Five things I don't get about cricket

[cnerd123]

A change in tactics and style of play =/= a change to the fundamental underpinnings of cricket. I mean, sure, we all want to score runs. But what's the first piece of advice given to a young batsman? "Stay out there, the runs will come eventually" or, more simply, "don't get out".

You can't make runs in the pavilion; successfully defending your wicket is a prerequisite to scoring runs.

I don't see how this is relevant. Firstly, simply stating 'don't get out' is terrible advice for limited overs cricket 99% if the time. And secondly, you still have to score runs to win. Not-losing isn't winning. It's not losing. You need to outscore your opponents to win.

Exactly; there's a risk and a reward to using your body to defend your wicket. Why unbalance the symmetry of the game by removing that reward?

What is the difference between edging the ball and it ricocheting off a thigh pad while playing the shot? Other than this rubbish privileging of the bat in wicket defence?

You get legbyes from being struck on the helmet. You get legbyes from being struck on the hip. You get legbyes if you waltz halfway down the pitch and miss a straight ball. There is no risk to the batsmen in any of these scenarios, yet the reward to his team is clear.

The difference with an edge, of course, is that he used his bat. There are various degrees of ****ing up. If you **** up to the extent where you find the edge of the bat, it's still less of a **** up to missing the ball all together.

The other arguments for Leg-Byes don't convince me. Penalizing the fielding team for failing to stop the batsmen from running kinda makes sense, but it's an unnecessary penalty, especially in modern day cricket where runs are no longer at a premium.

I don't see the argument for disincentivising the bowler from bowling at the batsman's body rather than his stumps. That was an issue for the days where pitches were uncovered and protective equipment flimsy and bats were thin slices of wood. In modern day cricket, the bowlers need all the leeway they can get, and if this means consistently aiming for a batsmen's feet/legs/hip/chest in order to stop him from scoring runs, I'm all for it.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Don't lose 20 wickets, declarations notwithstanding, and you cannot lose a Test match.

Ok? Runs are literally the measurement that determines success for a team in cricket. Of course surviving balls is an important part of that but to say that it's more important than scoring runs is absurd.

 

[BeeGee]

I like cricket just the way it is, with all it's little quirks and idiosyncrasies. If it was perfect it would be boring and played by lawyers, instead it's cool and played by computer programmers.

 

[cnerd123]

I like cricket just the way it is, with all it's little quirks and idiosyncrasies. If it was perfect it would be boring and played by lawyers, instead it's cool and played by computer programmers.

 

[Flem274*]

Other than this rubbish privileging of the bat in wicket defence?

it's like you're richard, you're 14 and you're a girl posting on tumblr

 

[Shady Slim]

Don't lose 20 wickets, declarations notwithstanding, and you cannot lose a Test match.

4th Test: England v Pakistan at The Oval, Aug 17-21, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[cnerd123]

4th Test: England v Pakistan at The Oval, Aug 17-21, 2006 | Cricket Scorecard | ESPN Cricinfo

Beat you to it m8

 

[Furball]

Gonna start calling Dan 'Richard' from now on.

 

[Dan]

Not sure how suggesting that leg byes should be a thing and that a fundamental step of batting is not getting out makes me Richard, but whatever.

 

[SteveNZ]

I think if you're allowed to score runs off your pads, you should be allowed to be caught off your pads too.

Cmon mate.

It's pretty simple. If you're in the act of playing a shot, anything can contribute to runs.

The only thing I'd possibly think to change is if you're not playing a shot, you can't run byes. But the system isn't broke for byes/leg byes etc so why fix it? I don't remember as a bowler ever giving a **** about leg byes or the unfortunateness of them in my team's situation. Every now and then one might go for four off a shoulder, or inside of a leg to decent bowling...but cricket is a sport with ebbs and flows, and rights and wrongs. As much as we want to negate the wrongs (umpiring etc) doesn't any game exist for this type of drama - unless it's darts or chess?

 

[OverratedSanity]

Why are byes fair if leg byes aren't? Doesn't matter if you hit it or not, if you get to the other end, you get a run. It's up to the fielders to stop you.

 

[SteveNZ]

In fact, of the OP, Danny Morrison is really the only head-scratcher I agree with.

Running between wickets is trained for, and not only that it is basically trained for in match situations throughout the length of a career. Ross Taylor, for example, is a poor runner. That's more a mindset thing than a lack of practice thing.

Taking guard is fundamental to batsmanship. And having three lines would be bloody ugly.

And wides are good as they are in all formats. ODI wides in Tests would slow the game down even further and Test wides in ODIs would also slow the game down in terms of scores, entertainment factor and produce negative tactics.

 

[SteveNZ]

Why are byes fair if leg byes aren't? Doesn't matter if you hit it or not, if you get to the other end, you get a run. It's up to the fielders to stop you.

If that was to me, I'm not advocating it. I just said it's the only thing I can see a basis for change to - given you can't score a run when you leave a ball that happens to hit you, but if you leave it and it doesn't, you can.

I don't remember a thread on 'ban the leg bye' because it's never been relevant.

 

[cnerd123]

Why are byes fair if leg byes aren't? Doesn't matter if you hit it or not, if you get to the other end, you get a run. It's up to the fielders to stop you.

If you don't have byes, then the team can move the keeper out to the boundary or smth. Or have him standing up to the stumps all the time. Or just get rid of him together.

We need byes to punish sloppy keeping.

 

[OverratedSanity]

If you don't have byes, then the team can move the keeper out to the boundary or smth. Or have him standing up to the stumps all the time. Or just get rid of him together.

We need byes to punish sloppy keeping.

Leg byes punish the fielding team for not having a fielder there to stop a run. I don't see the issue here.

 

[cnerd123]

Leg byes punish the fielding team for not having a fielder there to stop a run. I don't see the issue here.

A wicketkeeper is necessary; fielders to stop leg byes aren't

 

[OverratedSanity]

A wicketkeeper is necessary; fielders to stop leg byes aren't

Huh? What does that even mean? Fielders are there primarily to catch the ball and to stop the batsmen from running between the wickets. Whether it's actually hit the bat or not shouldn't affect their role.

Plus, leg byes can be risky to run from since they often drop close to the wicket/not far from the square and can lead to runouts. It's not as if the runners have immunity from the runout because they didn't hit it. Similarly, the fielders should still be forced to actually field it regardless of whether it it's hit the bat.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Another great thing about leg byes is that they are pretty much inherently unselfish. The runners know they aren't getting anything added to their personal score, but they still do it to build the team score.

 

[Daemon]

...a leg bye.

Dan pls, don't make me quote the laws

 

[Smudge]

I've often come in to bat (usually at 9-10) and the middle of the popping crease is just a small crater with no hint of where the middle stump guard might be. Well, pardon-****ing-me if I might have one pithy attempt at finding where the best place might be for me to stand for my eight-ball stay. I'm so sorry if I waste five seconds of neville cardus' afternoon.