[orlandoblue]

OK,

I understand the very basics of cricket, however to enhance my enjoyment of the ashes I would like a guide for dummies as to the format a test match takes.

Points I would like explained in particular are as follows.

- Are there 2 innings per side per test?

- Explain a follow on ie, when can you enforce it and what would be the reasons for or against doing it?

- When and why does a team "declare"

- Is there a time limit imposed on a team batting?

Any other info you think important.

Many thanks.

[the jambo-rocker]

i wouldnt actually mind someone explaining some of the cricket questions either. Not much of a big fan, but I'm always interested when the ashes come on.

[FuzzyBear]

orlandoblue, on Jul 20 2009, 09:50, said:

OK,

I understand the very basics of cricket, however to enhance my enjoyment of the ashes I would like a guide for dummies as to the format a test match takes.

Points I would like explained in particular are as follows.

- Are there 2 innings per side per test?

- Explain a follow on ie, when can you enforce it and what would be the reasons for or against doing it?

- When and why does a team "declare"

- Is there a time limit imposed on a team batting?

Any other info you think important.

Many thanks.

In test cricket there are 2 innings per team.

Follow on - In the current test England were more than 200 ahead after the first innings and having batted first and therfore had the option of enforcing the follow on. The reason for doing this would be to win the game as quickly as possible. The reasons against are your bowlers may be tired after just having bowled the other team out and if the other team scores 300-400 you then have a dodgy target on a 5 day old pitch.

A team can declare at any time when they think they have scored enough. Again in the current test England declared with a lead of about 520. This is about 100 more than any team has scored in the last innings to win a test and gave their bowlers 2 days to bowl the Aussies out. However if England lose the captain will get dogs abuse for not batting an extra couple of hours and scoring another 100 runs.

There is no time limit on batting. In theory you could bat the 5 days of a test match.

Try and go along and watch Scotland play an English county side. Is a good day out with beer available all day and you will be a bit surprised at the speed of the bowling as the TV makes batting look easy.

[Shengus Khan]

Are there 2 innings per side per test? - Yes. Although a team can win by only batting 1 innings. For instance if they bowled a team out for 200, scored 500 themselves then bowled the other team out again for 200 then they would win as their score of 500 is obviously greater than the 400 runs the opposition scored. You do however have to bowl the opposition out twice in order to win a test.

- Explain a follow on ie, when can you enforce it and what would be the reasons for or against doing it? - A follow on can be enforced by the team batting first if they have an advantage of 200 or more runs going into their 2nd innings. I don't think I could explain the reasons for enforcing the follow on in less than 10,000 words so i'll leave that to an expert who can condense his posts

- When and why does a team "declare" - The batting team can declare whenever it wants. However, they would only declare when they feel they've got enough runs on the board and they don't want to waste any further time batting. For instance, England declared yesterday with a lead of 500+ runs because they felt confident that they could bowl Aus out for significantly less and they wanted to give themselves plenty of time to achieve this.

- Is there a time limit imposed on a team batting? - Nope. The team batting 1st can go on for as long as they like. There is very little point in this unless you're playing for a draw though.

[orlandoblue]

Thanks,

How does a draw occur. What is to stop one team batting then giving the other 5 minutes to bat?

[FuzzyBear]

orlandoblue, on Jul 20 2009, 10:24, said:

Thanks,

How does a draw occur. What is to stop one team batting then giving the other 5 minutes to bat?

A draw occurs when the team batting last does not score more runs than the other team but are also not bowled out. Scenario - Team a bats and scores 300 in each of its 2 innings obviously giving a total of 600. Team B gets 150 in its first innings and is 400-5 in its 2nd innings. They have not scored enough but still have wickets left - a draw.

If you find England are 1 up with 1 to play in the Ashes they will do exactly what you suggest. They will try to bat for as long as possible to ensure game ends in a draw and if that means the Aussies get 5 mins to bat then so be it.

[orlandoblue]

FuzzyBear, on Jul 20 2009, 10:29, said:

A draw occurs when the team batting last does not score more runs than the other team but are also not bowled out. Scenario - Team a bats and scores 300 in each of its 2 innings obviously giving a total of 600. Team B gets 150 in its first innings and is 400-5 in its 2nd innings. They have not scored enough but still have wickets left - a draw.

If you find England are 1 up with 1 to play in the Ashes they will do exactly what you suggest. They will try to bat for as long as possible to ensure game ends in a draw and if that means the Aussies get 5 mins to bat then so be it.

Good stuff fuzzy,

I've heard some of the pundits being critical of England for not bowling for an hour yesterday morning.

Why are they doing this?

[Shengus Khan]

orlandoblue, on Jul 20 2009, 11:13, said:

Good stuff fuzzy,

I've heard some of the pundits being critical of England for not bowling for an hour yesterday morning.

Why are they doing this?

Do you mean bowling for an hour on saturday evening? England did bowl from the off yesterday.

[orlandoblue]

Shengus Khan, on Jul 20 2009, 11:16, said:

Do you mean bowling for an hour on saturday evening? England did bowl from the off yesterday.

Yeah it could have been then. I think the jist of it was they let Australia bat when the pundits believed they should have batted themselves for an hour or so.

[Shengus Khan]

orlandoblue, on Jul 20 2009, 11:50, said:

Yeah it could have been then. I think the jist of it was they let Australia bat when the pundits believed they should have batted themselves for an hour or so.

If that was the case then I presume it would be to put the game out of Australia's reach. If England batted for an hour yesterday (roughly 12 overs) then they could've put on another 60 odd runs leaving Australia chasing an unlikely target of 600-ish whilst still giving England plenty of time to bowl Aus out.

Having opted not to enforce the follow on I was actually quite surprised that England didn't do this.

[Reynard]

To win a test match you need to score more runs than the other side and bowl them out twice. It's as simple as that. If you don't get the opposition out twice it's a draw. That's as basic as you can make it.

Tactically the game is vast. That's why lot's of people love it. The wicket and conditions affect matches. The length of time the match can take, fatigue, stamina. Everything. It's the best game in the world.

[Cyderlichtie]

Reynard, on Jul 20 2009, 12:48, said:

Tactically the game is vast. That's why lot's of people love it. The wicket and conditions affect matches. The length of time the match can take, fatigue, stamina. Everything. It's the best game in the world.

That's probably the thing that is most mystifying to the 'novice'.

Over five days the weather can have a major impact on the match - not just the obvious stopping for rain, but if your bowling attack relies on swing you want it to be humid, if you've got spin bowlers you want to be batting later so that the wicket has broken up a bit etc.

That a game can last 5 days and still end in a draw is often used as a criticism of test cricket when I would say its one of its great strengths. The Old Trafford test in 2005 was incredibly tense for almost all of the last day and I was at Cardiff on the Sunday this time round - the last half hour was unbelievable, yet both matches ended in draws.

I would have to say going to a test match is now my favourite sporting event, but its really difficult to explain why* - if you get a chance go.

*the amount of beer drunk may have something to do with it...

[Reynard]

Cyderlichtie, on Jul 20 2009, 13:49, said:

That's probably the thing that is most mystifying to the 'novice'.

Over five days the weather can have a major impact on the match - not just the obvious stopping for rain, but if your bowling attack relies on swing you want it to be humid, if you've got spin bowlers you want to be batting later so that the wicket has broken up a bit etc.

That a game can last 5 days and still end in a draw is often used as a criticism of test cricket when I would say its one of its great strengths. The Old Trafford test in 2005 was incredibly tense for almost all of the last day and I was at Cardiff on the Sunday this time round - the last half hour was unbelievable, yet both matches ended in draws.

I would have to say going to a test match is now my favourite sporting event, but its really difficult to explain why* - if you get a chance go.

*the amount of beer drunk may have something to do with it...

Yeah, there is a whole lot to the game that just isn't that accessible to a fist time viewer of it. So a lot of people just don't get it and never will. But those that do get it are totally fanatical about the game. Test cricket is just fantastic. Even totally rubbish matches are worth watching.

The wicket itself wears right down to the bare earth over the course of a match. big potholes appear wher the bowlers run on the wicket causing areas where if the ball hits it can make it bounce randomly or it can spin ridiculously. Its just too complictaed to go into. You really just need to watch and learn if you can be arsed.

I used to play when I was younger, until I wrecked my back. I was a bowler and the coverage nowadays really helps to show youngsters mhow to hold the ball when you bowl and how much hand action has to come into your delivery action. This was stuff that you just couldnt see previously with the old cameras. The game is much better covered now for folk willing to give it a go.

I havent been down at a test match for years now. I used to always go to the Trent Bridge tests because my uncle got free tickets for it But he has retired and moved away now. Hopefully my son will take up the game and be interested in it. I absolutely loved playing cricket. The banter is absolutely magnificent. I wish I had stayed playing now but when my back had recovered I was doing all sorts of other nonsense and let it slide.

[False Light]

Reynard, on Jul 20 2009, 14:15, said:

I wish I had stayed playing now but when my back had recovered I was doing all sorts of other nonsense and let it slide.

I'm the same. I gave up when I was 13 and now I'm probably too old to start again after so long without playing properly. I think I could have been a pretty handy fast bowler as well. 

[capybara]

Questions on Cricket reminded me of this...


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 thats been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out.

Sometimes you get men still in and not out.

When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in.

There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out.

When both sides have been in and all the men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!

[Shengus Khan]

My brain just exploded reading that capy.

Last week in the pub I was trying to explain to a couple of mates why cricketers rub the ball on their trousers. I'm sure they thought it was some sort of bizarre cricketing ritual that served no real purpose.

[FC_1919]

My mate from off here Palmerston1919 plays, was asking him last week if there was cricket for adult beginners. He said I could go to training for the older teens if I wanted to give it a go, might go along to see what its like. Something I would like to try anyway, wouldn't feel that daft being a beginner at 22.

[Reynard]

False Light, on Jul 20 2009, 14:24, said:

I'm the same. I gave up when I was 13 and now I'm probably too old to start again after so long without playing properly. I think I could have been a pretty handy fast bowler as well.

I was 18 when I had to stop for a year. Thats a long time at that age.

I was playing at Scotland age group levels such as they were at that time and had been up for specialist coaching with a few other guys of similar ages when the touring teams came to Scotland. I remember Imran showing us stuff up at Titwood. And getting to net with him. Magic stuff.

A few of the slightly older guys I played with went on to get full caps. Davie Simpson and Bruce Patterson. Dougie Johnstone would have been capped as well but he concentrated more on playing fitba in his prime years. Cricket just wasn't as structured up here as it is now. I still enjoyed it though.

I was our number 11 and it was always my mision to be not out after each innings so that I could end up with the best batting average every season Those 2 not outs start to add up!

[The Poker King]

Shengus Khan, on Jul 20 2009, 11:55, said:

If that was the case then I presume it would be to put the game out of Australia's reach. If England batted for an hour yesterday (roughly 12 overs) then they could've put on another 60 odd runs leaving Australia chasing an unlikely target of 600-ish whilst still giving England plenty of time to bowl Aus out.

Having opted not to enforce the follow on I was actually quite surprised that England didn't do this.

But if england had set Australia too big a target then the Aussies could just have batted for a draw. It's much easier to bowl a team out if they are looking to actively score runs.

I suppose this only re-inforces Reynards view that the tactics involved in cricket are varied and vast!

[Shengus Khan]

The Poker King, on Jul 20 2009, 15:31, said:

But if england had set Australia too big a target then the Aussies could just have batted for a draw. It's much easier to bowl a team out if they are looking to actively score runs.

I suppose this only re-inforces Reynards view that the tactics involved in cricket are varied and vast!

Oh definitely. I was just saying I expected England to bat on for another hour or so, it wasn't what I wanted. In fact I think credit should go to Strauss for his decision making in this Test. All the pundits on Sky said he should enforce the follow on but he was proved right in the end.

And I totally agree about the variety of tactics. Perhaps it's because I am a non-playing fan but I could honestly listen to the Sky and TMS pundits talk about cricket tactics all day long. Compare and contrast with their football counterparts who have me sticking my foot through the telly after just 2 minutes of useless drivel.

[Savage Henry]

Shengus Khan, on Jul 20 2009, 15:56, said:

Oh definitely. I was just saying I expected England to bat on for another hour or so, it wasn't what I wanted. In fact I think credit should go to Strauss for his decision making in this Test. All the pundits on Sky said he should enforce the follow on but he was proved right in the end.

And I totally agree about the variety of tactics. Perhaps it's because I am a non-playing fan but I could honestly listen to the Sky and TMS pundits talk about cricket tactics all day long. Compare and contrast with their football counterparts who have me sticking my foot through the telly after just 2 minutes of useless drivel.

Totally agree. Test Match Special, with the possible exception of Henry Blofeld, has outstanding commentary and analysis. The same can be said for cricket books and journalism, which are often insightful and well constructed, unlike football books which are usually a series of clichés and banal sycophancy.

[Cyderlichtie]

I played very rarely as a kid but was never that into it - at school it was all about batting and no real coaching. I started working in London and played a few times for my work. Really enjoyed the banter and whole atmosphere but was absolutely useless - total rabbit with the bat and when I bowled most of my deliveries were unplayable

Then I moved to a village on the outskirts of London and their team was looking for Sunday 2nd XI players and I went along. After facing a few balls in the nets the youth coach took me to one side and showed me the basics of batting for an hour or so. Then he got me bowling - batting-wise I'm still a rabbit (think my average was about 4) but it turns out I'm a useful medium-swing bowler - more to do with my action than any skill, but I used to take quite a few wickets. I really wish I'd taken it seriously as a kid, and I'm encouraging my boys to play cricket rather than football.

As for the quality of commentators the TMS team are head and shoulders above their football counterparts. Tuffers had me in stitches this morning with the comment about girlfriends being like bats...

[Savage Henry]

Cyderlichtie, on Jul 20 2009, 16:46, said:

I played very rarely as a kid but was never that into it - at school it was all about batting and no real coaching. I started working in London and played a few times for my work. Really enjoyed the banter and whole atmosphere but was absolutely useless - total rabbit with the bat and when I bowled most of my deliveries were unplayable

Then I moved to a village on the outskirts of London and their team was looking for Sunday 2nd XI players and I went along. After facing a few balls in the nets the youth coach took me to one side and showed me the basics of batting for an hour or so. Then he got me bowling - batting-wise I'm still a rabbit (think my average was about 4) but it turns out I'm a useful medium-swing bowler - more to do with my action than any skill, but I used to take quite a few wickets. I really wish I'd taken it seriously as a kid, and I'm encouraging my boys to play cricket rather than football.

As for the quality of commentators the TMS team are head and shoulders above their football counterparts. Tuffers had me in stitches this morning with the comment about girlfriends being like bats...

He was singing during commentary the other day just before the View From The Boundary interview with Rolf Harris.

Don't know if anyone follows his twitter, but they are barely comprehensible. Strikes me as being a top bloke though.

[Yoss]

That the quality of cricekt journalism is so much higher than the quality of football journalism is something that I've sometimes wondered about. I think it's a lot to do with the nature of the sport, it's much more difficult to talk at any length about football tactics / team selection / conditions etc in any particularly meaningful or insightful way.

[Uncle Psychosis]

FC_1919, on Jul 20 2009, 13:48, said:

My mate from off here Palmerston1919 plays, was asking him last week if there was cricket for adult beginners. He said I could go to training for the older teens if I wanted to give it a go, might go along to see what its like. Something I would like to try anyway, wouldn't feel that daft being a beginner at 22.

I play for my works team and I'd never ever played before going along. I don't feel like a total diddy either---we play at a pretty low standard. There are a surprising number of clubs out there, contact a few and I bet they'll have a team that suits you. Maybe a bit far into the season to start now though!

Yoss, on Jul 20 2009, 16:10, said:

That the quality of cricekt journalism is so much higher than the quality of football journalism is something that I've sometimes wondered about. I think it's a lot to do with the nature of the sport, it's much more difficult to talk at any length about football tactics / team selection / conditions etc in any particularly meaningful or insightful way.

Its also because your average cricketer *has* to have a decent understanding of the tactics involved to be any good. Which kind of deliveries to bowl to which players, etc. Your average footballer doesn't require quite the same level of detail.