General cricketing thread

Coconut Chucker

Not A Dude
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
279
Location
USA and New Zealand
Car(s)
1999 BMW 323i
Not sure how dead this thread will be, and I've been tempted to start one many times, but today's England vs. Sri Lanka test finally made me want to.

In case anyone missed it, this test in Cardiff suffered from lots of rain interruption. I don't think a single day started on time, and with England still batting their first innings at stumps on the fourth day, it looked to be a draw conclusively. Andrew Strauss even thought so, allowing Ian Bell to continue batting at the (yet again rain-delayed, all the way to 3:00pm) start of play on the final day, in order to complete his century, as he was on 98 from the previous day.

Strauss declared as soon as Ian Bell reached 100, and the entire crowd were expecting for Sri Lanka to bat the remaining 45 as the match finished drawn. Instead, the unthinkable happened, as England bowled out Sri Lanka for 82 in just 24.4 overs, to win by an innings and 14 runs, delighting the crowd (if you can call it that, not many people turned up since they were expecting the draw) in Cardiff.
 
I've only recently started watching it and I will be hurt for saying this, but I prefer limited overs matches to tests. :blush:
 
^
No that's OK, limited overs are good fun to watch and good for TV, but Test Matches are like watching huge scale two dimensional chess game over five days.

<---- Has seen a Century scored at Lords, the home of Cricket.

:cool:

(I thought today's weather affected England result was bonkers.)
 
^
No that's OK, limited overs are good fun to watch and good for TV, but Test Matches are like watching huge scale two dimensional chess game over five days.

Definitely; I personally prefer the 50-overs format because I think it's a good balance of strategy. There's pressure on the batsmen to preserve their wicket, but not to the degree of test cricket, but there's also pressure to score quickly, though not to the degree of the farcical Twenty20 format. The bowlers are under pressure to take wickets because putting a team all out in 50 overs is a realistic possibility, but they're also under pressure to choke the run rate and bowl economically.

That and you get a result in one day. I love the depth of strategy in test cricket, but for practical reasons find it difficult to follow a full match.
 
Bah, geeman beat me to it. :(
 
<---- Has seen a Century scored at Lords, the home of Cricket.
Fantastic mate. :) My closest to that would have to be a Century at the MCG on Boxing Day. I did visit Lords while I was over, no matches sadly. Nice chess analogy too.

That and you get a result in one day. I love the depth of strategy in test cricket, but for practical reasons find it difficult to follow a full match.
Yeah I don't think you're alone there, 5 days is a lot to spare just sitting on the couch. However as we know (and shown again in Cardiff) even the most seemingly predictable finishes can turn in a session, so I tend to leave the game on and just check in from time to time.

In regards to ODI's being the ideal balance between Tests and T20's, I tend to agree with your analysis on paper, but I think the last few years have demonstrated that there may be one or two issues with the ODI format. Like you, I enjoy the supposed balance that an ODI should have, but as teams are constantly striving for perfection I feel ODI's have become somewhat formulaic. Of course you still get good matches reasonably regularly, but in general a lot of matches involve that lull in the middle overs where the batting side is happy to knock it around at 4-5 runs per over and maintaining their wickets for the last 10 overs. They've tried to eliminate that by introducing batting and bowling powerplays etc, but everyone just uses the mandatory one immediately and saves the batting one for the last 5. I just think there needs to be another element of unpredictability to refresh the ODI format.

The other small gripe I have is with the sheer amount of matches being played. Unless I'm mistaken, after The Ashes in Australia, they then played a 7 match ODI series right before the World Cup, after which they went straight to Bangladesh for another series? By then, it was time for IPL and they all headed off there. Personally I just find it a little bit hard to get interested in all these series they play year round, especially when it's right in the middle of Football season, but moreso that they don't seem to be playing for anything but bragging rights. Still love the game though. ;)

[/rant]
 
<------ Largely agrees with rideclutch :) ... and also dismissed Andre Adams during a friendly in Suffolk in 1996

There are too many shitty little series that don't matter now. Gone are the days when my anticipation for the summer series built over September and October (fueled by the deprivation of winter) and grew further as the visiting team played their way around the country (against the state sides) leading up to the first test. The cricket season used to be like a passionate night of love making. Now it's more like a tedious procreational chore.

And, try as I have, I just can't get interested in international limited overs cricket. It's artificial, contrived and the players have always looked like extras in a Wiggles video in those stupid colored clothes. Three, 4 and 5 day games are far more interesting because they are about more than just run rates. There is the deterioration of the pitch, the weather and the prospect of a surprise declaration and the variation in playing styles. Limited overs cricket values only 2 things; fast scoring batsmen and economical bowlers.

Actually, I don't know why I'm posting here. The appointment of Michael Clarke as test captain marked the official end of my interest in the game.
 
I like the One Day format for all the reasons Victoria said. Last summer I watched a fair bit of The Ashes and found it quite entertaining as well. Dont really like Twenty20, it's just so contrived and shit and a sad indicator of the way sport in general is heading in that in order to catch the masses attention it must be gimmicky and manufactured. Like the way F1 is heading.

I still remember the end of the ODI between Australia and the West Indies in 96 or 97 with us needing 2 or 3 off the final ball and Michael Bevan just stepping forward and smacking it straight down the ground for four to win the match. Or our unlikely comeback at Adelaide Oval against the Poms in the 2005 Ashes :cool:.
 
Last edited:
Brockian Ultra-Cricket > *
 
The Goodies remarkably accurate prediction of cricket in the 21st century ... from 1976 (pre-Packer):


Not their best work ... series 5 was classic though (Scatty Safari, Kung-Fu Capers, Apartheight, Bunfight At The OK Tearooms)
 
The other small gripe I have is with the sheer amount of matches being played. Unless I'm mistaken, after The Ashes in Australia, they then played a 7 match ODI series right before the World Cup, after which they went straight to Bangladesh for another series? By then, it was time for IPL and they all headed off there.

I do understand your point, and for that reason have really only cared about internationals and don't give a dingo's balls about domestic cricket. Plunket Shield, State Shield, ARV Cup, blah. Indian Premier League even, I watched as much as I could of this year to give it a final analysis, and while I found it interesting at first to see a collection of international cricketers playing with each other for once instead of against each other, my disdain for the T20 format became nearly erased, but after the tournament and back to watching the England-Sri Lanka test series it came back. To hell with T20.

Anyway, that it's popular in so many different climates is why it ends up being played nearly year-round. England and West Indies host tours in the northern summer, South Africa, New Zealand, and Australia host tours in the southern summer, and then the subcontinent teams have to avoid both times of those times of year because of their monsoon season. It does create a bit of chaos though. In any case, it always feels like it's there for me, but I can turn it off and not pay attention at any time.

Edit: Just some commentary on the second test at Lord's, I really disagree with Andrew Strauss' decision-making about declaration. I understand the approach he was taking, he wanted to put up a high enough score or use enough time before declaring to where the chances of Sri Lanka winning were pretty much zero, but I'd have declared earlier to give the bowlers more time to rip through the Sri Lankan order, especially with Dilshan and his fractured thumb having demoted himself to #9 in the batting order. I suppose with the drawn match that Sri Lanka can no longer win the series, but I'd have risked a small chance of losing for a better chance to win, personally.
 
Last edited:
Edit: Just some commentary on the second test at Lord's, I really disagree with Andrew Strauss' decision-making about declaration. I understand the approach he was taking, he wanted to put up a high enough score or use enough time before declaring to where the chances of Sri Lanka winning were pretty much zero, but I'd have declared earlier to give the bowlers more time to rip through the Sri Lankan order, especially with Dilshan and his fractured thumb having demoted himself to #9 in the batting order. I suppose with the drawn match that Sri Lanka can no longer win the series, but I'd have risked a small chance of losing for a better chance to win, personally.
Think you've got it spot on. Probably not a match Andrew Strauss will look back on with great memories after scoring only 4 with the bat and now his very defensive declaration. They had strong pace-attack and the way Sri Lanka crumbled in Cardiff and even the back half of their first innings here, I think they had a great chance of going 2-0 up. They tried to force the pace in patches, but I think the overall run-rate of 4.29 was still too slow.

I'd like to see some more aggressive captaincy in Test Matches, not just from Strauss but all captains in general. Take control of the match while you have the ascendency and put the other team firmly on the back foot. No one likes watching a 5 day match where both teams, commentators and spectators all know what the result will be 2 days prior.

On another topic, any thoughts on whether the appointment of AB de Villiers as ODI/T20 skipper and Gary Kirsten as coach will help the ever-talented South Africa finally win some of the big events?
 
BBC News - Mohammad Amir admits playing a village match while banned

BBC News said:
Banned Pakistan bowler Mohammad Amir has admitted playing for a village team but says he thought it was a friendly and did not contravene his suspension.

The International Cricket Council has launched an inquiry after it emerged that Amir, 19, played in the Surrey league for Addington 1743 on Saturday.

He was suspended for five years in February after being found guilty of deliberately bowling no balls.

"I spoke to club representatives and was told I was fine to play," he said.

No idea why the club told him it was OK to play, if they did say that.

He should have thought it through before playing, maybe a longer ban or something.

I wonder what the ICC can or will do to a little English village club.

:?
 
I honestly feel a bit sympathetic towards him. A 5-year ban that young destroys his career basically. Sure, what he did (assuming he did it, which I don't doubt) was wrong; I wouldn't exactly want to give him only a slap on the wrists but 5 years just seems excessive. Then again, I'm of the general philosophy that the first offense can be treated somewhat lightly, but a repeat offense and all sympathy is gone. Ban him a year the first time, ban him for life the second time.
 
Top