Cricket: More Than a Game

Prederick wrote:

I GENUINELY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE RULES OF CRICKET IN THE SLIGHTEST AND I GET THAT THIS HAS BEEN EDGE-OF-YOUR-SEAT STUFF

EDIT: A "Super-over"?

Alright, you don't get to make fun of Americans for having silly names for sports anymore. :lol:

Cricket's honestly not that complicated. Especially the limited overs games.

Two sides take turns to bat while the other bowls and fields. The side batting first sets a target, the side batting second tries to reach the target.

Runs are achieved by running (duh) or getting the ball over the boundary rope, fang has it basically right. If the ball touches the field before crossing the rope, it's 4. If it doesn't touch before crossing the rope it's 6.

There are ways for bowlers to concede runs: Wides, no balls, byes. But don't worry about those, you'll see when they happen.

Batsmen go 'out' by:
1 Bowled out - The wicket getting hit, can come off a bat.
2 Caught Out - The ball getting caught before grounding
3 Leg Before Wicket (LBW) - their leg getting hit by the ball in front of the wicket
4 Run out which is the wicket getting hit while out of your crease or 'zone' I guess you'd call it.
There are variations, but that's the gist of it.

That's basically what you need to watch a 50 or 20 over game.

Oh right, an over is 6 balls. After the over the bowlers change and bowl from opposite ends while the batsmen stay where they are.

Why it gets exciting, that takes experience. And watching with people who understand what's going on.

The 'super over' is from 20 over cricket which purists don't like much. This is, afaik, the first time one has been used in a 50 over game. draws in 20 over matches are unusual, in 50 over extremely rare.

I don’t tend to watch cricket but I got caught up in those last couple of hours. Unbelievable ending.

I can't imagine that they will, Clusks, because the days of having a full day's Test Match cricket (or a 50 over one-day final) on terrestrial TV are, unfortunately, over (yes, I know it's better than 99% of the dross that even BBC2 serve up these days, but..). And the money that stations will pay for highlight packages of 30 mins is, quite frankly, buttons - and I guess will rely on someone (ie Sky) televising the whole day. Which means that the ECB are probably going to stick where they are.

And as Sorbicol said, commiserations to our Kiwi brethren.

I didn't realise that the Super Over has been around for so long. I still think losing fewer wickets is a better method.

davet010 wrote:

I can't imagine that they will, Clusks, because the days of having a full day's Test Match cricket (or a 50 over one-day final) on terrestrial TV are, unfortunately, over (yes, I know it's better than 99% of the dross that even BBC2 serve up these days, but..). And the money that stations will pay for highlight packages of 30 mins is, quite frankly, buttons - and I guess will rely on someone (ie Sky) televising the whole day. Which means that the ECB are probably going to stick where they are.

And as Sorbicol said, commiserations to our Kiwi brethren.

I didn't realise that the Super Over has been around for so long. I still think losing fewer wickets is a better method.

I'm probably guessing the ECB have done some sort of research, but I think of it more as cricket attendances going up if it was on free to view TV, which would in turn have an implicit financial impact on the Counties, as I know they're trying their best to shorten games and make them more accessible outside work/school hours I'm fine with tests being on Sky, more they should consider getting T20 games on free to air TV. I'm guessing they probably think stick with Sky (although I do wonder if they're on borrowed time considering how they are rapidly losing long-standing deals like La Liga and the wrestling), as it makes more sense for money up front, plus, as mentioned, I don't know their spreadsheets, so they might have plenty of proof to suggest I'm totally wrong.

To be honest, they'll probably point to the fact that T20 has managed to grow, but it's still not on the level of other competitions. I doubt it will be as big as the IPL considering the money, but there's a lot to enjoy about it.

But they'd be silly to ignore that the amazing game today probably had more people talking about than it would've if it wasn't on Channel 4; as mentioned it's a boon that the ECB should jump on. The last time they got such a moment was the Ashes in 2005, which was also on Channel 4! To me, it just makes sense to sacrifice some of that money for the sake getting more eyes watching cricket.

Clusks wrote:
davet010 wrote:

I can't imagine that they will, Clusks, because the days of having a full day's Test Match cricket (or a 50 over one-day final) on terrestrial TV are, unfortunately, over (yes, I know it's better than 99% of the dross that even BBC2 serve up these days, but..). And the money that stations will pay for highlight packages of 30 mins is, quite frankly, buttons - and I guess will rely on someone (ie Sky) televising the whole day. Which means that the ECB are probably going to stick where they are.

And as Sorbicol said, commiserations to our Kiwi brethren.

I didn't realise that the Super Over has been around for so long. I still think losing fewer wickets is a better method.

I'm probably guessing the ECB have done some sort of research, but I think of it more as cricket attendances going up if it was on free to view TV, which would in turn have an implicit financial impact on the Counties, as I know they're trying their best to shorten games and make them more accessible outside work/school hours I'm fine with tests being on Sky, more they should consider getting T20 games on free to air TV. I'm guessing they probably think stick with Sky (although I do wonder if they're on borrowed time considering how they are rapidly losing long-standing deals like La Liga and the wrestling), as it makes more sense for money up front, plus, as mentioned, I don't know their spreadsheets, so they might have plenty of proof to suggest I'm totally wrong.

To be honest, they'll probably point to the fact that T20 has managed to grow, but it's still not on the level of other competitions. I doubt it will be as big as the IPL considering the money, but there's a lot to enjoy about it.

But they'd be silly to ignore that the amazing game today probably had more people talking about than it would've if it wasn't on Channel 4; as mentioned it's a boon that the ECB should jump on. The last time they got such a moment was the Ashes in 2005, which was also on Channel 4! To me, it just makes sense to sacrifice some of that money for the sake getting more eyes watching cricket.

Wasn't Ch4's coverage in 2005 only highlights though? I seem to remember there being an hour about 8pm or so. I'm not sure whether Sky are necessarily preventing that now.

As for pyjama cricket, I can't see any of the major channels giving up 3-4 hours of prime time evening TV to show any T20 game other than the final. I'm not sure what the TV arrangements are for this Hundreds thing, maybe terrestrial TV will be given a few of those to try and generate some interest in yet another format.

No, the Ashes of 2005 was on Channel 4, it got a massive audience. After 2005, the deal with Sky kicked in. If it's on free to air TV then people will watch it.

Yeah the whole of the 2005 ashes was on Channel 4 - “Mambo No. 5!” and all that. I watched pretty much all of it much to the disgust of my then girlfriend.

Still she’s Mrs Sorb now so clearly it wasn’t that much of a transgression.

Edit: and the TV deal was agreed before that ashes series took place. I think people thought the financial gain would be worth it at the time.

Of course nobody expected that series to take off like it did - England lost the first test quite badly at Lords, it was the 2 run win at Edgebaston that really made the series come to life. I honestly though nothing in Cricket would match my elation at that result, until yesterday.

Much to the disgust of my Dad, I'm a Scotsman with an occasional interest in cricket. This is the only sport where I prefer England to win.

That game was absolutely perfect for drama. Could not have been scripted to be more exciting.

Has the huge success of this final ironically put another nail in the coffin of five day tests?

Clusks wrote:

No, the Ashes of 2005 was on Channel 4, it got a massive audience. After 2005, the deal with Sky kicked in. If it's on free to air TV then people will watch it.

My mistake then - must have been just me catching the highlights when I got in from work.

I remember England getting banjoed in the First Test, bets were taken in our office as to Vaughan's tenure as captain.

Something I did notice while watching Sky's highlights of the Final - they didn't show the incident with the ball hitting Stokes' bat and going for 4 overthrows, in fact they didn't even mention it. Yet they padded out the broadcast with replays of every review and even a few singles and dot balls. Odd for something that I'm guessing most people have never seen on a cricket field before.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

I feel almost bad reporting that spam. Good effort.

If that’s a bot posting that then they’re getting a lot more sophisticated.

England Test team all out for 85. Against Ireland.

Back to Earth with a bit of a bump

I can't think of anything more England than collapsing to a minor team 10 minutes after winning the World Cup.

England bounce back from all out for 85 thanks to a Spin Bowling #11 Night Watchman in glasses and a pink headband batting with a chopstick who puts on 92 runs, slightly elevating his first class average this season of... four.

Leach had never scored more than 66 in any first class game before today and he falls eight runs short of getting his name on the Honours Board at Lords, because cricket is some sort of wild fever dream.

davet010 wrote:

Wasn't Ch4's coverage in 2005 only highlights though? I seem to remember there being an hour about 8pm or so. I'm not sure whether Sky are necessarily preventing that now.

As for pyjama cricket, I can't see any of the major channels giving up 3-4 hours of prime time evening TV to show any T20 game other than the final. I'm not sure what the TV arrangements are for this Hundreds thing, maybe terrestrial TV will be given a few of those to try and generate some interest in yet another format.

In Australia the Big Bash League runs pretty much every night during the otherwise low rating summer period on one of the FTA prime channels. It was rating really solidly and drawing great crowds to the game and so, of course, a large chunk of it got sold to pay TV. Last season it dropped about 40% of it's viewership with most of the final rounds locked away and so buzz for the final was non existant. Sports governing bodies are so good at killing off interest in their sport in pursuit of money.

Mr Bismarck wrote:

cricket is some sort of wild fever dream.

An apt description of the game if I've ever seen one.

Woakes and Broad are obliterating Ireland here - they are now 24-5. Ireland will be lucky to make 50 at this rate.

The Ashes is going to be dominated by the bowlers I think. Any side making 250+ in their first innings is going to fancy their chances.

Edit: Ireland now 24-6

England need to lose this game so they work on their mindset with the bat. No one wants to spend two hours scoring eleven and killing the new ball any more.

If James Anderson had been fit Ireland might be the first test team bowled out for negative runs.

England were bowled out for 85 in the first innings and are going to win before lunch on day three.

Ireland all out for 38.

Cricket eh?

That's the cool thing about cricket though, especially tests. Any team can have a good session/day/innings but it takes application and patience to win a match.

Intriguing first Ashes match so far. Steve ‘I’m a big fat cheat’ Smith did manage one of the the great modern test innings yesterday (to give him his due) to keep Australia very much in it after being 122-8 at tea.

England in reply are cautiously playing along and have only lost one wicket - Jason Roy forgetting he’s not playing the white ball mostly. It has been decidedly like a proper test match so far.

The standard of umpiring however - pretty much every decision has been overturned so far. Some of them a lot trickier than others for sure but some of the umpire calls have been blatantly wrong.