Basic questions

[StephenZA]

Man we wanna explain stuff so bad that even when it's a bullshitter we'll happily continue

Is he a bullshitter? I just thought it would be good to try help somebody new to the game to try understand the basics?

 

[rodk]

Is he a bullshitter? I just thought it would be good to try help somebody new to the game to try understand the basics?

No BS. Literally a beginner. The US does not have any cricket and there is only one cable tv network that shows it and it has just moved down to a lower tier package so I have it live for the first time on a big screen and am not confined to blinky broadband youtube recaps.

 

[rodk]

The pitches make a huge difference to how you bat. When the ball is bouncing just in front of you and then moves off pitch (or through the air) by 5/6+cm your timing to adjust to hit/block is limited. Test wickets are designed to give more in the pitch to the bowlers, testing both batsmen and bowling skills more. The limited over (LO) cricket, wickets are designed to be 'flat' with less movement available for bowlers and thus batsman can score easier and faster.

I can't see that on tv. Is the pitch actually arced like a Quonset Hut and/or undulating like a golf green? Is there general unevenness? and if so, is that intentional or just the result of wear and tear? I noted that it looked like there were pebbles or something in the pitch. Is that right? Is that intentional?

You actually need less bowlers for Test cricket than LO cricket because there is no limit to the number of overs a bowler can bowl in Test but you may only bowl 10 or 4, in One-day and T20, respectively so need a minimum of 5 players who can bowl. This creates another big difference between Test and LO, in that your best/form bowlers are (or could be) bowling continuously testing the batsmen more in Test cricket, allowing in favourable conditions to continue taking wickets. Whereas in LO cricket your best bowlers have to be rotated out for weaker bowlers.

That's counter intuitive. Is there no physical limit to how many overs a bowler can deliver, as there is with baseball pitchers who invariably have some kind of informal maximum allowed pitch count determined not by rule but by stress and fatigue? Can a team get really away with just 4 or so quality bowling specialists while making do with other players periodically if they are going to be on defense for between 600 and 1000 overs in a close five day match?

I do know there has been lots of tinkering with the format, and that the recent development is the T10 game. Has any thought been given to designated hitters, which would let bowlers rest while their team is on offense so they can bowl better, and not leave their teams worrying about poor hitting?

 

[rodk]

In this pic, there is the wicket keeper and four other defenders, only two of whom have any protective gear at all, standing within about six feet of the batsman. Are they safe if the batsman swings away? Does cricket employ a strategy of swinging away to intimidate those guys into standing further away?

Compare [video]https://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/other/redbirds-poncedeleon-struck-by-line-drive/vp-BBL1a3m [/video]

That pitcher was at least 50 feet from home when hit by a 100 mph batted ball.

 

[StephenZA]

I can't see that on tv. Is the pitch actually arced like a Quonset Hut and/or undulating like a golf green? Is there general unevenness? and if so, is that intentional or just the result of wear and tear? I noted that it looked like there were pebbles or something in the pitch. Is that right? Is that intentional?

So you have variation of pitches depending on where in the world you play, to a greater or lesser degree. This has to do with climate, local clay soil etc. This creates pitches that are low and slow or fast and bouncy and myriad inbetween. Each requires its own skills to play on, for batsmen, bowlers and fielders. In general, the ideal is that the wicket has a touch of grass on day one, flattens for day 2 and 3 and 'disintegrates' or 'wears' by day 4 and 5. Extreme undulations in the surface are normally avoided, but you end up with patches on the pitch from bowlers footmarks, uneven coverings of grass, the pitch can have a little slope; even just drying of the pitch can cause cracks to open up. 'Divots' can be created early on in the pitch if the pitch is soft and then drys out later. So variation is quite large around the world. Generally, the subcontinent, tends to favour dry lower slower pitches that is more suited for the spin bowlers; Aus, RSA, NZ and Eng tend to favour the faster/swing bowlers, with bouncier, grassier (green) pitches. Each pitch has its own characteristics and challengers, the local teams tend to prepare pitches that favour their team composition. It is very difficult to win away from home. As long as the pitch is not dangerous and/or so very poorly prepared that it makes batting almost impossible (up for debate!), it is acceptable.

That's counter intuitive. Is there no physical limit to how many overs a bowler can deliver, as there is with baseball pitchers who invariably have some kind of informal maximum allowed pitch count determined not by rule but by stress and fatigue? Can a team get really away with just 4 or so quality bowling specialists while making do with other players periodically if they are going to be on defense for between 600 and 1000 overs in a close five day match?

Of course there is a physical limit to bowlers performances regards fitness etc; but it is not uncommon for a fast bowler to avg 25+ overs in a day; a spinner could bowl 35+ overs in a day. It is part of the nature of Test cricket with regards to concentration, stamina endurance etc for bowlers and batsman, even across a series of tests. Quite often it is ideal to have an 'all-round' cricketer that can both bat and bowl, however high quality players of this nature are rare at test level. It is part of the strategy of test cricket to tire opposition bowlers out to make scoring runs easier later. Cricket is not always about scoring runs it has nuances where 'nothing' could be happening by all appearances but it is setting things up for later in the match. Ultimately playing 5 day test matches is exactly that, a test of players physical prowess, abilities, stamina, concentration under varying conditions. Note a day is 90 overs. so 450 overs in a match over 5 days across 4 innings is pretty much maximum.

I do know there has been lots of tinkering with the format, and that the recent development is the T10 game. Has any thought been given to designated hitters, which would let bowlers rest while their team is on offense so they can bowl better, and not leave their teams worrying about poor hitting?

Most cricket lovers are fans of the longer game, the shorter the game the more it is just considered 'hit and giggle' taking out the substance of what cricket is. Subbing of any form is not allowed in cricket, the 11 players you start with is it. It is again why allrounders become so significant, allowing lengthening of batting lineup. Team composition is a big factor in choosing the players. Not even injury allows for substitution of players (under debate). Of course the increase to try 'popularize' cricket has seen many changes but ultimately, 'that's just not cricket!'.

 

[StephenZA]

In this pic, there is the wicket keeper and four other defenders, only two of whom have any protective gear at all, standing within about six feet of the batsman. Are they safe if the batsman swings away? Does cricket employ a strategy of swinging away to intimidate those guys into standing further away?

People get struck all the time, generally without significant damage. Certain fielding positions are more dangerous than others. It is for the player to decide if he wants to wear protective gear. 'Swinging away' is done all the time, however it has its dangers for the batsman risking his wicket; it is used as a strategy by both the fielding and batting side to try either spread the field or to cause a poor shot. Who is taking the bigger chance is dependant on the game situation, who's bowling, who's batting etc.

 

[weldone]

I'm still a noob to cricket, so someone please explain to me why teams can score about 200 runs in 20 overs and lose in the IPL (Royal Challengers Bangalore vs Rajasthan Royals) but score only 418 runs in 167 overs in test cricket (New Zealand at Pakistan, yesterday) and win big, by a full innings after declaring itself out in the first innings, essentially taking only 1/4 of its allotted overs. Is it the quality of the hitters or the bowlers? Is it a different approach to hitting because wickets really don't matter too much in a 20 over game because nobody is taking them all anyway? I would think that a team would be prone to score more in the long game because weaker bowlers have to take a turn. Or are 5 day teams loaded up with bowlers so they can get through the games without having to rely on non-specialists, something that would suppress the score? TY

To start with, I can give you a very bad analogy involving life expectancy and money (replace money with any other material benefit).

Scoring 200 runs in 20 overs is like living till the age of 60 when one's average income is £1,500 per month.

With more money, one can afford a more healthy lifestyle and access to better healthcare, among other things. Does that mean if one earns £10,000 per month it becomes easy for that person to live till the age of 110 years?

 

[trundler]

You keep drawing parallels to baseball whilst forgetting that cricket is simply incomparably superior.

 

[rodk]

Note a day is 90 overs. so 450 overs in a match over 5 days across 4 innings is pretty much maximum.

Has that always been true? And presumably those five day matches end in a tie if they don't come to a natural end with a win or all out in the fourth innings?

Most cricket lovers are fans of the longer game, the shorter the game the more it is just considered 'hit and giggle' taking out the substance of what cricket is. Subbing of any form is not allowed in cricket, the 11 players you start with is it. It is again why allrounders become so significant, allowing lengthening of batting lineup. Team composition is a big factor in choosing the players. Not even injury allows for substitution of players (under debate). Of course the increase to try 'popularize' cricket has seen many changes but ultimately, 'that's just not cricket!'.

I can't speak for cricket but it seems to me we live in faster world and that most fans of most sports want to see a contest that will not end in a tie. Among American sports, only the NFL still permits ties, and only because it is so dangerous to keep playing after exhaustion has set in. The t20 with super aggressive batting, lots and lots of boundaries, music, dancing girls, etc may be pandering but it does seem to fill up the house. And the win/lose/draw on the last ball option seems very intriguing.

Cricket is not always about scoring runs it has nuances where 'nothing' could be happening by all appearances but it is setting things up for later in the match. Ultimately playing 5 day test matches is exactly that, a test of players physical prowess, abilities, stamina, concentration under varying conditions.

I'm sure there's lots to be said for saving something for later, but wouldn't swinging aggressively early by pretending it is a t20 match so as to build up a demoralizing lead very quickly have a lot going for it too? I mean, if you can score 200 runs in 20 overs IPL style or Big Bash style (https://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-scores/18493/brh-vs-mls-2nd-match-big-bash-league-2017-18) vs. 402 in the 200+ overs that New Zealand had and the 418 that Pakistan had in 167 overs in the second test, why wouldn't you?

People get struck all the time, generally without significant damage.

So far so good. It doesn't figure to stay like that forever. I'm worried when female softball players take their positions forty and fifty feet away from the hitter, and they are too. Many wear masks (but not full helmets) even though the more massive ball will not hit them nearly as hard as a baseball will.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Those close in "defenders" are actually part of an attacking package strung together by the captain and bowler (in some cases, keeper and other senior members of the team).

Can you guess what a few of those close in fielders are called?

 

[Bijed]

Has that always been true? And presumably those five day matches end in a tie if they don't come to a natural end with a win or all out in the fourth innings?

Yes, although the result here would be called a draw, not a tie - may sound pedantic, but in test matches a tie refers specifcally to the team batting in the fourth innings losing their last wicket when they need 1 run to win (i.e both teams have scored exactly the same amount of runs in the match) - this is very rare and has only happened twice out of 2000+ test matches.

I can't speak for cricket but it seems to me we live in faster world and that most fans of most sports want to see a contest that will not end in a tie.

I think it's fair to say that generally people prefer a test match to end in a result other than a draw, but the possibility of a draw means that a match can remain exciting even when a team has no chance of winning, and there have been some very tense and exciting draws over the years. On the other hand, you get some matches which end in draws simply because the pitch is so good for batting that not may wickets fall and neither side really get anywhere near winning - these matches are generally pretty dull

I'm sure there's lots to be said for saving something for later, but wouldn't swinging aggressively early by pretending it is a t20 match so as to build up a demoralizing lead very quickly have a lot going for it too? I mean, if you can score 200 runs in 20 overs IPL style or Big Bash style (https://www.cricbuzz.com/cricket-scores/18493/brh-vs-mls-2nd-match-big-bash-league-2017-18) vs. 402 in the 200+ overs that New Zealand had and the 418 that Pakistan had in 167 overs in the second test, why wouldn't you?

Batting aggresively can certainly demoralise the opposition, put them on the back foot, get in their heads and affect how well they play. But for a number of reasons, primarily that there are (almost) no fielding restrictions in test cricket and that test match pitches are generally not as easy to bat on as T20/ODI pitches, this approach is massively less likely to work and will more often than not end up putting the batting side in a position which is most likely worse than they'd be in if they'd played less aggresively. There have been a number of notable cases of players playing this way in test matches and it working extremely well, however.

 

[rodk]

Those close in "defenders" are actually part of an attacking package strung together by the captain and bowler (in some cases, keeper and other senior members of the team).

Can you guess what a few of those close in fielders are called?

No.

But I can tell you that playing close in baseball and softball is so hazardous that in some rule sets it is illegal.

As an example, on certain types of plays, a batter may be expected to sacrifice himself by bunting -- essentially tapping ball to a defender with a half swing to induce an out on himself that simultaneously allows other runners to move up. To execute the bunt in the best possible manner, the batter commits to bunting by putting himself into a bunting position early, sometimes before the pitcher's wind up, and when he does, corner infielders will rush in to get the ball early.

However, if the batter decides to decommit from the bunt and swing away -- an action called "the Butcher Boy Play" -- he can kill a charging infielder. Youth leagues have begun to prohibit that but it remains possible in the pros.

On rare occasion, infielders will group in a tight formation near a non-bunting hitter -- maybe 50 or so feet out. It is not technically illegal but in that occasion umpires have the discretion to deem that too risky to permit it or a distraction to the hitter who already has a lot to contend with. What you cannot have is a player in or so close to the trajectory of the pitch that it will be hard for a hitter to see a 100 mph pitch -- pretty common in the majors -- that could kill him, not that anyone would want to be in that spot in fear of being killed himself.

I am worried about the in-tight fielders and umpires because rarely a month goes by when there isn't a story about someone on the field and even sometimes in the stands getting maimed. https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/...ing-white-sox-game-taken-to-chicago-hospital/ One unfortunate incident involved a major leaguer hitting his own mother with a batted ball. Denard Span of Minnesota Twins hits mother with foul ball More recently, teams have been obliged to put up nets some distance down the sidelines to prevent additional injuries to audience members.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

No.

But I can tell you that playing close in baseball and softball is so hazardous that in some rule sets it is illegal.

As an example, on certain types of plays, a batter may be expected to sacrifice himself by bunting -- essentially tapping ball to a defender with a half swing to induce an out on himself that simultaneously allows other runners to move up. To execute the bunt in the best possible manner, the batter commits to bunting by putting himself into a bunting position early, sometimes before the pitcher's wind up, and when he does, corner infielders will rush in to get the ball early.

However, if the batter decides to decommit from the bunt and swing away -- an action called "the Butcher Boy Play" -- he can kill a charging infielder. Youth leagues have begun to prohibit that but it remains possible in the pros.

On rare occasion, infielders will group in a tight formation near a non-bunting hitter -- maybe 50 or so feet out. It is not technically illegal but in that occasion umpires have the discretion to deem that too risky to permit it or a distraction to the hitter who already has a lot to contend with. What you cannot have is a player in or so close to the trajectory of the pitch that it will be hard for a hitter to see a 100 mph pitch -- pretty common in the majors -- that could kill him, not that anyone would want to be in that spot in fear of being killed himself.

I am worried about the in-tight fielders and umpires because rarely a month goes by when there isn't a story about someone on the field and even sometimes in the stands getting maimed. https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/...ing-white-sox-game-taken-to-chicago-hospital/ One unfortunate incident involved a major leaguer hitting his own mother with a batted ball. Denard Span of Minnesota Twins hits mother with foul ball More recently, teams have been obliged to put up nets some distance down the sidelines to prevent additional injuries to audience members.

Silly-point,
Silly mid-on
Silly mid-off
Short leg

Okay, so here's the thing.

Those players are deployed when the wicket is offering a great deal of spin to the spinners (see: MINEFIELD). The batsman is basically a sitting duck.
You brought baseball in here again, it's unwise to compare the two.

The short leg is deployed by fast bowlers when the wicket is offering substantial bounce (see: GREEN-TOP).

Totally different from baseball.

Perhaps the guys (infielders, outfielders, and pitcher) in baseball need to lose the gloves and catch the ball like cricketers do.

 

[trundler]

Close in catchers are usually only deployed when a spinner is bowling. A spinner typically bowls around 50 MPH.

 

[rodk]

Perhaps the guys (infielders, outfielders, and pitcher) in baseball need to lose the gloves and catch the ball like cricketers do.

They need to wear them or they risk death.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

They need to wear them or they risk death.

What if I limit the choice to just outfielders?

 

[rodk]

Also see this one; the pitchers are at a distance of 50 feet and cannot protect themselves against 100 mph exit speed velo.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

In all fairness, the cricket ball weighs a good 1/4 oz more than the baseball.

I know in Baseball there is Exit velocity, a new addition to the stats. I think Judge and Stanton hits the hardest (117 mph exit velocity).

I think that is higher that the speed off the cricket bat.

Momentum is higher in baseball, so there is your danger to life.

 

[rodk]

What if I limit the choice to just outfielders?

Then you don't get these plays.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

see this: