Cricket: Ashes 2015

The Game Room
141

They’ve picked up the scoring rate a bit and are now 82/0 at lunch - both batsmen well in, so looking a bit ominous for England, who have tried Ali for 3 overs already (in fact they have used all five bowlers with no reward so far. I have a horrible feeling that Lyon will be useful in the fourth innings as well.

All the rhetoric before the game was about 4-1, keeping a winning mentality, consistency etc, to justify keeping the same team. But I really can’t understand why they didn’t give Rashid an opportunity, particularly given the venue (apparently Surrey always play two spinners) and the upcoming series with Pakistan. OK, it’s a tough call on who to drop, but it looks like a missed opportunity to me. Especially if they end up losing anyway.

142

+1

143

I said this up thread and have been repeating it off this board since about mid-May; it’s not rocket science to look at who is taking the wickets at The Oval and what the composition of the Surrey side is, plus I’ve watched about 900 overs of cricket down The Oval this year and what the pitch does has been bloody obvious. This pitch was always going to take turn. Giving Lyon last use of this field is going to look pretty silly, I think.

If I were Rashid I’d be really disappointed not to be playing here, especially given Cook’s quote on Wednesday when he said “Adil has been with us in every single squad but the pitches haven’t quite suited two spinners so Adil’s had to wait for his chance”. This was his chance and they didn’t pick him - which leads me to think that they’re not convinced by him at all. He’s going to get the ball chucked at him in the UAE in his first test match and be told - “don’t worry, that’s just Younis Khan, we’re sure this will go well”. Either that or “something” will go wrong in the ODIs in September, so that they can’t pick him. I just don’t think they rate him.

I would have batted first today, given what I have seen of the pitch this season. So, I reckon, wrong selection and wrong decision at the toss, plus Australia with a point to prove and our lot subconsciously relaxing a bit = Oz win here (though there’s a bit of rain forecast for the 5 days).

144

Looking on the bright side, it’s an opportunity to prove what happened at Lords was a one-off and we will not in fact crumble when replying to a big first innings total (I’ve only been an England cricket fan for about 20 years so occasionally I still give in to relentless optimism). A draw would be a much more satisfactory result for England than Australia (especially now, with the Aussies sitting pretty on 255/3), rain-assisted or otherwise.

As you say, England’s logic with Rashid makes no sense - if you’re right and they just don’t rate him, chucking him in against Pakistan isn’t going to help anyone. Ultimately, the only way to find out would have been to give him a go here. He’s not likely to magically improve in nets over the next few weeks, especially without a chance to play for real.

As for the toss, someone on Cricinfo’s coverage commented that it was a good toss to win and the Aussies would be lucky to get to lunch with only 2 or 3 down. Seems your analysis has proved rather better than theirs. I guess Cook thought that it was overcast so worth giving his bowlers a chance at another Trent Bridge. I wonder if he also thought that Lyon isn’t that good, so we can cope better with him in the fourth innings than trying to bowl in the fourth innings (when our lack of a spinner may have been totally exposed) - if true, that just highlights the selection problem.

145

Think those two late wickets just about make it England’s session, though they need to knock the last three off quickly to stand any chance overall. Very amusing to see Johnson coming out to bat at about 12.58, with half an over to go before lunch, only for him to be back on his way 2 balls later. Presumably them’s the rules (in terms of not just taking lunch when the sixth wicket fell at 12.58, which seemed like the logical thing to do. If completing the over was the priority, surely someone should have come out to face one ball before lunch!).

146

Ho hum.

At least we’ve already won the Ashes, huh.

147

Maybe you forgot the stamp; because somebody didn’t get your memo.

148

my very first Cricket Match on TV!

You are going to love my noob questions, but it’s the only way I can learn, right?

See, I’m a Yank, and we grow up playing baseball, which is similar to the game, but not really. I watched 2 hours tonight by myself, and figured that when I was a kid I was able to pick up the complexities of ice hockey, including icing, by watching the game on Saturday afternoon television.

But this? Wow, you all have some strange rules!

Watched England vs. Australia, which I am assuming is what you have been watching.

So, is there a primer that I can read that will help me understand what i am seeing?

One thing I am hoping you call can clear up for me…

I get the basic idea. The bolwer (like a pitcher for us baseball fans) gets to run 15-20 yards up to a rectangular “pitch” or “patch”, where he overhand throws a one-hop “bowl” or pitch to the batter. However, when the ball is hit, I noticed a few things… If a ball flew out of the playing area on a fly, that equalled 6 runs. It didn’t seem to matter what direction the ball went, just so long as it flew out. If the ball made it to the wall, and rolled there, 4 runs. Ok so far.

Also, a ball hit in the air and caught by one of the defenders was an out, and the batter is done. I assumed that if the bowler hit the wickets and knocked them down, the batter is done, next man up. Ok.

Here is my first question… 1) when (or do) the batters run? If they hit it somewhere (and the entire field seems open), and the ball isn’t caught on a fly, it is in play. Does the batter have to run at least one length, or can he stay put? If he can stay put, does that negatively impact his at bat in any way?

Fascinating, but really struggled to figure the finer points. Anyone have a primer I can read? Then, I need to have a cricket fan sit next to me to explain the things I just can’t figure out on my own.

This is the first sport I have not been able to figure out all by myself, and that includes ice hockey, american football, soccer, baseball, Australian Rules Football and countless more. I don’t want to ask for help, but I know I need it here. Between the terminology, everyone wearing white, and things happening that I thought made sense and turned out I had no idea what happened, I am asking you all for help.

Thanks for any advice.

149

No. Running is the batsmens discretion. They don’t have to. If they want to score, they both have to run to the opposite end from where they were initially. If the wicket at either end is broken by the ball before they reach its crease (meaning the safe zone) then that player is out.

There is no foul territory in cricket.

I never understood baseball until I forgot about cricket and saw the game on its own merits. Americans often get confused because they try to (understandably) relate it to baseball.

Its an easy game to follow

150

You’ve done well so far, day 2 starts in just over an hour or so, I’ll be watching and not moving far from here for most of the night, feel free to ask away, and I’ll try to respond in close to real time!

151

You’ve done well so far, day 3 starts in just over an hour or so, I’ll be watching and not moving far from here for most of the night, feel free to ask away, and I’ll try to respond in close to real time!

152

I’ll echo the "well done"s so far, Stink Fish Pot, and add:

Next most common way of getting out is “lbw”, “leg before wicket”. The batter may not use his body to prevent the bowler from hitting the wickets, but he is allowed to move, and if he gets hit as a result, the fielding side may appeal for him to be given out if they think the ball would have hit the stumps. The umpire will give him out if he judges that they are right - there are a few technicalities that we needn’t consider. Bowled, caught, lbw and run out account for nearly all the dismissals you’ll see in top-flight cricket.

There isn’t a “hit by pitch” rule in cricket. Umpires will step in if they consider that too much bowling is being directed at the batsman’s body, enough to be considered intimidation to an unfair degree, but it is very rare for it to rise to this extent. Otherwise, inducing a catch from a shot a batsman has been forced to play in self-protection is considered a legitimate tactic.

153

This article explains cricket in terms of baseball. It explains the cricket pretty well, I think, but I don’t know baseball at all so I can’t say it’ll help. But also, the same writer wrote this explanation of understanding cricket commentary, which is well explained and may help confusion when listening to Mike Atherton talking about the bowler having a long leg and a deep square leg.

Also, you’ve picked a hell of a first game to watch. England are… erm… not doing very well.

154

…if you are a visual learner here’s a video:

I know cricket quite well, but that video actually confused me. :) But it doesn't get anything blatantly wrong that I could see, so it may well make sense for you. It only talks about one day cricket and the Ashes is a Test Match, but I'll let someone else explain the difference. :)
155

Two things to consider

  1. When in cricket people say “hit the batsman”, they mean hit the upper body, the lower body can get hit all day and no one will bat (!) an eyelid… its better protected admittedly.

  2. Its pretty much unheard off to be called for dangerous bowling to top order (meaning the teams best) batsmen, you are expected to suck it up.

156

Thanks for the replies so quickly!
One thing… I cannot watch it in real time. Apparently I am getting it on a tape delay, so I have no idea when these matches are actually taking place. Sounds like they are the same day, though, so that’s good.

Ok… Not a bad start so far!

As to scoring, here is what I have figured out so far.

There are two offensive players, and each stand in their designated spot. One player has the bat. When the ball is hit, regardless of where it goes, it is considered in play. If it rolls to the little fence boundary untouched, that is 4 runs. If it flies OVER that boundary,'6 runs. I assume, although I don’t know… The offensive players do not have to run… They are given the runs automatically by rule.

If a ball is hit and the offensive players think they can score a run, they both have to run at the same time, and get to the other wicket before the ball is thrown back in by a fielder and the ball hits the wicket. QUESTION: Now, if this happens, is this considered one run or two runs (if the two offensive players switch positions one time?). Can the two offensive players run back and forth as many times as they want before the ball comes back toward one of the two wickets?

I have more questions, obviously, but I’ll try to absorb this in small bites, and see what else I can pick up on my own.

157

Yes, they can (and do) run between the stumps (wickets) as many times as they think they safely can before the ball gets returned from the field. each time BOTH players successfully make it to the other end, it is considered as 1 run to add to the total. If a boundary is hit however (a 4 or 6) this takes scoring precedence over any ran ‘runs’ (but the batsmen should still be running, while the ball is heading to the boundary, just incase it stops, or is stopped in the field of play)

To complete a run, some part of the batsmens foot, body, or normally bat, must touch and stay grounded on the stump side of the white painted crease line. I think i’ve only ever seen a couple of ‘short runs’ (bat grounded outside of line, and batsmen turned to run a 2nd or 3rd) in around 20 years of viewing…

to complete a run-out (form of dismissing the batter) the ball should be returned to the centre from the fielder, and with either a direct hit, or assistance from (normally) the bowler or wicketkeeper, the stumps are ‘broken’ with the ball, which is when one or both of the two bails (bits on top of the stumps) are knocked off.

158

All correct. Also note that there are no double or triple plays in cricket: once one man is out, that’s it until the next ball is bowled (the strange case of “Timed Out” doesn’t really count as a “play”).

159

The other thing to bear in mind is that as well as adding runs to the total, these runs are also accumulated against the batsman’s name. The non-striker, although he has to run, does not get credit for the score. This means that a team’s total is the sum of all the batsman’s totals plus any ‘extras’, which are generally runs awarded to the batting team due to infractions by the bowling side - wides, noballs and the like.

160

Also note that the “line belongs to the umpire”, if a player is planted on the line itself, he is out.