Cricket: More Than a Game

Aussie squad for the Ashes announced, seems to be a lot of players with injury problems and no Andrew Symons. I think they are convinced that England will prepare wickets with more spin now that Swann has emerged and Shane Warne isn't about to torment England again.

In other news, ex-test player Chris Lewis will have plenty of time to watch the Ashes....he's just been found guilty of smuggling cocaine valued at £130k into the UK, and will now have 13 years at Her Majesty's pleasure to reflect on this.

Nice a cricket thread! I'm a New Zealand supporter altough I do cheer for Aussie during the Ashes. Also I despise 20\20 cricket I think it has ruined the game.

Anyway introductions aside I must say it's no surprise Symons isn't in the Ashes squad he said he wouldn't drink and did he's had a bucket full of chances to come clean.

Also Chris Lewis what an idiot.

Quite agree about 20/20, but the one thing that it does over here is to support the income of the county game - I bet that Lancashire, who are one of the better supported counties, get more people through the gates for the 4 domestic 20/20 games that they've played already than for every one of the County Championship games this season.

As for Symons, I think it's clear to pretty much everyone that he isn't 'someone with a drink problem', he's actually an alcoholic. If CA can be faulted for anything, then it's for not insisting that Symonds attended some sort of clinic and got himself well.

Happy to have you, Spacedog.

davet010 wrote:
Quite agree about 20/20, but the one thing that it does over here is to support the income of the county game - I bet that Lancashire, who are one of the better supported counties, get more people through the gates for the 4 domestic 20/20 games that they've played already than for every one of the County Championship games this season.

Probably true at the Rose Bowl as well.
I still consider Tests to be the ultimate form of the game, and love them more than I ever could the shorter forms of the game. But I'm not sure I agree that Twenty20 ruined the rest of the game.

Having grown up with baseball, I can see how Twenty20 could be considered a legitimate 'intro' format. Its easily digestible, full of drama and doesn't require too much of the spectator. If even 5% of the people who attend/watch Twenty20 move on to support other forms of the game, then it will have strengthened cricket. It won't ever replace Tests or the limited over game, so I have no problem with it.

Speaking of, though, I thought England bowled really well last night. They were at the Indians' throats all game. Nice to see Sid turning his arm over again, as well. Made a real difference to the side.

Can anyone point me towards a "Cricket for Americans" explanation? Because I was reading about India v. England today and I have absolutely no idea what anything they're talking about means.

Some annoying popups, but this site has quite a fair amount of useful information.

http://www.abcofcricket.com/cfb1/cfb...

davet010 wrote:
Some annoying popups, but this site has quite a fair amount of useful information.

http://www.abcofcricket.com/cfb1/cfb...

That's not a bad site, Pred, but I find this one is probably the best explanation you can get for Americans:
Wiki's comparison of baseball & cricket.

I found that there's no substitute for watching or listening to it, however. If you can get around the 'UK Only' DRM, you might be able to find a Five Live Sports Xtra feed and give that a listen. Or hit Youtube and watch some videos.
If you're serious about it, I could find you some Region 0 dvds. (The 2005 Ashes is an great set.)

Here's a simple explanation of cricket.

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.
Each man that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he is out.
When they are all out, the side that's been out comes in and the side that's 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 are all 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 been 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.

I've got that on a tea towel.

what the hell is a tea towel?

SpaceDog wrote:

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.
Each man that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he is out.
When they are all out, the side that's been out comes in and the side that's 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 are all 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 been 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.

This also happens to be the explanation of baseball.

Hence Haakon's link above

Novocain wrote:
what the hell is a tea towel?

A tea towel is something you dry dishes with.

First day of The Ashes today - c'mon England !

Tea's over, and we're plodding along pretty well.
Hilfenhaus & Siddle both look pretty dangerous, but KP & Colly don't look particularly unsettled by the attack. Good partnership this.

Also, these are the days I love working from home.

Be an interesting test for Punter, this one - none of the 4 bowlers have sparkled, and he doesn't seem to be trying to force the pace of the game, while Petersen and Collingwood just nudge on the runs. Pitch looks like it'll deteriorate as well, judging by the bowler's run up.

Yeah, one of the threats with such a new pitch. Swanny and Monty should have a good surface to work with, and that puts the Aussies at a disadvantage.

The Pont doesn't look happy, at the moment.

Meh, 7 down, and only 2 to good balls. Of course, Petersen managed to get out to an idiot shot again.

Honours even today, I think - would be England's day if they'd finished at 5 down, but there is at most 400-420 in that pitch.

Ravi's was a canny use of the slower ball and Prior's was a peach of a delivery. But the rest... yeah, we did seem to give them away.

I'd still call it our day, though. With some weather due over the weekend and a stronger bowling attack, I think we can take 20.

Haakon7 wrote:
Ravi's was a canny use of the slower ball and Prior's was a peach of a delivery. But the rest... yeah, we did seem to give them away.

I'd still call it our day, though. With some weather due over the weekend and a stronger bowling attack, I think we can take 20.

You are kidding right? At least 3 of our batsman through away their wicket...

Aussies Batting: 123 - 1, just before tea on day 2.

If the Aussies finish the day only 1 or 2 down it's going to be a real issue for the Poms.

AP Erebus wrote:
If the Aussies finish the day only 1 or 2 down it's going to be a real issue for the Poms.

You are some kind of prophet.

Unfortunately, I've been in meetings all afternoon, so I've had to rely on my ECB app on the iPhone. (Best cricket app I've found, by the way.) But it looks like Ponting & Katich are playing their roles quite well.

Indeed, bowling was average at best - Panesar does not deserve to be in the test side. Swing seems to have disappeared altogether, the only good thing out of today was the relatively slow Aussie scoring.

Good points few and far between, apart from Ponting continuing to demonstrate that without Warne and McGrath he hasn't got any ideas in his head.

I want to watch the ashes but my flatmates are to stingy to get sky. I did get to see day one though and if England keeps playing like that the little wodden cup might be going back to oz.

Well, that's the skip gone. And frankly, I can play an off-balance swipe at off-spin back onto my stumps just as well as Ricky. I just can't get the 150 runs first.

343-4 looks alot more manageable, but we're going to have to tear through them today to make it work.

... so that didn't work that well for the poms...

Tho Bopara's wicket was probably borderline.

England 435
Australia 674/6d (Ponting 150, Katich 122, North 125*, Haddin 121)
England 20/2 (7.0 ov)

Unless the Poms collapse horribly, this game should end in a draw. The weather seems to have closed in.

AP Erebus wrote:
... so that didn't work that well for the poms...

Tho Bopara's wicket was probably borderline.

Unless the Poms collapse horribly, this game should end in a draw. The weather seems to have closed in.

Coming from an Aussie, that says it all fella....umpiring has been shocking in this test, I'm almost pining for Billy Bowden.

Play's over for the day, rain in forecast tomorrow. Big changes ahoy for the next test, I feel..

Three people saved that game for England - Collingwood, Anderson and Panesar. Some of the others (Cook, Bopara) plainly haven't got a clue, and both Prior and Petersen could have done better.

Still, keeps the series at 0-0, and worth it just to see the look on Punter's face as the overs ticked away, and then he realised that once England were in the lead, that was more time gone. That's not to take anything away from the Aussies though, they creamed England in almost every phase of the game.

Punter's now been on the box twining about the 'gamesmanship' of England's delays towards the end of the last day's play. I'm presuming that it was gamesmanship to agree to play under the floodlights as well to increase the amount of play during the previous days.

Two words for Ponting when he talks about Aussie sportsmanship etc.

Greg. Chappell.

Holy crap, that was tense.

EDIT: And yeah, sending Majj from the Apprentice out in the final overs to confuse the Aussies with his Delboy impersonation was good thinking by Strauss.

What was Ponting doing bowling Johnson (who couldn't get near the stumps) and North (who even I might manage to block out) at the end ?

No idea, frankly. If it were me, I'd have had Siddle or Hilfenhaus on the other end from Hauritz.

Maybe he was trying to give Monty & Anderson as much time as possible to screw up. That's not a bad tactic in most conditions and neither of them are the type to go over the top to spin, so the Aussies could tighten up on the runs.
But fair play to the tip of our tail, they were gritty enough and determined enough to see it out. Jimmy even played a couple of inventive shots.