bobrock

Coach
  • Content count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About bobrock

  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. ok but I remember in the last T20 world cup, England bowled in the last over with 18 runs to defend. The bowler could have been the hero. He wasn't, but still all eyes were on him. So I guess a bowler can be at the heart of the game in T20 too. Am I wrong ?
  2. I was reading about Chris Gayle an I found the echoes of a controversy caused by his doubts about the future of Test cricket. In a forum I read a post of a fan of Test cricket defending the format, saying something I struggle to understand. According to this Test cricket fan, if T20 was the only form of cricket to be played, no kid would like to become a bowler anymore. Maybe he was wrong, but why would someone say such a thing ? I have watched some cricket recently but I am miles away from a decent understanding of it.
  3. Ok, fair enough, but here's another problem ( never short of problems when trying to understand cricket ). I guess this Powerplay system was introduced because there was somethimg wrong to be fixed.
  4. Yes but I guess this has been the problem since limited overs were introduced. Trying to score as more runs as you could regardless of wickets falling, or being more conservative. i thought it was only down to the quality of the team. If number 8 can score quite as easily as number 3 then it's not a problem to lose early wickets, but if he's not, then the top order should stay at the crease as long as they can. I thought it was just like that. Is it not ?
  5. I've just read the comment of a journalist about Pakistan's performance in the 4th ODI against England. He said they bat like they were still in 1990. Maybe the question I make would deserve a long and over detailed answer, probably difficult for me to understand, but can anyone give me an idea of what that means ?
  6. So there was something strange. Thank you.
  7. From the BBC web site I read this score : Warwickshire 243-1 (41.0) beats Leicestershire 237-9 (49.0) by nine wickets. But if Leicestershire batted first why didn't they play the 50th over ? They still had one wicket in hand ( otherwise I'd expect to read "all out" instead of "-9" ), and there was no indication of D/L method or anything about rain interruption. Just when I thought I understood well enough....
  8. How can you plan things if winning the toss can play such a big part ? In the last World T20 West Indies won the toss in all their matches.
  9. It seems 90% of IPL matches are won by the team bowling first. Well, I have no official data but is just my impression from reading the results day by day. I don't know the game very well actually, but shouldn't it be close to 50% ?
  10. I am deeply sorry. My english is poor. My aim was to make a question that was definetely about cricket, but maybe was a silly one.
  11. Glad to see my question wasn't so silly after all. Assuming that it's fair to have some kind of advantage playing at home, doing it on a pitch prepared by the home team should be enough, regardless of who bats first ?
  12. I always wondered if the current way to decide who will bat or bowl first is fair. I understand the choice is vital and sometimes it may give a huge advantage, so I wonder if woudn't it be better, for example in a Test series of five Tests, to let the home team choose in the 1st, 3rd and final Test, and the visiting team to do it in the 2nd and 4th. If one team wins the toss in all of the Tests doesn't this give them an unfair advantage ? And the same for ODI's or T20 series that are usually played over 3 or 5 matches. In international tournaments they play each other once and so the toss is inevitable but that happens once every 4 years. Maybe this has been debated before and the current system is seen by all of you as the best possible way to deal the problem, but I wonder why.
  13. I always wondered if the current way to decide who will bat or bowl first is fair. I understand the choice is vital and sometimes it may give a huge advantage, so I wonder if woudn't it be better, for example in a Test series of five Tests, to let the home team choose in the 1st, 3rd and final Test, and the visiting team to do it in the 2nd and 4th. If one team wins the toss in all of the Tests doesn't this give them an unfair advantage ? And the same for ODI's or T20 series that are usually played over 3 or 5 matches. In international tournaments they play each other once and so the toss is inevitable but that happens once every 4 years. Maybe this has been debated before and the current system is seen by all of you as the best possible way to deal the problem, but I wonder why.
  14. I never thought this thread coul last so long. I see there are always many things going on and I dare to bring back some basics in my post. I wish I had 1€ for every time I've heard the words "round the wicket", I think mostly referred to the bowling action. All I can guess is about the bowler ending his run-in at the left or at the right of the stumps of the non batting end. And I guess this has also something to do with the batsman being right handed or feft handed. Can anyone tell me something about this ? Thank you.
  15. Thanks to all of you.