Knock it far enough and it will go over the rope. 4 runs or “points” if it touches the ground 1st or 6 runs if it does not. Similar to a “home run”.
And there’s organization too. I won’t go into too much detail here (I’ve written elsewhere, in more appropriate forums, pages and pages about this), but the USA Cricket Association is one of the most corrupt, disorganized, and damaging sports associations in the world. I’m surprised every time they actually manage to field a team.
Let’s just put it this way: if that bunch was managing baseball, football, or for that matter any sport that got some decent press coverage in the US, some of their executive members might be in jail right now.
I don’t know if I speak for the nation, exactly, but I’m not feeling terribly humbled by the defeat.
Correct. The batter can miss all he wants, so long as the wicket doesn’t go down. As for how hard it is to knock a wicket off, it’s pretty easy (provided there’s no batter there). It’s just a small block of wood (bails) balanced on top of two stakes. Actually, there are two bails balanced on top of three stakes. The stakes are about 2.5 feet tall, and it’s about 9 inches from the left stake to the right stake, with the middle stake, well, in the middle. The distance that the bowler bowls from (the crease, which is just in front of the wicket) and the wicket on the opposite side is about the same as from a pitchers mound to the plate.
The outside boundaries are the pitch. Now, I’m not quite sure how this part works, but I think that if the bowler bounces the ball outside the pitch, then the batting team gets a point. But if I bounce the ball within the pitch, and I put some spin on it, and I get the ball to move away from the batter that way, there’s no wide called.
Two players are required because there are two wickets. One stands at each. If one of them gets out, he is replaced. The two of them only switch places in the event of a hit that doesn’t go out of bounds. Here are four scenarios:
-
I’m at bat, you’re at the other wicket - first bowl of the over. The bowler bowls to me and I wind up and crank one into the crowd. Our team gets six points and we stay in our places, I get to hit again.
-
Second bowl of the over. I drive a grounder pretty far, but it doesn’t go out. We see that we can score a quick run, so I begin running over to your wicket and you begin running over to mine. We make it in, about the same time the ball is fielded and thrown over. Now you’re where I was and I’m where you were, so you get to bat this time.
-
Sixth bowl of the over. You drive a frozen rope deep, it bounces and then goes out of bounds (like a ground-rule double). Our team scores four points. We both stay at our wickets, but since that was the last bowl of the over, another bowler comes in and bowls from the other side - meaning it’s now my turn to bat.
-
First bowl of the new over. I pop one up and a fielder catches it. You stay at your wicket and a new batter comes in to replace me. Since it’s the same over, it’s now his turn to bat.
Well clearly that’s the problem for our team. Let us tackle people and maybe we can mount some defense!
[/QUOTE]
It was a response to your earlier statement in regards to the USA being able to “become a soccer or rugby power quite easily, too.”
What are you basing this statement on? Population?
If so, then your argument is seriously flawed.
It smacks of complete and unjustified arrogance, and does nothing to discourage the quite widely held view that Americans(on the international stage) are ungracious and unnecessarily cocky sportspeople.
OK as a Kiwi 
who have an excellent cricket side
A ball that the bowler can’t possibly it because it’s too high,doesn’t make it to the wicket or is too wide will be a no-ball,gaining an extra run(not points :)) to the batting time.Another ball is added onto the over,meaning it can contain 7 or 8 balls.Depending on the side,it will be given as a legbye,offbye or wide and added into the extras section.
Yep.They’re runs,but that’s right so far
Yep 
what the heck’s a frozen rope? 
And then you get stumpings,run out,LBWs(always good for an argument).And the names of the fielding positions should cheer you up-silly leg on,gully,silly mid-off,third man…
And you think it’s hard to figure out the appeal of cricket?
Cricket needs cheerleaders 
You might be interested to know that the USA is actually getting WORSE at cricket.
The oldest ever international cricket match was between the USA and Canada - you won that one. You also recently beat Zimbabwe - although the standard of Zimbabwean cricket at themoment is such that my mum could beat them - on her own.
However you do also have the the comforting knowledge that you are in fact better at cricket than Scotland (and yes they do play cricket seriously there). You qualified from the “minnows” tournamaent at the sweaties expense.
You’re better than the Dutch too.
Now you’ve really got me confused. I thought someone said that there had to be two batters on the field. So how could your mum beat them on her own?
You’ve never met my mum.
And she’s a more legal bowler than Murilitheran.
Well given several generations of playing… maybe.
The point? Well maybe the US might actually enjoy international competition like the rest of us do. It’s a good thing to play internationaly and Americans are a bit limited with that (because of sport choice).
Baseball and gridiron and ice hockey won’t quite work. Come play the with the rest of us
Um, duh, the US won a gold medal in basketball in Athens.
Britain have been the raining Olympic Cricket Champions for 104 years. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
Also if London wins the 2012 Olympics 20-20 Cricket will be a demonstration sport.
Yeah, we do pretty well with women’s sports, but our guys aren’t doing well lately.
Unlikely except in the extreme long term, I’m afraid. As you say, the sports are different.
Never having been a huge colonial power we didn’t export any of our own sports in any meaningful way, and having escaped the British colonial system early we didn’t pick up any of their sports either. Furthermore, even if we had sports in common it wasn’t until the late 1950’s that intercontinental travel became fast and cheap enough for us to play with teams in, say, Europe on any kind of regular basis.
Baseball is pretty popular in Mexico and the Carribean, but none of those countries can economically support large programs, and their best players come here to play anyway.
So historically our options for international sport boil down to us vs. the Canadians. They let us play in their hockey league (until now), we let them play in our baseball and basketball leagues, and we’re all pretty happy with the situation.
Unfortunately, they did something weird with football.
Fair point, but I should clarify I wasn’t referring to the women’s team.
I’m guessing Neurotik wasn’t either.
Well, population might have something to do with it, but I’m basing it on the fact that it’s probably true. American football is quite similar to, but much more complicated than, rugby and there are many, many players in the NFL who could likely come into rugby and play at a high level with a year or two of training (different conditioning, learning the rules, etc.). It’s not arrogance or cockiness, it’s just a fact that many of the skills necessary to be great at American football are the same as the skills necessary to be good at rugby. Hence, if we put a bunch of time and money into promoting and recruiting for a rugby team (enough to pull good players away from American football) I’m willing to bet that the US would be a top rugby team within a few years.
As for becoming a soccer power, we’re already the #10 ranked team in the world. And that’s with soccer not being nearly as popular in the country as basketball, baseball or American football. Again, with more recruitment and getting more of our top atheletes into soccer rather than the Big Three would push the US up even further in status.
Frozen rope is a baseball term for a line drive with a very straight trajectory, generally hit extremely hard. Because they tend not to get much elevation, they usually don’t go quite as far in the air.
Ah, but who isn’t, really?
Oh…you mean at cricket.
Well, a few generation at the current pace, sure. If we really put some effort into it, it would go much more quickly.
Eh? Well, gridiron definitely. Ice hockey, maybe - the World Cup just happened and it had 8 participating countries, but there were 14 at the Winter Olympics, so I dunno.
Baseball, on the other hand, would have the potential to be a very good tournament. These countries would be the favorites - US, Dominican, Japan, Cuba, Venezuela and Puerto Rico. The Canadians, South Koreans, Mexicans and the Colombians would have outside shots. The Dutch, Australians, and Taiwanese could field teams with some major league talent. The Italians might just show up for the heck of it.
Or, if you want to put it in cricket terms, those first 10 countries would be Test countries. Or 9 if you don’t want to count Puerto Rico as seperate from the US, which is the same as in cricket.
It doesn’t matter to me. You can’t put in a dig at the US’ lack of prowess at basketball when the women’s team just finished mowing down all comers in the Olympics. Women’s games DO count.
Since I see we’re now onto soccer, I’ll point out that when the average American thinks of “great American soccer player”, they’re probably going to think of Mia Hamm before they think of…some guy.
At the risk of highjacking a perfectly good thread on God’s own game of cricket (btw God supports England and Hampshire) I can’t let this go unremarked.
The USA’s perennially high FIFA ranking is a source of mirth throughout the rest of the world.
The USA is simply not in the top 50 of world football powers (and I am being charitable in stopping at 50). I hear you asking “so Owl how come the high ranking old bean?” To which I would reply as follows:
Firstly the FIFA rankings are based around competitive games in FIFA ranked tournaments. This means the USA picks up ranking points from beating Tobago 1-0 and so on – in other words all the matches that count towards the FIFA rankings are against total tiddlers (Mexico notwithstanding).
Secondly FIFA is simply desperate to crack the USA for commercial reasons and as such is perfectly prepared to maintain this ludicrous position so that the USA is seeded in occasional FIFA run tournaments.
Frankly the USA is to football what you are to cricket. (The ladies football team ARE world class, but so what?)
What’s a googler?