This time by Australia. Bowled them out for just 65 (i.e. not very many) and then knocked off the runs in just 47 balls. Perhaps the brightest note for the USA was Howard Johnson (taking time off from running those hotels of his, I expect) getting the mighty Matthew Hayden out, caught behind.
If it wanted to, the USA could well become a world power in cricket. Just look at the resources at its disposal: zillions of citizens hailing from traditional cricket-playing nations; its own game of bat-and-ball; vast open spaces in which to make cricket fields; reasonably dry weather in many parts etc.
Here in Ohio I watched a group of my Indian coworkers play a game of cricket at the company picnic. I thought if I watched perhaps I could figure the game out.
I was wrong.
I couldn’t even tell when they were just warming up or actually beginning to play. There’s wickets, a funny looking bat… the guy throwing the ball is called a bowler although he doesn’t get a bowling ball. Are there bases? Does the pitched ball have to hit the ground before it goes past the batter? What are those wickets for?
Ah well, I’m sure they gave it their best shot. Good for them.
Incidentally, I don’t think we have as many people hailing from traditional cricket-playing areas as you may think. I believe we only have maybe 2.5 million south Asians, and a lot of those are second or third generation. They tend to play more American games like baseball, American football, basketball, etc. rather than cricket and such.
So there’s not as much of an established cricket base here as you may think.
It’s actually ridiculously simple. The bowler bowls the ball towards the wickets (bowling meaning he must keep a straight arm). The batter hits the ball in any direction he’d like. If he gets it outside the boundaries in the air, it’s 6 points and on the ground it’s 4 points (I believe). Another way to score is to run between the two wickets. That gets you a point. So if you hit the ball and it goes fairly far but not out, you can start running back and forth between the wickets, racking up the points. If the fielders can knock the wicket down before you get there, it’s an out. Of course, you never have an obligation to run after hitting the ball, like in baseball, so if you hit a little dribbler, you can just sit there.
The goal for the bowler is to knock the wicket off of the stake - usually by hitting the stake, causing the wicket to fall off. This is an out and the batter has to march off the field and be replaced.
The other ways to get a batter out are to catch a flyball before it hits the ground.
The bowled ball does not have to hit the ground before it reaches the batter, but they do it because it makes it harder to hit.
Are you just making funnies, or do you really not understand?
In case of the latter being the truth, here goes (in as basic a format as I can make it…)
All out - means that every member of the US team had a turn at batting and were put out by the opposing teams bowlers - (there are, IIRC, 11 different ways of being out (only 4-5 are common), but we’ll not go into them here). All eleven players have tried batting, and there were 10 got out. You cannot bat on alone (always requires two batters in play), so 10 outs means the entire team is out. Their turn to bowl.
**65 - 66 is bad? ** - It wouldn’t be if the Aussie team had actually scored that - but they STOP playing after passing the US score. There was no need to continue as they had already won the game. The fact that the Aussies had lost only 1 wicket (i.e. had only one player put out by the US bowlers) in scoring their 6r runs means they certainly had the potential to go on and score many more.
What’s an over? - An over is a set of six balls delivered in a row from a particular end of the wicket (the centre part of the field where the action happens). Each ‘over’ is bowled by a specific bowler, who cannot bowl two overs in a row.
As to the last comment: I don’t think anyone got any field goals, nor were there any strikes, touchdowns, slap-shots or slam dunks.
I’m glad USA has a team. it’s a little shame that most of it’s players were not born in the USA, but still.
Any country can be good at any sport if the right social systems (deliberately broad meaning) are in place. Population doesn’t really matter much.
And this has anything to do with trying to spend a lot of money to put a decent cricket team up when almost nobody in America has any idea how to play the game, much less care about, how exactly?
As for international baseball or basketball, we could easily win those quite frequently, too. For basketball, we just need to put a team together from the beginning rather than just use it as a marketing and merchandising tool for the NBA. I don’t really care either way, and I suspect I’m not alone at all.
For baseball, we’d have to just use actual professionals, instead of collegiate players. Then we and the Dominicans could just trade the top spot every year. Wouldn’t even be close.
So the goal of the bowler isn’t really to just make the batter miss, but to knock down the wicket, correct? How hard is it to knock a wicket down? What are the outside boundaries marked by?
Ok, that makes sense. So does one entire team get to go at bat and then they switch? Does a batter keep going until he is out or until he scores a point? Why are two batters required in play?
Well clearly that’s the problem for our team. Let us tackle people and maybe we can mount some defense!
And swimming, track, many sports wrt the women, rowing, pointy-balled football, … Bronze in basketball at the Olympics, while not stellar, is still better than all but two teams in the world.
That’s a 6.
And if the ball gets lost I suppose it’s new ball time.
I always wonder if crowd members get injured when it’s knocked for 6 into the crowd.
