Intro to Cricket

[Moe_Syzlak]

Can someone explain this Duckworth-Lewis target I heard about today. I can't make heads or tails out of it.

 

[Richard]

Don't worry - hardly anyone understands it apart from Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis.

All you need to know is that it's the fairest system of determining rain-affected games where targets need to be adjusted.

 

[Moe_Syzlak]

Don't worry - hardly anyone understands it apart from Frank Duckworth and Tony Lewis.

All you need to know is that it's the fairest system of determining rain-affected games where targets need to be adjusted.

They "pro rate" the run target with it?

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

They "pro rate" the run target with it?

Not sure quite what you mean, but basically the Duckworth-Lewis method involves a massive formula which takes into account the number of wickets lost and overs remaining to work out a new target. It's very, very complex and most international players don't understand it. But it's pretty accurate and fair.

 

[Stefano]

They "pro rate" the run target with it?

About Duckworth and Lewis. It is rather complicated.But I can give you some examples on how it works. Me against you in a ODI.

First example
I bat first. After 40 overs, I score 200 runs. After 50 overs I score 250.
Then it is your turn. After 40 overs, you are at 204 / 9, then it starts raining and the game is stopped.

Who is going to win this match? One possibility is: let's compare the two scores after 40 overs. Actually, you have 204 and I have 200. So, you are 4 runs ahead. Do you win? Well, this is not the case. You have already lost 9 wickets. If it hadn't started raining, it would have been very difficult for you to reach the target. D/L method determines whether your 204 / 9 is enough to win the match. Runs, wickets and over remaining are all taken into account. I don't know the mathematical formula, but I am pretty sure that your 204 / 9 in 40 overs is not enough to beat my 250 in 50 overs.

Another similar case. On Feb 6, 2006 India and Pakistan played a ODI. India scored 328 runs in their innings. Then, it was Pakistan innings. At the end of the 47th over, Pakistan was at 311 / 7. Then darkness stopped the match. D/L method determined that if Pakistan had continued, they would have reached the target. By the way, this is the only case in which the team batting second wins BY RUNS. Pakistan won that ODI by 7 runs.

Here you can read the scoreboard of that game.

Second example
I bat first. After 40 overs, I score 200 runs. After 50 overs I score 250.
Then it is your turn. Sadly, there is some rain, so your innings is reduced to 40 overs. How many runs do you have to score to win? One might think... I have scored 200 runs in 40 overs; since you will bat for 40 overs, your target should be 201. Well, this would not be fair. I planned my innings on 50 overs. If my innings had been on 40 overs, I would have been much more aggressive and I would have scored more runs.

Think about this: a 4KM run vs a 5KM run. And now compare the time of the former with the time after 4 KM of the latter. The former is definetely faster! In the latter, you have to spare some energies, otherwise you won't come to 5KM mark. Well, one-day cricket is something like this. If you have to bat for 50 overs, you will be less aggressive. You cannot lose all your energy (wickets). I have scored 200 runs in 40 overs, but since I had planned my innings on 50 overs, your target will be higher

Third example
I bat first. After 40 overs, I score 200 runs. Then, it starts raining. When the game resumes, officials decide that my innings is over and you will bat for 40 overs. How many target do you have to score? 201? NO! I had planned my innings on 50 overs, not on 40. If I had to bat on 40 overs, I would have been more aggressive. So, your target will be higher than 201.

D/L method determines the new targets. Don't ask me how it works.
Here you can have some information. And if you go here, you will have some more info.

By the way. D/L method is not perfect. It is not flawless. But it is somehow fair.

 

[LA ICE-E]

No, they can do that any time. If you wanted to, you could cross and then uncross - but once you've crossed there's no point going back, as that would be turning 1 run into 0, or 2 into 1, etc.

A batsman can be halfway down the pitch (while his partner doesn't move) and then be sent back, and can still get back to his ground if no-one breaks the wicket.

But if say the batsmen cross but in a mix up end up on the same end of the wicket this happens to decide which batsmen is out-say batsmen A said he wanted a run and so he and batsmen B crossed but then batsmen A saw that he would get out, so he went back(batsmen didn't go back) so they both end up in the same end then batsmen A would be out because they crossed and batsmen A was supposed to be at the other end. But say if batsmen A never took off for the run and stay at his crease(end) but batsmen B ran and ended up on the same end, it would be batsmen B thats out because they never crossed.

when i say crossed im mean they never went past each other...

 

[Craig]

I wanted to ask a question that I was afraid would turn into a bunch of arguing, but I will give it a try: What DVD (available to download online or buy in the States) would you recommend for a newcomer. A little bit of everything, good batting, good bowling, exciting finishes. It would be like watching it live, cause I have no idea about the results. Except I know Australia won the last Ashes.

Try here mate

It depends on how much money you are willing to spend. There are some matches, if you can look at getting the Masterckass DVD, it will give you a much better understand on how the games is played (like batting, bowling etc.) and there are plenty of games there as well.

You could try the books link, there should be something you are looking for.

Any questions just ask

 

[Matt79]

Think about this: a 4KM run vs a 5KM run. And now compare the time of the former with the time after 4 KM of the latter. The former is definetely faster! In the latter, you have to spare some energies, otherwise you won't come to 5KM mark. Well, one-day cricket is something like this. If you have to bat for 50 overs, you will be less aggressive. You cannot lose all your energy (wickets). I have scored 200 runs in 40 overs, but since I had planned my innings on 50 overs, your target will be higher.

That's the key to the issue of the Duckworth-Lewis system - and a good comparison. It's not simply a pro-rata system, because it attempts to factor in a) the difference in how the first team to bat would have gone about batting if they'd known they'd only have to bat for 40, or 30, or whatever number of overs, and b) how capable the team batting second would be of batting the full fifty overs, given how many wickets they've already lost.

It is a quite complicated formula, and generally produces results that are fair, but its really not worth trying to learn the mechanics of how it works - most of us just accept that its the agreed standard, and does a reasonable job.

The other thing to note is that there is a minimum number of overs in a one-day match both teams have to face for a match to still have a result. Off the top of my head, I think its 20 overs. If rain means that not even that much cricket can be played, the game is just called off with no result.

 

[Moe_Syzlak]

The replies here are much better than most of the explanations I have read in wikipedia and on most other sites around the web. Thanks!! What about "club" cricket? I say club like football, Manchester City, Liverpool, Newcastle. Are there professional cricket leagues in England, or other countries? And on the different types of cricket (ODI, Test, Twenty/20 is all I am aware of right now, are there more?) I understand the different types, Test over 5 days 2 innings, ODI and Twenty/20 have their time constraints as well. I have the following question: I notice some sigs promote one kind, some deride another: Why the schism? Is this common amongst cricket fans (Watch only one kind, but not another) I remember when MISL (indoor soccer) was popular in the States I didn't care much to watch. I found Arena Football (American Football) entertaining though. Anyways, I don't want an argument as to which one is better and why, I am curious if the fans of each type only watch that type, or if most fans watch all types, and why all the talk about it?

 

[Matt79]

Changes to formats produce changes in how the game is played - as simple as that really. Most posters on this forum probably prefer Test cricket - its the 'original' format of international cricket, and remains, in my opinion, the ultimate test of a player or team's ability. ODI and Twenty20 were both introduced as games that were more commercially accessible for fans who weren't interested in watching a game that take 5 days (suffice to say, most of us here, if we're prepared to post 1000s of times about cricket are prepared to make that effort).

Its not that either ODIs or Twenty20 are bad games, but they are in one sense a corruption of the original. The main problem I think most people have with it is that they are both formats that tend to reward chancy and classically correct play more than Test cricket, and that the balance between bat and ball is lost. The shorter the game is, the less the need to plan an innings and conserve your wickets is there, to balance the urge to attack. This makes for action-packed sport, but often robs the game of its strategy, momentum shifts, and natural charm (I suppose a clumsy analogy might be to have a version of football with no offside rules, or no goal keeper, because that would mean more scoring, and scoring is the exciting part, so we're all told). That said, I quite like watching one-day cricket, because the disciplines remain largely the same and the skills on display are great. Twenty20 is a bridge too far for me and many others in terms of shortening the game, but equally lots of people disagree and love it.

The schism between 50 over and 20 over match fans probably isn't that pronounced in the general cricket community - but we love things to argue about here!

 

[Magrat Garlick]

What about "club" cricket? I say club like football, Manchester City, Liverpool, Newcastle. Are there professional cricket leagues in England, or other countries?

You've got

International cricket (Tests/ODIs). Essentially fully professional, though West Indians and Zimbabweans may dispute that.

First class cricket (the one-day format is known as List A by statisticians): played by sides representing a region (so 18 major counties in England: Surrey, Hampshire, Worcestershire etc., territories in Australia: New South Wales, Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, Queensland and Tasmania, and provinces in South Africa, etc.). It's professional in England and Australia, and semi-professional in most other countries.

Club cricket: Third (and below) divisions, largely amateur for people who just want to play the game in a reasonably organised fashion. The top level of club cricket is usually pretty competitive, though, but leagues are local (there's 25 top level leagues in England, about 10 in Australia, since travel distances have to be kept down). There's the occasional professional player in these leagues as well.

 

[Moe_Syzlak]

Thanks Matt79, that, like most every other reply to my questions, was prettu complete and thorough. I'd like to thank all those who have taken time and been patient with my questions. I partcipate in quite alot of forums on alot of different subjects, and it's not always that you find senior members helpful to newbie questions. I would suggest though, that with the questions I asked, the original Stefano thread, and other newbies who have come through here, a "sticky" thread with FAQS on cricket be put together. Has that been done or considered?

 

[Mahindinho]

What about "club" cricket? I say club like football, Manchester City, Liverpool, Newcastle. Are there professional cricket leagues in England, or other countries?

The top leagues in England* and Australia are definitely professional, and I'm pretty sure it's fairly professional in all the other major nations (South Africa, Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan, West Indies, New Zealand). Not sure about Bangladesh. I don't think there's a professional game anywhere else.

* Technically, the top two leagues.

And on the different types of cricket (ODI, Test, Twenty/20 is all I am aware of right now, are there more?)

ODI = One Day INTERNATIONAL

ODIs and Tests are only played at the international level. At domestic level, you get slight differences.

For example, "first class" (FC) matches are similar to Tests (two innings, no time/over restrictions apart from "you've got this many days to finish your match), but at the top domestic league level. In England, these are very similar to Tests, but only last four days. I think some FC matches may last 3 days.

Depending on the league/competition, one day (OD) matches may be 40 overs, 50, 55 or even 60. I think 55 and 60 are pretty rare nowadays, however.

Whatever the variant, there are two main forms: "first class" (Tests, FC) and "limited overs" (ODI, OD, Twenty20).

Twenty20 is just an extra-short form of limited overs cricket, with a few special rules.

You may sometimes get one-innings matches, where each side gets one innings but the match lasts two or three days -- these are usually warm-up matches, etc. and not official ones.

Hope that helps!

I notice some sigs promote one kind, some deride another: Why the schism? Is this common amongst cricket fans (Watch only one kind, but not another)

Ha! You are SO going to get an argument!

OD cricket is exciting and fast-paced. FC cricket is a much slower game -- scoring is slower, the fielding side takes more time to bowl their overs, etc.

However, FC is more tactical -- there's a whole extra level involved, e.g. when to declare, whether to play for a draw, is it likely to rain soon. But you might get bored!

The OD game was only introduced at international level in the 70s, I think, so it's sometimes viewed as an untraditional upstart.

Personally, I like OD cricket in general, but find Twenty20 a bit soul-less. FC/Test cricket is my favourite, though -- nothing compares to a nail-bitingly close Test, where there are two hours to go and any of the possible results may happen. It's the fruition of five whole days of tension, which you just don't get in any other sport...the closest I've found is the Ryder Cup.

It's like comparing a Schwarzenegger action film to a slow-paced Hitchcock thriller. Both have their fans, but there are people who love one type but cannot stand the other.

P.S. I was very tempted to use "Cricket is like making love to a beautiful woman. Sometimes you go fast, so it's all over quickly..."

 

[Moe_Syzlak]

(I suppose a clumsy analogy might be to have a version of football with no offside rules, or no goal keeper, because that would mean more scoring, and scoring is the exciting part, so we're all told).

And your analogy is spot on! Many times I have argued with "non" football/ soccer fans who have said "make the goal bigger, get rid of offsides, you need more goals and no ties" so I can relate 100%.

On to strategy. I have been looking around, reading match reports, watching some youtube videos, and following this WC. This may be a bit naive, but why don't you place a strong (not THE strongest, but a strong) batman towards the end of the line ups an anchor, especially if you bat second? It would seem to me that at that stage of the game you need someone who can a) avoid the out (if you cannot make the runs and want to draw) b) get the runs you might desperately need c) take advantage of weaker/ tired bowlers. What is "standard text book" strategy for the lineup?

 

[silentstriker]

And some of us are quite elitist and believe that there is only one form of cricket.

 

[silentstriker]

And your analogy is spot on! Many times I have argued with "non" football/ soccer fans who have said "make the goal bigger, get rid of offsides, you need more goals and no ties" so I can relate 100%.

On to strategy. I have been looking around, reading match reports, watching some youtube videos, and following this WC. This may be a bit naive, but why don't you place a strong (not THE strongest, but a strong) batman towards the end of the line ups an anchor, especially if you bat second? It would seem to me that at that stage of the game you need someone who can a) avoid the out (if you cannot make the runs and want to draw) b) get the runs you might desperately need c) take advantage of weaker/ tired bowlers. What is "standard text book" strategy for the lineup?

Well, in cricket you need two batsmen at any one time. If you keep a strong batsman towards the end, there is no way you can form a 'partnership' with him. Cricket is a game of partnerships, and a batsman generally needs to 'get in' and stay a long time for him to score runs. If he comes down too low, he can run out of people to bat with, and his talent might be wasted. So generally speaking, an 'ideal' line up would be:

1-2: Openers. Strong defense, great backfoot play. Must know where the off stump is, must be able to deal with bounce
and swing. You don't really need great scoring ability or have all the shots, but when the ball is hard and new, you
need the ability to see it off. The middle order can handle the accelerate.
3-4-5: Middle Order. Generally where you have flashy guys who have all the shots and can play both spin and pace
well. You generally need to be able to score at a decent rate. Ideally one of the
three (coming in at 3 or 4) should be a 'grafter', someone who can hang around and keep his wicket while the other
guy accelerates the scoring.
6/7: Wicket keeper and all rounder. Wicket keeper is generally a decent batsman and fast scoring one, so should
go here. All rounder is hard to find, and many sides would love to have one, but if you do, they generally bat
here. If the all rounder is more of a batting all rounder (like Jaques Kallis), he can bat in the middle order
but a bowling all rounder (like an Andrew Flintoff) would bat here.
8: A bowler who can bat a bit. Maybe your nightwatchman. Someone who can hang around while the other guy who is a better batsman can score.
Someone like Shane Warne is nice.
9-11: Bowlers, can't bat. Anything you get from them is a bonus. Usually just go all out.

 

[silentstriker]

Also, it depends on the team strategy. For example, India don't really have good openers so you can expect one of them
to get out early and so we need Dravid at three. He doesn't score fast but he can stick around and build an innings
with his solid defense, and lend stability. Australia, on the other hand, can expect to have decent starts and Ponting
is ideal at #3 for them to continue the good work and keep the scoring going.

 

[PhoenixFire]

On to strategy. I have been looking around, reading match reports, watching some youtube videos, and following this WC. This may be a bit naive, but why don't you place a strong (not THE strongest, but a strong) batman towards the end of the line ups an anchor, especially if you bat second? It would seem to me that at that stage of the game you need someone who can a) avoid the out (if you cannot make the runs and want to draw) b) get the runs you might desperately need c) take advantage of weaker/ tired bowlers. What is "standard text book" strategy for the lineup?

Test

1) Specialist opener - Has to be very good at playing quick bowling, and swing and seam. Is nowdays usually pretty aggresive, and for some reason left handed. Not always the best players of spin, but still good. Averages around 50

2) Specialist opener - Pretty much the same as above

3) Higher Middle Order - Has a lot of the same qualities as the opener, usually either the best or the second best player in the team, needs to be able to play spin a bit better than the openers. Averages 50+

4) Middle Order - Usually the best player in the team, and has to be very good at playing both spin and pace. Must be quick between the wickets and good at judging runs. Usually quite a defensive player, but they are becoming more attacking as time goes on. Averages 55+

5) Lower Middle Order - Usually the last specialist batsman, has to be very good at playing spin and nudging the ball around into gaps and so on, also has to be able to hit big (usually), and medium pace. Not always the best players of pace. Has to be able to repair innings and lead the initiative. Averages 40+

6) All rounder - Usually the batting all rounder, that is aggressive and a big hitter. Not usually a particularly solid player, but this differs from team to team, and batsman to batsman. Averages 30+

7) The Keeper - This player usually is a semi-decent batsman, although the trend is going more towards keepers who can bat better, and are less good at keeping. Most of them are big hitting and explosve (like Boucher and definetley Gilchrist), but there are some like Sangakkara, who will bat at number 4 in the order instead of lower down at 6,7 or 8. Averages high 20s +

8) The Bowler who can bat a bit - This player needs to be a semi-decent batsman as well, usually a spin bowler (not always), who can bat. Will make you the odd 50s and maybe even a 100 if he has a good day, although he shouldn't be relied on to make runs. Averages 20

9, 10 and 11 are usually pretty rubbish players who will either slog it around or block it out, it just depends on the player. The Nummber 9 will sometimes make a decent score, but all of these will average >15


Note these averages are just guesses, and will be higher for stronger sides like SA and Australia, and lower for weaker sides like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. It will differ from team to team as well.

Hope that helps.

 

[silentstriker]

Wow, you expect your openers, and the entire middle order to average 50 or above? Quite an ask. .

Considering exactly four players average 55+ right now (Ponting, Dravid, Kallis, Yousuf).

And Hussey if you want to put him there already. And [arguably] the two best players don't. Lara hasn't for a while, and Tendulkar dropped below recently.

 

[PhoenixFire]

Meh