Test Cricket - Information

[archie mac]

Never mind! The catcher can be considered the captain of a baseball team: he suggests the pitcher how to face the hitter and usually he is the charismatic leader. But, everything starts from the manager (head coach) and the pitching coach. And also the offensive strategy starts from the manager and the other coaches: have you ever seen a baseball coach doing those strange signs with their hands and arms? Well, those are signals: just a way to say "HIT IN THIS WAY!"

One of the most difficult things in baseball are the substitutions, above all those involving the starting pitcher: in baseball if a player is removed from the field CANNOT re-enter. Lots of games have been lost because the manager substituted his starting pitcher too late...

-------

Since I come from a basebal background, I would like to ask you a question: how would you compare cricket with baseball?

Let's pretend that Barry Bonds (one of the greatest baseball stars) has to face Danish Kaneria or Glenn McGrath or Makhaya Ntini on a cricket ground. Which would be his strenghts? Which problems would he encounter?

Let's pretend that Brian Lara or Inzamam have to face Randy Johnson or Roger Clemens (two great baseball pitchers) on a baseball ground. Which would be their strenghts? Which problems would they encounter?

I don't think that a comparison between cricket bowlers and baseball pitchers is possible. However, a comparison between hitters is.

I would think anything bowled short would be much easier for a good BB Batter, as he could use his natural swing to hit through the ball. A yorker would be a test, I would think, as that would require a foreign stroke.

As for a BB pitcher to a Cricket batsman, I would think the moving ball, would be the biggest worry. A dipper (not sure of terminology) would be an unfamiliar ball.

I enjoy watching baseball movies, like the 'natural, bull durham and field of dreams'.

I suppose the biggest difference would be the pitch in Cricket, as it as such a big effect on the game.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Yeah, the biggest difference is surely the pitch.

 

[andyc]

baseball players would most definitely have the most difficulty against spin, and possibly the rising ball

 

[Stefano]

In my opinion baseball hitters would have some little advantages over cricket hitters.

- Baseball bat doesn't have the flat surface. So it is much more difficult to hit the ball.

- In cricket there are no foul balls. You can hit everywhere: in front of you, behind you, on the side.

- In baseball it is easier to be out.

In my opinion, cricketers would have problem to face curve balls, breaking balls and change-ups, which are those pitches that appear to be fast ball, but they are much slower. I think that it would be less difficult for a baseball player to shift to cricket, than a cricket player to baseball.

However, a friend of mine told me this story: in Italy baseball has a good tradition and you can find teams almost everywhere. A friend of mine coaches a baseball team and once was asked by some Pakistanis if they could have a try. He agreed! These Pakistanis, who had played cricket, were really good also with baseball bats.

Bowlers and pitchers cannot be compared. Although they have the same task, it would be impossible for a baseball pitcher to shift to cricket (and viceversa).

 

[archie mac]

In my opinion, cricketers would have problem to face curve balls, breaking balls and change-ups, which are those pitches that appear to be fast ball, but they are much slower. I think that it would be less difficult for a baseball player to shift to cricket, than a cricket player to baseball.
.

In years gone by they played baseball in Australia as a winter sport, there have been a number of very good Cricketer/baseballers in Australia. Two former Australian Test Cricketers in Bill Ponsford and Norm O'Neil were offered professional baseball contracts.

 

[andyc]

i have to disagree with you there, stefano, simply because of the extra element that the pitch throws into the game. this is shown in the fact that normally in cricket, a waist-high full toss is dispatched for four or six. i daresay if a baseball player were to come up against someone like shane warne or muttiah muralitharan, he wouldn't go too well
also, in baseball, a batsmen always knows the ball is going to be coming in pretty much the same area. in cricket, it could be coming for your head, ribs, groin, toes, and on your left or right

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

In my opinion baseball hitters would have some little advantages over cricket hitters.

- Baseball bat doesn't have the flat surface. So it is much more difficult to hit the ball.

- In cricket there are no foul balls. You can hit everywhere: in front of you, behind you, on the side.

- In baseball it is easier to be out.

There are points which go against these however. In baseball, a fair pitch can only go within a certain, relatively small space. In cricket, the ball can be at any height and be aimed at any part of the body. Batting in baseball you only need to deal with what might be considered "line" in cricket... the positioning of the ball. The length (how far away from the batsman the ball pitches) does not need to be dealt with by the batter. Also, the pitch introduces a level of variation into playing the ball which doesn't exist in baseball... if the pitch is true you can predict what the ball might do, but because the surface can change you can get variable bounce from one pitch to another, or even from one part of the same pitch to another with cracks and so on, or the pitch can change over the course of a match. Pitches in Australia or South Africa for example tend to be faster and have more bounce than pitches in the subcontinent, offering more for fast bowlers, while in England the ball tends to move in the air more for fast bowlers (swing). In the subcontinent pitches usually spin more. These sort of variations don't exist in baseball.

 

[Stefano]

If you don't mind I would like to open a topic about baseball vs cricket.

Then, I would like to ask you an interesting question: how do you prepare a lineup in cricket? Where would you put the best hitters? Where the worst?

Another piece of information: India vs Pakistan. 2nd test. India's second innings. VVS Laxman was hit by the ball and should go out. He was replaced by Karthik. When Dravid was dismissed, Laxman could re-enter. What would have happened if Laxman hadn't been able to come back?

 

[Steulen]

When a player has 'retired hurt', he can always come back after the fall of a wicket. When the 9th wicket falls and the retired player is unable to come out to bat again, the innings is closed.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Then, I would like to ask you an interesting question: how do you prepare a lineup in cricket? Where would you put the best hitters? Where the worst?

That's a fairly complex issue in cricket.

Firstly, ODIs and tests are different with regard to this issue.

In tests, there is more to picking a batting order than just deciding where to put the best hitters. Openers are specialists at a certain type of play (at least, traditionally they are), because at the start of the innings facing fresh pace bowlers and a new ball batting is often difficult. In particular, openers have to be proficient at playing swing and seam bowling, as the ball usually moves around a lot more in this period. After that, usually the best batsmen in the team occupy the top 6 spots. Three is traditionally an anchoring position, and often the "best" batsman in a side bats at 3. It's an important spot because if an early wicket falls the number 3 is required to play a role similar to an opener, but can also need to play as a middle order batsman at times. Teams which are blessed with quality all-rounders (few and far between, particularly in some countries like Australia) will often have them in the 6 and 7 positions to lesson responsibiliy with the bat, and wicket keepers who are proficient with the bat also bat around the 7 position. In the lower order, the bowlers are usually just put in order of proficiency with the bat, with bowlers who are quite capable batting around 8 and 9, and true tail enders batting last.

In ODIs, it's a little different. It used to work in a similar way, but the evolution of tactics in the newer form of the game has changed that. After tactics used in particular by New Zealand in the 1992 World Cup and Sri Lanka from their 1995 tour of Australia through to their victory in the 1996 World Cup, it became increasingly popular to place pinch-hitters at the top of the order, who are designated to take advantage of the early over fielding restrictions by scoring as fast as possible, often recklessly. In 1995, Sri Lanka placed their wicket keeper Romesh Kaluwitharana in to open with Sanath Jayasuria. Kaluwitharana wasn't much of a batsman, but he could score extremely quickly, and the new opening pair got Sri Lanka off to some amazing starts. Many other teams tried to emulate this, and as such it is quite common to put the fastest scoring batsmen in your team in to open in ODIs now. Aside from that, it usually follows the same rules. It is also quite common to have a quick scoring or "slogging" player in the lower order (or many of them, even) to help boost the run rate in the final overs of an ODI. Some players have also batted in the lower order who specialised in chasing... not by scoring at a blistering rate, but by shepharding the tail to reach at target or ensure a good total, usually with singles and good running. Michael Bevan is easily the greatest of these players.

Hope I cleared things up a bit and wasn't too confusing.

 

[C_C]

If you don't mind I would like to open a topic about baseball vs cricket.

Uh oh.
this is gonna turn volatile soon if we have any ardent baseball fans here.

Faaip- very good explanation. Though i beg to differ that the best batsman in the team traditionally bats at #3 in test cricket

Usually a bright potential player with excellent technique bats at #3 and then moves to #4 when he becomes seasoned and the mainstay of the team.
Indeed, most of the 'best batsmen' in the side bat at #4 position for most of their careers - Tendulkar, Lara, Viv, Hammond,Barrington,deSilva, etc etc.
ofcourse, this isnt a hard-n-fast rule, as Ponting, Sobers,Gavaskar,Boycott,Gooch, Border, Steve Waugh, Bradman, etc. prove.

 

[archie mac]

Uh oh.
this is gonna turn volatile soon if we have any ardent baseball fans here.

Faaip- very good explanation. Though i beg to differ that the best batsman in the team traditionally bats at #3 in test cricket

Usually a bright potential player with excellent technique bats at #3 and then moves to #4 when he becomes seasoned and the mainstay of the team.
Indeed, most of the 'best batsmen' in the side bat at #4 position for most of their careers - Tendulkar, Lara, Viv, Hammond,Barrington,deSilva, etc etc.
ofcourse, this isnt a hard-n-fast rule, as Ponting, Sobers,Gavaskar,Boycott,Gooch, Border, Steve Waugh, Bradman, etc. prove.

I think it safe to say the best batsman bats at 3 or 4. Steve Waugh at 3? I know he did bat there during his career but he was not the best batsman in the team at that stage, maybe we could put GS or IM Chappell in your list instead, or even Murdoch. Also sometimes the best batsman in the side is an opener. Hobbs, Hutton, Boycott, Gavaskar etc.

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

Usually a bright potential player with excellent technique bats at #3 and then moves to #4 when he becomes seasoned and the mainstay of the team.
Indeed, most of the 'best batsmen' in the side bat at #4 position for most of their careers - Tendulkar, Lara, Viv, Hammond,Barrington,deSilva, etc etc.
ofcourse, this isnt a hard-n-fast rule, as Ponting, Sobers,Gavaskar,Boycott,Gooch, Border, Steve Waugh, Bradman, etc. prove.

It's not a constant, but it IS an element of classical cricket strategy that the best and most reliable batsman bats at 3. There are of course many exceptions - Hobbs was the best batsman of his era and was an opener, Sobers being an all-rounder rarely if ever batted higher than 5, and Australia throughout the 90s didn't work with this rule at all, and in fact often threw players that were being "tested" into the number 3 spot - like Langer, Elliot, Blewett and so on at different times. Under Steve Waugh and John Buchanan of course this returned to the older procedure with Ponting batting at 3, and prior to the Taylor period David Boon was easily Australia's most reliable batsman, and he also batted at 3.

3 is however a specialist position, because you often have to play as an opener as well as a middle order batsman, and it's an anchoring sort of position where you allow the other batsmen to bat around you. It's also a position with the most "responsibility" in the team, and as such captains and other senior players will usually take the spot. So, it's not always suited to the "best" batsman, as Tendulkar and Lara show. In Lara's case it's actually been a criticism of him in the past that he was unwilling to go to 3, as it has with Inzamam in some of the more fragile Pakistani batting lineups in recent times. Michael Vaughan moving into number 3 in the current England side is representative of this sort of tactic as well.

 

[Stefano]

What is the NatWest Series/Challenge?

 

[FaaipDeOiad]

What is the NatWest Series/Challenge?

The NatWest Series is a triangular ODI competition England hosts every year, involving two other nations. Australia has a comparable competition in their summer called the VB Series. The NatWest Challenge is a three match series against a single team.

This year, the NatWest Series involves England, Australia and Bangladesh, and the Challenge is England vs Australia as a lead up to the Ashes test series.

 

[Stefano]

Do interference and obstruction exist in cricket? For example: a batsman hits the ball, then tries to score. However while he is running, he is hit by a fielder.

Another case: a fielder is trying to make a catch, but the batter hits him.

Are there in cricket things like warnings or ejections?

----------

Another situation: fifth day of a test match - post tea session. The batting team has a good chance to win the game, so the fielding team tries to slow down game. Can the referee warn the fielding team?

------

Could you please explain me why Sourav Ganguly has been banned for six games? What does India's slow over-rates mean?

 

[honestbharani]

Do interference and obstruction exist in cricket? For example: a batsman hits the ball, then tries to score. However while he is running, he is hit by a fielder.

Another case: a fielder is trying to make a catch, but the batter hits him.

Are there in cricket things like warnings or ejections?

----------

Another situation: fifth day of a test match - post tea session. The batting team has a good chance to win the game, so the fielding team tries to slow down game. Can the referee warn the fielding team?

------

Could you please explain me why Sourav Ganguly has been banned for six games? What does India's slow over-rates mean?

The obstruction/interference part does exist in cricket. Teams can be penalised in terms of runs and money when these things happen. But it is always upto the discretion of the umpire. For example, if the bowler stands in the way of the batsman who is running to take a single, the umpire will have to judge whether the bowler/fielder did it intentionally or not. If he thinks it was intentional, then he can penalise the team in the wrong.



And yes, the umpire CAN warn the fielding team for deliberately slowing the game down. Again, the teams can be penalised in terms of runs and in terms of money.




In cricket (BOth tests and ODIs) teams are supposed to bowl a minimum of 15 overs per hour. And if the teams bowl their overs at a slower rate than that and if there are no plausible reasons for the slowness (for eg., excessive heat, dew, snow, any stoppages in play due to injury etc...), then the captain of the side in the wrong is penalised as he is supposed to control the over rate of his team. That is why Sourav was banned for 6 matches.

 

[Adamc]

Another case: a fielder is trying to make a catch, but the batter hits him.

If that happens, the batsman will be given out, if the umpire thinks the batsman deliberately and unfairly obstructed the fielder. This almost never happens though.

 

[Richard]

So what would you call it then?

A first chance attack?

No.
A light-hearted jibe.

 

[Richard]

Yes Tennis is an individual sport, but Cricket in probably the most individual team sport along with baseball. So I think coaches far less important, as compared to soccer. Which makes the captains job so much more prestigious.

Yes, cricket's "a team sport played by individuals" - as it was once eloquently described - but that's all the more reason for the need for coaches, because there are so many different people with so many different requirements.
Indeed, that's why there's specific batting\bowling coaches, fitness gurus, nutritionists, etc.

I agree H/E for no-balls but not for snicks, leave it to the umpire.

Not HawkEye! Just a basic tennis-style Cyclops machine that alerts the Umpire when a no-ball is bowled.
I'd also like to see some kind of free-hit thing put in place - can't be bothered to give details now, would take too long.
Far, far too many snicks and gloves are missed - and if it could be referred batsmen would probably just walk all the time anyway, which would alleviate the problem.

Here is one from long off.
What about special glasses for the umpires, that would show imaginary lines running from one set of stumps to the other set of stumps, (only the umpire can see) it would help the umpire work out where the ball pitches eg outside leg stump and where the ball strikes the batsman eg just outside off.

It's certainly something that I can't see how anyone could possibly have an objection to - if it were possible to do. Whether or not it is, I don't know.

NO-BALL
It was never the intention of the oringinal law makers of Cricket for a bowler to be penalised for over stepping by 10mm, the old back foot rule gave the umpire and bowler plenty of latitude for a slight miss calculation. I am not sure of the solution?

Well - things have moved-on, is all I can say.