*Official* First Test (Edgbaston, Birmingham) 16–20 June

[Alex0paul]

Sky’s coverage is unbearable

 

[Prince EWS]

The declaration was one of the worst things to happen in the history of cricket and they deserve to be #punished for it.

Proper Shardul stuff.

Punish them.

 

[morgieb]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1669988746798981121

Never rains in June

 

[Gob]

Of course it will hoop around now

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Of course it will hoop around now

It needs to

 

[Jfry]

Waiting for certain individuals to claim that the only reason England are getting more movement is due to the skill (not disputing that Anderson is clearly a better swing bowler though than any of the Australians)

 

[Spark]

Bigger isn’t always better – the case of the first innings in cricket

I’ve got an unsubstantiated hunch (the best kind of hunch!) about cricket. Well, not just one, I have loads, but this particular hunch is about the first innings of a cricket match, and that …

gwilymlockwood.wordpress.com

This is a really classic case of abusing statistics whilst ignoring underlying mechanical explanations.

This is really counterintuitive, and I find it hard to wrap my head around the fact that scoring 438 at 3.4 an over is about as likely to result in a win as scoring 587 at 4.9 an over. One possibility is that the matches which feature high first innings scores are played on absolute roads, like in the 1997 Colombo snoozeathon between India and Sri Lanka, meaning that a high second innings score is also pretty likely. Therefore, you’d expect the first and second innings scores to correlate in matches where the first innings was 500+ runs at 3.72+ RPO… but they don’t (r=0.07, p=0.52). Nor do the first and second innings scores correlate in matches where the first innings was between 380-500 runs at 3.13-3.72 RPO (r=-0.15, p=0.18). The only indication that a massive first innings score may mean that the pitch is easier to bat on is that the mean second innings score in response to a massive first innings score is 346.90, while the mean second innings score in response to a good first innings score is 307.09. A t-test between the two set of second innings scores is “relatively significant” (as an ever-hopeful colleague of mine used to say) with a p-value of 0.07, but that doesn’t cut it. This is another mystery for another blog post.
before.

Never before have I seen "are innings in which 550+ is scored really associated with flat pitches? Who can truly say?" presented unironically

 

[Jfry]

Similar analysis can be done with individual scores probably. I guess that leads to questions about selfishness vs flat pitches in some of these triples

 

[Alex0paul]

I don’t think Sky have mentioned once that the first ball was hit for four

 

[Spikey]

Never understood why people say a batsman is "unlucky" to get out but Brook's dismissal almost qualifies.
All of the batsmen got themselves out though and even with Australia's negative mindset still scored at 5 an over.
The declaration was justified imo. With the chance of getting No 3 in as opposed to 20-30 more runs max, it was wort a go.

how was he unlucky he failed to use his bat to stop the ball two times. it's one of the most deserved wickets of all time

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

This is over analyzing

 

[duffer]

Uzi to play the innings of his life I think

 

[Daemon]

That awkward moment when you reuse a SHADY SLIM joke

***Official*** India in England 2014

So what's the difference with England ****tiness and Indian players not performing? Sounds like two words for the same thing tbh. I don't think anyone was suggesting differently. Indian fans were saying that India are only still in this because they've had a few players perform and England...

www.cricketweb.net

nah

 

[CartyDurham]

@Aidan11

@mackembhoy

hello from me . If I can’t post on rtg I can post in here Could you pass on that I’m alive on the cricket forum please?

I pray hetton lass is not on the site

 

[TheJediBrah]

Broad is bowling backwards

 

[wpdavid]

I know that Stuart isn't as mobile as he used to be, but I thought 'Hint of movement for Broad' was a bit harsh on cricinfo

 

[CartyDurham]

Broad is bowling backwards

That a new one. Bazball backwards cricket. I’m all for it and underarm

 

[flibbertyjibber]

Aussies on defensive then. Scared.

 

[ataraxia]

Excuse me, this is new cricket terminology. In my years following English bazball, I haven't yet come across the term maiden. Can someone please enlighten me?

 

[GIMH]

Excuse me, this is new cricket terminology. In my years following English bazball, I haven't yet come across the term maiden. Can someone please enlighten me?

Not sure why because we bowl plenty of them