Cricket explained...

Remove all ads!

Let's get something cleared first: I'm bored. England play Scotland in the Six Nations in a bit, but till then I'm bored off my skull. So I'm doing this. I don't actually expect anyone to read this, but here we are...

First, we'll deal with stats. Bowlers stats first...

Just in case any of you aren't familiar with the term, 'Over': Bowlers bowl in sets of 6 balls, called Overs. A bowler bowls an over at one end, then a different bowler must bowl from the other end. You get two different types of bowlers. Pace bowlers, and spin bowlers. I'd say that's pretty self-explanatory. One cobs it down as fast as they can, one tries to put a lot of revolutions on the ball so that it bounces at wicked angles to confuse the bastmen. Bowlers, generally, are rated in 4 key areas.

First, Wickets: Obviously the most important thing, how many wickets does the guy take.

Second, Average: On average, how many runs the bowler concedes before he takes a wicket. Anything below 30 in this area is good. Anything below 28 is outstanding.

Third, Economy: How many runs a bowler concedes per over. Anything below 3.5 is good, anything below 3 is outstanding.

Finally, Strike Rate: On average, how many balls a bowler bowls before he takes a wicket. Anything below 60 is good, anything below 55 is very good.

This sounds simple enough ,but unless you understand it, it can confuse the hell out of you when you look as a record. For example, let's look at one of Englands main stike bowlers, Steve Harmison...

39 154 28.71 3.12 55.18

In 39 matches, Harmison has taken 154 wickets, at an average of 28.71, conceding 3.12 runs an over with a strike rate of 55.18. Got it? This is a pretty decent record.

Batsmen, in comparison, are rated in less areas. Although less in number, no less in importance. They play in 'innings'. In a test match, each team plays 2 innings. Batsmen go out once at innings, score as many runs as possible before getting out. Their main stats are...

First, Average: How many runs a batsman scores before getting out. Anything above 35 is ok, anything above 40 is good, anything above 45 is exceptional and anything above 50 is legendary. Only the very best batsmen manage to get an average above 50.

Second, Strike rate: On average, from the amount of balls bowled at them, how many they scored off. This may not make sense to people unfamiliar with cricket, but batsmen, a lot of the time, choose not tp play a shot at a ball, or choose to just defend it (just stick their bat in the way, basically). 'Why??' I hear you ask. Well, this can be for a few reasons.
A) They don't like the look of the ball. It might look as though it's likely to swing away at the last minute, resulting in an edge to slip.
Or, B) maybe the ball is going way too fast to be comfortable of playing a controlled shot.
C) It's doing a lot of moving from the hand of a spinner.
D) It doesn't serve the batsmans interests to take risks in order to score runs. I.e. playing for a draw.
There is no good or bad strike rate really. A batsman with a high strike rate (I.e. Kevin Pietersen - 69.77) is more spectacular than a batsman with a lower strike rate (I.e. Andrew Strauss - 51.46), but that doesn't necessarily make them better. Chances are that a batsman with a high strike rate won't be at the crease very long (but is likely to score a flury of runs whilst he's there). Think 'bash 'em and smash 'em!!', and, 'Easy does it, easy does it'.

Now, I'm fed up of typing, so I can't be bothered to explain much else . If any other cricket fans wan't to waste their time adding to my explanation of cricket, please feel free. No? Thought not .

Hopefully, some of you will now have a better understanding of cricket and can appreciate it more.
I probably lost my readers after the first sentence, but ah well, it's filled 10 minutes .

 

Thanks Barmy, this should help. Next time i watch a game i should be able to understand it better.

 

I thought you said you were going to explain cricket?

Actually, I was always under the impression that they jest made up the rules as they went along.

OK then:
• What is a “wicket”?
• And how does a bowler “take” a wicket?
• And what makes a wicket “sticky”?
• How does a batman score a run? And can robins score runs too?
• How does a batman go out?
• How does a game end?
• How many other players are there?
• What the heck do they do?
• And why do they even bother?

 

That lesson was stats. I was hoping other posters would add other areas of cricket and explain them. That's when I realised that they weren't as sad as I am .

- 'Wicket' is a term used to describe a few different things. It can mean the strip of pitch between the two sets of sticks (or bases). 'The' wickets (plural) is the name of the sticks themselves. When a bowler gets someone out, then he has 'taken a wicket'. When we're talking about how well a team is doing, we'd say something like '92 for 5 wickets', so 92 runs and 5 people out. It helps to know which context the word is being used in!

- A bowler can take a wicket in a variety of ways. It basically means that a batsman has got out due to the actions of the bowler. The best way a bowler can get someone out is to bowl the ball so that it beats the batsmen and takes his stumps (or his 'wicket' ). However, they can get a wicket by forcing a catch, or trapping the batsman LBW (leg before wicket - if it would have hit the wickets but for it hitting the batsmens legs, it's out). If a batsmen manages to get run-out, that does not get given to the bowler.

- A 'sticky wicket' means a very slow pitch that is both wet and dry in places. You see, it's not like baseball where the pitcher just throws the ball as hard as he can. In cricket, the best way to get someone out is to bounce it off the pitch and get movement (full length balls are too predictable and get slogged). A 'sticky wicket' means a pitch that is not condusive to speed but becaose the dry and wet, is very condusive to bounce from a spinner, ie. the ball 'sticks' to the ground. Spinners love it, as it makes life hazardous to the bowler.

- Batsmen score runs by hitting the ball (with his bat) and then running between the stumps (or bases, for you). Each time a batsman goes from one stump to the other, that's a run. There is also a boundary around the ground; if the batsman gets the ball over that then it's a straight 4 runs. If he gets it over that without it ever touching the floor (a major slog in other words), it counts as 6 runs. Robins??

- By getting bowled by the bowler, getting caught off the bat, getting trapped LBW, or getting run out.

- A test match ends when both sides have batted twice. Whoever has scored the most runs, wins the test match. A test match is played over 5 days. If both teams haven't completed 2 innings by the end of the match, it's a draw. One Day games a lot shorter, with a lot more run scoring. Each team only bats once.

- 11 on each team.

- Score runs and take wickets!

- Because it's the 2nd best sport in the world and it rocks! Right, Harbs?

 

Cricket rules (ha, pun intended)

I will only add any additional information about cricket if I have any evidence that anyone is the least bit interested in reading about it. My experience would suggest that most people are quite happy watching the sports they know and have no time to learn about new ones.

In real cricket news, New Zealand is 4-0 in their series against the West Indies, while England had a tough day in the first test against India.

 

(I can't reply to the proper England VS India thread!)

A dodgy day, the only up-side being Cooky who did well before getting out. I was a bit disappointed with that, he should have been looking at a ton after getting his eye in. It's only his first test I suppose - and talk about a baptism of fire.

It's also high-time Geraint Jones was dropped.

 

Why is it called a test match? It sounds like they aren't really playing a real game or something... like pre-season or an exhibition game.

When one team goes to bat... does this mean all eleven guys take turns hitting? And they keep taking turns until each one of the players get out?

92 runs and 5 people out? What are typical scores in the game?

About the bowlers... ie: pitchers. Why can't a bowler be BOTH a spin bowler and pace bowler? A pitcher in baseball can throw both fastballs (pace bowl) and curveballs (spin bowl). I don't see why a bowler can't do the same - just throw the ball a bit differently.

The sentence confused me: "A bowler bowls an over at one end, then a different bowler must bowl from the other end."

I'm guessing by "end" you mean "inning". In baseball, the pitcher keeps throwing until the coach takes him out of the game. But it sounds like the bowler is forced to stop throwing after an inning, and a new bowler replaces him.

That "sticky wicket" sounds much like a "knuckleball" in baseball. Doesn't use speed or spin to fool the batter, but rather weather like wind or wetness.

 

Don't know, that's just the name of it. You get Test matches and ODI's (One Day Internationals). The same name is used in other sports as well, like rugby. Maybe Harbourboy can shed light on the term, he's full of useless facts.

Yes, each player much bat once in an innings. The more 'steady' batsmen tend to open the batting, to see out the new ball. A teams more 'destructive' batsmen bat in the middle order, and a teams bowlers (who are typically crap batsmen) take up the tail end of a batting line-up.

There's not really a 'typical score' in that sense of things. For 5 men out, a good team will be looking at a good 200-250 runs in a test match to be honest. But obviously, the score when all batsmen are out is what we're interested in.

Some bowlers can bowl both spin and pace. Andrew Symonds of Australia is probably the best example of this. Bowlers tend to stick to one type of bowling and try their best to perfect that, rather than bring other aspects into it. It's not just a case of throwing the ball differently you understand. The run-up, technique, and strategy of the ball is all completely different. Summed up, bowlers prefer to be specialists in one style of bowling - it's the rare bowler who can become useful at both.

No, basically, a wicket (the strip of pitch in the middle) has a set of stumps at each end. One bowler bowls at one set of stumps, then another bowler must bowl at he other set of stumps. The same bowler can't bowl an over from one end, then walk around the other end and bowl there. The captain is the one in charge of which 2 bowlers are bowling at whatever point in the game. Pace bowlers come in with the new ball, so they can get zip and pace off the pitch. Spin bowlers bowl when the ball is getting old, no longer skims quickly, and is a bit battered and more likely to misbehave.

That's essentially what it is, yeah. Fast bowlers struggle to get pace and bounce off a sticky wicket. But spin bowlers find it really easy to make the ball be naughty and do unexpected things Sticky wickets are DEADLY when they come in on day 4 or 5 of a test match, when the pitch has lost its smoothness and has lots of rough areas (where the players spikes have been - players boots have spikes). I have seen Muttiah Muralitharan and Shane Warne (easily the two best spin bowlers in the world) move the ball nearly 2 feet off the pitch. How the hell do you play that...

 

Because they are completely different types of bowling. A 'fast' bowler, funnily enough, bowls the ball really quickly. His tricks might include:
- swing (if he makes the trajectory of the ball swerve in the air)
- cut (if he makes the ball divert sideways slightly after it hits the ground)
- bounce (if he makes the ball bounce high and around the batsmen's head)
- slow ball (if he runs in really fast then ends up bowling a much slower delivery the batsman might have finished swinging before the ball arrives)

On the other hand, a 'spin' bowler bowls the ball really slowly. This might sound like it would be much easier to hit, but the good spinners can make the ball spin in crazy directions after it hits the ground. The word 'bamboozle' is often used to describe what happens to a batsman when he has no clue about which way the ball is going to spin. Also with a spin bowler it is harder to hit the ball because you have to do all the hitting. With a fast bowler you can use the pace of the ball to deflect it in various directions but the spinner bowls so slowly that you have to take a big swing of your bat to make it go anywhere (thus making it more likely to make a mistake).

One strategy is to alternate between having a fast bowler and a spin bowler bowling so that the batsmen can't get used to one type of pace.

 

Further to this, here's a few video's for anyone who has never seen cricket. These are two great examples of pace bowling and spin bowling from 2 of the best exponents of them in the game.

Shoiab Akhtar - Pakistani pace bowler - Regularly hits 100mph with his pace deliveries. And I *mean* regular, like once an over!
Shoiab Akhtar's Wicket Breakers!!

Shane Warne - Australian (wrist) spinner - Can move the ball an unbelievable distance. It's pretty much impossible for batsmen to be able to pick his deliveries when he can move the ball so much in any direction. Genius.

Shane Warne's Best Wickets

Both videos well worth a watch.

 

Further to Barmy Army's comments on strike rate and average for bowlers, for an indication as to what might be good stats for a bowler, we can examine the bowler with the best career strike rate and average in the entire history of one day international cricket:

Shane Bond (NZ) Average:18.63 Strike Rate:26.5

 

whoa running start for the pitcher eh? In baseball, the pitcher starts his throw from the upright position.

I think one of the biggest differences is being allowed to bounce the ball off the ground... if you do that in baseball, it counts against the pitcher.

The standing position of the batsmen are different too. It looks like they are trying to block the ball from hitting the 3 sticks behind like a goalkeeper, but at the same time wanting to hit the ball hard... which makes it look like you either get hit by the pitch or you have to bunt. I guess what I'm trying to say is they don't stand back and take big golf or tennis swings at the pitch.... What's the penalty for the pitcher if he hits the batsman? Baseball gives the batter a free pass to first base.

This is going to turn into a comparison between cricket and baseball

 

If the batsman takes a massive swing at the ball, he's risking completely missing it and either getting trapped LBW or losing his stumps (or hitting the ball into the air and getting caught). So, yeah, it's a case of trying to defend your stumps but also try and get the ball away for runs. Nobody ever said cricket was an easy game to play .

There is no penalty if the bowler hits the batsman. In fact, it's a good way of disturbing their rhythm and knocking them off their stride. Some pace bowlers have made their career out of nasty bouncers repeatedly battering a batsmans upper body. You will often see this delivery followed up by a 'yorker' delivery (a ball thrown to hit the floor right underneath the batsmans bat, to try and slip under and take the wicket).

The only exception to this is a delivery called the 'beamer'. This is when the ball is thrown above waist height, without bouncing from the floor. A bowler get's warnings for these. 3 warnings and he can't bowl again in the game.

 

Clarification on what "LBW" means:

A batsman can be given out Leg Before Wicket if the ball hits his legs and would (in the umpire's opinion) have hit the stumps if his legs had not been in the way. There are various exceptions to this rule, but the general idea is to prevent the situation where a batsman just stands in front of the stumps all day and makes no effort to hit the ball with his bat.