• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,097 profile views
  1. bobrock

    May and Boycott

    I understand Mr. Boycott is a strong character and probably a divisive one, so these reactions are more than justified, but I was just looking for some explanations about the fact that statistics don't seem to confirm some things I read about the way he used to play.
  2. Last week Theresa May showed her determination to stay in power and lead the government, and used as example the playing style of cricketer Geoffrey Boycott. I know very little about cricket but it’s easy for everyone to look for information about him, and find out that he was more keen to defend the wicket than going for risky shots . So forget about fours and sixes, stay at the crease as long as you can and runs will come. I’ve tried to find evidence of this in the stats section of ESPN Cricinfo website. A lot of them seemed quite useful: slowest 100, slow batting ( by runs scored ), longest innings ( by minutes or by balls ). To my surprise I could find the name of Geoffrey Boycott only in the longest innings stat, but well down in the table, behind many other cricketers I have never heard to be known for a conservative style of play ( Chris Gayle for example ). Those stats were about Tests and I didn’t find some for First Class cricket. Statistics never tell the whole story, but I am still baffled. He scored a lot of hundreds, and if I understand correctly how runs are scored in cricket, some of those hundreds had be slow because of the high number of dot balls, and the score moving slowly. Every time I think my knowledge of cricket is improving, there’s a setback.
  3. bobrock

    Bowlers stats

    I have looked at the ESPN database and I've found there all I wanted to know. Thank you.
  4. Looking at a scoreboard I see wickets are always credited to the bowler. Although this habit looks well established and I know very little about the game, I dare to say this looks quite unfair, as wickets can come from outstanding catches, in which case I think the merit should be shared with the fielder. But that's the way it goes. Still I wonder if someone ever cared about keeping note about how many wickets fall exclusively for the batsman being either bowled or lbw, without any other player than the bowler involved. After all, how can the mere number of wickets taken be seen as the real measure of the bowler's quality, if easy catches dropped and difficult catches held are so iportant in the outcome ?
  5. bobrock

    Cricket scores

    Sorry if this will sound naive, but I find it strange. If there are 8 teams in the Big Bash, why don't they play 14 rounds ?
  6. bobrock

    Cricket scores

    These examples are well chosen and I have to say they offer a completely new point of view to me. Thank you for your posts
  7. bobrock

    Cricket scores

    Thank you for your reply. It seems there are endless implications to be discussed by fans and this is good for the sport, I guess. Just one more thing if you don't mind. The fielding restrictions make me thing of something "artificial", something made up to make viable what was inherently flawed and bland. Like turning a whole football match in a perennial penalty shoot-out and then trying to change the rules of penalty taking because you realize that was you have invented is not interesting enough. I understand the commercial implications, but it looks to me that in a few years time there will be no more cricketers, but only "T20 cricketers" and "other forms cricketers", and the two groups will be apart.
  8. bobrock

    Cricket scores

    Thank you for your post. What you wrote is clear and logical but I wonder how these "rules" are transferred in T20 as one innings lasts 90 minutes.
  9. bobrock

    Cricket scores

    Thank you for your post. Maybe you could bring further my education telling me something about the bowlers. It seems to me that fast bowlers are always the first to play, and spinners and seamers (or whatever other name they have) come in to play later. Is that true or did I pay little attention ? And if it's true, is it because of the state of the ball, or bacause of the state of the pitch, or for some other reason ?
  10. I wonder why Australians write the score putting the number of wickets before the number of runs. It seems to me they are the only ones doing it. If this is understandable in Test cricket, as you need to get 20 wickets to win the match, I can't see why they do it in ODI's and T20s where, unless you go all out within the 20 overs, the number of wickets taken is irrelevant. I also don't understand why, in limited overs cricket, teams winning the match batting second are said to have won "by wickets". For what I understood about the game, the size of the win is shown much more by how many balls were spared than how many batsmen were still available. If they bat the 20 overs with no loss and win with last ball it's said they won by 10 wickets, but that doesn't show how close the match was. The more I read the less I get. Cricket is still a mysterious matter to me.
  11. Too many different terms can be used, depends on the mood. Are you sure you're not chippy as well ?
  12. And once again I am simply, and as far as I can tell, quite politely too, asking if you could be more specific about these websites, because I am a pretty keen reader of union stuff but I never happened to find them.
  13. If you think this thread should be only about Saluzzo why do you keep going at my history as a poster here ? Anyway, in your last line you say you were referring to single users, while in your previous post you talked about union Web sites talking about league only to denigrate it about doping issues and violence. Do you remember what you wrote ?
  14. You say you've read my old posts but if this is true you need to better your knowledge of English language. I have spent months asking about dominant tackles and scoot, and every single term I did not know. I have stayed away from every bit of union for months, until I found out how many wrong and ill-informed things were written about it. I have no need to defend union from anyone, but when some wrong, or silly, or plainly offensive things are written about union fans, why should I let them go ? Would you like to be pointed out as a potential fascist just because you like union ? It has happened to me and you would know it if you really read my posts. Some league fans are used to express their hate for Union in unpleasant forms. They are quite a small number so I don't stop being curious about the game. Some union fans show contempt for league and this is regrettable, but your description of the attitude towards league in Italian union sites is unfair. I wonder why you do so. I could name you a couple when you could hardly find a single word less than respectful about rugby league.
  15. If people enjoy playing and watching rugby league in Italy, good for them. If they think the only way to support their game is to deride union, like sometimes happens where rugby league is strong, then some stiff reply will be understandable. Looks like you have lived on another planet in recent years. Never heard something like "kick and clap", "aimless scrums", and other such nonsense ?