kids who don't read good" or something like that)

[lissener]

No, as I said, I understand that it's standard British English. I wasn't saying you were retarded; I was saying standard British English is retarded.

[Gest]

American English has retained many features that the British variety has long discarded. In the dubious sense of retardation it's your version that suffers the impairment.

[lissener]

whuuuuuuuuuuuu . . . ?

[Avenger]

whuuuuuuuuuuuu . . . ?

He said "it's our bloody language, we'll do what we like with it" :mad:

Safety wink: ;)

[roger thornhill]

The tour to S. Africa will tell us a lot more about how good England are. The positive thing about the recent two series is that England have a good squad - cover in all positions, bar spin bowling, where the King of Spain (sic) has no peer.

As noted above, some of the batters may get found out against the Aussies, but I think Flintoff has turned the corner and is a different player now compared to 18 months ago. The bowling can be off for uncomfortably long periods, and the likes of Hayden and Ponting are likely to cash in if that is the case. Harmie and Flintoff have the technique and the temperament, but the back up seam/swing bowling at this level is not proven. Fielding too must continue to improve if England are to have a chance of regaining the Ashes.

But in Fletcher and Vaughan they have a good team. One thing for certain. If they do win the series, everyone will be saying that Oz are on the slide!

[Lobsang]

No, as I said, I understand that it's standard British English. I wasn't saying you were retarded; I was saying standard British English is retarded.

I didn't take it personally. But you did make me wonder if the title stook out to the majority American viewers.

[Tapioca Dextrin]

Fielding too must continue to improve if England are to have a chance of regaining the Ashes.

Did you see the catching in the last couple of days? Admittedly, I only heard it on the radio, but it sure sounded unbelievabley good.

[Francesca]

Stuck, not stook.

I only got into cricket last year, but I love it now. One things for sure: England are a much more exciting team than they used to be. I think the Ashes next year is going to be a real challenge, but I reckon we're at least in with a chance. If Freddie continues to improve I think he could do it for England.

I <3 Freddie.

[lissener]

I didn't take it personally. But you did make me wonder if the title stook out to the majority American viewers.
I think it probably does. "England are" would sound fundamentally wrong to most Americans, I think.

[Lobsang]

So I posted a retarded title, dumbly spelled a simple word, and then called the readers 'viewers'.

I think I must be regressing.

[roger thornhill]

Did you see the catching in the last couple of days? Admittedly, I only heard it on the radio, but it sure sounded unbelievabley good.
Robert Key took a blinder at short backward square, but later dropped another very sharp chance. Trescothick and Flintoff took good low catches at slip, but nothing extraordinary. Harmison rang in circles round a steepler at long leg. Didn't lay a hand on it. Jones-the-wicketkeeper has improved, while Vaughan's a dead-eyed dick shying at the stumps, but still drops some easy catches.

All in all, only Flintoff is top drawer catching-wise, and the mobility is not as good as the Aussies. But things are on the up.

[Lobsang]

Robert Key took a blinder at short backward square, but later dropped another very sharp chance. Trescothick and Flintoff took good low catches at slip, but nothing extraordinary. Harmison rang in circles round a steepler at long leg. Didn't lay a hand on it. Jones-the-wicketkeeper has improved, while Vaughan's a dead-eyed dick shying at the stumps, but still drops some easy catches.

All in all, only Flintoff is top drawer catching-wise, and the mobility is not as good as the Aussies. But things are on the up.

Like Francesca I am relatively new fan of cricket (although for more than one year) so I still have plenty to learn. I ask my step-father who's been a fan all his life but he tends to ramble and I end up forgetting the answer to what I asked.

What is the origin and meaning of all those terms I bolded?


Cricket is one of the many things I'm interested in now that I very much wish I had been interested in at school when I had the chance to join it's teams.

[Lobsang]

What is the origin and meaning of all those terms I bolded?


p.s. I know they are positions. I am just wondering what position each one refers to. And how they got those cryptic names.

[roger thornhill]

I'm no good on the origin of the names, but might be a bit of help on the positions.

You need to remember that positions are relative to whether the batsman is a right- or left-hander. At any one time there will be nine fieldsmen once you have discounted the bowler and wicketkeeper.

Most fast bowlers will bowl to a field that has the majority of fielders on the off side, usually 6 or 7. We call this an off-side field. There will be 4 or 5 fielders in catching positions behind the batsman's crease (also known as behind square) on the off side. These occupy the various slip positions, which are numbered to reflect their distance from the wicketkeeper, and the gullies. The precise determination of when a slip (say fifth slip) becomes a gully is rather arbitrary. Sometimes, as in the recent Test at the Oval, when Harmison was bowling to Lara, captain and bowler placed the slip fielders in a staggered formation, whereby there was a first slip, [no second slip], a third slip, [no fourth slip], and a fifth slip (or fine gully). Added to that, there was a wider gully. (Or there may have been three slips (1st, 3rd and 5th) and two gullies. I can't recall!

Sometimes, especially when a batsman is scoring freely or when a tailender who always edges the ball is in, the captain will want a fielder on the boundary behind where the slips would be, or indeed to cover the gap between the slips and gully he does have. This position - possibly the most crucial run-stopping position in the game - is called third man.

Moving round from gully (which, as a catching position, is a stationary position) you get cover point, traditionally the position where the team's best outfielder fields. Great exponents include a young David Gower and Jonty Rhodes of South Africa. Cover point is usually square of the wicket, i.e. the fielder is opposite the square leg umpire. Some people call this square cover. Moving round towards the bowler, you get extra cover and then mid off. Mid off is where traditionally the captain places himself so he can chat with the bowler. All cover fieldsmen walk in as the bowler is running up to bowl. They are called "one-saving" positions (as opposed to catching positions or boundary saving positions). An exception is when, as Lara did, a captain posts a fielder at short extra cover. In this case, he's about 20 yards from the bat and stationary.

Moving to the leg side (also called the on side), we have mid on (reflecting mid off), mid wicket (reflecting extra cover) and square leg (reflecting cover point). When a bowler lke Harmison is banging them in to the ribcage, or when a spinner is ripping it, you'll get the men with the helmet, box and shinguards close to the bat. On the leg side, it's short leg (forward short leg if it's in front of square and backward short leg if it's behind); on the off side, it's generally silly point if it's just in front of square and silly mid off if it's in a line with the straighter mid off. (If it's behind square, it's gully.)

Short backward square is analogous to wide gully on the off side, while leg gully is analogous to standard gully. Leg slip should be self-explanatory if you've followed me this far! The leg side equivalents of third man are fine leg and long leg. Fine leg is there for the fine deflection and is often posted for bowlers of Harmison's speed; it is on the boundary quite close to the line between bowler and wicketkeeper. Long leg is wider (or "squarer"), the default placing for medium pacers, as well as being commonly positioned for really fast bowlers when the batsman has decided to hook short pitched deliveries.

That leaves us with the other fielders on the boundary. Basically, you can just say "deep" whatever, for positions from third man on the off side to long leg on the leg side, with a couple of exceptions. Thus, deep cover, deep extra cover, long off, long on (the exceptions reflecting their more traditional ancestry), deep mid wicket, deep square leg and deep backward square (leg).

And the Americans say they can't understand the game. Tuh!

[robinc308]

Here's a link (http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Fielder) that describes the cricket positions and has a diagram, although roger thornhill has done a good job.

As for the OP, I think England are improving, and they haven't peaked yet, but I don't know that they'll be good enough to beat Australia in the ashes, even if it is on their home turf. I expect them to take one or two tests though, and be much more successful in playing out draws than they have in the past.

[roger thornhill]

I expect them to take one or two tests though, and be much more successful in playing out draws than they have in the past.

You know, I think draws are almost a thing of the past in modern test cricket, what with the fast scoring rates of teams like Oz (Hayden, Gilchrist etc) and with minimum over rates. With the series starting in late July, there may be a problem with the later tests in getting the full quota in, but if the weather is generally good, then I don't expect many drawn games. Maybe Edgbaston, and only if Thorpe is fit!

[Askance]

Yeah, if England go back to playing for draws they're dead men.

[Duke]

As for the origin of "slip," "short backward square," and "long leg": I recently picked up a copy of The Oxford Dictionary of Cricket (yes! really). "Slip" is called such because it's the position where balls that slip off the bat are caught. (What we now call "snicks"--when the ball just touches the bat on the way through--were called "slips" in the late 19th century, when a lot of these positions were first named.) "Short backward square" is a position relatively close (or "short") to the batsman, "backward" (behind an imaginary line drawn through the batting crease) of square leg (a position directly behind the batsman on the leg side). And "long leg" is a position a long way away from the batsman, again on the leg side of the field.

The most enlightening thing I learned from the Dictionary: "silly" in the 19th century also meant "defenseless." Thus "silly point," "silly mid-on," etc., were positions in which the field felt helpless.

[Duke]

Fielder, even.

[roger thornhill]

Interesting information, Duke. You can't beat the Oxford pedigree.