So the nowhere nobody Dutch cricketers beat England in the opening match of the 20/20 cricket World Cup. How the unmighty have fallen. There are a lot of truly gleeful Aussies, Kiwis and Saffers out there. Truth be told, I don’t give a fuck about 20/20 cricket, but hey! As long as the Poms get beat!
PS: For you North Americans: Cricket is the game that resembles baseball, minus the spitting and chewing, and with a shiteload more rules.
The one that they play for five days, and then it ends up a draw?
The one that is so incredibly dull that people need to bring the BBQ grill, newspaper and a couple of good books along?
The one where the bowler can’t even get it to the batter in the air? 
That one?!
[quote=“zender”]
The one where the bowler can’t even get it to the batter in the air? [/quote]
Don’t be a full toss, Mr Zender.
[quote=“zender”]The one that they play for five days, and then it ends up a draw?
The one that is so incredibly dull that people need to bring the BBQ grill, newspaper and a couple of good books along?
The one where the bowler can’t even get it to the batter in the air?
That one?![/quote]
Almost like the Cylons, there are many copies (versions…).
Five day yawn fests.
50 over one day internationals. Much nicer, faster and exciting with actual winners.
And 20/20 (20 overs) for attention span disadvantaged baseball fans. 
Edit: Oh, yeah, and it could’ve been lawn bowls for all I care. Anything where the Poms get whacked by anyone (especially relative sports “minnows” like the Dutch) has my vote. :discodance: 
Hey, this is the perfect place for some questions. For some reason a channel broadcasting cricket was available to me (back here in Canada) for a couple of days, and I caught the India-Pakistan warm-up match. I enjoyed it. Cricket is a helluva lot more fun and interesting to watch than baseball, in any case. Too bad the channel is blocked out again (unless I want to pay).
-
Wikipedia says the bowler cannot straighten his arm during the delivery. But it looks straight to me, especially in comparison with a baseball pitcher. I don’t get it. Are their arms not quite straight?
-
Baseball pitchers just stand there and take one step in when throwing. Wouldn’t a baseball-style delivery be more effective in throwing the ball faster than the run-up bowling style that is conventional in cricket?
-
Does the bowler have to make the ball touch the ground before it goes into the crease? If not, why not bowl more just in the air?
-
For twenty-20, could you allowably just alternate two bowlers for the entire 20 overs? Naturally, I’d imagine that would be tiring, but would that be permissable? How do they choose who comes up to bowl? Is there an established order?
-
In twenty-20, is the batting side out if the fielding side “gets ten wickets” (not sure of the proper terminology here) regardless of how many overs have been bowled?
-
When the batting side was finished the score was something like “164 for 4,” meaning that the fielding side had got 4 wickets. But then the announcer said that the next batting side needed 165 to win. How do those 4 wickets figure into the score?
The bowler can’t bend his elbow. If Wiki says otherwise, it’s wrong…
If you could bend your elbow, perhaps it may. Seeing as the aren’t allowed to bend their elbows, the run-up works best.
Fast bowlers take a longer run-up. Spin bowlers don’t need so much speed, but rather rely on spinning the ball, so they use a shorter run-up.
It doesn’t have to hit the crease first. If it doesn’t hit the crease first, it’s called a full toss. That’s excellent four or six runs material as batsmen would tend to smack that ball to the moon. Hence the reason why bowlers avoid the full toss, although sometimes it’s used to “intimidate” batsmen, although it can backfire badly. You’ll find batsmen stepping forward to actually hit a ball before it hits the crease if possible, especially off a carelessly bowled fast ball or a spin bowler.
Not sure if that would be permissable in 20/20, but can’t see why not. The bowling order would depend on the discretion and tactics of the Captain. In Limited over (50 overs) one day internationals each bowler is limited by the amount of overs he’s allowed to bowl. Tghis also affects tactics etc…
Not sure if anything has changed with 20/20, but traditionally, if all the Batsmen are out, that’s it for the batting team’s innings. I would think it’s still the same for 20/20…
They just need 165 to win in the allowed amount of overs. Perhaps Jimipresley can elaborate on what they mean by winning by X amount of wickets. I’m a bit rusty…
Take the Dutch vs England score for example:
England - 162/5 after 20 overs
Dutch - 163/6 after 20 overs
Dutch won by four wickets… (10 - 6 = 4)
I would’ve said, Dutch won by one run.
- That’s a truly bizarre rule. I was taught as a child to bowl with as straight an arm as possible.
- Simple physics. If you stand still and bowl a ball at 80kmph, it’s going to reach the batsman at 80kmph. If you are running at 10kmph and then deliver it, it’s going to reach the batsman at 90kmph.
- Because of the larger striking surface of a cricket bat (as opposed to a baseball bat), the chances of getting a clean hit are increased by the decreased likelihood of uncertain bounce. A ball pitched on the pitch could careen off at an unpredictable angle, thus making the batsman prone to a potential caught behind scenario. A “full toss” varies very little in it’s flight, unless the ball is moderately old (reverse swing). Hence, a full-pitched delivery is much more predictable (and hitable) than one which pitches on the pitch.
- In the stupid 20/20 game, bowlers are allowed 4 overs each. Anyone may bowl at anytime, at any interval. Captains select the bowlers according to the style of the batsmen at the crease and the fielding restrictions in place at the time. Chasing a score or putting runs on the board are also major factors.
- Regardless of how many overs have been bowled, the batting team is out if they lose 10 wickets.
- Those 4 wickets are irrelevant. The team batting second has to supercede the other team’s score within the alotted overs (20) to win. They must do this without losing 10 wickets, though, or it’s game over for them.
Addendum: Your team can win by “wickets” when batting second, and “runs” when batting first.
For example: England batted first and got 29 runs. The amount of wickets they lost is irrelevant. Bosnia batted second and overhauled England’s putrid score in the 4th over, having lost no wickets. Bosnia win by 10 wickets.
Example 2: Sierra Leone put on 209/7 in their innings, batting first. The amount of wickets they lost is irrelevant. England, in reply, got 19 runs all out. Sierra Leone win by 190 runs.
Question. What does it feel like to strike a cricket ball?
When you hit a baseball perfectly, the sensation is pretty sweet. It’s a little like hitting a golf ball well. Less click, more whack. The ball sails effortlessly.
Is it the same with a flat cricket bat?
Many baseball pitchers throw the ball at 150 km/h. Actually, it looks like many fast bowlers do, too. There are no restrictions on bending the elbow in baseball, though. Cricket bowling is sounding more and more mysterious to me.
[quote]Originally, this definition said that the elbow joint must not straighten out during the bowling action. Bowlers generally hold their elbows fully extended and rotate the arm vertically about the shoulder joint to impart velocity to the ball, releasing it near the top of the arc.
Bowling (cricket)
[/quote]
About the wickets…if they’re irrelevant, then what’s the point? What if you got all eleven of the batting side out in just eleven bowls, each hit caught in the air by the fielding side? What then? Just start up the batting order again?
BBC’s website:
[quote=“rousseau”]
About the wickets…if they’re irrelevant, then what’s the point? What if you got all eleven of the batting side out in just eleven bowls, each hit caught in the air by the fielding side? What then? Just start up the batting order again?[/quote]
No. If you are batting first, the other team must supercede your paltry score. If you are batting second, your runs (score) must be more than your opponents’, or you are royally fucked.
MMM! SA smash England by 7 wickets! Surely they will choke at the last hurdle as always. Otherwise, Mr Bismark will have something else to add to his signiture canon.
Edit: The West Indies are starting to look like the dark horses in this tournament. A return to the glory days of yore?
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.
Each man that’s in the side that’s in, goes out, and when he’s out, he comes in and the next man goes in until he’s out.
When they are all out the side that’s out comes in and the side that’s been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out.
Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When both sides have been in and out including the not-outs, that’s the end of the game.
[quote=“greenmark”]You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.
Each man that’s in the side that’s in, goes out, and when he’s out, he comes in and the next man goes in until he’s out.
When they are all out the side that’s out comes in and the side that’s been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out.
Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When both sides have been in and out including the not-outs, that’s the end of the game.[/quote]
AND THERE IS NO WINNER! It’s a draw! Fuck, I love this game!
Socialist sport at it’s finest.
[quote=“jimipresley”][quote=“greenmark”]You have two sides, one out in the field and one in.
Each man that’s in the side that’s in, goes out, and when he’s out, he comes in and the next man goes in until he’s out.
When they are all out the side that’s out comes in and the side that’s been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out.
Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When both sides have been in and out including the not-outs, that’s the end of the game.[/quote]
AND THERE IS NO WINNER! It’s a draw! Fuck, I love this game!
Socialist sport at it’s finest.[/quote]
I enjoy any game that involves going in and out! 
:yay: 
So, it’s just like baseball.
That’s easy enough to understand.
Only in baseball, they keep going in and out and in and out until the last out.
And there’s always a winner . . . unless Bud gets tired of them going in and out and tells everybody to just go home.
Actually, I kind of like cricket. I saw a Hansie Cronje century back in 1995 in Cape Town.
Too bad about Cronje. He fell so fast.
That usually happens when planes crash into mountains…
[quote=“zender”]Actually, I kind of like cricket. I saw a Hansie Cronje century back in 1995 in Cape Town.
Too bad about Cronje. He fell so fast.[/quote]
A great captain. Pity about the lure of small cash. Saw him hit Shane Warne all over the Wanderers on Warne’s SA ODI debut.
Speaking of captains, the most maligned and underrated SA skipper: Kepler Wessels.
Baseball also had its 'hit king", Pete Rose, booted out of baseball because he was gambling. He wasn’t throwing games (Cronje just took money for predicting outcomes, right?), but any form of betting in baseball, even on your own team, is punishable by a lifetime ban.