Straight Dope Message Board

[Cabin_Fever]

From my limited exposure to the sport, it is a sort of, kind of, like USA baseball. Hit a ball with a stick. From there, I am totally lost. I would do a Wiki search, but probably end up more confused than ever.

In layman's terms, what is going on here.

(I enjoy watching, but am totally clueless about it). 1

[AK84]

One team bats, and tries to score. The other team fields and tries to stop them from scoring. And get the batters out.
Then the teams change over. The other side bats and tries to score.
Team with most runs wins.


Unless it’s England in a World Cup Final. 2

[DPRK]

In really abstract terms, that is exactly what is going in: hit the ball with the stick. You can see how such games might originate organically and continue to be popular over centuries, including among kids.

Proceeding from there, one team bats while the other fields, and the first team tries to score runs while the other team tries to get all their batters out. Kind of like baseball Some obvious differences are, there are two batsmen out on the pitch instead of one like in baseball, there are a couple of wickets rather than "bases", and there isn't a "strike zone" like there is in baseball. Also, the scores will be way higher, and test matches can last for days (a bit hard-core compared to a baseball game which might be over in a couple of hours) 3

[DPRK]

Originally Posted by AK84

Team with most runs wins.


Unless it’s England in a World Cup Final.

lol 4

[Mk VII]

Most matches will not be 'test' matches these days, and various modified versions of the game, designed to finish in a day, have been marketed in recent years to try to improve the amount of interest in the game from millennials. Hardcore fans will be rather sniffy about these. The Packer Cricket Circus (as the British press invariably called it ) in the 1970s was the start of this trend, and while Packer's venture did not endure many of the innovations he started did. 5

[PatrickLondon]

The traditional explanation for foreigners is this

However, as a non-enthusiast, it seems to me that the appeal is in the not-quite-infinite variables of skill when there are eleven players on each side, and what they can do with variable pitch conditions. This offers no end of tactical choices, not only to team captains deciding the order of bowling or batting, and who fields where, but also to individual bowlers and batsmen facing each other. And the number of possible outcomes to those choices is even bigger.

It can be played in various formats: enough for a single afternoon village match where the mid-match tea may be more important to many, or at the international ("test match") level over five days, where the ups and downs for both sides can keep the spectators guessing. Sometimes it's a complete whitewash for one side or the other, sometimes it all depends on the last ball to be played. It's not uncommon for the choice to be whether to play safe for a draw, or be bold and aim for a winner that might actually risk losing.

There's a breathless hush in the Close to-night—
Ten to make and the match to win—
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play and the last man in.
And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,
But his captain's hand on his shoulder smote
'Play up! play up! and play the game! '
6

[penultima thule]

Originally Posted by AK84

Unless it’s England in a World Cup Final.

This is true.

England are the current holders of the Cricket World Cup.

The last nation to win the Cricket World Cup was Australia in 2015 7

[Iggy]

There are some stark differences to American baseball.

• The batsman does not have to run if he hits the ball.
• The batsman stands in front of a wicket composed of three vertical stumps (sticks) with short bails balanced horizontally on top of the stumps. The runner stands if front of the other wicket. There is a line drawn on the ground in front of each wicket. The line is perpendicular to the line from one wicket to the other.
• Each time the batsman exchanges places with the runner a run is scored. They can try to score more than once upon each time the batsman hits the ball.
• The playing field is 360 degrees from the batsman. There is no foul territory as in American baseball.
• There is a boundary to the field somewhat analogous to the outfield fence at an American baseball field. The boundary is often marked on the ground by a rope.
• If a batsman hits the ball over the boundary on the fly in any direction then the batsman scores 6 runs.
• If the batsman hits the ball to the boundary on the ground in any direction then the batsman scores four runs.
• There are no balls and strikes as in American baseball.
• The batsman is not required to swing at a bowled ball.
• If the bowled ball hits the wicket knocking the bail off then the batsman is out (dismissed, in cricket parlance), so the batsman has a strong incentive to swing at any ball that is somewhat close since he only need deflect it from hitting the wicket. Again, the batsman is not required to run.
• The batsman cannot block the wicket with his body. If a bowled ball hits the batsman and the umpire judges that it would have hit the wicket had it not been blocked by the batsman's body then the batsman is dismissed. (Leg before wicket).
• The batsman is dismissed if a fielder catches a batted ball on the fly.
• The batsman or runner is dismissed if the batsman and runner choose to run to attempt to score runs and the fielding team catches the ball and then throws it and hits the wicket before the batsman (or runner) touch the ground beyond line in front of the wicket. The batsman may touch his bat to the ground there to be considered safe (not out).
• There are a plethora of other means by which a batsman may be dismissed and cricket purists seem to glory in the trivia of what constitutes a dismissal.
• Six consecutive legal pitches constitute an over.
• Some formats of the game continue until each team bowls the same number of overs. (e.g. 20/20 cricket) while some continue until each batsman for a team has been dismissed. This can result in a match lasting a couple of hours or continuing for a few days (a Test Match).
• The same team continues at bat until all of their batsman have been dismissed and then the teams switch position and the second team bats. The time at which one team is continuously at bat is referred to as their Innings. None of the American baseball style of 3 outs to an inning.

8

[bob++]

"Runs" are scored by either the two bats(wo)men running the length of the wicket (22 yards) or when the bats(wo)man hits the ball over the boundary for four or six.

Kids can play using a plank of wood for a bat, a tennis ball and three lines on a wall for a wicket. 9

[Cabin_Fever]

Originally Posted by Iggy

There are some stark differences to American baseball.

• The batsman does not have to run if he hits the ball.
• The batsman stands in front of a wicket composed of three vertical stumps (sticks) with short bails balanced horizontally on top of the stumps. The runner stands if front of the other wicket. There is a line drawn on the ground in front of each wicket. The line is perpendicular to the line from one wicket to the other.
• Each time the batsman exchanges places with the runner a run is scored. They can try to score more than once upon each time the batsman hits the ball.
• The playing field is 360 degrees from the batsman. There is no foul territory as in American baseball.
• There is a boundary to the field somewhat analogous to the outfield fence at an American baseball field. The boundary is often marked on the ground by a rope.
• If a batsman hits the ball over the boundary on the fly in any direction then the batsman scores 6 runs.
• If the batsman hits the ball to the boundary on the ground in any direction then the batsman scores four runs.
• There are no balls and strikes as in American baseball.
• The batsman is not required to swing at a bowled ball.
• If the bowled ball hits the wicket knocking the bail off then the batsman is out (dismissed, in cricket parlance), so the batsman has a strong incentive to swing at any ball that is somewhat close since he only need deflect it from hitting the wicket. Again, the batsman is not required to run.
• The batsman cannot block the wicket with his body. If a bowled ball hits the batsman and the umpire judges that it would have hit the wicket had it not been blocked by the batsman's body then the batsman is dismissed. (Leg before wicket).
• The batsman is dismissed if a fielder catches a batted ball on the fly.
• The batsman or runner is dismissed if the batsman and runner choose to run to attempt to score runs and the fielding team catches the ball and then throws it and hits the wicket before the batsman (or runner) touch the ground beyond line in front of the wicket. The batsman may touch his bat to the ground there to be considered safe (not out).
• There are a plethora of other means by which a batsman may be dismissed and cricket purists seem to glory in the trivia of what constitutes a dismissal.
• Six consecutive legal pitches constitute an over.
• Some formats of the game continue until each team bowls the same number of overs. (e.g. 20/20 cricket) while some continue until each batsman for a team has been dismissed. This can result in a match lasting a couple of hours or continuing for a few days (a Test Match).
• The same team continues at bat until all of their batsman have been dismissed and then the teams switch position and the second team bats. The time at which one team is continuously at bat is referred to as their Innings. None of the American baseball style of 3 outs to an inning.

Whew! More than I can digest at this early morning hour, but explains a lot. Thanks, but I am even more confused. Where did all these rules develop? Sounds like a committee just made them up to complicate it all. I enjoy watching, but still puzzled by all of it. The television commentators don't help. They assume me, the viewer, knows what they are talking about. 10

[Cabin_Fever]

Thanks to all for explaining Cricket to me. Not a common sport here in the USA, so I am totally ignorant of the game, but it is fun to watch on the few channels here that broadcast the matches. Beside learning new words to add to my vocabulary, I would love to go see a live event in person. If for no other reason than to get a bit rowdy cheering the wrong team on. 11

[Stanislaus]

Originally Posted by Cabin_Fever

Whew! More than I can digest at this early morning hour, but explains a lot. Thanks, but I am even more confused. Where did all these rules develop? Sounds like a committee just made them up to complicate it all. I enjoy watching, but still puzzled by all of it. The television commentators don't help. They assume me, the viewer, knows what they are talking about.

The rules developed the same way rules develop in every other sport. Over time, as people play the game, rules are added and tweaked to keep it a) fair and b) interesting. Some are more complex. Some are simple. It's probably easier to help if you pick one or two you are having trouble with and we can try to explain them. I'm assuming, for example, that you're OK with the idea that batter is out if the ball is caught, or if the bowler hits the wickets. LBW might be trickier (and it is more complex) but it developed like this:

Back in the 18th century, cricket was played with a hard ball and no protective equipment. Bowlers tried to knock down the stumps, batters tried to defend them. It was open to batters to try to use their feet or legs rather than the bat to protect the stumps, but they didn't. The ball is hard, blows to the shin really hurt and tend to affect your ability to run.
However, just because batters didn't try to get their legs in the way of the ball didn't mean they didn't get hurt by accident. So they started wearing pads. Once they had pads, it became much less costly to block the ball with the body rather than the bat. So batters did. This made the game unfair and boring. So the governing body of cricket made a rule to the effect that you couldn't block the ball with your legs. There are some technicalities regarding where the ball bounces and where it makes contact with the batter, but all you really need to understand is that if the ball was going to hit the wicket but was blocked by the batters body, the batter is out.

But again, if you pick something you've seen but don't understand it'll be easier to explain a concrete example. 12

[Cabin_Fever]

Originally Posted by PatrickLondon

The traditional explanation for foreigners is this

However, as a non-enthusiast, it seems to me that the appeal is in the not-quite-infinite variables of skill when there are eleven players on each side, and what they can do with variable pitch conditions. This offers no end of tactical choices, not only to team captains deciding the order of bowling or batting, and who fields where, but also to individual bowlers and batsmen facing each other. And the number of possible outcomes to those choices is even bigger.

It can be played in various formats: enough for a single afternoon village match where the mid-match tea may be more important to many, or at the international ("test match") level over five days, where the ups and downs for both sides can keep the spectators guessing. Sometimes it's a complete whitewash for one side or the other, sometimes it all depends on the last ball to be played. It's not uncommon for the choice to be whether to play safe for a draw, or be bold and aim for a winner that might actually risk losing.

There's a breathless hush in the Close to-night—
Ten to make and the match to win—
A bumping pitch and a blinding light,
An hour to play and the last man in.
And it's not for the sake of a ribboned coat,
Or the selfish hope of a season's fame,
But his captain's hand on his shoulder smote
'Play up! play up! and play the game! '

Still sounds like North American baseball. Just with extra 'rules'. Wish I had someone to take me to a live event and talk me through the strategy and all. 13

[bob++]

All competitive sport is governed by a whole plethora of rules, many of them arcane. Try golf; just a walk in the park while whacking a small ball into holes in the ground? (https://www.randa.org/en/rog/2019/pa...-rules-of-golf) or baseball (http://mlb.mlb.com/documents/0/8/0/2...ball_Rules.pdf)

I suppose that the original game was pretty simple. A bunch of kids, with a piece of wood and a ball, were probably the beginning of the game and it had spread to adults by the seventeenth century; not surprisingly gambling was involved and that meant - rules. As it became more competitive, people would push the limits; for example, there were few rules about the size and shape of the bat at first, so naturally, someone turned up with a bat wider than the wicket. 14

[Cabin_Fever]

Originally Posted by Stanislaus

The rules developed the same way rules develop in every other sport. Over time, as people play the game, rules are added and tweaked to keep it a) fair and b) interesting. Some are more complex. Some are simple. It's probably easier to help if you pick one or two you are having trouble with and we can try to explain them. I'm assuming, for example, that you're OK with the idea that batter is out if the ball is caught, or if the bowler hits the wickets. LBW might be trickier (and it is more complex) but it developed like this:

Back in the 18th century, cricket was played with a hard ball and no protective equipment. Bowlers tried to knock down the stumps, batters tried to defend them. It was open to batters to try to use their feet or legs rather than the bat to protect the stumps, but they didn't. The ball is hard, blows to the shin really hurt and tend to affect your ability to run.
However, just because batters didn't try to get their legs in the way of the ball didn't mean they didn't get hurt by accident. So they started wearing pads. Once they had pads, it became much less costly to block the ball with the body rather than the bat. So batters did. This made the game unfair and boring. So the governing body of cricket made a rule to the effect that you couldn't block the ball with your legs. There are some technicalities regarding where the ball bounces and where it makes contact with the batter, but all you really need to understand is that if the ball was going to hit the wicket but was blocked by the batters body, the batter is out.

But again, if you pick something you've seen but don't understand it'll be easier to explain a concrete example.

Thank you. I may do that. I truly want to understand this game. I enjoy watching on TV, but totally clueless about just everything about the whole game. 15

[bob++]

Originally Posted by Cabin_Fever

Still sounds like North American baseball. Just with extra 'rules'. Wish I had someone to take me to a live event and talk me through the strategy and all.

Whenever I have been to see a match, I have watched from the stand and followed the game on the radio. The commentators have a better view and a better understanding of what is going on than I ever could. 16

[engineer_comp_geek]

Moderator Action

Moving thread from GQ to the Game Room. 17

[Shearer]

1) Teams play just one inning (instead of 9)

2) Home-Run hits are awarded 6 runs (4 if it bounces or rolls and makes it to the end)

3) You can punt and not run. So, batters use this as a defense strategy.

4) The entire field is available to hit.

5) Batters have to get out to be replaced.

6) Pitchers change after every 6 pitches.

7) Outs are more valuable than Runs. 18

[don't ask]

Originally Posted by Cabin_Fever

Thank you. I may do that. I truly want to understand this game. I enjoy watching on TV, but totally clueless about just everything about the whole game.

You could try following the bigger matches at the same time on https://www.espncricinfo.com/scores/ Here is a link to the commentary for the First Test of the current Ashes series - England vs Australia. It will provide you with an ongoing live text summary of what is happening. Some of the conversation about different events may further your knowledge. Or confuse you more. 19

[The Stafford Cripps]

Originally Posted by Shearer

1) Teams play just one inning (instead of 9)

2) Home-Run hits are awarded 6 runs (4 if it bounces or rolls and makes it to the end)

3) You can punt and not run. So, batters use this as a defense strategy.

4) The entire field is available to hit.

5) Batters have to get out to be replaced.

6) Pitchers change after every 6 pitches.

7) Outs are more valuable than Runs.

Each team gets 2 innings in matches that are played over a few days. Fours are far more common than sixes in longer games. 20

[Novelty Bobble]

Just to expand on a couple of things

Originally Posted by Shearer

1) Teams play just one inning (instead of 9)

In the Test form of the game (i.e. the 5 day version) both teams have 2 innings

5) Batters have to get out to be replaced.

not strictly true

Retired (cricket) In cricket, a batsman may retire from his innings any time when the ball is dead and be replaced by a teammate who is yet to be dismissed. ... If the batsman is ill or injured they are considered "retired - not out" and may be able to return to batting if they recover by the end of the innings.

7) Outs are more valuable than Runs.

debatable. In order to win in the 5-day format you do need to bowl the opposition out twice (or have them declare their innings over), to win in the shorter form you don't. a team scoring 200 for the loss of only one wicket is beaten by the team scoring 201 for the loss of nine wickets. 21

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by Iggy

There are some stark differences to American baseball.

There are no balls and strikes as in American baseball.

A little punctuation might be helpful here i.e.

There are no "balls" and "strikes" as in American baseball.

useful to be clear on that because there is such a thing as a "no ball" in cricket. The umpire might deem a delivery a "no ball" if the bowler oversteps the delivery crease with their front foot (other rules for no balls also exist). In that case the ball is dead, the batting team gets a free run added to their score and the ball has to be bowled again, in some forms of cricket the batsman may even be given a "free hit" which is exactly what it sounds like. They can hit the next ball without any fear of being given out.

So that's how cricket handles illegal deliveries but you are absolutely allowed to aim for the batsman's body and head, that's all withing the rules and is considered an art in itself. A good "bouncer" is a thing of beauty, as is the balletic avoidance of it. 22

[Xema]

Originally Posted by Iggy

There are some stark differences to American baseball.

• The batsman is dismissed if a fielder catches a batted ball on the fly.
• The batsman or runner is dismissed if the batsman and runner choose to run to attempt to score runs and the fielding team catches the ball and then throws it and hits the wicket before the batsman (or runner) touch the ground beyond line in front of the wicket. The batsman may touch his bat to the ground there to be considered safe (not out).
• There are a plethora of other means by which a batsman may be dismissed and cricket purists seem to glory in the trivia of what constitutes a dismissal.

Note that the first of these is identical to baseball.

The second is quite similar to a force play in baseball.

The third also matches baseball: Check the "Ways of Making Outs" list on this Wiki page (which has over 30 entries). 23

[mhendo]

Folks here have done a pretty good job of explaining the key differences in the rules and mechanisms of the game, but what these differences also lead to is a fundamental difference in the nature of the two games. Both are about hitting a ball with a stick, but the pressures of the game work in different ways.

In baseball, the immediate, play-by-play pressure is heavily weighted on the pitcher. That is, in any given at-bat, the pitcher is expected to succeed, and if he doesn't it can have huge consequences for his team's chances to win the game. By contrast, the hitter is baseball is, by simple dint of the way the game works, expected to fail. We all know the stats: even the best hitters in the world only get a base hit about once every three tries, and the best get on base less than half the time, on average. I'm not arguing that hitters feel no pressure, or that they don't expect to succeed when they come to the plate, but they get multiple chances per game, and their performance is judged based on their aggregate performance rather than any single at-bat. If a hitter comes up in a big situation, and gets out, his team and fans are disappointed, but they also realize that this was, statistically, a likely outcome. By contrast, if a pitcher comes into a game and gives up a home run or a series of hit, this is viewed much more negatively because the pitcher is supposed to get the outs.

In cricket, by contrast, the constant pressure is on the batter. In a test match (the longer 5-day version of the game) each batter only gets (at most) two chances. Once you're out, you don't get to come back to the plate again in another 45 minutes. Also, the out itself is much more significant because a cricket batter's opportunities for scoring are open-ended. That is, if he doesn't get out he can stay out there all day and score tens or hundreds of runs. Even the best hitter in baseball can do no better than a home run on each at-bat; for a cricket player, the range of possibilities run the gamut from a first-ball out to a two-day appearance racking up 200+ runs. But one mistake, and that chance is gone.

Cricket bowlers, by contrast, are not expected to get a batter out on any given delivery, or even within any given over. While some weather conditions and pitches do benefit bowlers, the game as a whole is weighted towards the batters. Batters are not expected to fail in any given situation; they are expected to succeed, to stay in and to score runs. And a single mistake by a bowler, while it might allow the other team to hit the ball for 4 or 6 runs, isn't likely to turn the game. For the bowlers in cricket, like for the hitters in baseball, the evaluation of success is based more on the longer run of the game than on any particular encounter. A bowler who bowls 20-30 overs (120-180 deliveries) and gets 3 or 4 people out might have had a very good day.

This was all summed up quite nicely by English cricketer and author E.T. Smith in his book Playing Hardball, in which he visits the United States and spends time with some MLB oranizations interviewing coaches and players, and taking some batting practice himself. Smith says:

At the most fundamental level, baseball is a pitcher's game and cricket is a batsman's game. The cricket batsman is expected to win any one particular ball: no matter how bad the batsman or how good the bowler, it is nearly always more of a surprise when a ball produces a wicket [i.e., an out] than when it does not. Dots and runs are the bread and butter of cricket; wickets [outs] are the exceptions.

In baseball hits are the exceptions and strikes the norm. The pitcher wins most pitches and the hitter hopes to hang in there long enough to capitalise on a mistake.

That role reversal does strange things to the dynamics of pressure in baseball and cricket. Though there is great pressure...on bowlers, most cricketers accept that the pressure on the batsman is even more concentrated. The one-chance issue comes up here again. But so too, ironically, does the extent to which the odds are stacked in the batsman's favour. Getting out becomes more terrible in prospect the less it is acceptable.

<snip>

The equivalent pressure in baseball is on the pitcher. The rarity of a pitcher giving up a run in baseball makes it more catastrophic even than losing a wicket. Meltdown in cricket is the batting collapse; meltdown in baseball is conceding a series of home runs.

pp. 94-95

Other aspects of the nature of the two games changes the way that bowlers and pitchers approach their tasks.

One of the most obvious is that, in cricket, the ball does not (unless the bowlers makes a mistake) arrive at the batter on the full. The cricket bowler is expected to make the ball bounce on the pitch, on its way to the batsman. And that bounce is part of the skill of bowling, and is also why sheer speed is not necessarily the main aim of the cricket bowler. In the same way that baseball pitchers vary things like velocity and curve to deceive the hitter, cricket bowlers use the pitch to make the ball move in ways intended to deceive the batter.

Connected with this issue is the question of exactly what the bowler wants to do, in terms of getting the batter out. Like the baseball pitcher, the cricket bowler seeks to deliver the ball in a way that maximizes the chance of an error by the batter, or puts the batter at some sort of disadvantage, especially through indecision. Just like some of the best baseball pitches are the ones on the outside corner, where a hitter might end up waving ineffectually at a pitch or grounding it gently to the infield, some of the best deliveries in cricket are often those that are placed right near the outside edge of the stumps, where it can be hard for a batsman to get properly behind the ball, but where he also feels obliged to try and get the bat in the way to prevent him being bowled out.

And this, in turn, leads us to another issue, which is the placement of the fielders. Field placement is far more flexible and varied in cricket than in baseball. One reason is that, in baseball there are 9 players in the field covering a field that describes an angle of 90 degrees. In cricket, there are 11 players in the field (i.e., two more than baseball), but they must cover a full 360 degree field of play. There is no "foul ground" in cricket, and the main playing area is smack in the middle of a large oval.

One place where it is very common to place fielders in cricket, especially in the early part of a inning, is in an area called the slips, which is essentially behind, and off to the side, of the batter. The bowler then tries to bowl the ball in such a way that the batter will try to hit it, but will not connect properly and will instead nick the ball lightly off the edge of the bat. Essentially, what the bowler is aiming for is similar to what we would call in baseball a "foul tip." But in cricket, a foul tip does not just result in a strike, as it usually does in baseball; if it is caught by the slips, it results in a wicket, an out. Here's a good example.

One final difference, alluded to in the previous paragraph when i said that slip fielders are used particularly in the early part of an inning, is that bowlers in cricket have to deal with inconsistencies that baseball pitchers never have to worry about, including in the ball itself. In baseball, the aim is to have the pitcher throw essentially an identical, new, clean, unmarked ball every time he pitches. In cricket, by contrast, the same ball is used for an extended period of time, and can only be replaced under very specific circumstances. In a test match, a ball is used for 80 overs (480 deliveries) before a new ball can be taken, and during that time the ball loses a considerable amount of its hardness and its shine, changing the way that it moves through the air and off the pitch. Bowlers have to adapt to these changes, which can (depending on the pitch, the weather conditions, and the type of bowlers on the team) quite dramatically shift the advantage between the batting and the bowling team.


[edit: that was basically copied and pasted from a post I made in a similar thread a few years back] 24

[zimaane]

What is the most common way for a batter to get out? The wicket is knocked over, she hits a ball that is caught, or is thrown out when running to the other wicket?

The batsman or runner is dismissed if the batsman and runner choose to run to attempt to score runs and the fielding team catches the ball and then throws it and hits the wicket before the batsman (or runner) touch the ground beyond line in front of the wicket. The batsman may touch his bat to the ground there to be considered safe (not out).

Given the high penalty for getting out, do batters tend to 'play it safe' and avoid running, even if they could most likely get a run?

Can the bowler throw the equivalent of a breaking ball - alter the spin of the ball in order to make it curve in an unexpected way? 25

[jz78817]

Marvelous game, really. You see, the bowler hurls the ball toward the batter who tries to play away a fine leg. He endeavors to score by dashing between the creases, provided the wicket keeper hasn’t whipped his bails off, of course. 26

[Xema]

Here's my view (presented in a "baseball-centric" way) of the important differences between baseball & cricket:

• In cricket, each base achieved score a run; in baseball, you must advance runners around the bases to home plate.
• In cricket, it's "one strike and you're out" - and the wicket does the job of deciding what's a strike.
• In baseball, when you hit the ball into fair territory, you must run; in cricket, all territory is fair, but running is strictly optional.
• In cricket, the "pitcher" must release the ball with a (nearly) straight arm, but is allowed a running start; bouncing the ball is encouraged.

27

[Xema]

Originally Posted by zimaane

Given the high penalty for getting out, do batters tend to 'play it safe' and avoid running, even if they could most likely get a run?

Often - but it depends on circumstances. Toward the end of a "One-day" match, a team may be facing the need to score a number of runs on a limited number of balls, which makes "playing it safe" look like poor strategy.

Can the bowler throw the equivalent of a breaking ball - alter the spin of the ball in order to make it curve in an unexpected way?

Yes. And the fact the a ball can be bounced leads to the idea of putting a lot of spin on the ball, causing it to change direction - perhaps sharply - after hitting the ground. 28

[mhendo]

Originally Posted by zimaane

What is the most common way for a batter to get out? The wicket is knocked over, she hits a ball that is caught, or is thrown out when running to the other wicket?

Being caught out is the most common form of dismissal in cricket, or at least in Test cricket, which is the longer version of the game.

Here's the scorecard for the most recent test match between Australia and England, won in spectacular fashion by England, in one of the most exciting matches I've ever watched.

There were 39 batters who got out in this match, and the breakdown of dismissals was:

Caught: 25
Bowled: 7
Leg Before Wicket (LBW): 5
Run out: 2

A poster on Reddit a few years back put together a total of all dismissals in the history of test cricket, and his figures were:

Caught: 58.6 %
Bowled: 21.3 %
LBW: 14.4 %
Run out: 3.46 %

As you can see, the recent test wasn't actually too far out of line with historical figures. 29

[Novelty Bobble]

Originally Posted by zimaane

What is the most common way for a batter to get out? The wicket is knocked over, she hits a ball that is caught, or is thrown out when running to the other wicket?

I believe "caught" would be the most common.

Given the high penalty for getting out, do batters tend to 'play it safe' and avoid running, even if they could most likely get a run?

Certain circumstances absolutely demand such tactics. It is a critical thing to take into consideration. In the most recent Eng-Aus test match you had Ben Stokes and Jack Leach batting at the same time. Stokes is a top class batsman, Leach is not on his level. If either of them were out then England lose the game. Both batsmen were scrupulous in judging when to run and when not to so as to ensure that Stokes faced the majority of the deliveries and so give him the opportunity to score runs and lessen the exposure of Leach to the bowling.

Can the bowler throw the equivalent of a breaking ball - alter the spin of the ball in order to make it curve in an unexpected way?

Oh yes, in cricket there is the added complication of a greater range of speeds, variation in ball condition and movement before, during and after hitting the ground.

I believe baseball pitches are typically between 65 and 105 mph, Cricket bowling is more like 45-95 and movement is more highly prized and a greater weapon than pure speed. One highly regarded skill of bowling is a fastish ball that curves into the batsman at the last moment, forcing them to attempt to play at it but when the ball hits the pitch it either straightens or moves back away from them. That almost guarantees an edge and a potential catch. 30

[AK84]

Originally Posted by zimaane

What is the most common way for a batter to get out? The wicket is knocked over, she hits a ball that is caught, or is thrown out when running to the other wicket?

Caught out by far.

Given the high penalty for getting out, do batters tend to 'play it safe' and avoid running, even if they could most likely get a run?

Now this is where the game is at its peak. It... depends, on the situation, the conditions.

Can the bowler throw the equivalent of a breaking ball - alter the spin of the ball in order to make it curve in an unexpected way?

Whole books can and have been written on it.

Here is an explanation of the physics of the most common type.

https://youtu.be/W4tGaoSz14g 31

[Isamu]

Sure! That's a game that your dad takes you to watch on the weekends in summer where you sit bored out of your fucking mind for hours and hours just wasting your god given time on this planet. But you try to act pleased because you know that's what dad wants.

That's cricket. 32

[Stanislaus]

On run outs:

As Novelty Bobble alludes to, running between wickets is a co-ordination problem. Both batters have to safely get from one end to the other to both score a run and avoid losing a wicket. This is somewhat similar to baseball when there is a runner at first base (plus others), but at least in baseball it is very clear that a successful hit means you must run so (I imagine) both batter and runner are on the same page most of the time.

In cricket, when you don't have to run and are taking a risk when doing so, there is much more potential for miscommunication and confusion. The best practice is this:

1) Batter hits the ball
2) Batter and/or non-batter watch where it goes, bracing themselves to run to the opposite wicket. The non-batter may have taken a couple of pre-emptive steps towards the other end at this point.
3) One of the two* calls either "Yes" if it looks safe to run, "No" if it doesn't, "Wait" if there is any doubt.
4) Both players run without hesitation.

What often happens
1) Batter hits the ball.
2) One of the two starts running.
3) The other calls "No".
4) The runner calls "Yes".
5) The one who wasn't running starts running.
6) The one who was running turns to go back.
7) Both batters end up at the same wicket.
8) The fielding team knock over the wicket at the other end, while laughing.
9) The batters have a hard look at each other and one of them falls on their sword and goes out.

*Which of the two calls? Ideally, whoever is running to the danger end - i.e. the end closest to where the ball will be fielded as that is the end the fielder will aim for. Their risk, their call. 33

[Cabin_Fever]

Ignorant question...does the ball have stitches on it like an American baseball has? Leading to aerodynamic flora such as curve ball, slider, et al? 34

[AK84]

Originally Posted by Cabin_Fever

Ignorant question...does the ball have stitches on it like an American baseball has? Leading to aerodynamic flora such as curve ball, slider, et al?

How a cricket ball swings, the physics.
https://youtu.be/W4tGaoSz14g 35

[Mk VII]

Wear changes the dynamics of the ball, and new balls replace it at intervals. Picking at the stitching to raise a seam is semi-legal, on the basis of 'dont-get-caught'.

Batsmen who stick in a 'play it safe' mode make for slow, dull-to-watch cricket; the one-day versions of the game are framed to make this unproductive for the batting team.

At the beginning the captains flip a coin to decide who chooses whether to bat or bowl first. Each captain will have made his preference based on light, weather, pitch condition, the composition of his team and his perceptions of the other team's weaknesses.

The batting team may chose to end their innings early - to 'declare', which forces the other team to commence batting. The choice will be governed by a number of factors; if one side builds up an unassailable number of runs it makes for a predictable outcome but time remaining is also a factor, for if the second-batting team is not left with enough time for all their batsmen to play the match is deemed a draw. 36

[TroutMan]

Originally Posted by Cabin_Fever

Whew! More than I can digest at this early morning hour, but explains a lot. Thanks, but I am even more confused. Where did all these rules develop? Sounds like a committee just made them up to complicate it all. I enjoy watching, but still puzzled by all of it. The television commentators don't help. They assume me, the viewer, knows what they are talking about.

My background: I know the rules of cricket, but not all the nuances. I grew up with baseball.

And I had the same impression as you, cricket is confusing but baseball is simple. Then I took an Indian visitor to a baseball game (his first ever). And as I was explaining the rules to him, it got more and more confusing. He was hopelessly lost after the first inning. You don't realize how many rules there are in baseball until you have to explain it.

"Strike 3, right?" "No, it was a foul ball." "But fouls are strikes, right?" "Not for strike 3."
"The catcher caught the foul ball so he's out, right?" "No, that's a foul tip - the ball didn't go high enough to count as an out."
"Is the runner out? The 3rd baseman got the ball before the runner was there." "No, it wasn't a force out so he's safe. If there had been a runner on 1st, he'd be out."
"Why is he running? The ball was caught. I thought it was a double play if you run and the ball is caught." "But he left after the catch so it's OK."

And this was just standard stuff - we didn't get to less common things like infield flies, running out of the baseline, balks, etc. 37

[Muffin]

Usually there will be a silly someone somewhat between the bowler and the batter but slightly off to the side, in hopes of getting hit by the ball and hanging on to it.

I see some of them are wearing a bit of face protection these days. That's not how the war was won. 38

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by penultima thule

This is true.

England are the current holders of the Cricket World Cup.

The last nation to win the Cricket World Cup was Australia in 2015

Had to laugh at this and the comment from AK84.

I am easily amused. 39

[PatrickLondon]

Originally Posted by Cicero

I am easily amused.

That also is cricket:

https://youtu.be/KsVTpX7LdZQ 40

[Jackknifed Juggernaut]

Originally Posted by AK84

Caught out by far....

I’ll point out that a high proportion of catches are balls that are edged and deflected to the wicketkeeper (equivalent of a catcher) or a slip (other fielders positioned to the side of the wicketkeeper) to catch errant or poorly contacted balls. These are essentially the same as foul tips, but due to the flatter bat, can deflect at a variety of angles. I’d be interested to know if there are stats on caught behinds vs. high pop ups, and I suppose also vs. hard line drives at fielders. Unlike baseball, it is rare when a cricket batsman is actually trying to hit the ball high in the air. 41