Willow me this . . .
- Thread starter Buck
- Start date
The Grammar Police
Learning Storage Performance
One can only hope that they (the French) are better at playing it than the English are!
time
Storage? I am Storage!
Perhaps England could get some advice from Leighton Hewitt? He seems to know a thing or two about applied sports psychology. :mrgrn:
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
Yeah. Pity he wears his head backwards though.
Jake the Dog
Storage is cool
apparently the British cricket team management have seen fit not use a sports psychologist in the team. personally i think they want to avoid a psychologist coming in making their players realise that they're under the delusion that they're international cricket players 
James
Storage is cool
It was unkind in the extreme, but the Daily Telegraph's headline after the first day of the first test was pretty good :
"Is there anyone in England who can play cricket?"
"Is there anyone in England who can play cricket?"
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
Did you guys know Al Gore invented the internet?
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
As a matter of fact, there is. Skeet can play cricket; he's rather good at it. Or he used to be before he grew a wife, steady job and a waistline. NRG? Can they call on you to be Skeet's opening partner?
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
Which Al Gore was that? Al Gore-Ithim? Or Al Gore-Tex?
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
Tea said:
Al Gore the vice president of the united states from 1993-2001... the guy I listened to on National Public Radio for 20 minutes today...
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
it's a joke... aparently he made a statement that he was in some how involved with the creation of the internet and it seemed like he was taking credit.
He was publicy joked about for months.... even a snickers candy bar commercial was created that made fun of this.
He was publicy joked about for months.... even a snickers candy bar commercial was created that made fun of this.
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
NRG = mc² said:
This attitude, if it be common in Blighty, may explain why the English Cricket Team is performing as it iz. Alternatively, losing 17 tests in a row (or however many it actually iz at prezent - if it ain't 17 yet it zoon will be) may be the cause of the attitude. Chicken? Or egg?
skeet
What is this storage?
Not the cricket again, ha ha ha!
The thing that really makes me chuckle about the cricket is the fact that the Pommes were actually doing everything right. Nasser Hussain has been exemplary as captain. He even doffs his cap to Steve Waugh and has taken on board lots of what Steve Waugh has brought to the Aussies (all be it from a pretty impressive starting point). The Pommes had a good tour of Sri Lanka - something the Aussies didn't, and a really good tour of Pakistan. These are some of the hardest tours in world cricket. They showed real backbone in difficult circumstances, out-gunned in the talent department they showed the ability to stick out five full days of tough cricket waiting for their opponent to make a mistake and then capitalise. Really entertaining stuff.
And then they land in Australia. It must be really hurting. There have been some great articles written about the Aussie team and the Pommes seem to understand the tooth and nail nature of our sporting endeavours now, which is a big compliment.
OK, their injury problems are going to cause havoc in any touring side and in itself it may only be an indication of how little depth they have domestically. But this may be true of all the current Test nations, except the Aussies. Having said that, I'm not sure how successful the Aussies would be without McGrath and Gillespie. Could they bowl out the Indians or the even the Kiwis in five days without these two. All the batsmen in the world will not win a single Test match if you can't bowl out the opposition twice.
The greatest Test team in the history of cricket hangs off probably one man. If his performance is nullified, then they struggle, even at home.
(But what a cricketer, and he can field, virtually unheard of. Fancy Thommo catching on the run.
I cannot see England winning a Test series against Australia ever again. The games middle-class credentials in England can only mean terminal decline. The County system has tried to reform but will probably never be able to recreate the superior testing ground that Sheffield Shield (or whatever it is now) is proving. England is pretty much a spent force. It is still fun to watch a Pomme stuffing though (even if it does show up our lack of National confidence).
The thing that really makes me chuckle about the cricket is the fact that the Pommes were actually doing everything right. Nasser Hussain has been exemplary as captain. He even doffs his cap to Steve Waugh and has taken on board lots of what Steve Waugh has brought to the Aussies (all be it from a pretty impressive starting point). The Pommes had a good tour of Sri Lanka - something the Aussies didn't, and a really good tour of Pakistan. These are some of the hardest tours in world cricket. They showed real backbone in difficult circumstances, out-gunned in the talent department they showed the ability to stick out five full days of tough cricket waiting for their opponent to make a mistake and then capitalise. Really entertaining stuff.
And then they land in Australia. It must be really hurting. There have been some great articles written about the Aussie team and the Pommes seem to understand the tooth and nail nature of our sporting endeavours now, which is a big compliment.
OK, their injury problems are going to cause havoc in any touring side and in itself it may only be an indication of how little depth they have domestically. But this may be true of all the current Test nations, except the Aussies. Having said that, I'm not sure how successful the Aussies would be without McGrath and Gillespie. Could they bowl out the Indians or the even the Kiwis in five days without these two. All the batsmen in the world will not win a single Test match if you can't bowl out the opposition twice.
The greatest Test team in the history of cricket hangs off probably one man. If his performance is nullified, then they struggle, even at home.
(But what a cricketer, and he can field, virtually unheard of. Fancy Thommo catching on the run.
I cannot see England winning a Test series against Australia ever again. The games middle-class credentials in England can only mean terminal decline. The County system has tried to reform but will probably never be able to recreate the superior testing ground that Sheffield Shield (or whatever it is now) is proving. England is pretty much a spent force. It is still fun to watch a Pomme stuffing though (even if it does show up our lack of National confidence).
The Grammar Police
Learning Storage Performance
Re: Not the cricket again, ha ha ha!
The greatest team in the history of the game? Now you really have stepped off the sanity bus, Skeet!
Sure, the current Oz Mob are a good side, but it's not hard to think of several better ones. Consider their very weak performances on the subcontinent, their disconcertingly fragile middle order, and their propensity to drop dead rubbers.
Want a prediction? The Oz Mob won by almost an innings in Brisbane, by an innings and some to spare in Adelaide. They will win in three days or just over in Perth. Can you see the Poms standing up against McGrath and Gillespie for more than a session or two on the Perth wicket? Hell, if they want to win it in the minimum possible time, they could play all four quicks (Bickel and Lee as well), leave Leahman or Martin out and play Warne as well: Langer, Haydon and Ponting should be able to out-score the hapless Poms on their own, leaving the redoubtable Steve Waugh as insurance. Come to think of it, I shouldn't be surprised if Warne, Gilespie, and Bickel couldn't run them close with the bat, so long as they have Gilchrist to help out.
That's three-nil. Melbourne could go either of two ways, come Boxing Day: (a) another whitewash, or (b) rained off. I'm fervently hoping for (b) as we desperately need the rain. That's still 3-0, or possible 4-0.
Now for the prediction: having won the Ashes, in the final test the Oz Mob will, same as usual, lose the plot and have a massive batting collapse or two. They will walk away with a 4-1 series win, and the Poms will go home remembering the test they won, rather than the four they lost.
One thing makes me doubt that prognostication though: the last test is in Sydney, still a spinner's paradise I gather. That means that Warne will put in one of his almost routine snake and frightened rabbit acts, and the only thing standing between him and a couple of sixfors or eightfors will be Stuart Magill - who would play for Australia every match if only Warne did not have seniority. It's difficult to see the England batsmen mastering the terrors of Aussie legspin on the Sydney pitch for long enough to make a winning score, even if the Aussie bats do collapse twice. Could be all over in two or three days. But - and this is my big but - the English have a pair of spinners of their own who are both more than competent. I can't see them discovering an attack worthy of more than a trundle in a Shield game when I look at their threadbare quicks, but on a spinning pitch, Giles and Dawson are a serious threat. Giles bowled well in Brisbane before breaking his wrist in the nets (and is expected to be fit for Melbourne), and young Dawson, after a grand total of 21 overs on tour, stepped up to the crease in Adelaide and was clearly the best bowler in the England team.
Now: about this greatest team in the history of the game nonsense. I daresay there are others, but just to name three clearly better teams: Bradman's Invincibles in '48, Ian Chappel's Australians complete with Lillie and Thompson, and Clive Lloyd's West Indies side. I'd back any one of those three teams to beat the current Oz Mob two tests out of three.
The greatest team in the history of the game? Now you really have stepped off the sanity bus, Skeet!
Sure, the current Oz Mob are a good side, but it's not hard to think of several better ones. Consider their very weak performances on the subcontinent, their disconcertingly fragile middle order, and their propensity to drop dead rubbers.
Want a prediction? The Oz Mob won by almost an innings in Brisbane, by an innings and some to spare in Adelaide. They will win in three days or just over in Perth. Can you see the Poms standing up against McGrath and Gillespie for more than a session or two on the Perth wicket? Hell, if they want to win it in the minimum possible time, they could play all four quicks (Bickel and Lee as well), leave Leahman or Martin out and play Warne as well: Langer, Haydon and Ponting should be able to out-score the hapless Poms on their own, leaving the redoubtable Steve Waugh as insurance. Come to think of it, I shouldn't be surprised if Warne, Gilespie, and Bickel couldn't run them close with the bat, so long as they have Gilchrist to help out.
That's three-nil. Melbourne could go either of two ways, come Boxing Day: (a) another whitewash, or (b) rained off. I'm fervently hoping for (b) as we desperately need the rain. That's still 3-0, or possible 4-0.
Now for the prediction: having won the Ashes, in the final test the Oz Mob will, same as usual, lose the plot and have a massive batting collapse or two. They will walk away with a 4-1 series win, and the Poms will go home remembering the test they won, rather than the four they lost.
One thing makes me doubt that prognostication though: the last test is in Sydney, still a spinner's paradise I gather. That means that Warne will put in one of his almost routine snake and frightened rabbit acts, and the only thing standing between him and a couple of sixfors or eightfors will be Stuart Magill - who would play for Australia every match if only Warne did not have seniority. It's difficult to see the England batsmen mastering the terrors of Aussie legspin on the Sydney pitch for long enough to make a winning score, even if the Aussie bats do collapse twice. Could be all over in two or three days. But - and this is my big but - the English have a pair of spinners of their own who are both more than competent. I can't see them discovering an attack worthy of more than a trundle in a Shield game when I look at their threadbare quicks, but on a spinning pitch, Giles and Dawson are a serious threat. Giles bowled well in Brisbane before breaking his wrist in the nets (and is expected to be fit for Melbourne), and young Dawson, after a grand total of 21 overs on tour, stepped up to the crease in Adelaide and was clearly the best bowler in the England team.
Now: about this greatest team in the history of the game nonsense. I daresay there are others, but just to name three clearly better teams: Bradman's Invincibles in '48, Ian Chappel's Australians complete with Lillie and Thompson, and Clive Lloyd's West Indies side. I'd back any one of those three teams to beat the current Oz Mob two tests out of three.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
blakerwry said:
... and because I'm the kind of guy that voted for Al Gore in a state so republican that my vote is irrelevant, I'd like to point out that 1.) that statement was taken vastly out of context, 2.) That Al Gore did, in fact, sponsor legislation creating DARPAnet (this is essentially the correct context for his comment) and that 3.) Vint Cerf, the guy who invented TCP/IP, says the opportunity to do so sprang directly from grants related to the creation of DARPAnet, thereby giving Al Gore a somewhat reasonable basis for taking some credit.
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
i voted for Gore too
blakerwry
Storage? I am Storage!
He got a lot of flak for something that he really shouldn't have. I assumed his statement was probably meaning that he supported legislation that eventually lead to the creation of the internet.
But, as everybody knows, the media often takes statements GROSSLY out of context and we are left to investigate the true story and to figure out both sides by ourselves.
But, as everybody knows, the media often takes statements GROSSLY out of context and we are left to investigate the true story and to figure out both sides by ourselves.
time
Storage? I am Storage!
Re: Not the cricket again, ha ha ha!
Not that Nasser is a cream puff - the observation wasn't directed at him.
But of course on top of leadership you had someone who was the fastest bowler of all time until fairly recently (Thommo), in the same team as very probably the greatest fast bowler of all time - Lillee. The star batsman (Greg Chappell) wasn't too shabby either, and the wicket keeper had his moments (Rod Marsh).
A quintessentially Australian laconic comment.The Grammar Police said:
Yep. All three could have earned the "invincibles" tag. An obvious common factor linking Ian Chappell's team with Clive Lloyd's was the strength of the captains. Neither had outstanding playing skills, but both were legendary leaders. To extend an analogy I made earlier, not many people have the kind of mental toughness that Leighton Hewitt seems to have in abundance. You need a captain with those qualities to support the rest of the team.
Not that Nasser is a cream puff - the observation wasn't directed at him.
But of course on top of leadership you had someone who was the fastest bowler of all time until fairly recently (Thommo), in the same team as very probably the greatest fast bowler of all time - Lillee. The star batsman (Greg Chappell) wasn't too shabby either, and the wicket keeper had his moments (Rod Marsh).
The Grammar Police
Learning Storage Performance
Re: Not the cricket again, ha ha ha!
Hmmm .... Take out the stars you mentioned - Lillie, Thommo, Marsh and the Chappell brothers, and then let the present day English selectors loose amongst the remainer. I think we might just see Max Walker open the bowling for England, Ian Redpath partnering Vaughan up at the top of the order - and if anyone could deal with Shane Warne on the SCG, a young fella named Walters , D. might be worth a go in the middle order.
Hmmm .... Take out the stars you mentioned - Lillie, Thommo, Marsh and the Chappell brothers, and then let the present day English selectors loose amongst the remainer. I think we might just see Max Walker open the bowling for England, Ian Redpath partnering Vaughan up at the top of the order - and if anyone could deal with Shane Warne on the SCG, a young fella named Walters , D. might be worth a go in the middle order.
The Grammar Police
Learning Storage Performance
I just stumbled across an interesting article that was pushing the well-worn line that, at present, the standard of competition in the Sheffield Shield (dammned if I'm calling it the "Puker Cup") is higher not only than the standard of the County competition in England, but than the standard of test cricket too. Seems a bit steep? Well, consider these figures:
Martin Love would be an instant no-brain selection in any other national side, probably even the South African team. He's not considered good enough to get a test cap here though. He has batted twice against England this summer, for a modest score of two double centuries. But in the Shield comp, he has scores of 27, 56*, 20, 37 and 0. Ricky Ponting averaged 85.5 against Pakistan and is on 93.33 in the series to date against England. But in the Shield game against Queensland, he made 7 and zero. Adam Gilchrist averages 38.97 in Shield games and 58.43 in Tests. And on the bowling side, Shane Warne averages 36.22 in the local comp, and 25.65 in tests.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it.
Martin Love would be an instant no-brain selection in any other national side, probably even the South African team. He's not considered good enough to get a test cap here though. He has batted twice against England this summer, for a modest score of two double centuries. But in the Shield comp, he has scores of 27, 56*, 20, 37 and 0. Ricky Ponting averaged 85.5 against Pakistan and is on 93.33 in the series to date against England. But in the Shield game against Queensland, he made 7 and zero. Adam Gilchrist averages 38.97 in Shield games and 58.43 in Tests. And on the bowling side, Shane Warne averages 36.22 in the local comp, and 25.65 in tests.
Makes you wonder, doesn't it.
skeet
What is this storage?
Don't you just love cricket.
What a great position from which to have a cricket argument.
I don't buy the great Ozzie team of Chappels era anymore. Had lot's of great lager discussions about that era of cricket in one or two Soho drinking establishments. First thing I will say is that the Pommes love Lillee and Thommo. They represent cricket at it's most potent (coupled with old Whispering death and one or two other West Indians). Great batsmen quaked in their boots when confronted with this band of fearsome creatures and plenty of serious injuries abounded. Mc.Cosker once went out with a wired jaw to try and save a Test for gods sake. But if you put their achievements against the current Aussie side they just weren't that effective. They didn't win as much as we would like to think. They couldn't beat the West Indies for a start.
Just when was the Australian dominence of England taking place again? Through the 70's and 80's England won 7 Ashes series to Australia's 5. And thats the point, the only other team to dominate cricket like the current Australian team is the West Indies.
The great Windies team that seemed to prevail through my youth were awesome. Maybe time has made them greater in my mind but they certainly had the better of the Aussies for a very long time. And they only had one fielder. OK they used to play him as 12 th man but he was one man. The current Aussie team must have five guys who could do the job of Logie and some of them might be better. Batting averages, there is no comparison with that team. The current Australian squad, you must admit has a wealth of talent. We could argue their respective talents until the beers run out, but they are very effective in the same way that the West Indians were. Fast runs to take a game away from you, no slow plodding Boycotts here fellas. Boycott won Ashes series by boring you into submission. I don't think that would work anymore, this new breed is patient, something teams of old weren't. The other thing that marks them out is variety. They are much more balanced as a team and I think this is reflected in the long run of success' that has produced a new cricketing record.
The thing that really does it for me though is the infrastructure that these guys play under. It started with Simpson (the best slips fielder in the history of the game). When the current structure was built under Simpson (and Border to be fair) a new era of professionalism entered the game. Injury problems through unfitness virtually disappeared, something that prevents you playing your most successful team all the time. (England’s only failing - apart from a couple of cricketing greats that come along from time to time). Chappel’s Aussies and Lloyd’s Windies were both guilty of poor catching (how we laughed when the bowlers used to drop outfield catches or had to bowl the ball in because they couldn't throw). Specialist fielders who doubled the pressure on a batsmen when a bowler begins to cause problems. Athleticism in the field which turns twos into ones. When I played we were taught to pick the bunny fielders and chance your arm into those areas, you can forget that now. Couple that with less spectacular but tighter disciplined bowling and you can halve a batsman’s effectiveness. We have never seen these sorts of cricketing skills applied for five days straight before the mid 90's. In this context, you may not have a single member of the Australian squad in the best 11 but they would still be the team to beat over 5 Tests. Truth is, several members would make it into the best 11 ever.
They got duffed up in India (well Laxman beat them up). Sri Lanka did them as well (England beat them away incidentally). They relax a bit when the job is done but these are critiscisms of all teams, it's the nature of Test cricket and maybe what makes it so special in the sporting context. Even the greatest can be undone by something special.
As for the well worn line that County cricket is higher than Sheffield Shield, I think that line wore out twenty years ago. Top teams here (Surrey notably) would compete with Sheffield Shield teams given the right circumstances. But they are the only one. And they were forced, until recently to play 15 or 16 teams that were good Melbourne grade cricket at best. ( I have one or two Ballarat Grammar School mates who played minor County Cricket seasons and excelled and they were by no means the best I played against - and they only held their place in Vic.) And the cricket is so dull. Marshy was on the money as usual when he described the bowlers as pie chuckers. The whole game is about containing your oppenent into a close game rather than winning. Not a training ground for world-beaters. But my god, they have got some money.
All suitably contentious I hope!!!
What a great position from which to have a cricket argument.
I don't buy the great Ozzie team of Chappels era anymore. Had lot's of great lager discussions about that era of cricket in one or two Soho drinking establishments. First thing I will say is that the Pommes love Lillee and Thommo. They represent cricket at it's most potent (coupled with old Whispering death and one or two other West Indians). Great batsmen quaked in their boots when confronted with this band of fearsome creatures and plenty of serious injuries abounded. Mc.Cosker once went out with a wired jaw to try and save a Test for gods sake. But if you put their achievements against the current Aussie side they just weren't that effective. They didn't win as much as we would like to think. They couldn't beat the West Indies for a start.
Just when was the Australian dominence of England taking place again? Through the 70's and 80's England won 7 Ashes series to Australia's 5. And thats the point, the only other team to dominate cricket like the current Australian team is the West Indies.
The great Windies team that seemed to prevail through my youth were awesome. Maybe time has made them greater in my mind but they certainly had the better of the Aussies for a very long time. And they only had one fielder. OK they used to play him as 12 th man but he was one man. The current Aussie team must have five guys who could do the job of Logie and some of them might be better. Batting averages, there is no comparison with that team. The current Australian squad, you must admit has a wealth of talent. We could argue their respective talents until the beers run out, but they are very effective in the same way that the West Indians were. Fast runs to take a game away from you, no slow plodding Boycotts here fellas. Boycott won Ashes series by boring you into submission. I don't think that would work anymore, this new breed is patient, something teams of old weren't. The other thing that marks them out is variety. They are much more balanced as a team and I think this is reflected in the long run of success' that has produced a new cricketing record.
The thing that really does it for me though is the infrastructure that these guys play under. It started with Simpson (the best slips fielder in the history of the game). When the current structure was built under Simpson (and Border to be fair) a new era of professionalism entered the game. Injury problems through unfitness virtually disappeared, something that prevents you playing your most successful team all the time. (England’s only failing - apart from a couple of cricketing greats that come along from time to time). Chappel’s Aussies and Lloyd’s Windies were both guilty of poor catching (how we laughed when the bowlers used to drop outfield catches or had to bowl the ball in because they couldn't throw). Specialist fielders who doubled the pressure on a batsmen when a bowler begins to cause problems. Athleticism in the field which turns twos into ones. When I played we were taught to pick the bunny fielders and chance your arm into those areas, you can forget that now. Couple that with less spectacular but tighter disciplined bowling and you can halve a batsman’s effectiveness. We have never seen these sorts of cricketing skills applied for five days straight before the mid 90's. In this context, you may not have a single member of the Australian squad in the best 11 but they would still be the team to beat over 5 Tests. Truth is, several members would make it into the best 11 ever.
They got duffed up in India (well Laxman beat them up). Sri Lanka did them as well (England beat them away incidentally). They relax a bit when the job is done but these are critiscisms of all teams, it's the nature of Test cricket and maybe what makes it so special in the sporting context. Even the greatest can be undone by something special.
As for the well worn line that County cricket is higher than Sheffield Shield, I think that line wore out twenty years ago. Top teams here (Surrey notably) would compete with Sheffield Shield teams given the right circumstances. But they are the only one. And they were forced, until recently to play 15 or 16 teams that were good Melbourne grade cricket at best. ( I have one or two Ballarat Grammar School mates who played minor County Cricket seasons and excelled and they were by no means the best I played against - and they only held their place in Vic.) And the cricket is so dull. Marshy was on the money as usual when he described the bowlers as pie chuckers. The whole game is about containing your oppenent into a close game rather than winning. Not a training ground for world-beaters. But my god, they have got some money.
All suitably contentious I hope!!!
skeet
What is this storage?
Don't you just love cricket.
What a great position from which to have a cricket argument.
I don't buy the great Ozzie team of Chappels era anymore. Had lot's of great lager discussions about that era of cricket in one or two Soho drinking establishments. First thing I will say is that the Pommes love Lillee and Thommo. They represent cricket at it's most potent (coupled with old Whispering death and one or two other West Indians). Great batsmen quaked in their boots when confronted with this band of fearsome creatures and plenty of serious injuries abounded. Mc.Cosker once went out with a wired jaw to try and save a Test for gods sake. But if you put their achievements against the current Aussie side they just weren't that effective. They didn't win as much as we would like to think. They couldn't beat the West Indies for a start.
Just when was the Australian dominence of England taking place again? Through the 70's and 80's England won 7 Ashes series to Australia's 5. And thats the point, the only other team to dominate cricket like the current Australian team is the West Indies.
The great Windies team that seemed to prevail through my youth were awesome. Maybe time has made them greater in my mind but they certainly had the better of the Aussies for a very long time. And they only had one fielder. OK they used to play him as 12 th man but he was one man. The current Aussie team must have five guys who could do the job of Logie and some of them might be better. Batting averages, there is no comparison with that team. The current Australian squad, you must admit has a wealth of talent. We could argue their respective talents until the beers run out, but they are very effective in the same way that the West Indians were. Fast runs to take a game away from you, no slow plodding Boycotts here fellas. Boycott won Ashes series by boring you into submission. I don't think that would work anymore, this new breed is patient, something teams of old weren't. The other thing that marks them out is variety. They are much more balanced as a team and I think this is reflected in the long run of success' that has produced a new cricketing record.
The thing that really does it for me though is the infrastructure that these guys play under. It started with Simpson (the best slips fielder in the history of the game). When the current structure was built under Simpson (and Border to be fair) a new era of professionalism entered the game. Injury problems through unfitness virtually disappeared, something that prevents you playing your most successful team all the time. (England’s only failing - apart from a couple of cricketing greats that come along from time to time). Chappel’s Aussies and Lloyd’s Windies were both guilty of poor catching (how we laughed when the bowlers used to drop outfield catches or had to bowl the ball in because they couldn't throw). Specialist fielders who doubled the pressure on a batsmen when a bowler begins to cause problems. Athleticism in the field which turns twos into ones. When I played we were taught to pick the bunny fielders and chance your arm into those areas, you can forget that now. Couple that with less spectacular but tighter disciplined bowling and you can halve a batsman’s effectiveness. We have never seen these sorts of cricketing skills applied for five days straight before the mid 90's. In this context, you may not have a single member of the Australian squad in the best 11 but they would still be the team to beat over 5 Tests. Truth is, several members would make it into the best 11 ever.
They got duffed up in India (well Laxman beat them up). Sri Lanka did them as well (England beat them away incidentally). They relax a bit when the job is done but these are critiscisms of all teams, it's the nature of Test cricket and maybe what makes it so special in the sporting context. Even the greatest can be undone by something special.
As for the well worn line that County cricket is higher than Sheffield Shield, I think that line wore out twenty years ago. Top teams here (Surrey notably) would compete with Sheffield Shield teams given the right circumstances. But they are the only one. And they were forced, until recently to play 15 or 16 teams that were good Melbourne grade cricket at best. ( I have one or two Ballarat Grammar School mates who played minor County Cricket seasons and excelled and they were by no means the best I played against - and they only held their place in Vic.) And the cricket is so dull. Marshy was on the money as usual when he described the bowlers as pie chuckers. The whole game is about containing your oppenent into a close game rather than winning. Not a training ground for world-beaters. But my god, they have got some money.
All suitably contentious I hope!!!
What a great position from which to have a cricket argument.
I don't buy the great Ozzie team of Chappels era anymore. Had lot's of great lager discussions about that era of cricket in one or two Soho drinking establishments. First thing I will say is that the Pommes love Lillee and Thommo. They represent cricket at it's most potent (coupled with old Whispering death and one or two other West Indians). Great batsmen quaked in their boots when confronted with this band of fearsome creatures and plenty of serious injuries abounded. Mc.Cosker once went out with a wired jaw to try and save a Test for gods sake. But if you put their achievements against the current Aussie side they just weren't that effective. They didn't win as much as we would like to think. They couldn't beat the West Indies for a start.
Just when was the Australian dominence of England taking place again? Through the 70's and 80's England won 7 Ashes series to Australia's 5. And thats the point, the only other team to dominate cricket like the current Australian team is the West Indies.
The great Windies team that seemed to prevail through my youth were awesome. Maybe time has made them greater in my mind but they certainly had the better of the Aussies for a very long time. And they only had one fielder. OK they used to play him as 12 th man but he was one man. The current Aussie team must have five guys who could do the job of Logie and some of them might be better. Batting averages, there is no comparison with that team. The current Australian squad, you must admit has a wealth of talent. We could argue their respective talents until the beers run out, but they are very effective in the same way that the West Indians were. Fast runs to take a game away from you, no slow plodding Boycotts here fellas. Boycott won Ashes series by boring you into submission. I don't think that would work anymore, this new breed is patient, something teams of old weren't. The other thing that marks them out is variety. They are much more balanced as a team and I think this is reflected in the long run of success' that has produced a new cricketing record.
The thing that really does it for me though is the infrastructure that these guys play under. It started with Simpson (the best slips fielder in the history of the game). When the current structure was built under Simpson (and Border to be fair) a new era of professionalism entered the game. Injury problems through unfitness virtually disappeared, something that prevents you playing your most successful team all the time. (England’s only failing - apart from a couple of cricketing greats that come along from time to time). Chappel’s Aussies and Lloyd’s Windies were both guilty of poor catching (how we laughed when the bowlers used to drop outfield catches or had to bowl the ball in because they couldn't throw). Specialist fielders who doubled the pressure on a batsmen when a bowler begins to cause problems. Athleticism in the field which turns twos into ones. When I played we were taught to pick the bunny fielders and chance your arm into those areas, you can forget that now. Couple that with less spectacular but tighter disciplined bowling and you can halve a batsman’s effectiveness. We have never seen these sorts of cricketing skills applied for five days straight before the mid 90's. In this context, you may not have a single member of the Australian squad in the best 11 but they would still be the team to beat over 5 Tests. Truth is, several members would make it into the best 11 ever.
They got duffed up in India (well Laxman beat them up). Sri Lanka did them as well (England beat them away incidentally). They relax a bit when the job is done but these are critiscisms of all teams, it's the nature of Test cricket and maybe what makes it so special in the sporting context. Even the greatest can be undone by something special.
As for the well worn line that County cricket is higher than Sheffield Shield, I think that line wore out twenty years ago. Top teams here (Surrey notably) would compete with Sheffield Shield teams given the right circumstances. But they are the only one. And they were forced, until recently to play 15 or 16 teams that were good Melbourne grade cricket at best. ( I have one or two Ballarat Grammar School mates who played minor County Cricket seasons and excelled and they were by no means the best I played against - and they only held their place in Vic.) And the cricket is so dull. Marshy was on the money as usual when he described the bowlers as pie chuckers. The whole game is about containing your oppenent into a close game rather than winning. Not a training ground for world-beaters. But my god, they have got some money.
All suitably contentious I hope!!!
James
Storage is cool
Well said - arguably even better the second time through - and I wish it was contentious! I strongly agree with nearly all you say.
It's a bit late to go into it in depth, but the punchline is basically that for me the mark of a great team is when the only team that can beat them is themselves. I think the current Australian team is at that level. Is it because the opposition is poor or because they are simply that much better? That's the bit that's hard to tell.
I agree too with the idea that while there might not be as many individual standout players in the team as there were in the past, the overall calibre is much higher. Yes, of course sometimes you suspect that if McGrath were ever to have an injury the bowling attack would fall apart, but then someone like Gillespie, Lee, Bichel or even good ol' Warnie comes in and does a sterling job, reminding you just how good the general standard is.
- and I wish it was contentious! I strongly agree with nearly all you say.It's a bit late to go into it in depth, but the punchline is basically that for me the mark of a great team is when the only team that can beat them is themselves. I think the current Australian team is at that level. Is it because the opposition is poor or because they are simply that much better? That's the bit that's hard to tell.
I agree too with the idea that while there might not be as many individual standout players in the team as there were in the past, the overall calibre is much higher. Yes, of course sometimes you suspect that if McGrath were ever to have an injury the bowling attack would fall apart, but then someone like Gillespie, Lee, Bichel or even good ol' Warnie comes in and does a sterling job, reminding you just how good the general standard is.
The Grammar Police
Learning Storage Performance
Just briefly - for I have a morning patrol tommorow and it's past my bedtime - what a load of nonsense, Skeet. You have been hob-knobbing with too many Poms out to find the most convenient excuse for their lamentable current form, and let that all that ale go to your head. Or such of it as hasn't gone to your waistline, at any rate.
You are quite right in point of detail about the fielding skills, but quite wrong to use that as a basis for comparison. Let me illustrate this by making two or three equally ridiculous statements about other sports which are exactly parallel:
The game has changed. It is far more professional now, and the attention to "minor" skills like fielding is correspondingly greater. Take your time capsule and transport Doug Walters or the Don or WG Grace into the modern game and they too would benefit from the masses of specialised coaching and full-time training that the modern players get. Hell, if we are going to start ignoring the changes in the game and in training over time like this, I should imagine that any averagely competent current suburban cricket side would comfortably beat Grace's team of a century ago, just as a very ordinary 2002 sprinter can beat the winning times posted in the 1904 Olympics. (Were there Olympics in 1904? Whatever.) Remember the four minute mile? Does that mean that Roger Bannister was just a plodder?
The current Oz team is indeed very good, but could we really find "several members" to slot into the "best 11 ever"? I think not. Langer and Hayden are doing very well at present, but they need to keep it up for a good many more years to threaten the spots of truly superb openers like Gavaskar, Boycot, Barry Richards and Gordon Greenidge. Ricky Ponting, ditto. Who on earth would pick Ponting over Bradman or Tendulkar? Steve Waugh is a great captain but not the batsman that Greg Chappel was, or Viv Richards, never mind Gary Sobers. Neither Leahman nor Martin are automatic chioces at the selection table even from today's Australian cricketers, let alone among the greats. Gilchrist, if he can return to his form of last year, is a possibility (and I love to watch him bat) but it's much to early to go elevating him to all-time-great status, and in any case, his wicket keeping, while good, is not up to the standard that Ian Healy established, never mind Rod Marsh and all the other great keepers of history.
As for the bowlers, Bickel and Lee are knocking on the edge of selection. Lee is very fast but has yet to show that he can command a regular place in the team, let alone number himself among the greats, and Andy Bickel is destined to be remembered as a good, honest trundler, to be thought of in the same breath as Geoff Dymock or Mike Whitney. He is as good as England's current best, or better, which is faint praise.
That leaves the only two half-plausible candidates: McGrath and Warne. Both superb cricketers, but all-time greats of a stature sufficient to edge out all but two or three other bowlers? Much as I admire Glen McGrath, can we honestly place his name in front of Lillie, Hadlee, Imran, Kapil Dev, Willis, Botham, Wacar, Andy Roberts, Davidson, Ambrose, Holding, Well Hall, Marshall, Lindwall, Miller or Tyson? Hell no!
Only Warne remains. He's a possibility. The only possibility. And still, he must contend with Grimmet, O'Riley, Sobers, Laker, and Trumble for the spinner's berth.
Finally, the most significant point of all: Ian Chappell's Australians had to contend with sore really serious opposition, they beat great sides. If you are going to start looking at Ashes series won and lost, then it is absurd to include the Kim Hughes era alongside Chappell's. (That was James, I think, not Skeet. No matter: you are both chardonay socialists and can rot in the same barrel.
You are quite right in point of detail about the fielding skills, but quite wrong to use that as a basis for comparison. Let me illustrate this by making two or three equally ridiculous statements about other sports which are exactly parallel:
- Nigel Mansell's lap times are much faster than Juan Manual Fangio's were: therefore we can safely conclude that Mansell was the better driver.
- Shane O'Bree (a current Collingwood wingman/rover, who gets picked more often than not but plays a few games in the seconds every year) has vastly better handball, tackling, and spoiling skills than Robert Flower had, and is probably fitter too, therefore we can safely say that O'Bree is a much better footballer.
The game has changed. It is far more professional now, and the attention to "minor" skills like fielding is correspondingly greater. Take your time capsule and transport Doug Walters or the Don or WG Grace into the modern game and they too would benefit from the masses of specialised coaching and full-time training that the modern players get. Hell, if we are going to start ignoring the changes in the game and in training over time like this, I should imagine that any averagely competent current suburban cricket side would comfortably beat Grace's team of a century ago, just as a very ordinary 2002 sprinter can beat the winning times posted in the 1904 Olympics. (Were there Olympics in 1904? Whatever.) Remember the four minute mile? Does that mean that Roger Bannister was just a plodder?
The current Oz team is indeed very good, but could we really find "several members" to slot into the "best 11 ever"? I think not. Langer and Hayden are doing very well at present, but they need to keep it up for a good many more years to threaten the spots of truly superb openers like Gavaskar, Boycot, Barry Richards and Gordon Greenidge. Ricky Ponting, ditto. Who on earth would pick Ponting over Bradman or Tendulkar? Steve Waugh is a great captain but not the batsman that Greg Chappel was, or Viv Richards, never mind Gary Sobers. Neither Leahman nor Martin are automatic chioces at the selection table even from today's Australian cricketers, let alone among the greats. Gilchrist, if he can return to his form of last year, is a possibility (and I love to watch him bat) but it's much to early to go elevating him to all-time-great status, and in any case, his wicket keeping, while good, is not up to the standard that Ian Healy established, never mind Rod Marsh and all the other great keepers of history.
As for the bowlers, Bickel and Lee are knocking on the edge of selection. Lee is very fast but has yet to show that he can command a regular place in the team, let alone number himself among the greats, and Andy Bickel is destined to be remembered as a good, honest trundler, to be thought of in the same breath as Geoff Dymock or Mike Whitney. He is as good as England's current best, or better, which is faint praise.
That leaves the only two half-plausible candidates: McGrath and Warne. Both superb cricketers, but all-time greats of a stature sufficient to edge out all but two or three other bowlers? Much as I admire Glen McGrath, can we honestly place his name in front of Lillie, Hadlee, Imran, Kapil Dev, Willis, Botham, Wacar, Andy Roberts, Davidson, Ambrose, Holding, Well Hall, Marshall, Lindwall, Miller or Tyson? Hell no!
Only Warne remains. He's a possibility. The only possibility. And still, he must contend with Grimmet, O'Riley, Sobers, Laker, and Trumble for the spinner's berth.
Finally, the most significant point of all: Ian Chappell's Australians had to contend with sore really serious opposition, they beat great sides. If you are going to start looking at Ashes series won and lost, then it is absurd to include the Kim Hughes era alongside Chappell's. (That was James, I think, not Skeet. No matter: you are both chardonay socialists and can rot in the same barrel.
skeet
What is this storage?
More cricket, love it.
I could do with a beer now, it doesn't seem right.
Ironically Mr. Grammar Police (always respect your elders), my English friends argue your point. But I still stand by mine. I would argue that the group of players who comprised your greatest team (who incidentally lost more Ashes series in the seventies that they won) were not capable of improving their other skills. The team we have today are selected from people who have other abilities than their chosen specialisation. Maybe they could have improved, they were certainly outstanding in their respective avenues, but Marsh an athlete (he struggled with spin), Thommo a fielder (his shoulder wouldn't allow him to throw). Look at these guys batting averages. Who would you ask to save a Test with the bat, him or McGrath ( your chance to trot out the miracle of Thommo surving that famous session with AB I think, but that was what made it great, he was a bunny)
Individual talent, no question about that. But they weren't the greatest team, and thats what we are arguing. Border and Simpson started it when they refused to included tossers like Dean Jones, pound for pound the best Aussie bat in his day and they wouldn't include him (tried him and he didn't get on in dressing room). It's reason England are winning so much Union, Williams only manage two world champions when they had the best car for six years, Brazil haven't won every world cup since the sixties. Five days of your best cricket will always win no matter how many Gavaskars and Tendulkars you face. (Which probably means that LLoyd is the greatest skipper because the Windies team was a hot-bed of ego's, matched closely by the Aussies under Chappel who never quite managed to attain the same level of dominace that LLoyds Windies and Waughs Aussies have.) And acheivement is the only reckoning of greatness (unless your a Pomme).
Ps: I think you will find that Walters was a bunny outside Australia. Away average of 39!!! Hardly a great...
I could do with a beer now, it doesn't seem right.
Ironically Mr. Grammar Police (always respect your elders), my English friends argue your point. But I still stand by mine. I would argue that the group of players who comprised your greatest team (who incidentally lost more Ashes series in the seventies that they won) were not capable of improving their other skills. The team we have today are selected from people who have other abilities than their chosen specialisation. Maybe they could have improved, they were certainly outstanding in their respective avenues, but Marsh an athlete (he struggled with spin), Thommo a fielder (his shoulder wouldn't allow him to throw). Look at these guys batting averages. Who would you ask to save a Test with the bat, him or McGrath ( your chance to trot out the miracle of Thommo surving that famous session with AB I think, but that was what made it great, he was a bunny)
Individual talent, no question about that. But they weren't the greatest team, and thats what we are arguing. Border and Simpson started it when they refused to included tossers like Dean Jones, pound for pound the best Aussie bat in his day and they wouldn't include him (tried him and he didn't get on in dressing room). It's reason England are winning so much Union, Williams only manage two world champions when they had the best car for six years, Brazil haven't won every world cup since the sixties. Five days of your best cricket will always win no matter how many Gavaskars and Tendulkars you face. (Which probably means that LLoyd is the greatest skipper because the Windies team was a hot-bed of ego's, matched closely by the Aussies under Chappel who never quite managed to attain the same level of dominace that LLoyds Windies and Waughs Aussies have.) And acheivement is the only reckoning of greatness (unless your a Pomme).
Ps: I think you will find that Walters was a bunny outside Australia. Away average of 39!!! Hardly a great...
The Grammar Police
Learning Storage Performance
Re: More cricket, love it.
My greatest team would undoubtedly be The Invincibles, and I'd take Clive Llyod's side before Chappell's. It's one thing to say that the current (undoubtedly very good) Oz team has won everything in sight but (a) they haven't - they are every bit as hopeless as Kim Huges' mob were on the subcontinent - and (b) who have they been opposed by? Where are the opposition players like Botham, Willis, Gower, Gooch, Underwood, and Boycott?
And you most certainly can improve the weak areas of a player's game. In fact, given only a little self discipline, the weaker they are, the more you can improve them. Hell, you know just how dreadful a batsman your old mate Bone was for all those years. These days I regularly top score for my indoor side. Not every week, but every second or third week at least. How? Lots of practice, some tips from people that actually can bat, and an iron-clad determination to bat within my limits. (Except for those days when - usually after a particularly good score the week before - I lose the plot and start to think of myself as a batsman, which, two or three wild strokes later, nearly always brings disaster.) Elegant I ain't. Free-stroking I ain't. I get my head down, cover the stumps, concentrate, block everything that's anywhere near a good line, only play attacking strokes to bad balls, and run the singles hard. I get my runs in forward defensive strokes for one, leg glances, and leg-byes, but I get them. If I can top score regularly, anyone can benefit from training.
I wrote about Thommo's wonderful innings at the MCG here just the other day, as it happens ... er .... here. (Well, Tannin did. Near enough.) Would I rather have Thommo or McGrath bat to save a test? Well, Thommo was clearly the more talented batsman. Er ... I mean the less untalented batsman. But with Thommo we just got Thommo. With Glen McGrath, we get McGrath plus the benefit of seven years of hard work in the nets and intensive personal coaching by a fella who most judges say can hold a willow reasonably well. Name of Steve Waugh. That is why you'd rather have McGrath bat to save your test than Thommo: modern training and attitude. Put McGrath into Ian Chappell's side, and he'd be the best first change bowler the world has ever seen and bat below Thommo at 11. Unless Jim Higgs was playing, of course. Or, for that matter, me. :wink:
My greatest team would undoubtedly be The Invincibles, and I'd take Clive Llyod's side before Chappell's. It's one thing to say that the current (undoubtedly very good) Oz team has won everything in sight but (a) they haven't - they are every bit as hopeless as Kim Huges' mob were on the subcontinent - and (b) who have they been opposed by? Where are the opposition players like Botham, Willis, Gower, Gooch, Underwood, and Boycott?
And you most certainly can improve the weak areas of a player's game. In fact, given only a little self discipline, the weaker they are, the more you can improve them. Hell, you know just how dreadful a batsman your old mate Bone was for all those years. These days I regularly top score for my indoor side. Not every week, but every second or third week at least. How? Lots of practice, some tips from people that actually can bat, and an iron-clad determination to bat within my limits. (Except for those days when - usually after a particularly good score the week before - I lose the plot and start to think of myself as a batsman, which, two or three wild strokes later, nearly always brings disaster.) Elegant I ain't. Free-stroking I ain't. I get my head down, cover the stumps, concentrate, block everything that's anywhere near a good line, only play attacking strokes to bad balls, and run the singles hard. I get my runs in forward defensive strokes for one, leg glances, and leg-byes, but I get them. If I can top score regularly, anyone can benefit from training.
I wrote about Thommo's wonderful innings at the MCG here just the other day, as it happens ... er .... here. (Well, Tannin did. Near enough.) Would I rather have Thommo or McGrath bat to save a test? Well, Thommo was clearly the more talented batsman. Er ... I mean the less untalented batsman. But with Thommo we just got Thommo. With Glen McGrath, we get McGrath plus the benefit of seven years of hard work in the nets and intensive personal coaching by a fella who most judges say can hold a willow reasonably well. Name of Steve Waugh. That is why you'd rather have McGrath bat to save your test than Thommo: modern training and attitude. Put McGrath into Ian Chappell's side, and he'd be the best first change bowler the world has ever seen and bat below Thommo at 11. Unless Jim Higgs was playing, of course. Or, for that matter, me. :wink:
skeet
What is this storage?
Thommo's innings, almost the best innings in test cricket.
Cliptin
Wannabe Storage Freak
Well, As a continuation of the discussion here. I'd hate to continue to drag the thread off-topic.
------------------
I love learning about new sports. In cricket the ball can bounce, correct. How big is the target (besides avoiding the batter's swing) the bowler(?) is trying to hit? How far is the bowler from the batter and target?
In baseball, the ball can not hit the ground in front of the plate and the target size is determined in part by the plate, in part by the physical size of the batter and in part by the umpire (j/k). The distance from the pitcher to the batter is about 60 ft. The pitcher is trying to pitch the ball through the strike zone.
The pitcher can pitch inside or outside (toward or away from the batter), high or low, fast or just a bit off-speed or pitch the knuckleball. Additionally the pitcher can use four different types of curves: down, out, down and in and down and out.
The knuckleball is thrown with as little rotation as possible so as to make it unpredicatable. It is also naturally a little off-speed. In truth, not even the pitcher knows exactly where it is going.
The name of the pitch thrown is determined by the way the ball is held and thus the rotation of the ball. A curveball thrown by a right-handed pitcher would move left but when thrown by a left-handed pitcher it moves right. In order to be pitcher-handedness agnostic I will refer to out as across the pitcher's body and in as the opposite. A ball that curves down is a sinker, away is a slider, one that curves down and away is a curveball, down and in is a screwball. Screwball pitchers don't last very long because throwing this pitch is hard on the rotator cuff.
A hanging anything is an unintentional gift to the batter from the pitcher.
More definitions than you might ever want. The box in the upper-right has sub-sections for many topics. In particular, this one for Tactical/Illegal Pitches.
PS. I couldn't find where you defined "off-spinner" and back-of-the-hand.
------------------
I love learning about new sports. In cricket the ball can bounce, correct. How big is the target (besides avoiding the batter's swing) the bowler(?) is trying to hit? How far is the bowler from the batter and target?
In baseball, the ball can not hit the ground in front of the plate and the target size is determined in part by the plate, in part by the physical size of the batter and in part by the umpire (j/k). The distance from the pitcher to the batter is about 60 ft. The pitcher is trying to pitch the ball through the strike zone.
The pitcher can pitch inside or outside (toward or away from the batter), high or low, fast or just a bit off-speed or pitch the knuckleball. Additionally the pitcher can use four different types of curves: down, out, down and in and down and out.
The knuckleball is thrown with as little rotation as possible so as to make it unpredicatable. It is also naturally a little off-speed. In truth, not even the pitcher knows exactly where it is going.
The name of the pitch thrown is determined by the way the ball is held and thus the rotation of the ball. A curveball thrown by a right-handed pitcher would move left but when thrown by a left-handed pitcher it moves right. In order to be pitcher-handedness agnostic I will refer to out as across the pitcher's body and in as the opposite. A ball that curves down is a sinker, away is a slider, one that curves down and away is a curveball, down and in is a screwball. Screwball pitchers don't last very long because throwing this pitch is hard on the rotator cuff.
A hanging anything is an unintentional gift to the batter from the pitcher.
More definitions than you might ever want. The box in the upper-right has sub-sections for many topics. In particular, this one for Tactical/Illegal Pitches.
PS. I couldn't find where you defined "off-spinner" and back-of-the-hand.
Thanks. I should have done that.Cliptin said:
Here is a good overview of the main pitches, and how the ball is held for each one. I would also add that a slider is very hard on the elbow, and a split-finger fastball is equally tough on the tendons in the fingers. A starting pitcher usually has 3-4 different pitches that he throws, and a relief pitcher usually has 2-3.
I would also like to know more about cricket, since it appears to have many similarities to baseball. Are there any good online primers to cricket?
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
There are some excellent sites that explain cricket. In a little while I'll go off and find one or two to link to, but in the meantime, because I'm very tired and in need of some realitively simple task to occupy my brain while I wind down and get sleepy, I'll stumble around and try to confuse people.
("Relatively simple"? Cricket? You are you trying to kid, Tannin? It's the most complicated and stupid game ever invented!)
(Oh, but the basics are simple enough. I think. Let's see how I go.)
(OK, but don't blame me if you make a mess of it.)
Should I try to explain it in terms of "if baseball was cricket"? No. For one thing, I don't undersand baseball well enough, and for another thing, I'm not sure that the games are as similar as everyone says. But I might slip in the odd baseball equivalent now and then.
Ther are lots of differences between the two, many of them rather minor: it is played in the middle of an oval, not at the corner of a diamond, for example, the scoring systems are different, the bat is a different shape, and so on. But the key differences, I think, are these:
The pitch is the patch of grass you play on, not anything you do with the ball. It is 22 years long - or about the same length as the distance between the pitcher's mound and the batter in baseball. Because the ball is bowled into the pitch, usually about three-quarters of the way down, and becaus the ball tends not to move in the air very much, it is the way that the ball bounces off the pitch that makes the game interesting. A good bowler can make it do all sorts of unexpected things when it bounces.
The bat is about the same length as a baseball bat, but about three times broader and has a flat face. You hold it the same way you'd hold a gold club, more or less, and normally play your shots much the way you'd play a seven iron drive off the 14th fairway. These shots are called "drives" (big surprise), but there are also the "cross-bat strokes" which are more like the way a baseballer hits.
The guy in the picture is looking as if he is making rather a mess of things - which, seeing as he is an Englishman, is entirely to be expected. You can see that the stumps (or "wicket") are about mid-thigh height.
There are all sorts of minor rules and exceptions, but there are four main ways to go out.
(Two things, Tea. (a) You get a sore head. And (b) if, in the opinion of the umpire, the ball was going to hit the stumps, you are out LBW.)
("Relatively simple"? Cricket? You are you trying to kid, Tannin? It's the most complicated and stupid game ever invented!)
(Oh, but the basics are simple enough. I think. Let's see how I go.)
(OK, but don't blame me if you make a mess of it.)
Should I try to explain it in terms of "if baseball was cricket"? No. For one thing, I don't undersand baseball well enough, and for another thing, I'm not sure that the games are as similar as everyone says. But I might slip in the odd baseball equivalent now and then.
Ther are lots of differences between the two, many of them rather minor: it is played in the middle of an oval, not at the corner of a diamond, for example, the scoring systems are different, the bat is a different shape, and so on. But the key differences, I think, are these:
- The ball is different. Instead of the familiar mating snakes stitching of a baseball or a tennis ball, it is simply two hemispheres stitched together.
- Though there is no rule that says you have to, you bounce the ball off the pitch before it reaches the batsman. Because the ball moves less in the air to left or right, a baseball-style delivery (a "full toss" as it is called) is a bad idea: you will usually get hit out of the park.
- When bowling you must keep your elbow straight: this greatly restricts the sort of spin you can put on the ball (and thus the ways you can move it it fool the batsman) but makes surprisingly little difference to the fastest speed you can deliver it at. As I recall, a really fast bowler delivers at around 90 MPH, I should imagine a searing fast ball from a top class pitcher would be maybe 10 or 15% faster than this.
The pitch is the patch of grass you play on, not anything you do with the ball. It is 22 years long - or about the same length as the distance between the pitcher's mound and the batter in baseball. Because the ball is bowled into the pitch, usually about three-quarters of the way down, and becaus the ball tends not to move in the air very much, it is the way that the ball bounces off the pitch that makes the game interesting. A good bowler can make it do all sorts of unexpected things when it bounces.
The bat is about the same length as a baseball bat, but about three times broader and has a flat face. You hold it the same way you'd hold a gold club, more or less, and normally play your shots much the way you'd play a seven iron drive off the 14th fairway. These shots are called "drives" (big surprise), but there are also the "cross-bat strokes" which are more like the way a baseballer hits.
The guy in the picture is looking as if he is making rather a mess of things - which, seeing as he is an Englishman, is entirely to be expected. You can see that the stumps (or "wicket") are about mid-thigh height.
There are all sorts of minor rules and exceptions, but there are four main ways to go out.
- Bowled (ball knocks the stumps over).
- Caught.
- Run out (same as when you don't make it to first base fast enough).
- LBW (Leg Before Wicket, which is complicated but essentially means that, in the opinion of the umpire, the ball would have hit the stumps if you hadn't put your leg in the way).
(Two things, Tea. (a) You get a sore head. And (b) if, in the opinion of the umpire, the ball was going to hit the stumps, you are out LBW.)
Cliptin
Wannabe Storage Freak
Tannin said:
Do you have to knock down all of the stumps or just knock the cross-bar off the top?
In baseball you can crowd the plate but you run the risk if getting thumped. On the one hand you might get a free base on the other hand you might get hit in the ribs.
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
He's not very good at explaining things, is he Cliptin? The cross-bar is made of two parts, called the "bails", and they are what it's all about: knock the bails off and he's out. Sometimes the bails are knocked up in the air and just happen to fall back again in the right place, which means the batsman is not out. (Don't hold your breath waiing for this - it doesn't happen very often! There are all sorts of sub-rules about what happens if the bails are already off for some reason, but they mostly boil down to common-sense.
I'd never thought of crowding the plate!
I'd never thought of crowding the plate!
Tannin
Storage? I am Storage!
It is the pitch and to a lesser extent the ball, that makes it all interesting. The best form of cricket is played over five days. Let's say Australia is playing South Africa, and the South African captain wins the toss and decides to bat first.
The first two SA batsmen come in. These are the "openers", specialist batsmen who may not be very quick scorers but are very good at facing the new ball and not getting out to it. The ball is brand new and still very hard and shiny, and the seam is standing up proud, and this is what fast bowlers love. The pitch is fresh and hard and very flat still, so the ball flies quickly off it (think of it as like playing tennis on grass - later on, as the pitch wears, it will be more like playing tennin on clay).
The Australians choose their best fast bowler, who comes steaming in and flings it down as hard as possible. The pitch is hard and still has some grass on it, and the ball is hard too so it really flies around. He can do several things with it, mostly by using the seam. He will try to keep the seam upright so that when the ball hits the pitch, unless it's exactly vertical, it will veer off to left or right. This is called "seaming" and the bowler who does it is "a seamer". He will also try to "swing" the ball, by angling the seam slightly to left or right so that it follows a curved part in the air. Mostly, it only moves a few inches, but at the pace these guys bowl at, this is often enough.
You'd think he would be trying to hit the stumps, but mostly he aims to put it just outside off stump. (That is, the opposite side to the batsman's body.) He wants to put it close enough so that the batsman is unsure if he needs to play a stroke or can just let it go through to the wicketkeeper. (The "keeper" is the equivalent to baseball's catcher.) For now, the batsman isn't too interested in scoring (though he will take any runs that come his way), he just wants to stay out there until the shine has worn off the new ball and the bowlers start getting tired. Once the ball is softer, he can start looking to make more runs.
Usually for the first hour or so in the morning, the pitch is still a little damp, and the extra moisture makes the ball 'grip' on the turf and seam around more. It's a particularly difficult time for the batsman. The fast bowler is wizzing the ball fast just outside off stump and the batsman wants to leave as many balls as possible, but he can never be sure if the ball is going to move further away to the off (this ball should be left untouched), go straight on, or move those couple of inches in and hit his stumps.
Meanwhile, the Australian captain has set his field in a very attacking way: with most of his best fielders in an arc next to the wicketkeeper. These are the "slips" fielders. Usually the best batsmen in the side are the ones with the sharp eye and quick hands to make good slips catchers. The wicketkeeper is the only one allowed to wear gloves, and is usually chosen in the side for his wicketkeeping skills, though keepers are often quite handy with the bat too.
Apart from the batsman, everyone is hoping for an edge. Fast bowlers get the vast majority of their wickets (get batsmen out, that is to say) from catches, mostly fine edges snicked to the keeper or the slips.
The first two SA batsmen come in. These are the "openers", specialist batsmen who may not be very quick scorers but are very good at facing the new ball and not getting out to it. The ball is brand new and still very hard and shiny, and the seam is standing up proud, and this is what fast bowlers love. The pitch is fresh and hard and very flat still, so the ball flies quickly off it (think of it as like playing tennis on grass - later on, as the pitch wears, it will be more like playing tennin on clay).
The Australians choose their best fast bowler, who comes steaming in and flings it down as hard as possible. The pitch is hard and still has some grass on it, and the ball is hard too so it really flies around. He can do several things with it, mostly by using the seam. He will try to keep the seam upright so that when the ball hits the pitch, unless it's exactly vertical, it will veer off to left or right. This is called "seaming" and the bowler who does it is "a seamer". He will also try to "swing" the ball, by angling the seam slightly to left or right so that it follows a curved part in the air. Mostly, it only moves a few inches, but at the pace these guys bowl at, this is often enough.
You'd think he would be trying to hit the stumps, but mostly he aims to put it just outside off stump. (That is, the opposite side to the batsman's body.) He wants to put it close enough so that the batsman is unsure if he needs to play a stroke or can just let it go through to the wicketkeeper. (The "keeper" is the equivalent to baseball's catcher.) For now, the batsman isn't too interested in scoring (though he will take any runs that come his way), he just wants to stay out there until the shine has worn off the new ball and the bowlers start getting tired. Once the ball is softer, he can start looking to make more runs.
Usually for the first hour or so in the morning, the pitch is still a little damp, and the extra moisture makes the ball 'grip' on the turf and seam around more. It's a particularly difficult time for the batsman. The fast bowler is wizzing the ball fast just outside off stump and the batsman wants to leave as many balls as possible, but he can never be sure if the ball is going to move further away to the off (this ball should be left untouched), go straight on, or move those couple of inches in and hit his stumps.
Meanwhile, the Australian captain has set his field in a very attacking way: with most of his best fielders in an arc next to the wicketkeeper. These are the "slips" fielders. Usually the best batsmen in the side are the ones with the sharp eye and quick hands to make good slips catchers. The wicketkeeper is the only one allowed to wear gloves, and is usually chosen in the side for his wicketkeeping skills, though keepers are often quite handy with the bat too.
Apart from the batsman, everyone is hoping for an edge. Fast bowlers get the vast majority of their wickets (get batsmen out, that is to say) from catches, mostly fine edges snicked to the keeper or the slips.
Cliptin
Wannabe Storage Freak
Can the bowler run into the throw? I seem to recall video of this.
I assume the primary wicket-keeping skills are catching a spinning ball off the bounce, no.
I assume the primary wicket-keeping skills are catching a spinning ball off the bounce, no.
Is height a big advantage for bowlers? In baseball, there's only one really dominant sub-6 foot pitcher in the Majors (Pedro Martinez), and only one in the Hall of Fame (Whitey Ford). Almost all of the hard throwers are well over 6 feet, and the most dominant, Randy Johnson, is 6' 10".
Cliptin
Wannabe Storage Freak
SteveC said:
Pedro Martinez and Greg Maddux are good pitchers because they can place the ball where they want it.
James
Storage is cool
I'm sure it seems that length sometimes when you're towards the end of a long innings as a batsman, but I think you're exaggerating here.Tannin said:
slo crostic
Learning Storage Performance
I seem to recall hearing that the length of a cricket pitch is equal to one chain, an old measurment that's not used anymore. Anyone else heard of a chain before?