The Cricket Thread

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, Tarmo Kink said:

I understand what Random is saying, and it’s really frustrating when a team performs shite yet sneaks a draw with 1 wicket remaining, or because of the weather. However, in T20 and ODI cricket you can limit sides in 3 ways, by taking 10 wickets, limiting the opposition score and batting them out of the game. In Test cricket you pretty much have to do all three to win the game, which is why it’s the hardest form of cricket.

It's why I've always struggled to have any interest in it, as like today you've got a side who's sole intention is to just literally waste the whole day doing nothing.

[Muzza81]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

But it's nothing like that. 

I just don't see any point in the whole thing if you can do both possible scoring things (runs/wickets) far better than your opposition, yet end up drawing.

In football it would be like a penalty shoot out, where one team scores five, the other scores one, yet they call it a draw because the final penalty taker took ages to take it and they ran out of time.

It’s nothing at all like that. You need 20 wickets to win a test match, simple as that. Your penalty shoot out comparison is wild because you can’t draw a penalty shoot out.

[Sir Tarmo Kink]

It's why I've always struggled to have any interest in it, as like today you've got a side who's sole intention is to just literally waste the whole day doing nothing.

It’s basically down to Australia to bowl them out now. You get that in football where teams will time waste, but you’re still expected to get the job done.

[Muzza81]

The variance in test cricket is why it’s the best form of the game. These kind of matches are intriguing and great entertainment. If you don’t think so test cricket isn’t for you. Easy. 

[pandarilla]

But it's nothing like that. 
I just don't see any point in the whole thing if you can do both possible scoring things (runs/wickets) far better than your opposition, yet end up drawing.
In football it would be like a penalty shoot out, where one team scores five, the other scores one, yet they call it a draw because the final penalty taker took ages to take it and they ran out of time.

It's nothing like that either, though.

Just accept it because it makes test match cricket the best format of the game.

I thought this would be done by this point.

You have to give them some credit for not completely chucking it like earlier in the summer. If buttler and bairstow can survive till tea then this could get very, very good.

[RandomGuy.]

3 minutes ago, Muzza81 said:

It’s nothing at all like that. You need 20 wickets to win a test match, simple as that. Your penalty shoot out comparison is wild because you can’t draw a penalty shoot out.

 

1 minute ago, Tarmo Kink said:

It’s basically down to Australia to bowl them out now. You get that in football where teams will time waste, but you’re still expected to get the job done.

 

 Aye, but Australia already have more wickets than England. I dont see why, when they have far more runs, and already have taken more wickets, why they're then forced to reach 20 or will draw, considering England only have 14. England somehow get away with a draw and potentially 200 less runs and 5 less wickets, purely because, for some reason, it's a draw if you "run out of time".

Theres just zero logic.

[Guest Moomintroll]

It's why I've always struggled to have any interest in it, as like today you've got a side who's sole intention is to just literally waste the whole day doing nothing.

Killie were being accused of doing that during the recent meh derby.

[RandomGuy.]

Just now, Moomintroll said:

Killie were being accused of doing that during the recent meh derby.

Aye, but you had a lead to hold on too.

England are heavily losing, yet, somehow, time wasting is to their advantage.

It's not "interesting" at all, to me, it's just boring.

[Muzza81]

1 minute ago, RandomGuy. said:

 

 Aye, but Australia already have more wickets than England. I dont see why, when they have far more runs, and already have taken more wickets, why they're then forced to reach 20 or will draw, considering England only have 14. England somehow get away with a draw and potentially 200 less runs and 5 less wickets, purely because, for some reason, it's a draw if you "run out of time".

Theres just zero logic.

Why? Because it’s the rules of cricket. Not really hard to comprehend.

Your “running out of time” line is also utter nonsense. Of course there’s going to be limit on the number of overs bowled. They will have drawn because they didn’t take 20 wickets within the allotted overs, not because they ran out of time.

[RandomGuy.]

1 minute ago, Muzza81 said:

Why? Because it’s the rules of cricket. Not really hard to comprehend.

Your “running out of time” line is also utter nonsense. Of course there’s going to be limit on the number of overs bowled. They will have drawn because they didn’t take 20 wickets within the allotted overs, not because they ran out of time.

Its potentially just my lack of knowledge of the game, tbh with you, but I just dont understand why a team scores more in both potential variables and doesnt win, it just defeats the whole purpose of sport. 

[Guest Moomintroll]

Aye, but you had a lead to hold on too.
England are heavily losing, yet, somehow, time wasting is to their advantage.
It's not "interesting" at all, to me, it's just boring.

It is, if you cannot win then at least try to make sure you don't lose. That can make all the difference in a Test Series, I get that the sport isn't for everyone & for a casual observer can be tedious af but what England are doing, in the context of the Test & the overall Series is precisely the correct thing to do.

[Muzza81]

If your team needs a point to quality for Europe/win the league/avoid relegation and it’s deep into the second half surely you’d expect your team to wind the clock down and generally do all they can to see the game out. Not go all out attack in the hope of getting a goal while leaving yourself exposed at the back.  

[DeeTillEhDeh]

But it's nothing like that. 
I just don't see any point in the whole thing if you can do both possible scoring things (runs/wickets) far better than your opposition, yet end up drawing.
In football it would be like a penalty shoot out, where one team scores five, the other scores one, yet they call it a draw because the final penalty taker took ages to take it and they ran out of time.

Stick to another sport that you know little about . . .

[emoji48]

[RandomGuy.]

3 minutes ago, Muzza81 said:

If your team needs a point to quality for Europe/win the league/avoid relegation and it’s deep into the second half surely you’d expect your team to wind the clock down and generally do all they can to see the game out. Not go all out attack in the hope of getting a goal while leaving yourself exposed at the back.  

Yes, but to me, who knows nothing about cricket, England should be about 5-2 down at this point. 

To me, this situation would be like Australia being 5-2 up with half an hour to go, but being told its a draw if it reaches 90 minutes and they've not scored 7 goals.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

52 overs left - unlikely they'll be bowled not just because there are only 5 wickets left but also because I can't see them fitting them in before it gets dark.

[DeeTillEhDeh]

Bairstow gone lbw.

England need more than a miracle now.

[Cheese]

Bairstow gone, the Ashes to follow.

It's pointless trying to compare Test cricket to football. 

[Savage Henry]

12 minutes ago, RandomGuy. said:

Its potentially just my lack of knowledge of the game, tbh with you, but I just dont understand why a team scores more in both potential variables and doesnt win, it just defeats the whole purpose of sport. 

That's just the scoring in cricket.  That's one of the vagaries that make it as compelling as it is for many of us on here!

If scoring runs were the sole aim of the game, it'd be baseball or T20.  I'd compare it to chess, where at some point it's completely fair for an opponent who is getting soundly beaten to start playing for a draw.  The whole concept of a draw is what makes, to me, cricket far more nuanced than baseball.  Sports with draws as a potential outcome can't do anything about the possibility that one (or both) sides will view it as the optimum outcome.

If test cricket were a knock-out competition, you'd probably have a point.  But it isn't.   

Rugby is a sport which by its very nature is almost impossible to "play for a draw", but most other sports aren't like that.

[Savage Henry]

3 minutes ago, DeeTillEhDeh said:

Bairstow gone lbw.

England need more than a miracle now.

And this is where the long tail will come back to haunt them.  You could have had guys with test 100s coming in at 8, but they went for Craig Overton two places above his natural spot.  

[Guest Moomintroll]

Yes, but to me, who knows nothing about cricket, England should be about 5-2 down at this point. 
To me, this situation would be like Australia being 5-2 up with half an hour to go, but being told its a draw if it reaches 90 minutes and they've not scored 7 goals.

The issue is that you are applying rules from other Sports to come to that conclusion, Cricket has a different set of rules & if you want to win a Test Match then you have to take 20 wickets & score more runs than the other team. ODI's & T20 matches are more straightforward in that, if you bowl the other team out, or score mores run than them in the alloted overs then you win but Tests have that 3rd option which is equally fascinating if you are a supporter. England won The Ashes a while back because Jimmy Anderson & Monty Panesar, who are dugshite with the bat managed to keep out the Aussies to get a draw, it is a long game in every sense of the word.