Cricket scores

[bobrock]

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.

[THE RED ROOSTER]

Australian tradition  is to put wickets ahead of runs. They are alone in doing this within the workld of Cricket. They also used to have eight ball overs in my childhood until Kerry Packer decided that going to six ball overs like the rest of the world meant more revenue from ad breaks in between overs and he changed the Australian Cricket Board's policy on this.

Again tradition in white ball (limted overs cricket) means that the result is always described as "won by 6 wickets" but some sites such as ESPN Crickinfo will also add with" 2.4 overs remaining" which answers your point

To broaden your understandin,g there is a Teatowel on sale at The Lords Shop which reads:

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

http://shop.lords.org/products/lords-cricket-explained-tea-towel-2016/29503/view

[bobrock]

On 30/12/2017 at 9:18 PM, THE RED ROOSTER said:

Australian tradition  is to put wickets ahead of runs. They are alone in doing this within the workld of Cricket. They also used to have eight ball overs in my childhood until Kerry Packer decided that going to six ball overs like the rest of the world meant more revenue from ad breaks in between overs and he changed the Australian Cricket Board's policy on this.

Again tradition in white ball (limted overs cricket) means that the result is always described as "won by 6 wickets" but some sites such as ESPN Crickinfo will also add with" 2.4 overs remaining" which answers your point

To broaden your understandin,g there is a Teatowel on sale at The Lords Shop which reads:

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

http://shop.lords.org/products/lords-cricket-explained-tea-towel-2016/29503/view

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 ?

[Farmduck]

With the bowlers it's the state of the ball which is the main concern. As you can figure, air resistance is lower when an object has a smooth shiny surface so the fastest bowlers can achieve maximum speed with a fresh new ball. Spinners generally prefer the ball to be rougher because they are aiming for it to grip the pitch better when it bounces, to enhance sideways movement.

The pitch can also play a role. In India if the pitch is very dry and the surface has started breaking up, sometimes they start with the spinners. As a general rule, pitches tend to favour the fast bowlers on the first day and in the morning sessions of subsequent days. After that they generally favour the batsmen. In an ideal Test series you should have a situation like Australia where some pitches favour bowling and others batting. Some favour fast bowlers and other spinners. Some, with shorter boundaries, favour aggressive batsmen whereas some of the big grounds see batsmen run 4 or sometimes 5, so the batsmen need to be fitter.

Bowlers are also affected by wind direction so the choice of a bowler might be because the wind is coming in the same direction as the bowler's run-up. Other times bowlers like bowling into the wind because it makes the ball swerve more.

[bobrock]

8 hours ago, Farmduck said:

With the bowlers it's the state of the ball which is the main concern. As you can figure, air resistance is lower when an object has a smooth shiny surface so the fastest bowlers can achieve maximum speed with a fresh new ball. Spinners generally prefer the ball to be rougher because they are aiming for it to grip the pitch better when it bounces, to enhance sideways movement.

The pitch can also play a role. In India if the pitch is very dry and the surface has started breaking up, sometimes they start with the spinners. As a general rule, pitches tend to favour the fast bowlers on the first day and in the morning sessions of subsequent days. After that they generally favour the batsmen. In an ideal Test series you should have a situation like Australia where some pitches favour bowling and others batting. Some favour fast bowlers and other spinners. Some, with shorter boundaries, favour aggressive batsmen whereas some of the big grounds see batsmen run 4 or sometimes 5, so the batsmen need to be fitter.

Bowlers are also affected by wind direction so the choice of a bowler might be because the wind is coming in the same direction as the bowler's run-up. Other times bowlers like bowling into the wind because it makes the ball swerve more.

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.

[THE RED ROOSTER]

One Day / white ball cricke,t be it 50 overs or 20 Overs - is a different scenario. Using spinners first up in white ball cricket was an Innovation started by New  Zealand back in 1992 when during the World Cup that year when Captain Martin Crowe directed Dipak Patel to bowl his off spin first up.

With fast to fast medium bowling you can use the pace of the ball to deflect into scoring areas which in the longer form of the game would be covered by the fielders of the opposing side, such as the slips / gully region. Spin means that a batsman has to put the pace on the ball and  back themselves to hit bundaries over the infield. As the fielders are up wihin a 30 yard circle of the wicket (1st 10 overs of a 50/50 and 6 overs for a 20/20 game). the chances of scoring singles and two runs are also reduced. Thus it is felt that you can get away with a few cheap overs at the start of he innings.

White ball cricket is the more lucrative form of the game, and as such in order to gain a winning edge teams increasingly use analytics in determining which type of bowler should be facing certain batsmen (i.e. it's no secret that Surrey and England's Jason Roy is less able to start his innings against spinners than faster bowlers as demonstrated by Samuel Badree in the 2016 World T20 final). It also the reason why now coaches and players when asked the question as to why a certain bowler was brought on it was "because we liked the matchup".

If I have not explained this clearly enough, then I point you in the direction of this article from The Independent earlier last year  http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/data-important-in-the-twenty20-revolution-a7572356.html

 

[bobrock]

13 hours ago, THE RED ROOSTER said:

One Day / white ball cricke,t be it 50 overs or 20 Overs - is a different scenario. Using spinners first up in white ball cricket was an Innovation started by New  Zealand back in 1992 when during the World Cup that year when Captain Martin Crowe directed Dipak Patel to bowl his off spin first up.

With fast to fast medium bowling you can use the pace of the ball to deflect into scoring areas which in the longer form of the game would be covered by the fielders of the opposing side, such as the slips / gully region. Spin means that a batsman has to put the pace on the ball and  back themselves to hit bundaries over the infield. As the fielders are up wihin a 30 yard circle of the wicket (1st 10 overs of a 50/50 and 6 overs for a 20/20 game). the chances of scoring singles and two runs are also reduced. Thus it is felt that you can get away with a few cheap overs at the start of he innings.

White ball cricket is the more lucrative form of the game, and as such in order to gain a winning edge teams increasingly use analytics in determining which type of bowler should be facing certain batsmen (i.e. it's no secret that Surrey and England's Jason Roy is less able to start his innings against spinners than faster bowlers as demonstrated by Samuel Badree in the 2016 World T20 final). It also the reason why now coaches and players when asked the question as to why a certain bowler was brought on it was "because we liked the matchup".

If I have not explained this clearly enough, then I point you in the direction of this article from The Independent earlier last year  http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/cricket/data-important-in-the-twenty20-revolution-a7572356.html

 

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.

[Farmduck]

1 hour ago, bobrock said:

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.

Yes you're correct but there have always been sprinters who don't compete in the 5000m and 10,000m. Nobody expects all those Ethiopians and Kenyan marathon runners to run 200m races. Golf has multiple game formats. Sailing uses different boats for different events. Rowing uses different sized crews for different events. Swimming has different styles of swimming.

[bobrock]

7 hours ago, Farmduck said:

Yes you're correct but there have always been sprinters who don't compete in the 5000m and 10,000m. Nobody expects all those Ethiopians and Kenyan marathon runners to run 200m races. Golf has multiple game formats. Sailing uses different boats for different events. Rowing uses different sized crews for different events. Swimming has different styles of swimming.

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

[Futtocks]

On 26/12/2017 at 11:13 AM, bobrock said:

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.

Funnily enough, yesterday I read a compilation of P.G.Wodehouse's Cricket-based writing (stories, match reports and articles), and this most English of writers gave the score for a particular match in the Australian style.

[Bleep1673]

North American sports (NHL, NFL, NBA, NSL) always puts the away team first, such as New York Rangers @ Florida Panthers, the rest of the world puts the Home team first.

[Bleep1673]

Edited for stupidity

[bobrock]

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 ?