The Ashes

Thanks, Straggler, I am on edge waiting for those updates.- Onips. truth be told, the times I've seen the game, it's actually quite cool.

I just read through the Wikipedia article on Cricket (with a side stop on The Ashes article) and it's very helpful in a basic understanding, but leaves some thngs open to me.For instance, if two batters are very good, and the team they're playing against is not very good at fielding, is it theoretically possible for the batters to play indefinitely, or as it seemed to imply, is there a target goal of a certain number of runs at which the game gets called?It also says that hwne the batter attempts a run, both batters have to run to the ooposye end of the pitch, thereby changing sides, but they can run back and forth as many times as they think they can safely do so. If they both make it once, does that count as one run, or as two? It seems to imply one, but it also said something about, the run for an individual being added to their total, but the runs of both being added to the team total. I think I'm misunderstanding that part.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

There is no set goal. BUT in test cricket you cannot win unless you bowl out the entire opposition team twice. Simply batting for five days and amassing a ginourmous score is completely pointless. The game will just be a draw.In such a situation as you describe the superior batting team would amass as many runs as it considers able to defend over two innings of the opposition and then "declare" (i.e. stop batting and put the other team in). But what this defendable score is deemed to be is (officially at least) the judgement of the captain and may well be wrong.IF the second batting team manage to get within 200 runs of the original total the first team has to bat again thus increasing the target again.IF the second batting team do not get within 200 runs then they can be made to bat again. Thus giving the original superior batting team the chance to bowl them out for the second time for a combined total that is still less than the original ginormous total and thus win the game.In essence the answer to your question is no. It is instead a judgement as to how much is enough. And if that judgement is wrong you risk losing or, at least, not winning.YOU have to bowl out the opposition twice to win. NO matter how good at batting you team is "bowlers win matches not batsman" as they say in cricket parlance The two batsman swapping "ends" (or running between the wickets) is one run. This can be repeated indefinitely after the ball has been hit in theory but in practise fielders invariably get the ball back before more than three such swaps have been achieved. This "run" (or runs if more than one) is attributed to the batsman that actually hit the ball to cause this outcome. The team total is a combination of all of the individual batsmans contributions (plus "extras" which are basically dumb mistakes made by the fielding side and which I wouldn't worry about at this stage)Does that make any sense?

Ok, so far so good.How many runs ar egenerally scored by one team in a match? The numbers above 200 seem to be the standard numbers used, but that implies the total is massive, like around 500 or so. Is this the case?

How do I add pics to posts? The pitch is the rectangle in the middle where the batsman bat. The field is the entire playing area containg all the fielders.http://www.abcofcricket.com/cfb1/cfb2/cfb3/fielding.gifThe batsman on strike is at the opposite end of the pitch to the bowler. The passive batsman is at the end of the pitch where the bowler is. The bowler essentially bowls from the stumps at one end to the on strike batsman at the other. This rectangle is called the "pitch" and the stumps are 22 yards apart. At the opposite end of the "pitch" is where the second batsman stands. The length of boundary is not fixed. The entire field is a sort of Oval shape so it depends which direction the ball is hit. Different crickets grounds are also different sizes (though there must be minimum and maximum limits). There are eleven players. You always have to have two batsman on the field. So an innings is effectively 10 people out.This is all getting a bit technical. I fear I am in danger of nerding even myself out

Marvellous! But I must admit I am mildly astonished having just reread my own ramblings. It totally depends. Each game is different. I think the lowest test score innings score is about 30 and the highest is 900+.It depends on the relative strengths of the two sides and on the pitch. On some "flat" pitches it is near impossible to get decent batsman out. On other pitches the ball flies erratically all over the place and the scores are very low.In the most recent ashes test at Lords (the "home of cricket" no less - a place full of history) England first scored 425. Aus then scored 215. Then England scored 311 and declared (total 736). Aus were then all out for 406 (total 621).Thus Aus lost by 115 runs. Hurrah!!!!I guess that was pretty averagely scored match for a decent pitch and two reasonably even sides. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well, like I said, I also read through the main Cricket article on Wikipedia, so what you've been saying has been filling in gaps left by that article. A score like this seems very high. Basketball, the sport I'm used to with the highest avergae scores is usually in the 100 points per team range, so hearing of a game where points get close to 1,000 points each team, and knowing that those runs are either scored by someone actually running between the wickets...Wait, so here's a question. Do most socres come from an actual run (people actually running between the wickets), errors on the fielding team's part, or by the batter hitting the ball past the boundary?In general, this game kind of seems like the game of Pickle or Hotbox we I used to play as a kid. Of course, there were no batters or anyone in the field, but the scoring mechanics are very similar.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

It does last 5 days don't forget.... Imagine a 5 day basketball game!!!!!!!Most high individual batting scores contain a good number of "boundaries" (as those runs scored as either 4's or 6's are collectively known). 4's are very very common. 6's less so. In test cricket at least. If a batsman makes a decent score, say 30+ (anything over 50 is a very good score and to get a century is a significant statistical achievement) then probably about half that or a bit more would be made up of 4's. Maybe the odd 6 for those more bludgeoning type batsmen.The very elite world class international batsmen average about 50 runs per innings. England has one such player. And he is out injured for the rest of the series..... As well as NFL it seems I need to be educated in "Pickle" and "Hotbox"....? I have absolutely no clue what these are!?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling

They're two different names for the same game. When I grew up, we called it Hotbox, but most people I've met since then know of it as Pickle.The basic premise of the game is similar to being a base runner in baseball, though there are only two bases. Two defensive players are catchers at either end, tossing the ball back and forth. As a runner, you attempt to get from one base to the next without being tagged out by one of the defenders with the baseball.The best tactic is to try and take off running at the same time as the defender at your destination throws the ball. This way, you have the time it takes the ball to make its way to the other defender, plus the time it takes the other defender to throw it back to the first defender. You get one point for every successful "run." Once you get tagged out, we usually had the person who tagged you become the new runner, and you take their place as a defender.I was playing once with my dad and cousin. I was the runner, and took off running as soon as my cousin threw the ball to my dad. My dad caught the ball and heaved it back at my cousin, but aimed poorly and whacked me on the back of the head. The sound was so loud that my mom, who had been inside the house, heard the sound and came out to see what had happened.Ahh, memories...Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

Very true. I guess it could be compared to an entire series of 7 games in baseball, but the score for that would still be quite a bit lower. I can only imagine the strength and stamina needed to be a better. I had no idea how strenuous this game was. All I've ever seen are clips from movies and things, and there it always seemed to be the classic English gentleman's game, kind of slow and staid.Though, I think baseball is a very slow and boring game, too.

The best test batsmen of a certain type have powers of elongated concentration, mental stamina and focus that defy description. Building a big innings against a varied bowling attack of guile, pace and hostility is truly a test of character. It is this that divides the game into those that consider it powerfully absorbing and those that consider it "boring" I guess. Yeah I can see that. But hard arsed Aussies, ultra competetive Saffers, the entire population of the Indian subcontinent and the ghetto kids of the Carribbean disagree.....Along with the English "gentlemen" such as myself.. (Brixtonian "ghetto scum" that I am) Too? Too........? Blasphemer!!! I think I would quite like baseball if I watched it properly. But I am a self acknowledged bat and ball nerd.

I meant that merely as a relational to how the game is seemingly portrayed in biased American cinema, I meant no disrespect. I've never seen an actual match, so I obviously can't comment as to my (lack of) boredom. I'd be interested in watching one, just to see what it's like.

Yeah well if you do go to a match ensure that you pack your beer, sandwiches and a newspaper. The ebb and flow of an "intense" cricket match is not for the feint hearted. Or ill equipped.At it's best cricket is the king of sports. At it's worst cricket is just an excuse to sit in the Sun and drink beer for days on end. I am a fan either way.

So after a week of hype, build-up and keen anticipation the scheduled start of the 3rd Ashes Test 2009 is finally upon us. Hoorah!! - The crowd leaps to it's feet and !!ROOOAAAARS!! It's approval with tub thumping gusto and enthusiasm. IIIIINGERLAND IIIIINGERLAND IIIIINGERLANDBut no. Rain delays the start of play. Booo!! - The crowd quietly sits down again and people return to their crossword puzzles and flasks of insipid tea. Brollies up.Yes that's right. In a country where weather is the national obsession and rain is as common as mud (literally) we insist on playing a game that is unable to be played in bad weather.Before anyone points out the sheer stupidity of this to me I can only say that I agree. It is utterly bonkers. But you have to remember that we also invented the body breaking pastime that is cheese rolling. When you look at it like that almost anything makes sense.Until the cricket actually gets under way I suggest that those bored enough to be reading this checkout the cheese rolling 2009 "highlights" here:http://lolblips.dailyradar.com/...rshire_cheese_rolling_2009Please note - Any further discussion of cheese rolling will be dismissed as "off-topic". This is merely an interlude until the real cricket action gets under way. You have been warned.

Is there a reason they haven't built indoor areans for Cricket? Is it to keep weather as a variable part of the game?