Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here ya go boys! Use wisely. For those who don't know what this is about, whatwhat and redbeard were polluting the US soccer thread with talk of Indian cricket of some sort.

previous corrupted thread: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/245534.page

Cricket the one game more boring than Baseball or golf. (spectator wise)

My wifes family loves it, theyre Indian. But I fall asleep after about 5 minutes of it.

GG

obviously you have never seen some get knocked out when the 140 mile an hour ball smacked them in the head, that was quit entertaining.

Obviously you have never seen some get knocked out when the 140 mile an hour ball smacked them in the head, that was quit entertaining.

baseball and golf? give it a rest.

To quote Robin Williams.

Cricket is like golf - or baseball.


On valium.

All three share similar aspects. All are tedious without copious quantities of beer - and you can't get full strength AT the games (cricket) anymore anyway.

Now, (ice) hockey or Lacrosse (or even Hurley (not hurling), those are REAL sports.

generalgrog wrote:Cricket the one game more boring than Baseball or golf. (spectator wise)

My wifes family loves it, theyre Indian. But I fall asleep after about 5 minutes of it.

GG

You Clearly have never watched a 21 Frame Game of Snooker.

Cricket is not the sort of sport that you watch to the exclusion of all else. What you're meant to do is stick it on the radio then get on with something else. It doesn't demand your constant attention like most sports thus gives you an excuse for doing almost nothing for five days!

Gwar! wrote:
You Clearly have never watched a 21 Frame Game of Snooker.

I have. I fondly remember the days when "Eddie Charlton" was a household name hereabouts.
I even remember watching on a b&w tv, with such commentary gems as "He's going for the green ball, now. For those watching in black & white, the green is to the left of the pink." ( wtf?).

Still less tedious than golf, cricket or baseball - the latter excepted when those bluejays beat the Americans at their own game, eh.

It's just one of those things, when people mention cricket other people will say that it's boring. I don't know why they feel the need to do this. There are lots of other things that most people find very boring, yet they won't make the comment. I would guess it'd be because cricket is a lot more popular than most other things that some people find boring... except the Americans feel the need to point out how boring cricket is more than anyone.

Which is very weird, because baseball is as active as cricket but with less scoring, and when prompted as many people will say that they also find baseball very boring. Yet, cricket is the game that people will immediately respond to with 'boring'. It's a bit like Dr Who and people having to say 'When I was a kid I was so scared of the daleks' and 'wobbly sets', when lots of goofy things are scary to kids, and most BBC productions of the time had sets that were as unconvincing.

Strange.



Meanwhile, anyone else enjoy the 20/20 final as much as I did? Was impressed with the bowling discipline of both sides, and thought that ultimately the title went to the side whose batsmen showed better shot selection, which is a bit odd considering Pakistan won. I actually picked Pakistan to win the tournament, but did that based on the strength of Gul and Tanvir, and Gul got hammered in the final while Tanvir wasn't even picked. So I was right, but considering they won for doing things in a completely not Pakistan way, I guess I just got lucky.

What's interesting about Cricket is the way the modern game has diversified from full Test length to the 20/20 and other shorter form matches.

Can't remember which comedian said it but 'Cricket is a sport created by the British to confuse Americans'.

The OC-D

Anyone know a good site that explains the rules of cricket? I've never understood it. The scores make about zero sense when they report them on Sky Sports News.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_cricket

Mind = Blown

Bah... I was looking for like some ruling bodies website. Like the cricket equivalent of FIFA's website

http://www.lords.org/laws-and-spirit/laws-of-cricket/laws/

Was the best I could find on a quick search

The highest governing body of Cricket is the International Cricket Council, which has a few Rules and regulations here:
http://icc-cricket.yahoo.net/about-icc/rules-regulations.html

Yes, The Highest body in Cricket governance doesn't even have their own domain name

Haha... oh jeez. Cricket's making a really good impression on me...

Brockian Ultra-Cricket

A curious game which involves suddenly hitting people for no readily apparent reason and then running away. "Let's be blunt, it's a nasty game," says The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

The rules are as follows:

* Rule One: Grow at least three extra legs. You won’t need them, but it keeps the crowds amused.
* Rule Two: Find one extremely good Brockian Ultra Cricket player. Clone him off a few times. This saves an enormous amount of tedious selection and training.
* Rule Three: Put your team and the opposing team in a large field and build a high wall around them. The reason for this is that, though the game is a major spectator sport, the frustration experienced by the audience at not actually being able to see what’s going on leads them to imagine that it’s a lot more exciting than it really is. A crowd that has just watched a rather humdrum game experiences far less life affirmation than a crowd that believes it has just missed the most dramatic event in sporting history.
* Rule Four: Throw lots of assorted items of sporting equipment over the wall for the players. Anything will do – cricket bats, basecube bats, tennis racquets, skis, anything you can get a good swing with.
* Rule Five: The players should now lay about themselves for all they are worth with whatever they find to hand. Whenever a player scored a “hit” on another player, he should immediately run away as fast as he can and apologize from a safe distance. Apologies should be concise, sincere, and, for maximum clarity and points, delivered through a megaphone.
* Rule Six: The winning team shall be the first team that wins.

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.
Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in, and the next man goes in until he's out.
When they are all out, the side that's out comes in, and the side that's been in goes out, and tries to get out those coming in. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When both sides have been in and out, including the not outs, the winner is declared, if there is one.

Seriously…

The teams are 11 men. The pitch consists of two wickets made of three stumps each with two bails balanced on top. These are placed 21 yards apart. There’s no regulation size for the rest of the pitch (the distance to the boundary.)

The fielding side has all 11 men on the pitch and one of them, the bowler, tries to hit the stumps of by bowling at it. The batting side sends two batsmen to defend the wickets. When the ball is bowled the batsman will either try to hit it or let it go past him. Either way, if it goes a long way before being stopped, he will probably try to make a run by running to the other wicket. His partner has to run to his wicket at the same time, so they change ends. They keep running, exchanging ends until they think the fielders will be able to hit the wicket with the ball while they are out of the safety area just next to the wicket.

The bowler has six chances to bowl in one over, then another bowler takes over and bowls from the other end.

Apart from being bowled (the ball hitting the wicket and dislodging the stumps) there are various ways to be got out, such as caught, run out or hit own wicket. When a batsman is out, he is replaced by the next one in order of his team. Once 10 batsmen are out, that is the end of the innings, because the last man can’t bat by himself. The two sides change over so the fielding team becomes the batting team and vice versa.

Batsmen can often make a single run or possibly two off a single ball. If the batsman hits the ball to the boundary, it’s worth 4 runs if it rolls there or 6 runs if it flies there.

A traditional match is two innings for each side, meaning each side fields and bats twice. In 20/20 cricket each side has 20 overs to make as many runs as possible.

I'm not gonna lie, that sounds awful confusing. I actually enjoy watching cricket though. I've just never got it. I think I get it less now. Thanks krazy

Cricket isn't complicated when you get into it. Sit down for an hours test and you'll soon pick it up. Ok so you wont know the names of all the positions etc. but A. you don't need to and B. not many others who love the game do either. I mean does an american football fan have to know the name of every play?

sebster wrote:Meanwhile, anyone else enjoy the 20/20 final as much as I did? Was impressed with the bowling discipline of both sides, and thought that ultimately the title went to the side whose batsmen showed better shot selection, which is a bit odd considering Pakistan won. I actually picked Pakistan to win the tournament, but did that based on the strength of Gul and Tanvir, and Gul got hammered in the final while Tanvir wasn't even picked. So I was right, but considering they won for doing things in a completely not Pakistan way, I guess I just got lucky.

Pakistan got a deserved victory. There was a lot of people saying they would be a tough challenge before the competition started and after the england game I wasn't so sure. But the games after they did well and fully deserved it.

btw I read Hauritz had a shocker the other night. Is naming him as the only spinner in the Australian ashes side really that clever? Especially when apparently the pitches are looking like they will turn now.

I found a good set of rules explanation at a Purdue website

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/hosking/cricket/explanation.htm

youngblood wrote:I'm not gonna lie, that sounds awful confusing. I actually enjoy watching cricket though. I've just never got it. I think I get it less now. Thanks krazy

It really isn't complicated. It's funny to confuse people by showing them official rules and things, but no-one ever learns a game by reading official rules. At its core cricket is no more complicated than baseball, and a hell of a lot simpler and more intuitive than American football.

Basically you walk out and you have a bat. The blokes on the other team take turns bowling the ball at you, and while one guy bowls the rest of them stand around in the field. You try and hit the ball away from the blokes standing in the field, and if you hit it far enough away from a fielder you can try to run to where the guy bowled the ball from. That's called a run, and each one of those you manage increases the score by 1. If you hit the ball really far you can try to run back to where you started, scoring another run. If you hit the ball all the way to the boundary of the ground they just give you four runs and you don't have to bother running at all. Hit it over the boundary on the full and you get six.

While trying to make as many runs as possible you will need to try and avoid getting 'out'. Getting out means your innings ends. Most commonly you'll get out by hitting the ball to a fieldsman on the full who will catch it, or failing to defend three sticks stuck in the ground behind you, if the ball hits them you are 'bowled'. Also you can be 'run out', which happens when you try to make a run, but a fielder picks up the ball and throws it in before you get to the other end. However it happens, when you get 'out' you have to stop batting, you walk off the field and one of your team mates goes out to bat instead. He goes about trying to score as many runs as possible until he gets out. Once all your mates have gotten out you add up all the runs your team has scored. In a test match it'll typically be somewhere around 300 to 400. Now it's your turn to bowl and field, while the other team bats.

Once all their guys have gotten out, you go out and have another crack at batting. Once you're all out the other side gets to bat again. Once they're all out you add up the scores of both teams, see who scored the most runs and that team is the winner.

So, as an example, Australia recently went to South Africa. In that game Australia batted first and made 466 runs before everyone got out, thanks in large part to one Australian bloke making 117 runs by himself. South Africa then went out but could only manage 220. Australia went out and batted again but only made 207, meaning we scored a total of (466 + 207) 673 runs in the game. Because the winning team is the side with highest total runs scored, South Africa would have to score 454 to win (673 - 220, +1 to score more than Australia did). They only made 291 runs and so Australia won. Hooray!

whatwhat wrote:Pakistan got a deserved victory. There was a lot of people saying they would be a tough challenge before the competition started and after the england game I wasn't so sure. But the games after they did well and fully deserved it.

Yeah, they really improved over the tournament. Just weird though, because good Pakistani cricket is normally ultra-aggressive, attacking bowling and big hitting batting. Here they were disciplined and the best part of their game was their strategy and shot selection.

btw I read Hauritz had a shocker the other night. Is naming him as the only spinner in the Australian ashes side really that clever? Especially when apparently the pitches are looking like they will turn now.

Thing is, we don't have anyone else. We tried a 38 year old in South Africa, and he got hit for 150 in 18 overs and didn't take a wicket, it was absolutely brutal. Hauritz probably isn't test standard, but the rest of the Australian spinners aren't even up to domestic standard (most state teams aren't picking spinners because they're not good enough). The guy batting at number six right now for Australia, Marcus North, isn't there because he's the sixth best batsman (he isn't), he's there because he's a pretty good batsman and can bowl useful offspin that's unlikely to get punished.

So how long does a cricket game go along if there are 466 runs scored?

youngblood wrote:So how long does a cricket game go along if there are 466 runs scored?

Dude these things can last days!! I'm serious.


GG

Well, I can imagine. How long do they play straight before they break or whatever?

youngblood wrote:So how long does a cricket game go along if there are 466 runs scored?

It Depends. Was is 466 Singles or 77 Sixes and a Four? Was Play Interrupted by Rain etc etc

sebster wrote:

btw I read Hauritz had a shocker the other night. Is naming him as the only spinner in the Australian ashes side really that clever? Especially when apparently the pitches are looking like they will turn now.

Thing is, we don't have anyone else. We tried a 38 year old in South Africa, and he got hit for 150 in 18 overs and didn't take a wicket, it was absolutely brutal. Hauritz probably isn't test standard, but the rest of the Australian spinners aren't even up to domestic standard (most state teams aren't picking spinners because they're not good enough). The guy batting at number six right now for Australia, Marcus North, isn't there because he's the sixth best batsman (he isn't), he's there because he's a pretty good batsman and can bowl useful offspin that's unlikely to get punished.

So much for replacing shane warne then. So Australia have got one spinner bellow standard and England have Swann, Panasar and Rashid to choose from. So that's definitely england ahead where spinners are concerned. Then you have flintoff who got six sixes and nine fours last night for lancashire, proving he's not as unfit as everyone makes out.
...now if only we could recall marcus trescothick back from cloud cuckoo land we'd have this series in the bag.

youngblood wrote:Well, I can imagine. How long do they play straight before they break or whatever?

Theres mainly three types of games.

One day matches, which is the most popular and take...one day.
Test matches...which take three to four days depending on how close it comes.
And twenty twenty games which take two to three hours.

edit: just re-read your question, sorry. In a test match theres a 40 minute break for lunch and a 20 minute break for tea with a few drinks breaks (bout three minutes) in between.

Thank you whatwhat. You have a great source of information on the subject. This makes baseball seem short.

whatwhat wrote:One day matches, which is the most popular and take...one day.

I would have never have guessed!

It's a shame 2020 and ODI are getting so Popular. I prefer the Test format, but I do see the merits of ODI. 2020 is just rubbish.