[Reynard]

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.

I felt it was a fine line when he declared. You have to look at the number of batsmen the Aussies have that can potentially dig in and grind it. The total was still massive to get for a side batting last. It would have been a record score for them to knock off. It wasn't likely to happen and he had to give Englands bowlers enough time to bowl them out. Six sessions of play if the weather held out was fine. Less than two wickets a session.

None of it is an exact science, plenty of folk wanted him to bat for most of the next session and get to six hundred ahead. or to even stick the Aussies back in. Making them follow on wasn't the right thing to do this time as I'm quite sure they would have played time rather than trying to stick on a score and give England a target. I still don't think Strauss was confident that Flintoff would last another load of bowling anyway. Resting him up a bit was the right thing to do as he could potentially break down at any time.

[FuzzyBear]

Reynard, on Jul 20 2009, 14:53, said:

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!

HTG who posts a lot on the Junior forum was also a bowler and I think he may even have been around the Scotland squad a couple of times but that is going back a few years. He was one of a few West Lothian players who were a bit handy at the time..

[Reynard]

FuzzyBear, on Jul 21 2009, 10:01, said:

HTG who posts a lot on the Junior forum was also a bowler and I think he may even have been around the Scotland squad a couple of times but that is going back a few years. He was one of a few West Lothian players who were a bit handy at the time..

I was in there about 85/86 maybe a year earlier... Can't actually remember.

The whole set up was fragmented and a mess back then. I haven't really been following Scottish cricket since but it seems to be a bit more organised now. I could be wrong though.

[FuzzyBear]

Reynard, on Jul 21 2009, 13:25, said:

I was in there about 85/86 maybe a year earlier... Can't actually remember.

The whole set up was fragmented and a mess back then. I haven't really been following Scottish cricket since but it seems to be a bit more organised now. I could be wrong though.

Must be around the same time. System must have been a mess for HTG to get quoted. He was quick but was slightly inconsistent due to a windmill action.

[Notebook]

Quite interesting reading through this thread. Surprised no-one has posted that you don't actually have to bowl a team out twice to win. The team batting first could declare in both its innings while the team batting second, declares first time then wins in the final innings.

It often happens in the English Counties that results are manufactured because of the weather - one team may declare its innings over after one ball just so they can force a result.

Remember Hansie Cronje's infamous declaration against England.

This post has been edited by Notebook: 21 July 2009 - 16:17

[Reynard]

Notebook, on Jul 21 2009, 17:17, said:

Quite interesting reading through this thread. Surprised no-one has posted that you don't actually have to bowl a team out twice to win. The team batting first could declare in both its innings while the team batting second, declares first time then wins in the final innings.

It often happens in the English Counties that results are manufactured because of the weather - one team may declare its innings over after one ball just so they can force a result.

Remember Hansie Cronje's infamous declaration against England.

That was a debacle.

You are right. There are random circumstances where this could happen. But it's highly unlikely in a test match.

[Reynard]

FuzzyBear, on Jul 21 2009, 13:41, said:

Must be around the same time. System must have been a mess for HTG to get quoted. He was quick but was slightly inconsistent due to a windmill action.

Most kids of that age were highly inconsistent. Especially bowlers. I had a decent action and was pretty quick too and because I am tall I used to get a lot of bounce. Scottish bowlers tended to be fairly shite because we were playing on uncovered wickets most of the time.

I remember Ayr won some Scottish title or other and as Scottish champs we had to go down to a play off against Durham and Northumberland to decide who would go down to the finals which took place over a fortnight in Somerset that year. That was literally the first time I had ever bowled on a wicket that had been covered and prepared like a normal wicket. The difference was vast.

edit to add. We won both games and got a feature in The Times as no Scottish side had ever made it to the finals before. A few years before Frookie. Mind you, we were playing at under 16 age group. Still quite a buzz to do it. We were playing against the county sides down there. Seven of them. We got utterly raped. Although we did win the last game against Notts. I'm sure we probably played against some boys that went on to become professional cricketers. Maybe even test players. Would be interesting to find the old score books and see.

This post has been edited by Reynard: 21 July 2009 - 19:30

[orlandoblue]

Thanks for all the replies so far, I'll no doubt have some more questions after today.

One aspect of cricket I don't think I like is the bearing that the weather can have on a game. I know in any other sport the weather can change the way a person or team plays, but for the weather to pretty much decide the outcome of match, seems unjust to me.

[king_Bob]

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

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.

I guess you play for a cricket team

Edit: Just read through some of you posts there and noticed that you did. What team did/do you play for?

This post has been edited by king_Bob: 12 August 2009 - 13:29

[Yoss]

Reynard, on Jul 21 2009, 20:20, said:

That was a debacle.

You are right. There are random circumstances where this could happen. But it's highly unlikely in a test match.

Declaring and then losing is always embarrassing, and you're right at Test level captains are usually cautious enough not to allow any chance of it happening.

England did it at Adelaide in 2006 though.

[jupe1407]

orlandoblue, on Jul 30 2009, 09:18, said:

Thanks for all the replies so far, I'll no doubt have some more questions after today.

One aspect of cricket I don't think I like is the bearing that the weather can have on a game. I know in any other sport the weather can change the way a person or team plays, but for the weather to pretty much decide the outcome of match, seems unjust to me.

That's both one of the most infuriating and at the same time fascinating things about it.

A shortened test match means captains needs to re-think their strategies to force a result. Over head conditions affect the ball movement, and the batting side have to adapt to this.

There are almost endless variations on tactics in the game, i absolutely fucking love it.

[endieinreekie]

It is a great game indeed. Except when some tall fast bowler drills one in short to you and in order to protect your neck area you get your hands in the way, only for ball to hit your thumb and break it, meaning that you miss the rest of the season. Bugger.

[Yoss]

orlandoblue, on Jul 30 2009, 09:18, said:

Thanks for all the replies so far, I'll no doubt have some more questions after today.

One aspect of cricket I don't think I like is the bearing that the weather can have on a game. I know in any other sport the weather can change the way a person or team plays, but for the weather to pretty much decide the outcome of match, seems unjust to me.

If the sides are closely matched then the toss can sometimes turn out to be critical as well, which is something else I know some of the uninitiated find odd / patently unfair. Them's the breaks.

[jupe1407]

endieinreekie, on Aug 12 2009, 15:23, said:

It is a great game indeed. Except when some tall fast bowler drills one in short to you and in order to protect your neck area you get your hands in the way, only for ball to hit your thumb and break it, meaning that you miss the rest of the season. Bugger.

Going into the middle without a box is no fucking picnic either.

[ballymoneyyin]

whats a bopara

[jupe1407]

ballymoneyyin, on Aug 12 2009, 21:55, said:

whats a bopara

A "Bopara" is a fairly precise term for a Number 3 batman who is brought in the replace another completely ineffectual Number 3 batsman, often referred to as a "Bell". The "Bopara" will be be campaigned for inclusion for months by his country's media to replace the "Bell".

However, in a cruel twist of fate, sometimes the "Bopara" turns out to be equally, if not more useless than the "bell". This leads confused cricket selectors to actually include both in the same team, to the great amusement of their opposition.

[Ludo *1]

The thread title is misleading, I thought it meant rounders!

[shanghai grip]

Watchin Ashes on channel 5 the now, first time i've ever watched cricket for morethan 3 mins. i;m really surprised that i'm really enjoying it.(and wanting england to win......WTF???)

got a question, see when marcus north went out lbw but it hit his bat. can he not appeal that? i take it only the umpire can refer it to hawkeye/3rd umpire?

and how does that work? does it go to the 3rd umpire first, then if he doesn't know, then to hawkeye?

[Yoss]

shanghai grip, on Aug 21 2009, 19:57, said:

Watchin Ashes on channel 5 the now, first time i've ever watched cricket for morethan 3 mins. i;m really surprised that i'm really enjoying it.(and wanting england to win......WTF???)

got a question, see when marcus north went out lbw but it hit his bat. can he not appeal that? i take it only the umpire can refer it to hawkeye/3rd umpire?

and how does that work? does it go to the 3rd umpire first, then if he doesn't know, then to hawkeye?

No appeals no. The umpire can refer some issues to a third umpire, but lbw decisions are not among them - it's only for run-ours or stumpings, whether a catch was grounded, one or two other things like that.

There have been some Test series played over the last year or so - including England's in the West Indies - which worked on an appeals system similar to tennis, each team could have two or three appeals during the course of each innings, the total not being reduced if an appeal is successful. It was only a partially successful experiment, the idea was that it would allow teams to overturn obvious injustices like North's inside edge today and other such clear objective errors, but it ended up being used to rejudge fairly tight lbw decisions which were pretty subjective anyway, and they ended up still having mistakes anyway.

So they need to do a bit of work on it, but nonetheless it does seem that such a system will be brought in across all Test cricket shortly.

[shanghai grip]

quick question, what's a powerplay?

[Shengus Khan]

Ok, this will be tough but i'll try to explain the best I can.

In one day cricket you'll see a 30m inner circle on the pitch. During a "batting powerplay", the fielding team is only allowed 3 fielders outside this circle. This is to encourage the batting side to try and hit big shots. In short, it's to add a bit of excitement to the game.

The first 10 overs of each innings in a one day game will be a powerplay and thereafter both the batting and fielding side have a 5 over powerplay which they can introduce at any time they choose.

The bowling side would either use this just after the initial powerplay or in the middle overs as this tends to be quite a slow part of the game. Then it's really all about damage limitation for them.

The batting side will use theirs towards the end as a new ball is brought on which makes it much easier to hit the ball big distances.

[Uncle Psychosis]

Shengus Khan, on Oct 4 2009, 15:08, said:

Ok, this will be tough but i'll try to explain the best I can.

In one day cricket you'll see a 30m inner circle on the pitch. During a "batting powerplay", the fielding team is only allowed 3 fielders outside this circle. This is to encourage the batting side to try and hit big shots. In short, it's to add a bit of excitement to the game.

The first 10 overs of each innings in a one day game will be a powerplay and thereafter both the batting and fielding side have a 5 over powerplay which they can introduce at any time they choose.

The bowling side would either use this just after the initial powerplay or in the middle overs as this tends to be quite a slow part of the game. Then it's really all about damage limitation for them.

The batting side will use theirs towards the end as a new ball is brought on which makes it much easier to hit the ball big distances.

^^^ what this gentleman said. A powerplay sets a restriction on where the fielders are allowed to stand, supposedly to encourage the batsmen to try and score big. Its worth pointing out that its compulsory for the fielding side to declare a powerplay at somepoint (what happens if they don't??). During normal gameplay there are also some fielding restrictions (to do with how many fielders are allowed on the leg side, amongst other things) but I forget exactly what they are!