Basic questions

[rodk]

Is it Cricket to play for a draw?

A and B are playing a test match and A bats first. After the second innings, B has obtained what appears to be a virtually insurmountable lead. It is probable that A can surpass B's current total in its next innings, but will not be able to hold on after that. This is obvious to all.

Will it probably be A's strategy be to prolong the third innings by batting defensively, burning up overs so its innings doesn't finish by the end of the fifth day, or ends so close to the end of the match that B won't have enough overs left to win?

And if A is playing for a draw, how is B combating that? Should it have realized that early enough to declare the second innings over at some point so as to keep the test competitive, effectively penalizing itself for being too good and/or rewarding A for being bad?

If not declaring, how does it take wickets reasonably quickly from batsmen who aren't putting the wicket at risk?

Or are they conceding a draw as soon as they see they can't get the test to finish other than by the daily limit?

Here's where this comes from.

New Zealand is currently playing Pakistan in a series of test matches. In the second and most recent test, Pakistan piled up 418 runs from 167 overs and declared an end to the first innings with just 5 wickets had been taken. New Zealand clearly wasn't going to make it close by the end of the second innings and was going to follow on, and its best potential result was a draw. It then started batting toward the end of the second day with 20 consecutive wickets to work with to exhaust the Pakistan bowlers if it chose to do so. In that situation, could it have kept batting until the end of the fifth day, or at least burned up so many overs while scoring enough runs that Pakistan would bat without sufficient time to take back the lead? I suppose. Should Pakistan have ended its innings sooner once it saw that coming? Maybe. But if that seems like it punishes Pakistan for being too good.

To its credit, it seems like New Zealand batted with the intention of winning the test, and it did manage to score 406 runs during 147 plus overs in that process before going all out a second time, with stumpings, catches and run outs among the wicket falls evidencing some amount of aggressiveness at bat. Could New Zealand have protracted its innings by being less aggressive while forcing Pakistan to bat? I suppose.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

The pitch deteriorates into a spinner's wet dream. (see: NAGPUR)

Conditions changes drastically to the advantage of the bowling team.

Survival ensues among the batsmen.

'A draw is a win'- (See: 5th Test, England tour of West Indies at Port of Spain, Mar 6-10 2009 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo)

 

[rodk]

'A draw is a win'- (See: 5th Test, England tour of West Indies at Port of Spain, Mar 6-10 2009 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo)

I saw the box score and that test seems like a different situation entirely.

There was only a two run difference after the second innings without really enough days and overs left to play it out to a natural conclusion, and it seems to me the teams were both gaming it for a win, not one team looking to muster up a draw as the best possible outcome after a horrible start. I can only go by the box score, but the West Indians did have eight wickets taken in their last innings, and there were a bunch of boundaries, and if they had been playing offense defensively throughout so as to protract the innings to force a draw, it seems to me unlikely that they would have allowed themselves to get that close to losing. Maybe that changes at the bitter end of the test when it winning is really impossible given the number of overs left, but seemingly not at the beginning of that innings.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

It's not a box score.

It's a scorecard.

Leave baseball jargon at the door.

 

[rodk]

It's not a box score.

It's a scorecard.

I stand corrected.

 

[Victor Ian]

A draw is an under rated part of cricket. If You can't win, you can endeavour not to lose. As most tests are part of a series you can live to fight another day. In modern cricket, due to 'intent' draws are sometimes looked upon disdainfully. The team batting third often tries to time their innings end to make sure that it is near impossible for the team batting fourth to win. It's a run rate calculation. You might only be about 200 ahead so you would hope to bat on for long enough to eliminate the chance the other team has enough time to chase down your total. You might decide they can score at 6 per over if they are going for the win, so you'd hope to bat long enough so that there is only 30 odd overs left. This creates lots of interest as there is a balance between batting too long and eliminating a win for both teams and batting long enough to only eliminate the win for the team batting fourth. If the match ends in a draw, everyone then berates the team batting 3rd for not having the balls to go for a win and declaring earlier or hitting out and getting out earlier.

When you are the inferior team, a draw is like a win. 1st Test, Australia tour of United Arab Emirates at Dubai, Oct 7-11 2018 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo

 

[TheJediBrah]

The pitch deteriorates into a spinner's wet dream. (see: NAGPUR)

Conditions changes drastically to the advantage of the bowling team.

Survival ensues among the batsmen.

'A draw is a win'- (See: 5th Test, England tour of West Indies at Port of Spain, Mar 6-10 2009 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo)

Swann and Anderson pitching 3 outs each at the bottom of the second very impressive

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

Swann and Anderson pitching 3 outs each at the bottom of the second very impressive

Low ERA.

Monty solid in closing; but just couldn't get the outs

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

*I am just being a hypocrite now*

 

[rodk]

You might decide they can score at 6 per over if they are going for the win, so you'd hope to bat long enough so that there is only 30 odd overs left. >>> When you are the inferior team, a draw is like a win.

I suppose that will suffice but I have two concerns.
1. Stalling the game to force a draw when you are way behind does not come across as sporting and honorable. Presumably you play to win the game and you accept draws and losses if you have to while trying to win, but it seems an awful lot like soccer to just go out there, stall, and accept a draw ("Kissing your sister") when you have been outplayed and outscored.
2. Other rules and traditions of cricket seem like they are in a continuous flux. There are new formats, new fielding rules, new officiating rules, etc. Why does it stick with the 90 overs per day limit? I get it that it is a useful limit if the arena doesn't have lights, but don't all the test quality venues have them now, especially for t20 play? If the teams have already played for five days, why shouldn't they be allowed to finish it off to the natural end? I get it that if the last day has unlimited play, there will be less reason to declare an earlier innings over, meaning more tests will end up in unlimited play, but isn't that still better than watching the teams stall so the test doesn't finish and just stops?

 

[rodk]

You might decide they can score at 6 per over if they are going for the win, so you'd hope to bat long enough so that there is only 30 odd overs left. >>> When you are the inferior team, a draw is like a win.

I suppose that will suffice but I have two concerns.

1. Stalling the game to force a draw when you are way behind does not come across as sporting and honorable. Presumably you play to win the game and you accept draws and losses if you have to while trying to win, but it seems an awful lot like soccer to just go out there and play for a technical draw ("Kissing your sister") which is really more like a "no decision" that exists within the rules even when the reality is that you have been beaten than it does a result.

2. Other rules and traditions of cricket seem like they are in a continuous flux. There are new formats, new fielding rules, new officiating rules, etc. Why does it stick with the 90 overs per day limit? I get it that it is a useful limit if the arena doesn't have lights, but don't all the test quality venues have them now, especially for t20 play? If the teams have already played for five days, why shouldn't they be allowed to finish it off to the natural end? I get it that if the last day has unlimited play, there will be less reason to declare an earlier innings over, meaning more tests will end up in unlimited play, but isn't that still better than watching the teams stall so the test just stops rather than finishes?

 

[Victor Ian]

I suppose that will suffice but I have two concerns.
1. Stalling the game to force a draw when you are way behind does not come across as sporting and honorable. Presumably you play to win the game and you accept draws and losses if you have to while trying to win, but it seems an awful lot like soccer to just go out there, stall, and accept a draw ("Kissing your sister") when you have been outplayed and outscored.
2. Other rules and traditions of cricket seem like they are in a continuous flux. There are new formats, new fielding rules, new officiating rules, etc. Why does it stick with the 90 overs per day limit? I get it that it is a useful limit if the arena doesn't have lights, but don't all the test quality venues have them now, especially for t20 play? If the teams have already played for five days, why shouldn't they be allowed to finish it off to the natural end? I get it that if the last day has unlimited play, there will be less reason to declare an earlier innings over, meaning more tests will end up in unlimited play, but isn't that still better than watching the teams stall so the test doesn't finish and just stops?

You have to take 20 wickets to win the game. There is nothing dishonourable in preventing the other team from doing that by not getting out, even if that means you have slowed up in scoring rate. Trying to draw is fraught with danger. It is not something easy to do. It can involve changin your natural play style which can cause you to get out as you are not in your regular comfort zone. Sometimes people will bemoan a team for batting a game into a draw from the onset. Usually they are leading in the series already. Yes - this can piss people off, but it is a legitimate.

One of the parts of cricket you can come to love is the way the game unfolds in the 3rd and 4th days. Teams want to win and they have to find the balance between batting for too long and killing the game or declaring too early and losing it. Everyone is surmising when the declarations will happen in order to keep a win on the table - you should follow the tour threads here - often much more fun and insightful than the commentary. Teams want to win. In the past, teams were more ready to play for a draw from early in the game. With today's mindset of win win win, this does not happen too often. If you have batted well enough to think about a declaration, then you encounter yet another area of the game where a wrong decision can cost you a win.

Keep in mind, what was mentioned earlier. The deterioration of a pitch over each day means that batting gets harder and harder as time goes on. Winning is not about being invincible. It is about giving the other team sufficient opportunity to lose.

Also understand, that in test cricket, bowlers win games. Batsmen are only there to give bowlers enough runs to work with so that they can get the other team out. In limited overs games, batsmen win games and bowlers are only there to make batsmen's targets easier.

 

[stephen]

Draws in cricket aren't like draws in soccer. Draws in soccer are usually exercises in frustration since the sport makes defence relatively easy.

Draws in cricket are a consolation prize, almost a fall-back win condition.

Sometimes a pitch is too easy to bat on and the 450 overs isn't enough time for 40 wickets to fall. Other times rain runs a game. But outside of these two conditions, if the teams are evenly matched the team batting first will often have an advantage since it's generally easier to score in the first and third innings than it is in the second and fourth innings. So if you're the team batting second, you will often end up in a situation where a win is unlikely or impossible. I'm these cases, batting for a draw (which is hard and usually involves batting for long periods of time in difficult conditions) may be your only choice.

Draws tend to occur about half as often as wins and losses so they're frequent but not the majority outcome.

A huge part of the attraction of cricket is the narrative that builds over the course of a test. The match as a whole has lots of smaller battles in it. One batsman may defiantly be keeping a red- hot bowler from taking his wicket, or a bowler might spark a mini collapse. A partnership may form between two batsmen that defines an innings. A strong start may turn into a sub par score as the fielding side manages to get a breakthrough that they can then leverage into a collapse. A bowler may score a heap of vital runs, defiantly frustrating a bowling attack and turn a sub- par total into a huge total.

There are ebbs and flows and small battles between players that have larger context inside a match or series. Cricket is a narratologist's sport more than a ludologist's sport. The skills are less absolute than they are in a sport like baseball. A commentary is likely to talk about momentum and aggression and body language and all sorts of intangible feelings rather than raw statistics or hard facts.

One example was how Nathan Lyon set the tone of the last Ashes series when he ran out James Vince in the first test. The momentum shifted and England caved under the pressure and never recovered.

Other moments are indelibly inked into the minds of fans - Malcolm Marshall bowling fast with a broken arm, Graham Smith facing Mitchell Johnson after he'd broken his hand. Michael Holding bowling the quickest over. Shane Warne doing basically anything. Curtley Ambrose blowing Australia away in Perth.

It's these moments that cricket makes possible with its length and its almost war-like tempo.

 

[Adders]

American joins CW looking to learn about cricket, several pages later it always ends up the same...........Why isn't like baseball?

 

[andruid]

Taking this thread back to topic

1+1 = ?

 

[Howe_zat]

American joins CW looking to learn about cricket, several pages later it always ends up the same...........Why isn't like baseball?

Americans who join CW are people like SS who actually like sport and get it immediately

Trolls who use 'i want to learn' as a crap veil for shitting on the sport have threads like this.

 

[weldone]

Americans who join CW are people like SS who actually like sport and get it immediately

Trolls who use 'i want to learn' as a crap veil for shitting on the sport have threads like this.

Haha he even sent me a PM asking why I don't like Baseball and explaining what a beautiful game it is! This guy is the equivalent of the Christian missionaries visiting poor countries with the purpose to convert, lol.

 

[rodk]

One of the parts of cricket you can come to love is the way the game unfolds in the 3rd and 4th days. Teams want to win and they have to find the balance between batting for too long and killing the game or declaring too early and losing it. **** Keep in mind, what was mentioned earlier. The deterioration of a pitch over each day means that batting gets harder and harder as time goes on. Winning is not about being invincible. It is about giving the other team sufficient opportunity to lose.

Also understand, that in test cricket, bowlers win games. Batsmen are only there to give bowlers enough runs to work with so that they can get the other team out. In limited overs games, batsmen win games and bowlers are only there to make batsmen's targets easier.

I get it and appreciate it, but these kinds of things don't separate cricket from any other sport. Whether their favorite is soccer, NFL, whatever, people are loving their sport because of the tension of the competition, the rushing around and sensational feats of athleticism and skills, the unexpected things that happen for good and for bad, the strong and weak decisions and strategies, the players who transcend their skill set, the lucky breaks, the up and coming strategies, the young stars on the ascent, the fading old timers who gave them so many memories, and so forth. Some sports add danger, brutality and the risk of death to that mix. Many add off-the-field activities too.

I can't say it isn't unsettling to me at least a little that some sports, cricket apparently among them, permit a bad or underperforming team to nevertheless escape with a technical draw by means of playing keep-away. Soccer and hockey (and in some places basketball) allow a four corner offense that is, when it comes down to it, really the defense of stalling. But at least in those sports, the score has to be even for the game to end drawn.

Cricket, not so much. From the discussion here, it sounds like an outmatched team can go into a stall configuration by doing little more than defending the wicket while trying to burn as many of the 450 overs as it can, and beating a team like that means not only outscoring and out thinking them but having to scramble and have good luck smile on you after you have them beaten so you can get to the finish line. So it isn't for everyone. No sport is.

 

[rodk]

If you guys are going to discuss a stupid game like baseball then I suggest a mod moves this thread to somewhere outside cc.

Haha he even sent me a PM asking why I don't like Baseball and explaining what a beautiful game it is! This guy is the equivalent of the Christian missionaries visiting poor countries with the purpose to convert, lol.

Isn't repeatedly hurling personal insults to the point some OP's might feel harassed pretty much the definition of being a troll? Not that I mind, but generally speaking "that isn't cricket" on most forums.

 

[NotMcKenzie]

Isn't repeatedly hurling personal insults to the point some OP's might feel harassed pretty much the definition of being a troll?

I'm being very pedantic, but no.