Cricket The General Cricket Thread - Page 14

gazzae · 15-08-2005, 15:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Can someone please explain, for the benefit of someone who finds cricket completely uninteresting (except when England look like they might beat Australia!) why England declared yesterday when they could have piled on a load more runs and left the Aussies an impossible target?

Because they have to give themselves enough time to bowl the aussies out to win the game, they don't want a draw.

Roy MM · 15-08-2005, 15:17

If the Aussies were not given a reasonably target, it would have been a draw because they would have had batsmen that had not played.

Flubflow · 15-08-2005, 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nugget

TBH, Mrs Nug asked me exactly the same question yesterday, and I couldn't think of a good answer.

The only reason I could think of is that, sledging and bodyline aside, cricket is still a 'gentlemans game' and, as such, it was a sporting decision to give the Australians a chance.

Other than that, it makes absolutely no sense

Talking of "bodyline", I remember a really good brit-ozzy callaborated tv mini-series about 20 years ago called "Bodyline:It's Just Not Cricket" which was a dramatisation of the period in cricket when that very controversial technique was first used in the 1932-33 Ashes. Australian Don Bradman was played in the movie superbly by Gary Sweet and a fantastically evil Hugo Weaving (a la The Matrix) plays the nasty englishman Doug Jardine who was responible for pushing this "leg theory" (or "bodyline" as the press labelled it).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086672/
I'd love to see it again.

Salu · 15-08-2005, 16:13

I believe the word Cricket is derived from the Latin, Cricketius meaning to yawn.

15-08-2005, 17:22

7 down - come on England

zovat · 15-08-2005, 17:25

265 for 7 - just need to get Ponting out !!!!

Aragorn · 15-08-2005, 17:32

Forget Ponting - just need Warne, Lee & McGrath

zovat · 15-08-2005, 17:36

true - but ponting would just demoralise the remainder completely ....

TigaSefi · 15-08-2005, 18:40

Bowlers are tired so it a draw or a win for Australia.

Aragorn · 15-08-2005, 20:10

Aaarrrghhh - sooo close

Graham · 16-08-2005, 04:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Can someone please explain, for the benefit of someone who finds cricket completely uninteresting (except when England look like they might beat Australia!) why England declared yesterday when they could have piled on a load more runs and left the Aussies an impossible target?

It is not sufficient for the Australians not to reach the target as a game of cricket requires two innings for each side (ignoring, for the moment, the "follow on" rule).

This means that, to win, England would have to dismiss all the Australian batsmen and, for the Australians to win, they would have to achieve the total England have set for them.

If neither of these happen then the game is a draw as happened today.

The "follow on" can be enforced when the team that bats second has not managed to get a score at least 200 runs below the team that went first (in a five day game), in which case they can be made to bat again.

As to today's game...!!!

Damn, that was seriously stressful, but it, regrettably proves that whilst England are a lot better than they have been in recent years, they're *still* not quite good enough.

Australia once again demonstrated that they have the ability to bat practically right down the order wheras England have demonstrated that they can't quite keep it together when it gets to the crunch, with dropped catches and wayward bowling

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flubflow

a fantastically evil Hugo Weaving (a la The Matrix) plays the nasty englishman Doug Jardine who was responible for pushing this "leg theory" (or "bodyline" as the press labelled it).

The thing was, "leg theory" wasn't something new, IIRC it had been around for some years already, but it was the first time it had really come to international prominence.

Roy MM · 16-08-2005, 04:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

It is not sufficient for the Australians not to reach the target as a game of cricket requires two innings for each side (ignoring, for the moment, the "follow on" rule).

This means that, to win, England would have to dismiss all the Australian batsmen and, for the Australians to win, they would have to achieve the total England have set for them.

If neither of these happen then the game is a draw as happened today.

The "follow on" can be enforced when the team that bats second has not managed to get a score at least 200 runs below the team that went first (in a five day game), in which case they can be made to bat again.

As to today's game...!!!

Damn, that was seriously stressful, but it, regrettably proves that whilst England are a lot better than they have been in recent years, they're *still* not quite good enough.

Australia once again demonstrated that they have the ability to bat practically right down the order wheras England have demonstrated that they can't quite keep it together when it gets to the crunch, with dropped catches and wayward bowling

What he said^^^^^ explained so eloquently.

Flubflow · 16-08-2005, 15:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Graham

The thing was, "leg theory" wasn't something new, IIRC it had been around for some years already, but it was the first time it had really come to international prominence.

Yeah it was those Australian pussies who moaned loudly about it. I mean, really, what's a few cracked skulls between colonial friends.

.

Aragorn · 25-08-2005, 11:17

England have one the toss and are going to bat, with McGrath out and newboy Tait in the side

Let's hope Tres & Strauss can profit from facing Tait and Kasprowiz.

iadom · 25-08-2005, 13:12

Good start, Strauss a little unlucky but over 100 for 1st wicket is nice.