Lol. yes, Infact I immediately looked this match up on espncricinfo after seeing **lisiate **post to be sure if it was a draw or a tie. that match got super-exciting on the final day. Also remember this match for the anticipation of Sachin 100th 100. He was on 99 hundreds for over an year and it was his home ground. When he got out on 94, the crowd started shouting for the Indian team to get out n follow-on so that he can bat again.
On the last ball of the match, India needed 2 to win and 2 wickets in hand. Yet Ashwin hesitated in running 2, the ball had gone to long-on or long-off. :smack: Also remember him even defending his act later on twitter saying there was no 2nd run available .
IPL is also available liveon youtube in case you wanna watch.
Is IPL available live in all countries? Because I know the starsports.com online coverage (Which was brilliant btw. Their online viewing system was surprisingly well thought out) of the test matches between India and Australia wasn’t available everywhere.
With some frequency I hear a commentator or player say “the ball is really coming onto the bat” which from context appears to be saying something about the condition of the pitch. What does it mean if the ball is or isn’t coming onto the bat?
Managed to google up “yorker” all on my own. I presume the commentator going on about wide yorkers in one match was due to that being something a bowler wouldn’t throw in test cricket because a dot pitch doesn’t have any inherent value except in limited overs matches?
Not being a cricketer myself, I can’t give you a precise definition of “the ball is really coming onto the bat”, but my understanding is it means the pitch is playing very true, and the ball bounces without any unexpected change of pace or direction. As such, the batsman’s bat will tend to be in the right place to hit the ball “off the middle of the bat” which usually results in a better strike, and hence more run-scoring opportunities or boundaries.
Not exactly sure about “wide yorkers” either but it looks like you have it right - in test cricket, bowling a wide yorker (a ball pitching around the batsman’s feet, but wide of the stumps) is unlikely to do you much good, as even if you get it right the batsman is unlikely to swing at it and give away a possible edge to the slips (because he may as well just leave it, when it is no threat to his wicket), and if you get it wrong this will result in a full-toss that the batsmen can easily put away for four. However, in a limited overs game it’s naturally to your advantage to bowl in areas where the batsman might decide to leave it (such as bouncers, going down legside just out of the batsman’s reach, going too far outside off stump) and as such the rules of most limited overs contests prevent you using such tactics (as a bowler) without penalty.
As opposed to what? Do you honestly expect any cable or satellite service to have a channel that covers cricket live, considering that it is the cable/satellite companies that pay the stations for the privilege of carrying them, and not the other way around?
WARNING - “BACK IN MY DAY” ALERT
When I first started following cricket seriously, in 1986 or so, the only coverage I could get (in the San Francisco area) was:
(a) monthly magazines, which always somehow managed to go to press just before some major event so I would have to wait another month and a half to find out what happened, by which time it was old news;
(b) a few minutes every Saturday morning on the BBC World Series sports reports (for some reason, western North America was pretty much the only part of the world where BBC World Service broadcasts never included daily sports reports);
(c) if the conditions over the Pacific were just right, the occasional Radio Australia sports report;
(d) up through the late 1980s, IIRC (they stopped around then because of BBC budget cuts), there was ball-by-ball coverage of all test matches in England, but these were on special frequencies aimed at the West Indies, so coverage was spotty at best.
(Things got better in the early 1990s when C-SPAN started sending BBC World Service 24/7 to cable companies - you hooked up your cable TV service to an FM radio. That was also around the time BBC added a daily sports report that could reach western North America in the evenings.)
I’m not a big cricket fan, but I think it means the ball isn’t losing too much energy from bouncing on the ground so it has a lot of its original pace when the batsman hits it.
While there’s a degree of imprecision (and a metric ton of cliches) in the phrases used by most cricket commentators, other posters are correct in saying “the ball really coming on to the bat” means the conditions are conducive to batting.
To be more specific, it will usually mean(on edit, let me change this to “I usually take it to mean”), first and foremost, that the bounce off the pitch is consistent in terms of both height and speed. It can usually also be taken to mean that the pitch is at least somewhat fast, i.e the ball is not losing too much speed when it bounces, and is thus easier to hit. Both a very slow and a very fast pitch can render shot making more difficult for the batsman.
The “ball coming on to the bat” is not necessarily a comment on the amount of swing or spin the bowlers are getting off the pitch, although typically, if either phenomenon is present, you’re more likely to hear about how the pitch is offering assistance to the bowlers. If a particular batsman is good enough to take advantage of the consistency of bounce and behaviour(if present) even on a pitch which offers the bowlers some assistance, then commentators may choose to point that out.
What may make this clearer is listening for things that are said when the ball isn’t coming on to the bat. Typical comments would include “The odd ball is keeping low” and/or “The ball is stopping on the batsmen”
I’m curious. What brought about the interest in cricket, if you don’t mind my asking? This goes for the OP too, if he/she chooses to answer.
The ball coming onto the bat usually means that the groundsman have decided that they want to prepare a pitch where lots of runs are scored rather than creating an equal contest between bat and ball. :mad:
It was on, and made little enough sense that the challenge of figuring out what the hell was going on made for entertainment. I’m not sure how long my interest will last. I can see quite often that teams are behaving in T20 in ways that would be completely against their interest in a test match, so I’d be curious to watch some test cricket to see how it plays out.
Did you catch Chris Gayle’s ridiculous 30 ball century? I only saw a brief news item but it looked like the ball was coming onto the bat in that game .
Did you catch Chris Gayle’s ridiculous 30 ball century? I only saw a brief news item but it looked like the ball was coming onto the bat in that game .[/QUOTE}
onto the bat, then off again at a fair rate of knots!
My little ones normally watch a little bit of the games before they go to bed and they are enjoying it.
I’m teaching them the rules and they like to copy the umpire signals (and make up their own) and I am teaching them to say “cricket” in a Geoff Boycott accent. Next will come implanting the phrases “mothers pinny” “corridor of uncertainty” “stick of rhubard” and “uncovered pitches”
At some point they will be ready for Test Match Special and the Ashes but I’m taking it slowly.
If you’ve got a Wii, there’s an Ashes 2009 game which has great commentary - Ian Bishop and Shane Warne - and great animations of umpires, batsmen shaking their head etc. Doesn’t beat a real bat and ball, but it’s fun.
Other key phrases for the cricket enthusiast: “lost his radar”; “nibbling outside off stump”; “failed to pick the doosra”; “jaffa”; “wristy flick off his legs”; “beaten all ends up”; and of course that useful portmanteau “Englandbattingcollapse”.
Before your interest in cricket wanes, you could do worse than watch this documentary recap of the greatest Test series I expect I’ll see in my lifetime. And I say that as a fan of the losing team:
For a cricket fan, that series was like two months of Tantric sex.
