Conference 7.286::sports_90

Okay, PJ...

How bout a little summary of the rules.  I mean, it might be a bit
of a sticky wicket to put them in, but it would help all of us
understand this distant relative of baseball....

Who do you like in Cricket, and who's their biggest rival, so that
I can properly support the rival 8^) 8^) 8^)

'Saw

    I guess this is the right topic for this: 
    
    While visiting England, several times there would be cricket matches
    on the "telly box". It looks a little like baseball in terms of a guy
    throwing a ball, and the batsman hitting it and running to the other
    wicket (base?). I know there must be long and complicated rules, but in
    a nutshell, could you explain the basics?
    
    I know it wont be easy, as I remember going to a Red Sox game with my
    then-girlfriend, who is English. It isn't easy to explain terminology
    and rules, while explainin who "that bloke on the pitch from the
    batsman's team" is (1st & 3B coaches), Sacrafice bunt "Rawther sporting
    of 'im, wot?"
     
    Last time I saw a cricket "test" the play of the game came when after 
    fielding a ball, he made a long throw (300+ feet) to the far wicket, 
    knocking it over just before the runner got there. The crowd roared! 
    It sort of reminded me of Dwight Evans throwing out a runner at the plate. 
    
    There was also a big stink in the "gutter press" about Ian Botham
    giving the "V-sign" (equivalent to the American middle finger) to some
    fans after a match. 
    
    Tom-who-finds-English-fitba-much-easier-to-follow

>    
>    There was also a big stink in the "gutter press" about Ian Botham
>    giving the "V-sign" (equivalent to the American middle finger) to some
>    fans after a match. 
    
If I'm not mistaken, this is done with the palm facing inward, 
so that the back of the hand is towards "target person", right?

Boy, if that's all the press had to write about they should have
covered some of the Cleveland - Cincy games 8^)

'Saw

    I'd like a rules low-down, too.  At least enough to try to understand
    the report :-)
    
    And for those of you who think soccer is wimpy....I can't imagine what
    you'll think of this one.
    
    A&W

               It's still trying to work its way UP to wimpy!

I'll maybe get in here first so PJ can spend the next 6 weeks correcting me:

It's sort of like baseball (or baseball's sort of like it):

wicket:  equivalent of home plate but there are two of them!
batsman: batter
bowler:  pitcher

The bowler lets fly at the wicket (or the batsman's haid) making the ball 
bounce just in front of it.  (The wicket is composed of three croquette-like 
wooden sticks stuck in the ground and a teeny-weeny wooden peg-like thing
running across the top of them.)  If the batsman zaps it on the ground or 
away from all opponents he can run 22 yards to the *other* wicket and score
one run.  If the batsman smacks it out of the park it's 6 runs, pretty far
away is 4 runs, and if someone catches it in the air or knocks that little
peg off the top of the wicket in play (the one the batsman's running for)
with the ball the batsman is also out.

The batsman essentially tries to protect the wicket and wait for an opportunity
as he can stay there for ever unless bowled (struck) out by a sizzling bowl.

Cover and let simmer for three days.  Serve piping hot.

rick ellis

    The intro note (329.0) was only meant as a joke....(it was a real slow
    morning)...but if you insist, I'll try to get a brief description for
    the uninitiated.
    
    Give me a day (or two) as I'm out of the office till Friday.
    
    PJ (who's_not_sure_what_he_has_got_himself_in_for!!)

If a batsman hits a "1" (single) he goes to the other wicket, scoring a run,
and a second batsman comes up.

Think it's time for a diagram to explain some more details:


          Wicket  Batsman 2                         Batsman 1   Wicket  Wicket
                        Bowler                                          Keeper

1.  Bowler bowls to batsman 1 who hits it 
2.  Batsman 1 and batsman 2 must either both run or both stayput
3.  Let's say they both run like hell and make it to the other wicket - two
    runs are scored
4.  Now the batsman changes from batsman 1 to 2 as number 2 occupies the
    wicket that is to be bowled to
5.  After a certain number of bowls the wicket keeper (catcher) and bowler
    switch ends and bowling commences in the opposite direction at the other
    batsman.  If there is only one batsman he switches ends too.

HTH,

:{)

rick ellis

a few reactions:


re Bo:  Bo may know cricket, but he has the shittiest attempt at
        an English accent I've *ever* heard.  I could do a better
	job with a mouth full of peanut butter.  Quite.


re Wimpy:

	When in France I had occasion to watch a lot of cricket on
	British TV.  The main interest I had was trying to figure
	out what the hell was going on.  At any rate, that bowler
	(and I believe there are several that take turns, not like
	baseball with one pitcher) whizzes that ball in there pretty
	quick.

	I don't believe the fielders wear gloves (may be wrong, can't
	remember) and since there's no foul ground (I don't think)
	shot that go back wicked fast (like a foul in baseball) are
	pretty dangerous...

re Rules:

	Thanks so far, now it's starting to make more sense 8^)

'Saw

    ONly Cricket game I ever watched was on Monty Python.  I think the
    Wash basin is still up....
    
    
    JD

    Here're some more points where cricket differs from Baseball..
    
    * The bowler (pitcher) has to bowl overarm (i.e. swing the arm 180�
    before he bowls), and that's why he runs so many yards to generate 
    enough pace. As someone said before, the bowler normally pitches the
    ball somewhere in front of the batsman and tries to swing/cut/spin
    it to get him to commit a mistake. A full-toss is rather easy to play.
    
    * The bowler bowls 6 balls (called an over) at a time and then another 
    bowler bowls from other end.. After a spell of few overs (depending
    on effectiveness) the captain can ask another bowler(s) to bowl.
    
    * The batsmen don't have to run when they hit the ball (unlike in
    baseball), so there aren't that many groundouts(runouts).
    
    * There're eleven players in a team (# can vary for informal games)
    and all of them field. Apart from bowler and wicket-keeper (catcher)
    all other fielders can be placed anywhere by the captain and/or the
    bowler. Some of the fielding positions sound rather funny.. Only the 
    British could cook it up :-)... To name a few..
    Slip, Silly point, Gully, Forward Short Leg, Backward short leg, Cover,
    Point, Third Man, Fine Leg, Mid-off, Mid-on...
    
    That's all I can write for now.. will be back with more later if time
    permits..
    
    /Dhaval
    

    		The Rules of Cricket
                (Simple Version 1.0)
    
    
    The teams flip a coin to decide who will be in and who will be out.
    
    The batsmen of the team that go in, try to stay out, while the team
    that's out tries to get the team that's in, out.
    
    When a batsmen from the team that's in, is out, he goes in and another
    batsmen - who has been in - goes out.  He stays in until he's out.
    
    When the team that's been in is all out, everyone goes in.
    
    Then the teams switch so the team that been out goes in and the team
    that's been in, goes out.
    
    The team that is now out tries to get the team that's in, out.
    
    (Occasionally, the teams stop for tea.)
    
    The winning team is the one that has scored more runs (including the
    wides, no-balls, and leg-byes) while they were in than the other team
    were able to score before they were all out.
    
    
    
    Sometimes matches are drawn.
    
    Simple, isn't it??
    PJ
    

    Now that everyone knows the rules, I thought you would like to know the
    result of the Second Test between England and India.
    
    After playing for 5 days  (yes, five days),  the match was declared...
    
    			A DRAW !!!!
    
    	((  Translation for Yanks:   The match was tied  ))
    
    The full result / scoreboard is as follows:
    
    England (1st Innings)
    G A Gooch  c More b Prabhakar..........116
    (239 mins, 163 balls, 16 fours)
    M A Atherton  c More b Hirwani.........131
    (338 mins, 276 balls, 12 fours)
    D I Gower  c Tendulkar b Kapil Dev......38
    (64 mins, 53 balls, 6 fours)
    A J Lamb   c Manjrekar b Kumble.........38
    (97 mins, 97 balls, 5 fours)
    R C Russell  c More b Hirwani............8
    (19 mins, 21 balls, 1 four)
    R A Smith  not out.....................121
    (243 mins, 197 balls, 11 fours)
    etc
    etc
    etc
    Extras (b2, lb9, w1, nb6)...............18
    
    Totals (605 mins, 160.5 overs).........519
    
    Fall: 1-225 (Gooch), 2-292 (Gower), 3-312
    (Atherton), 4-324 (Russell), 5-366 (Lamb), 
    6-392 (Morris), 7-404 (Lewis), 8-434 
    (Hemmings), 9-459 (Fraser), 10-59 (Malcolm).
    
    Bowling: Kapil Dev 13-2-67-1 (1nb) (first spell
    7-1-38-0)(second spell 6-1-29-1); Prabhakar 25-
    2-112-1 (4-0-14-0) (13-2-51-1) (4-0-17-0); Kumble
    43-7-105-3 (1nb) (9-1-22-0)
    			ahhh
    			 ahhhhh
    			     ahhhhhh!!
    				aaahhhhhhhhhhggg!!
    
                 (Do I have to go on or do you get my drift??)
    
    
    
    and that's not even halfway through the first inning!!
    
    PJ (whose typing fingers just quit!!)

    Re: .14
    
    Sounds like a formula for making babies!
    
    					Steve

    
    With a box score like that, you must carry home the sports section
    of the newspaper in a wheelbarrow.
    
    Dickster
    

For Paul Yankowskas:

	How'd you like to keep score at a cricket match?


re Tea:
	
	Earl Grey I presume?

   I guess I still don't get it.
   How do you score?
   One guy said the batsman runs to the other wicket?
   One guy said the batsman doesn't have to run?
   I always thought there was something about knocking the stick (or
   whatever) off the wicket (hence the phrase sticky wicket?).

   Explaining baseball might SEEM complicated, but the basic concepts of
   pitching, three strikes to make an out, and progression around the base
   paths in order to score runs is a fairly straightforward proposition.

   What's the story with cricket?

   Mike JN

    In the middle of a large circular field (radius about 100yds), there
    are two wickets 22 yards apart.  (A wicket looks like this and would
    reach from the ground to the top of your average thigh.)
    
    			____ ____        <----  Two bails sit on top of
                       l    l    l                the stumps.
                       l    l    l
                       l    l    l
                       l    l    l       <----  Three stumps stand upright
                       l    l    l                 in the ground
                       l    l    l
                       l    l    l
                _______l____l____l_______       <----  (Ground level)
                ////////////////////////
    
    
    
    A batsman job is to protect the wicket  (ie stop the ball from hitting
    the wicket and knocking the bails off the stumps.
    
    (As there are two wickets, there must always be two batsmen on the
    field protecting them.)
    
    In addition to protecting the wicket, the batsmen need to score runs. 
    They do this by running back and forth between the wickets.  Note both
    batsmen must run......not just the batsmen who has hit the ball.
    To score ONE run, both batsmen must run safely from the wicket they are
    protecting to the other wicket.
    
    Example - Lets call one wicket 'Wicket A' and the other one 'Wicket B'.
    	      (Remember they are 22 yards apart and there is a batsmen 
    	      in front of each wicket.)
    
    When the batsmen in front of wicket 'A' hits the ball and he believes
    that he can reach the other wicket safely, both batsmen run - at the
    same time - to the other wicket.  So now the batsmen who has just hit
    the ball is standing in front of wicket 'B' and his partner is now in
    front of wicket 'A'.  If they believe they can run back to their
    original position safely, they both must run again.  If they do this
    successfully, they will have scored two runs.
    
    (For scoring purposes, only the batsmen who hits the ball earns the
    runs (ie gets credit for scoring them) even though both batsmen must
    run in order for a run to be scored.)
    
    If the batsmen do not think they can run safely between the wickets,
    they are not obliged to run.
    
    
    
    The team in the field are attempting to do one of two things:
    
    	1) Knock the wicket down
    
    	2) Get the batsmen out
    
    In the first instance, it is straight forward. The bowlers (and there
    are usually four on each team) take turns at trying to knock the
    wicket down.  A bowler has 6 attempts at one wicket and then he must
    give another bowler 6 attempts at the other wicket.  The bowler throws
    the ball from one wicket towards the other wicket.  As previously
    explained, the batsmen receiving the pitch is trying to protect the
    wicket.  If the batsmen fails to protect the wicket and the ball hits
    the stumps, the batsmen is out.
    
    Because protecting the stumps is comparatively easy, the fielding team
    can retire a batsmen in several other ways.
    
    	* If the batsmen hits the ball in the air and it is caught, he's
    	  out  (hey, it really is like baseball!!)
    
        * If the batsmen protects the wicket with any part of his body
    	  (hand, leg, head, etc) he is out. 
    
    	* If the batsmen attempt to run between the wickets, but the
    	   fielding team get the ball to the wicket before the batsmen
    	   have run the 22 yards, a batsman is 'run out'  (similar to
    	   being caught off base)
    
    
    Each team has eleven players, so the fielding team must make 10 outs
    in order the retire the whole batting team. (There will always be one
    member of the batting team who is 'not out'.)
    
    The objective is to score as many runs as possible before the fielding
    team get 10 outs.  If you score more runs with your 10 outs than
    the other team, you win.
    
    
    
    
    Whew!
    PJ
         

 >>   With a box score like that, you must carry home the sports section
 >>   of the newspaper in a wheelbarrow.
    
    
    Dickster,
    	Let me have your internal mail address and I'll send you a copy.
    
    	It's only a 1/2 a page......Honest
    
    PJ
    
    p.s.  Anyone else interested??  It's really something that must be
    	  "seen to be believed".
    
    p.p.s. It also helps to explain why the Brits had trouble winning a war
    	   on their own!!   #8-)

    
    What is a typical score in this game?
    
    How long does a game last, on average?
    
    Is this game played regularly by a lot of people, or is it some
    high-brow mucky-muck sport like polo?
    
    Do they have pro teams?  Do they sell Cricket trading cards with
    gum in 'em?
    
    Where does the name come from?
    
    Is this enough stupid questions for now?
    
    Dickster
    

   That's starting to make some sense.
   Your explanation of them being in the middle of the field makes clearer
   an earlier remark about whacking the ball backwards.
   Also cleared up the idea that the bowler was `pitching' to the batsman.
   The bowler is trying to hit the stumps(s).
   What if he hits the stumps, but the bail(s) don't fall?
   What if the batsman hits the ball on the ground, but doesn't run (maybe
   didn't hit it far enough)? Can he just keep batting? (kinda like foul
   balls?)
   When a fielder grabs the hit ball, and the batters are both running,
   can the fielders relay the ball (throw it to a teammate who is closer
   to a wicket), or does the fielder literally have to `run down' the
   batter?
   Can the fielder THROW the ball (while the batters are running) and
   knock the bails off the wickets? Or does he have to physically carry
   the ball TO the wicket?
   Is it possible to get two outs from one hit? ie. batsman whacks it,
   both batsmen take off running... relayed throw, knock down the bails,
   another throw and hit the wicket at the other end of the pitch?
   I assume that the `fielders' play in positions that completely
   `surround' the pitch?
   Where do the other members of the batting team wait? I'd think if they
   were at or around the wickets they'd get in the way, since the game is
   played sorta `in the round'.
   What is the record for longest game? Highest scoring game? Worst
   defeat? Do they keep batting averages?
   What type of statistics are considered important in rating players, and
   who are considered `the great ones', and what was their claim to fame? 
   Is it true that the bat is shaped more like a paddle than a baseball
   bat?
   What is the size, weight, and consistency of the ball? Is it a true
   round?

   Do you realize that if someone were to seriously try to introduce
   Cricket in the U.S., within weeks we'd be seeing `Full Contact Cricket'
   on ESPN? (Except they'd probably rename it Spider Ball, or Leech Ball,
   or Vampire Bat Ball.... nice ring to that last, eh?).


   Mike JN

    is there rotisserie cricket?
    
    is there a cricket Hall of Fame (was Jimney the first inductee?)
    
    Why do the games last so long, is it that difficult to make an out?
    
    

  <<< Note 329.24 by QUASER::JOHNSTON "LegitimateSportingPurpose?E.S.A.D.!" >>>

>   What if he hits the stumps, but the bail(s) don't fall?
    
    Legally batsman's not out, but it rarely happens.
    
>   What if the batsman hits the ball on the ground, but doesn't run (maybe
>   didn't hit it far enough)? Can he just keep batting? (kinda like foul
>   balls?)
 
    As Steven said, he can keep batting. This is mainly the reason why the
    game lasts for so long. A batsman can play as defensively as he likes. 
    Leaving the balls that won't go to the stumps or just playing a very
    cautious shot rather than trying to hit hard. Hence, it's very tough to
    get him out. 
>   When a fielder grabs the hit ball, and the batters are both running,
>   can the fielders relay the ball (throw it to a teammate who is closer
>  to a wicket), or does the fielder literally have to `run down' the
>   batter?
>   Can the fielder THROW the ball (while the batters are running) and
>   knock the bails off the wickets? Or does he have to physically carry
>   the ball TO the wicket?
    
   As Steven said, any which way you can. Normally, the fielder throws 
    the ball to the end of the wicket where he thinks he has better chance
    of running a batsman out. Also, normally the wicketkeeper and the
    bowler are covering their ends of wickets during runs, so the fielder
    throws to them rather than aiming at stumps.
>    Is it possible to get two outs from one hit? ie. batsman whacks it,
>    both batsmen take off running... relayed throw, knock down the bails,
>    another throw and hit the wicket at the other end of the pitch?
 
    No. You can't get two outs in one play. The ball is dead once anybody
    gets out. 
>   I assume that the `fielders' play in positions that completely
>   `surround' the pitch?
    
     Correct, it's upto bowler's discretion. If you divide the field along
    the line of the wickets, the side on which batsman is is known as "on"
    or leg side and the other side is "off" side. There is some rule as to
    minimum # of fielders on either side (3, I think). There are two
    umpires, one standing behind the wicket at bowler's end, the other is 
    at square-leg i.e. approx. at third-base for a right hander. The umpire
    at bowler's end makes most of the decisions. He doesn't have to call
    strikes or balls, but has to decide if batsman obstructed the ball
    with his body (if so, he's out Leg Before Wicket).. 
>      Where do the other members of the batting team wait? I'd think if they
>   were at or around the wickets they'd get in the way, since the game is
>   played sorta `in the round'.
    They wait in pavillion (which is basically one end of the stadium.)
    
More later..
    
    /Dhaval

Cricket is played in the US.

In Hartford, there's a large amount of Jamaican people and people
from the West Indies.  Sometimes if you go to Colt park you can
seem them playing pickup, but there are regulars "tests"(?) also...

If you ever have the opportunity to see it played, do it.  It's
very different, but interesting, and it seems as steeped in
tradition as baseball is...

'Saw

    PJ (and others) -
    
    Thanks for the explanations.  It's starting to make sense (which is a
    little scary).
    
    A&W

>   What is the record for longest game? Highest scoring game? Worst
>   defeat? Do they keep batting averages?
    
    The game duration is fixed. At the highest level, there are Test
    matches played between countries which last for five days. It was
    PJ's report on second test of 3-test series that triggered this topic.
    There're 7 "nations" involved in playing tests. England, Australia, 
    New Zealand, West Indies (consisting of a few Carribean Islands),
    India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. Recently, popularity of test cricket has 
    been on the decline due to long duration and lots of "draws". A draw 
    means that after playing for 5 days, the two sides could not complete
    two innings each ! These days, one-day limited overs cricket is more
    popular. In this brand, in the first session of the day, one side
    bowls designated # of overs (normally 50) and the other side tries to
    get as many runs as possible. In the next session, other side bats and
    tries to outscore the other team in same # of overs. It is more
    exciting and result oriented, but purists don't approve of it. I don't
    have stats for highest scoring match handy, but the first test in the
    current series between India and England produced 1600+ runs in 5 days
    and that's very close to a record. Batting average is kept on a per 
    innings base, i.e. an average of 50+ runs per innings is considered
    very good. For a bowler, runs conceded per wicket is important stat,
    with 20 runs per wicket being good.
    
>   What type of statistics are considered important in rating players, and
>   who are considered `the great ones', and what was their claim to fame? 
>   Is it true that the bat is shaped more like a paddle than a baseball
>   bat?
>   What is the size, weight, and consistency of the ball? Is it a true
>   round?
    
    The great ones are few and far between. The greatest batsman was Sir
    Don Bradman who played for Australia in early part of the century. He
    had an incredible average of 99.96 runs per innings and also holds the
    record for highest runs in an innings (365 not out).. The greatest
    bowler was perhaps Richard Hadlee of NZ, who retired this summer.
    
    The bat has a flat surface which is used to hit the ball, with the back
    shaped triangular. The handle is short and round (big enough for grip).
    
    I guess this is all I gotta say right now.. 
    /Dhaval

    Who was the guy they had the story about in SI last year?  THe world's
    greatest cricketeer or something, wasn't he??  AN Aussie, I believe.
    
    JD

    Fine missionary work going on here...
    
    Did anyone describe the ball? No...? The ball is made of cork and hard
    leather, is about twice as heavy as a baseball (at least) and has a
    proud seam around the middle. It is bright red in colour. The seam
    helps the bowler put spin on the ball. Bowlers are fast (>100mph),
    medium or slow. Slow means spin - off-spin or leg-spin, i.e. they make
    the ball turn into or away from the wicket off the bounce. Weather
    conditions will significantly affect a bowler's performance.
    
    One of the fielders is the wicket-keeper, who stands directly behind
    the receiving batman's wicket and is heavily padded for protection. He
    generally take catches from 'edged' balls, which snick of the edge of
    the bat (if you don't show the flat face of the bat to the ball, play
    downwards and control where you want it to go, you're in deep trouble -
    the ball will fly away and you'll be caught out). He also gets the
    batsman out by stumping him: the batsman has a crease, a line the
    length of a bat plus its handle drawn in  front of the wicket. If the
    batsman plays at a ball, misses and goes out of his crease, the wicket
    keeper will attempt to catch the ball and knock off the bails. 
    
    Another method of dismissing a batsman is Leg Before Wicket. The
    batsman plays at a delivery but misses it with his bat; the ball
    strikes his leg. If the umpire, who is standing behind the wicket at
    the bowler's end, considers that the ball would have hit the wicket if
    the leg had not been in the way, the batsman is out. LBW is the most
    difficult and debatable call. Catches, LBWs and stumpings are
    invariably accompanied by ullulations and screams of 'Howzat!' from
    fielders to stir the handful of spectators from their afternoon torpor.
    
    Batsman must never protest at their dismissal and must always 'walk'.
    Failure to do so is 'Not cricket' and viewed with the same distaste
    and horror as, say, raping the queen at the Trooping of the Colour.
    
    Cricket is a very skilful and demanding game. However, it does not
    abuse the body as other sports do. The bowling action is perfectly
    natural and arms don't 'go' as in baseball. Middle-aged class players
    are quite common. It suits the Anglo-Saxon temperament perfectly.
    Indians describe it as the paradigm of Indian life: nothing happening
    for ages followed by a sudden spate of colourful action. West Indians,
    arguably the best players in the world, treat it as one long excuse for
    a party.
    
    Those tempted to put it in the cissy category should tread with care.
    
    By the way, playing time is not as long as it seems. A day is really an
    afternoon.
    
    Peter
    
     

    Wow, this is great.  I've often wondered how the game was played,
    and an English friend once tried to explain it to me.  He never
    actually played, tho, so I didn't really get it all.
    
    Which leads me to a question (it might have been explained in here,
    but I missed it.)
    
    Does the expression "Sticky Wicket" comes from Cricket?  If so,
    what does it imply?
    
    Lee

    A sticky wicket means that a batsman is in big trouble as the ball will
    turn viciously off a damp pitch. Figuratively, ergo, it means to be in a
    very unfavourable position.
    
    Peter
    
    

    never get caught with a sticky wicket, it aint kosher :)
    
    
    dinz
    

>    Another method of dismissing a batsman is Leg Before Wicket. The
>    batsman plays at a delivery but misses it with his bat; the ball
>    strikes his leg. If the umpire, who is standing behind the wicket at
>    the bowler's end, considers that the ball would have hit the wicket if
>    the leg had not been in the way, the batsman is out. LBW is the most
>    difficult and debatable call. Catches, LBWs and stumpings are
>    invariably accompanied by ullulations and screams of 'Howzat!' from
>    fielders to stir the handful of spectators from their afternoon torpor.

This sounds kind of like Pass Interference in football - a judgement
call.... 

>    Batsman must never protest at their dismissal and must always 'walk'.
>    Failure to do so is 'Not cricket' and viewed with the same distaste
>    and horror as, say, raping the queen at the Trooping of the Colour.

I'm rolling on this one.  Raping the queen at the Trooping of the
Colour...  My apologies to all my British friends, but I keep imagining
the Queen saying in her staunchest voice 'We are not amused'.....


>    Cricket is a very skilful and demanding game. However, it does not
>    abuse the body as other sports do. The bowling action is perfectly
>    natural and arms don't 'go' as in baseball. Middle-aged class players
>    are quite common. It suits the Anglo-Saxon temperament perfectly.
>    Indians describe it as the paradigm of Indian life: nothing happening
>    for ages followed by a sudden spate of colourful action. West Indians,
>    arguably the best players in the world, treat it as one long excuse for
>    a party.

Put some Marley on da box, mon, and we be jahmmin'...  Who be bowlin'
next mon?  Come on now mon, da dahm ting didn't hit his leg, mon....
    

>    Those tempted to put it in the cissy category should tread with care.

No doubt.  Watch it played for a while, and that's evident.  Isn't
it only recently the batsman started wearing a helmet?
    
>    By the way, playing time is not as long as it seems. A day is really an
>    afternoon.
    
Reality is just a big illusion anyway....

'Saw    
     

    Reality is for people who can't handle drugs.
    
    John

Sorry,

Would have attempted to confuse you earlier, but it was the illusion of
perceived reality from those who aren't on drugs that kept me away.

Anyway, it isn't LBW (leg before wicket), it's DBW (you-know-what before wicket)
(Did you notice the height of the wickets and those cute little things on top?)


LBW is what the snobs call DBW when their mothers are around

HTCS, 

rick

>Anyway, it isn't LBW (leg before wicket), it's DBW (you-know-what before wicket)
>(Did you notice the height of the wickets and those cute little things on top?)
>
>LBW is what the snobs call DBW when their mothers are around

Rick...

I like that.  Besides DBW has nicer rhyme scheme to it....

Of course, for some individuals DBW (truly does) :== LBW

    Peter, thanks for your explaination.  I had always thought that
    it meant that a ball had slightly hit the stumps but the bails failed
    to fall.
    
    By the way, JD and /Don, the greatest Cricketeer was.......
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Buddy Holly!!  How quickly we forget.  
    
    Lee

   What is the diameter of the stumps, and how far apart are they?

   I was just wondering if it often happens that the bowler gets the ball
   by the batsman, and it rolls `between' the wickets, therefore not
   knocking the bails down?

   Mike JN

�   I was just wondering if it often happens that the bowler gets the ball
�   by the batsman, and it rolls `between' the wickets, therefore not
�   knocking the bails down?
    
    I don't know the dimensions, but I do know that there is no way for
    this to happen.

    Only in SPORTS could you get 44 replies in less than two days on a
    note that was started as a joke; and on something like Cricket!  
    
    (BTW, I also enjoyed the discussion - it matched the title of the note,
    and the digressions and humor were within the topic...  Good job,
    mates!)
    
    ML-with-the-English-surname
    

    Ever onwards.
    
    The stumps are the width of a ball apart and stand roughly the height
    of a bat, so a ball that gets by the bat and hits the wicket generally
    causes the bails to fall off. Not always though.
    
    To prevent wear, the wickets are actually moved around the central area
    of the pitch from match to match, not fixed as in baseball.
    
    The bat, by the way, is made of willow, and the handle is sprung to
    absorb the impact of fast balls. It is unvarnished and treated with
    linseed oil to keep it in condition. Both bat and ball are still hand
    made.
    
    For philologists and etymologists:
    
    Straight off the bat = immediately
    
    To hit for six =  to deal a crushing blow
    
    .
    .
    .
    There are lots more.
    
    Rick Ellis will kill me for this.
    
    Peter
    
    

    There have been a number of occasions where the wickets have been hit
    and one or both of the bails have 'jumped ' up only to fall back into
    place on the wickets  (so not Out) - guaranteed to make a bowler mad!
    
    Another unusual way of getting out is where the batsmans cap has
    fallen off while making a hook shot or wild swing and its fallen
    on to the wicket behind him knocking the bails off, and been given
    out! This has happend in a few Tests(Internationals).
    
    -Dom (with not a very English surname)

    I cain't believe you guys are really interested in this stuff!!
    
    I've lived in Britland for over 25 years (except for the four I spent
    at Camp Colby, ML) and I could honestly care less about cricket!!
    
    But to answer a few of the remaining questions, I'll try to give an
    brief overview.
    
    * Cricket is one Britain's four major spectator sports
    	(The others being: Football (Soccer)
    			   Rugby
    			   Horse Racing  (The Sport of Kings...or should
    					                it be Queens???)
    
    * Cricket has always been considered a rather aristocrastic game in the
    UK and is steeped in tradition.  As an example, membership at Lords
    Cricket Club is still men-only.  Only last month, the rule was
    reaffirmed but with a significant change....women would be allowed into
    the clubhouse for the Christmas Party!!!  (A&W et al, this should get
    your blood boiling!!  Unfortunately, the British women just lie there
    and take it!!  (Pun deliberately intended, sorry :-)  )
    
    *Players are generally better educated than their soccer counterparts
    but earn significantly less money.
    
    * Professional teams are organised by counties (regions) and there is
    little 'trading' of players (at least none that really make headlines).
    
    *Because cricket is a rather sedate game, the most publicity comes when
    there is a major incident (such as a player arguing with an umpires
    decision).  As someone has already mentioned this is almost a criminal
    offence, but when it happened last year in a Test Match against
    Pakistan (?), England almost had to recall their ambassador!!!
    
    *The other real excitement is when one of the players is caught in
    hotel room with a 'bimbo'. Far more exiting that what happens on the
    field!!!
    
                              
    Perhaps for the Third Test, I'll try to give a day-by-day review so you
    can follow the game properly.   Next one is August 23-28th
    
    HTH,
    PJ

    More questions:
    
    How big is the total field?  I read where the wickets are in the
    center of an area about 100 yds in diameter, but what about the
    rest of the field?
    
    Also, what is the maximum number of runs possible from a single
    hit?  Can the "batter" run to the other wicket and back more than
    once on a single "hit"?
    
    What about gloves?  Do the fielders use them?  Are they akin to
    our baseball gloves, or smaller and less padded?  Barehanded?
    
    When running to the opposite wicket, is there something there that
    clearly defines this wicket, or is it just an area?  That is, in
    baseball we have physical bases which must be touched in passing.

    What happens when the "batter" hits a ball and, while running to
    the opposite wicket, he is physically interferred with by one of
    the opposition?
    
    If I'm the "batter", and I hit a ball and safely arrive at the opposite
    wicket, to whom is the next ball bowled to, me or the other batter
    at the original wicket?
    
    Do the fielders move from one side of the field to the other when
    a "batter" makes an out and the other wicket becomes the target?
    
    Lee    

    Lee,
Perhaps the Englishmen or other knowledgeables can correct me if I screw up:

>>    Also, what is the maximum number of runs possible from a single
>>    hit?  Can the "batter" run to the other wicket and back more than
>>    once on a single "hit"?
  
Theoretically, he can run back and forth forever.  Who knows, this may be
going on right this moment!  The maximum number of runs is 6 for the 
equivalent of a Canesco 5th deck of the Skydome shot.
  
>>    What about gloves?  Do the fielders use them?  Are they akin to
>>    our baseball gloves, or smaller and less padded?  Barehanded?
  
No gloves, no pads, SFA.  The wicket keeper (catcher) wheres gloves that
look like they would be for gardening or something.  Anyway, everyone else
catches with their bare hands (face, shins whatever) and I'm convinced the ball
is harder and heavier than a baseball.
    
>>    If I'm the "batter", and I hit a ball and safely arrive at the opposite
>>    wicket, to whom is the next ball bowled to, me or the other batter
>>    at the original wicket?
    
If you hit the ball (assuming it's a short one-run hit) you must switch places
with the other player, who then bats from the wicket that you occupied.  The
wicket towards which the bowler bowls is determined by the number of pitches
thrown.  After a certain number of pitches (called an "over") the bowler 
switches direction.  The number of pitches in an over varies - you have
the English way, then you have Indian overs, Jamaican overs, Australian overs
all with different numbers of pitches, and I can't remember since the 
Heineken was always flowing freely at our matches.

HTH,

rick ellis
  

    
    Some answers:
    Re:.49
    
    How big is the total field? - It varies depending on the
    ground(stadium) be it a local village game or an inter-county
    match. 200yds sounds about right, would need to check rule book.
    
    The maximum number of runs from a hit? - Normally this is a 'Six'
    where the batsman hits the ball over the boundry line without
    it hitting the ground, a bit like a home run.
    It is possible to score more, take this scenario:-
    The batsman hits the ball along the ground close to the boundry,
    in the time it takes for a fielder from the opposition to collect
    the ball he and the other batsman have run Two Runs, the fielder
    throws the ball in, in that time a third run is completed and now
    instead of the normal situation where the Wicketkeeper catchs the
    ball and kills the play by touching the wicket (or by the potential
    to do so) the ball is missed or fluffed and goes shooting past to
    the other side of the field where it could go over the line for
    a 'Four' or in the time it takes to recover it an extra 4 or 5
    runs can be run. This can allow 7 or more runs to be scored from one
    hit!! And it has been done at all levels including Test level...!!
    
    
    A defined area around wicket? - Yes:-
    
    Top View:
                         |               |
                         |               |
                         _________________
                         |      +++      |    + Wicket stumps
                         |               |
                         _________________
    
       Same at other end with 22yds between them....
    
    
    
    The Batter is not allowed to be 'interferred with' while running
    between wickets, it happens accidently, but is not the done thing
    to do, what.
    
    Point 6: The ball is bowled to the same end for six times each
             over, whichever batter is at that end.
    
    Point 7: The close fielders, round the wicket will move to the other
             end at the close of the over, but the outfielders will
             just shift around a little to match the positioning called for
             whoever the batter is.
    
    Finally, (I expect like Baseball) the game of Cricket in England
    is more than just a sport, its become part of the culture of the
    country etc etc...
    
    -Dom 
                                        

    
    If you count the number of chirps a cricket makes in 17 seconds
    and add 32, you come up with the current air temperature (farenheit).
    
    Mileage may vary. Consult your Scout Manual.
    
    Dickster
    

    Dickster -
    
    I'm rolling, I mean I just totally lost it.
    
    In general -
    
    Interesting.  When British sports get mutated to American sports, we on
    this side of the pond add all sortsa padding and protection......and
    then try and clobber each other.  The level of 'sportsmanship' kinda
    changes to match.
    
    re women being allowed in the club -
    
    I ain't worried.  After all, the Brits are the ones with a Queen, a
    woman PM, and your ladies *started* the women's suffrage movement about
    150 years ago.  Obviously, they're concentrating on the important stuff
    and leaving the boys to their silly games.  :-) :-)
    
    A&W

Actually, I think this whole thing is kind of interesting.

I mean, look at the expressions we've picked up from this 
sport -- sticky wicket, straight off the bat (well, we say right off the
bat)....


What kind of tea do they drink at tea time?  Any particular one?
Do the players partake of tea, or only the spectators...

'SAw

Actually, I think that we should all try to have a get together
at a local cricket match.

Someone should keep their ears open.  If something happens in
Hartford, I'll let you know.

We could extract all of our rules and cheat sheets from this 
topic.  And we could get a list of proper British sporting expressions
to exclaim when a good play happens, and we could get all gussied
up and go the the cricket match.

Might be kind of fun, and a helluva lot different that Tiger Mania...

'saw

    I'll go.  Should be a hoot.  And remember, we don't have to stay for
    the whole thing.
    
    A&W

    
    'Tea' used to be literally that, though Ian Botham probably slips in a
    quiet joint.
    
    The women thing is quite ridiculous, but I wouldn't entirely agree that
    cricket is rooted in the aristocracy (in England, I mean). 
    
    
    Other bans are equally silly. In Yorkshire, you can only play for the
    county if you were BORN there. 
    
    I'm glad interest has been raised. Most people with a sporting
    inclination enjoy playing cricket (few convert to spectators), because
    it's a thoroughly nasty game played in a relaxed, bluff atmosphere.
    
    I remember a TV report of stunned, bronzed Californians watching
    the Hollywood XI play. They were even more stunned when the British
    interviewer revealed to them that it actually was a game and not some
    complex, freak ritual, a sort of follow-up to Hari Krishna.
    
    Peter

    
    RE: .55
    
    Can you just imagine saying at a 'Merican football game after a
    vicious, crunching sack:  "Ho ho and pip pip!  A right jolly play
    there, wot?"
    
    Dickster
    

    re .55:
    
    >  Actually, I think that we should all try to have a get together
    >  at a local cricket match.

    >  Someone should keep their ears open.  If something happens in
    >  Hartford, I'll let you know.
    
    .
    .
    .
    
    >  Might be kind of fun, and a helluva lot different that Tiger Mania...
    
    
    Sounds good 'Saw, but you better bring several reems of paper if you
    expect me to keep score... :-)
    
    
    py

    Thanks to those who have supplied answers.
    
    And, I'd love to go to a Cricket match.  
    
    Lee

>    Sounds good 'Saw, but you better bring several reems of paper if you
>    expect me to keep score... :-)

Quite!

Okay, then, I'll pick up the paper, and bring the tea.  If anyone
wants a joint, they have to bring it themselves(mon)....

Before we go, perhaps some of our good British friends can give us
some tips on how to behave as a spectator...

'Saw

    
    >Before we go, perhaps some of our good British friends can give us
    >some tips on how to behave as a spectator...
     
    I hope this doesn't exclude beachball biting and Beershroom
    Boilermakers.
    
    Dickster
    

>     
>    I hope this doesn't exclude beachball biting and Beershroom
>    Boilermakers.
    
I think as long as you don't make any derogatory references to
the Royal Family while destroying the beachball, and
as long as you keep your little finger in the air while drinking
your drink, you should be okay....

'Saw    

>>Before we go, perhaps some of our good British friends can give us
>>some tips on how to behave as a spectator...
    
    
    DRINK HEAVILY.......then fall asleep in the afternoon sunshine.
    
    
    A Good British Friend,
    PJ

    <<< Note 329.64 by YUPPY::STRAGED "CLEAVAGE is a man's breast friend" >>>
    
<>>Before we go, perhaps some of our good British friends can give us
<>>some tips on how to behave as a spectator...
<    
<    
<    DRINK HEAVILY.......then fall asleep in the afternoon sunshine.
<    
<    
<    A Good British Friend,
<    PJ
    
    Funny, I don't remember seeing any cricket at Colby, PJ....  Wasn't
    this called 'Rugby', or maybe 'Ultimate Frisbee', or 'Football', or
    'Spring Break', or 'Senior Week', or 'Saturday', or 'Sunday', or
    'any_sunny_day_in_the_spring day'??
    
    I just don't recall seeing any wickets....
    
    ML

    I was just reading a book on great failures, and there was a small
    article on a Cricket team.
    
    Seems that the opposition hit a ball that landed in the fork of
    a tree.  The defense tried everything, including cutting the tree
    down, before they finally got the ball.  The batting team scored
    268 during that time!  
    
    So, if must be local or league rules as to if a ball is in "play".
    
    Lee
    
    P.S.  According to this story, when the ball was finally returned
    to the field of play, the batting team was not there.  They had
    retired to a pavilion for "tea".

    ML,
    I must have missed to cricket too....
    
    Like you, all I remember is the 'heavy drinking'!!
    
    PJ

    HERE IS THE FIRST REPORT ON THE START OF THE THIRD TEST MATCH BETWEEN
    ENGLAND AND INDIA.
    
    General review: 	The match lasts 5 days.
      			Each team gets to bat twice.
    			    (Each time at bat is called an inning)
    			If both teams complete both of their innings,
    			the team with the greatest number of TOTAL runs wins.
     
                        If one team is still batting at the end of Day 5,
    			the match is declared a DRAW.
    
    Basic Strategy:	In order to win, you must stay at bat long enough
    			to score sufficient runs, but you must also give
    			yourself enough time in the field to bowl the other
    			team out.
    
    
    RESULTS - DAY ONE
    
    India won the toss and elected to bat first.
    
    India scored 324 runs for the loss of only 4 wickets (out of 10).
    
    India will continue to bat on Day Two until they lose another 6 wickets
    or until they decide they have scored enough runs at which point they
    will "declare" there first innings and give England a chance to bat.
    
    
    SCOREBOARD
    
    India - First Innings
    
    R J Shatri   not out...................135
    N S Sidhu  c Russell  b Fraser..........12
    S V Manrekar   c Russell  b Malcolm.....22
    D B Vengsarkar  c & b Atherton..........33
    M Azharuddin  c Russell  b Williams.....78
    M Prabhakar  not out....................20
    Extras..................................24
    
    Total (for 4 wickets)..................324
    
    Fall (of wickets)
    	1-16  (Sidhu)
    	2-61  (Manjrekar)
    	3-150 (Vengsarkar)
    	4-289 (Azharuddin)
    
    Still to bat:  Tendulkar
    		   Kapil Dev
    		   More
    		   Wasson
    		   Hirwani
    
    Bowling statistics: Malcolm  19-4-54-1 (Overs-Maidens-RunsAllowed-Wickets)
    			Fraser	 23-11-58-1
    			Williams 21-3-53-1
    			Gooch	 9 -1-32-0
    			Hemmings 18-2-58-0
    			Atherton 7 -0-60-1
    
    		       Totals   97-21-315-4  (+ 9 byes & leg byes = 324 runs)
    
    
    Umpires;  D R Shepherd and N T Plews
    
    So know you know!!!
    PJ

   Okay!
   What kinda stuff can we yell at this Cricket match?

   I know:
   	`I say... Well struck!'
   	`Bit of a sticky wicket, what.'

   	how `bout `Where's yur glasses, ya bloody sod!' (for the ref)

   	Under NO circumstances ` Up the Queen!'

   What Else?
   Mike JN

    Well the best comments are usualy the ones that are hurled from wherever
    the Bar might be on the ground. At Lords the most famous Bar is if I
    remember correctly the 'Taverners', comments are too varied and
    probably unmentionable here.
    
    The Test matches are widely followed on the radio in the UK and
    across the World on the BBC world service and have become famous
    for the commentary team who are made up of ex-pro's and the usual
    proffesional comentators, very, very British, worth a listen.
    They can be very funny and are now part of the Cricket tradition.
    They have come up with some great lines, one of the most famous
    and often quoted is this one:-
    
    The scene is a Test match between England and the West Indies in
    England, the commentator is Brian Johnson (more British than the
    Tower of London). At the wicket the English batsman Peter
    Willey is about to face a bowl(pitch) from West Indian William Holding. And
    good old Brian Johnson comes up with the Classic line in hushed
    tones.......
    
    "The bowlers Holding the batsmans Willey"
    
    Not much was heard from the commentary team for about half an hour
    after that as thay recovered from fits of giggles.
    
    -Dom  

    Sorry to have missed yesterday's update, but Monday was a Holiday in
    the UK.  Anyway, y'all didn't miss too much the Third Test turned into
    a bit of a bore...
    
    Recap:
    
    Day One & Day Two:   India bat for most of the two days scoring a total
    of 606 runs for the loss of only 9 wickets (out of a possible 10). 
    At this point they decide they have scored enough runs to give
    themselves a decent chance of winning so they "declare" their first
    innings.  (Basically say, "OK we've scored enough runs, now its your
    turn").   At this point in the match, everyone believes that a draw
    (tie) is inevitable because it is unlikely that both teams will get
    the chance to bat twice before the end of the fifth day.
    
    End of Day Two and Day Three:  England start to bat.  If they can score
    runs at the same rate as the Indians, they can guarantee a draw (and
    win the series - remember, this is the third of three tests and England
    won the first, the second was a draw, so if they tie this one, England
    will have won the series 1-0).   Unfortunately, England's batsmen start
    to collapse and before too long, the score is 139 runs for the loss of
    5 wickets!!  Now India have a chance to win.  If they bowl England out
    for 407 runs or less, they can force England to take their second
    innings immediately following their first  (this is called
    'following-on').
    
    Day Four:  England dig in and try to hold the fort!!  All they need to
    do is stay at bat and they can frustrate the Indians and draw the
    match.  The Indianas succeed in forcing the follow-on by bowling out
    England's first innings for 340 runs.  England go into bat a second
    time.  By the end of the day they have scored 215 runs for the loss of
    only one wicket.  
    
    So here's the situation going into the final day....
    
    India 
    	First Innings:	606 runs
    
    England 
    	First Innings:	340 runs
    	Second Innings: 215 runs (for 1 wicket)
    
    England will continue to bat until they are all out (i.e. 10 wickets)
    When this happens, if their combined score is less than 606, India win
    the match.
    
    If their combined score is more than 606, the India start their second
    innings and in the remaining time try to beat England's total.  If they
    succeed, they win the match.
    
    Unfortunately, neither of these scenarios is likely.  England will
    probably hold out and will still be batting at the end of Day Five and
    the match will end in a draw.
    
    Are you bored yet??
    PJ

    My favorite Cricket comment was when England played Australia a few
    years back, and the Scoreboard said
    
    "Willey, bowled Lilley caught Dilley"
    
    Wayne (YAWN)

    
    I don't see how they can attract many fans when you need a week-long
    holiday to see a game.
    
    But then again, it would be interesting over here if, say, the two
    weeks of Super Bowl hype were converted into a two-week long game.
    Let's see, that would have made it 49ers 4,400, Broncos 800.
    
    BTW, PJ, thanks for the cricket box score and much-necessary
    explanation sheet.  It's posted in the office and gets a lot of
    puzzled looks.  I love the inclusion of "lunch time" and "tea time"
    as part of the box score.  They even put in when a new ball is used
    in the game.  Talk about laid back...
    
    Dickster
    

I think the best cricket commentator ever is John Arlott. He has retired now 
(in his late 70's if memory serves me right). He started when the only
cricket covered was Test Matches and even then it was on Radio.

So he had to describe to radio audience (most of whom never got to a match
yet were knowledgable and very interested in the game) the spectacle before
him. He could conjure up complete, full-colour pictures in your mind. His
delivery was slow, measured, and he never said anything unless it was 
necessary.

He also had this deadpan delivery of the commentary that maksed some GREAT
comments on the players, umpires, the crowd, or the pigoens on the pitch!
One of my favourites comes from the mid-1960's. England were fielding and
one of their prime batsmen was Brian Milburn. Now, Brian was a large chap
and not one to sprint, more a gentle limbering movement.

In this match (and I forget who England were playing) Milburn was fielding
between the wicket and the boundary, directly in line with the commentary
box that John Arlott was in.

The batsman hit the ball hard along the ground and Milburn had to chase it 
to the boundary. At the sight of this tubby soul lumbering to the boundary,
John Arlott said:

	"...and the ground shakes gently as Milburn arrives at the
	 boundary to collect the ball..."

Keef.

    
    Sir Len Hutton, one of best batsman died at the age of 74. Hutton scored
    364 runs aganist Australia when he was 22 years old. If anyone is
    interested in Cricket there is a Cricket notes file. (REPAIR::CRICKET)
    
    -- Ram Nori  

Yes, I read that in the Vogon News...

It's funny, we have a British fellow on our team (well several in fact, 
one is just called Dan the English Guy) but Glen, who's been with the
team for a while is from south of London.

Last night in the bar we were talking about baseball, and debating the
usual European observations of how boring baseball is.  I piped up and
said that it couldn't be more boring than cricket, where you go watch
it for four or five days, stop for tea or ganja, and maybe after all
that end in a tie.  (I was being pretty tongue in cheek about the
whole thing).

Glen got semi-serious and replied "Cricket, now there's a sport that
demands some skill, that."

Well, thanks to this note we were able to discuss the sport, something
that I couldn't have done before.  So, it looks like SPORTS has saved
the day again....

'aw

    
    re: .77
    
    That's right ! You need lot of concentration, patience and good footwork 
    to be a good batsman.  A skillfull pace bowler can move the ball both in 
    the air and of the pitch. A spinner can deceive a batsman with his flight &
    turn. If a bowler looses his concentration, they loose their line and
    length, as a result they could get thrashed.
    
    re: some earlier notes
    
    In one of the earlier notes it was mentioned that Don Bradman scored 365 
    runs in a test match, I think it was Sir Garfield Sobers of West Indies who 
    scored 365 runs.
    
    PS:  If anyone is interested, I have couple of Cricket books, written by
         former players Max Walker Of Australia and Clive Lloyd of WI. Send
         me E-mail. 
    
    -- Ram Nori