“Runs”
The batsman runs from the wicket he is defending to the one at the other end of the pitch, distance is 22 yards.
For this he scores 1 run. If he thinks he can make it back to the wicket he left in the first place without being “out” he will do so, if he’s successful this scores 2 runs.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
And he gets “out” while running…how? Similar to baseball, he is tagged by someone carrying the ball?
I’ve always thought that you could have a faster version of cricket in which a batsman is out if he doesn’t score in a complete over (a sequence of six balls delivered by one bowler). Six strikes and you’re out, sort of. It would make for some exciting fifth and sixth balls of an over.
The stumps (i.e. the base) get hit while he is running towards them but not yet in the safe zone around them. It’s called being run out.
Actually even the British sometimes joke about the peculiar terminology of cricket. There was a Monty Python sketch where somebody got a lot of points “not out” and the commentator said it was “very well not played!”.
Basketball and baseball. Basketball is gaining more fans internationally every year, especially in Europe and in China. More and more very good NCAA and NBA players are coming from Europe in basketball. Baseball has long been very popular in many Latin American countries, is the most popular team sport in Japan, and is making inroads in Korea as well.
And if you’ve watched the World Cup of Baseball, we did get beaten. Likewise we got beat in the Olympics in basketball as well.
Yeah, I really think one has to grow up with cricket to understand it, it seems like the terminology is just too out of the norm for anyone who has no prior experience with it that it causes people to shy away from learning the game.
Possibly so, they’re also two of the simpler sports to understand. Soccer may not be popular in the States, but pretty much everyone in the States could watch a game and understand what’s going on (it’s not entirely rare to play it some growing up here, just rare to watch it on TV or in person.)
The solution to cricket’s “American problem” is obviously to issue a violent video game - maybe something like “Grand Theft Cricket”.
The protagonists steal their equipment, throw hot tea on each other and take a dump on the field (pitch?). Then there is a massive brawl that takes days to complete, resulting in several badly wounded egos.
This can be done in 2 ways.
The ball is thrown by a fielder at the wicket
The fielder throws the ball to the wicket keeper who then “stumps” the batsman. By stumping I mean he holds the ball while knocking off the bails (2 little bits of wood surmounting the wicket)
There is a 3rd way but it is most unlikely to happen. In fact I doubt it has ever happened.
If, while running, the ball is caught before it touches the ground the batsman is out, caught
:smite:
Some serious misinformation going on there, old feller. True that a direct hit is not necessary for a run-out - the ball can be returned to a fielder (including the 'keeper) who then breaks the wicket with either the ball or the hand holding it, but that is not what “stumping” is. “Stumped” is a similar but distinct mode of dismissal where the 'keeper breaks the wicket after the batsman has missed it and, while playing at the ball, left his ground.
Imagine that in baseball the catcher could tag the batter out (by touching the ball to the plate) if he stepped off the plate while swinging, and you’ve got it. AFAIK baseball batters stand still and swing, but cricket batsmen are much more likely to move in playing at a bouncing ball, and so it comes up more often.
There’s nothing at all rare about a catch being completed while the batsmen are running. A skier into the deep field might as well be run on as not. If the catch isn’t taken, that’s a run to the good; and if not, the next ball will be received by the (previously) non-striking batsman, who has presumably had some time in the middle to acclimatise, and not the next man in. (Remember there are exactly two batsmen in at a time, and to complete a run they must change ends.)
::smack:: As a none cricket following Englishman I bow to your superior knowledge.
Incidentally, I watched baseball at Wrigley Field…I will not be going again…ever.
I also had free tickets for a test match at Old Trafford many years ago, My brother and myself decided, after 30 minutes, to call it a day.
They teach us Cricket at school (at least they did in NZ), which kind of helps.
I’m surprised it isn’t more popular in the US, as the batsmen and Wicketkeepers (doesn’t that sound like a character in a Terry Pratchett novel?) wear the sort of armour not usually seen on people that aren’t members of Explosive Ordnance Disposal Teams.
I maintain that a lot of the terminology for Cricket is actually a sports-related version of Mornington Crescent . After all, once you’ve had a few beers with your mates, you’ll all be arguing over whether or not Johnson can get run out by Faquharson if the Umpire has invoked the Off-side Wibble rule, or whether or not the Duke of Newcastle rule should apply if the match is an “away” match, played between the third Friday and last Sunday of the month (third Friday and first Sunday during the Summer Solstice). The fact you’re all completely pissed and talking fertiliser grade shit is all part of the experience. 
Seriously though, because Cricket is fairly slow moving, it’s a good game to have on the telly at work or in the background when you’re doing something else- there’s little danger of missing anything important. 
::scratches head:: Martini: please explain, IN DETAIL, the Off-side Wibble rule and also the Dule of Newcastle rule.
I thought these rules were abandoned if favour of the more simplistic Abergavenny and Oswaldtwistle rules
It’s easier to illustrate by an example rather than try to explain the rule in the abstract. Supposing you’ve played the Swiss Cottage gambit and you have a prime number of tokens. Now the Third Rail is blocked until there’s a lateral move, and suburban stations are in Nip. If the Green player has just transferred to Moorgate, where do you go next?
Which version of the game are we talking about, though? You just can’t discuss this whole subject till you’ve settled on that.
Oval
I hope I’ve cleared that up
I think Calvin and Hobbes were playing a version of it all along…
I thought you could only play the Oval Rules during a Half-Term? Unless you’re playing the Lancaster interpretation of course, but that’s optional for the most part.
According to John and Sandras website the following are/were the most popular sports in the world in 2002.
1.Volleyball
2.Basketball
3.Table Tennis
4.Soccer
5.Badminton
6.Tennis
7.Baseball
8.Dragon Boat Racing
9.Team Handball
10.Hockey
11.Judo
12.Rugby
13.Cycling
14.Bocce
15.CRICKET
Wiki gives a totally different listing