Cricket

[Cedric6014]

Cricket

I was about to further derail this thread with a comment, but then I thought “surely cricket is worthy of a whole thread unto itself”.

So here it is:  What I presume to be the inaugural thread on cricket in the SCDB.

Time for revenge!

I've had friends try and explain to me why Test series are so much more strategic than 1 days and how one doesn't really see true skill from short matches but I just can't seem to get excited by them.  Nevertheless I still went and had a small sulk when I saw you were 300-and-something for 7

50 over games can be just as strategic as tests in my opinion, in fact even more so perhaps. In 50 over games (ODIs) you constantly have to juggle two factors – maintaining wickets, and scoring runs at the right rate. In tests 90% of the time all a batting side is doing is trying not to get out – the rate of scoring is almost immaterial.

20/20 cricket is the worst, there’s little value in a wicket and most of the shots played aren’t real cricket shots.

ODIs are the best form of the game. It’s a shame they’re being overwhelmed by their bastard cousin.

[Dragon]

20/20 cricket is the worst, there’s little value in a wicket and most of the shots played aren’t real cricket shots.

Yeah, I've never actually seen a 20/20 match (it's not taken off here) but I'd imagine it must be a bit like a school game with the batsman just going for the big shots.  If they dropped the number (to like 3 or 4) it would be more interesting.

[Zeracles]

So here it is:  What I presume to be the inaugural thread on cricket in the SCDB.

That's right, we rough-and-ready southerners are taking over the SCDB! And we're gonna start by having an in-depth discussion about an obscure topic which the heavyweights (who don't bother posting these days anyway ) of this forum know next to nothing about!

Wait, I hope no-one mentions rugby *shudder*

I have always seen test cricket as the real thing and the shorter versions merely as interesting variations.

Tests have variables that don't feature in ODs and T20s. The pitch changes over the five days, and not always for the worse - weather plays a role, and captains have to consider the forecasts at the toss, when wondering when to declare, whether to enforce a follow on, and when to take the new ball. Most of these moves and decisions don't even exist in ODs and T20s. And depending on how these play out, a one day situation can occur on the final day, so one-dayers can really be seen as a special case of tests. There's the strategic element.

Strategy aside, tests have atmosphere beyond what can be achieved in ODs and T20s. In a test match the momentum can swing many times, with enduring partnerships, wickets coming in rushes, the wearing pitch or changes in weather over the five days. Yes there are longueurs, but that's what life itself is like a lot of the time, and that's what a tough battle is like too: grinding attrition over five days, discipline is a test team's most valuable asset. There are still the climactic events which ODs and T20s seek to emulate, but they mean all the more in a test match because you know what hard work went into creating those situations. It's not a slug-fest, it's not a competition to see who can bowl the fastest, it's a test of endurance.

And tests take a while. There can be a game within a game within a game, absorbing at every level, and great for procrastination

If you didn't bother reading through all of that, maybe that's why tests don't excite you

P.S. I was listening to the commentary out of Jo'burg and (though the commentators wouldn't repeat it) heard the crowd chanting

Siddle's a wan-ker!

Very droll

[Dabir]

Wait, I hope no-one mentions rugby *shudder*

*mentions rugby and retreats*

[Cedric6014]

Wait, I hope no-one mentions rugby *shudder*

Maybe we need a rugby thread too!

Tests have variables that don't feature in ODs and T20s. The pitch changes over the five days, and not always for the worse - weather plays a role, and captains have to consider the forecasts at the toss,

To me, these are all downsides of tests. They introduce elements of chance, which may be charming to some people but detract from it as a supposedly even sports contest.

I would rarely watch a single day of a test match. And below test level, first class cricket has becom a joke. You'd be lucky to get 50 spectators watching Wellington vs Auckland at the Basin Reserve, DESPITE all those marvellous little idiosyncracies that the longer version offers. If I was a man of leisure, I'd watch all 5 days of a test. But I'm not so I won't.

Strategy aside, tests have atmosphere beyond what can be achieved in ODs and T20s. In a test match the momentum can swing many times, with enduring partnerships, wickets coming in rushes, the wearing pitch or changes in weather over the five days. Yes there are longueurs, but that's what life itself is like a lot of the time, and that's what a tough battle is like too: grinding attrition over five days, discipline is a test team's most valuable asset.

I agree. If you had a game going for 20 days imagine how many momentum changes you would have!...doesnt make it better though.

I consider myself a patient person, but I find tests testing. Having said that, test cricket is very unique in sport.

P.S. I was listening to the commentary out of Jo'burg and (though the commentators wouldn't repeat it) heard the crowd chanting

Siddle's a wan-ker!

Very droll

They're just copying the Aussie crowds in the 80's who coined the phrase about Richard Hadlee when he took too many wickets.

EDIT: Actually, I take that all back. This article explains the origins of “Hadlee’s a wanker”, albeit an Aussie point of view.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/Geoff-McClure/Sporting-Life/2004/12/05/1102182152261.html

Curiously a search for Hadlee's a wanker comes up with NO results in NZ google

[Dragon]

Maybe we need a rugby thread too!

Ah, no thanks - memories of lying flat on my back and staring up at the sky wondering WTF I just hit are better left buried.

If I was a man of leisure, I'd watch all 5 days of a test. But I'm not so I won't.

Yeah, that's the prob; not having time to see a full test makes the missed bits... just... numbers.  Either a sort of random starting point or some (quasi-patriotic) result at the end.

P.S. I was listening to the commentary out of Jo'burg and (though the commentators wouldn't repeat it) heard the crowd chanting

Siddle's a wan-ker!

Very droll

Missed that, it actually sounds pretty restrained, depending on who was in the crowd 

[Rider]

That's right, we rough-and-ready southerners are taking over the SCDB! And we're gonna start by having an in-depth discussion about an obscure topic which the heavyweights (who don't bother posting these days anyway ) of this forum know next to nothing about!

It's no surprise though... not a lot's going on on these forums lately. I mean... there's the dialogues going on in 2 threads on the General board and the occasional "Me Too!" post on the Off-topic board... and then there's obsecure topics like these!

Almost everything else's been covered in the past... it's no surprise most of the old-timers are here so scantly.

[Cedric6014]

Surely you're not saying the we're flogging a dead horse by talking about a 15 year old computer game

[Zeracles]

*mentions rugby and retreats*

*bowls a mullygrubber around the legs of the retreating Dabir*

Maybe we need a rugby thread too!

If you're going to try to convince me that rugby is anything more than a sport devised for meatheads, don't defile this thread . . .

To me, these are all downsides of tests. They introduce elements of chance, which may be charming to some people but detract from it as a supposedly even sports contest.

Elements of chance add to a game in my opinion, managing risk and chance is something good strategists can do.

If I was a man of leisure, I'd watch all 5 days of a test. But I'm not so I won't.

Yeah, that's the prob; not having time to see a full test makes the missed bits... just... numbers.  Either a sort of random starting point or some (quasi-patriotic) result at the end.

I've never followed every ball of a test

and then there's obsecure topics like these!

Don't pretend you don't like cricket, Rider. I know Holland has a cricket team!

Surely you're not saying the we're flogging a dead horse by talking about a 15 year old computer game

We're way past that, in this thread we're discussing a 400 year old game

Second test starting soon 2-0 here we come!

[Cedric6014]

I think we here in NZ just need to give up cricket and play something else. We just don't have the weather for it. Last night's ODI vs India in Wellington was washed out. Just as well evidently as they were carting our pedestrian bowlers all around the park.

Maybe we need a rugby thread too!

If you're going to try to convince me that rugby is anything more than a sport devised for meatheads, don't defile this thread . . .

I could, but I suspecting I'd be wasting my time   I'm a huge rugby fan, although I doubt there would be much point in having a thread for it here. It's remarkable that there are even three cricket fans. Although maybe we can add Rider to the list now?

[Zeracles]

I think we here in NZ just need to give up cricket and play something else. We just don't have the weather for it. Last night's ODI vs India in Wellington was washed out. Just as well evidently as they were carting our pedestrian bowlers all around the park.

I don't know about that, last time the Aussies toured there the weather held up well enough for us to lose the ODs 3-0 As I recall that handed South Africa the top ranking just ahead of the 2007 world cup. NZ seems a good side, apparently thanks largely to the sterling captaincy of Stephen Fleming, now carried on by Vettori, a spinner the calibre of which the Aussies would love to have right now.

It's remarkable that there are even three cricket fans.

To anyone who's not a fan, it probably looks something like this -

FRUNGY! FRUNGY! FRUNGY! FRUNGY!

But I think I read somewhere that a third of the world's population watched the last world cup (thanks India!). Roughly a third of the active membership here follows cricket, sounds about right.

[Bleeding Star]

I'm a fan of the one-dayer, too. The perfect compromise between the boredom of a test match and the chaotic frenzy of a 20-20 game. Except for the middle 20 overs of each innings. That's usually pretty tedious.

NZ seems a good side,

A generous opinion. A couple of good players, and a bunch of nobodies. I'm always stunned how often they pull off miraculous escapes after yet another top-order collapse. The aussies always have more trouble with NZ than they should.

[Cedric6014]

A generous opinion. A couple of good players, and a bunch of nobodies. I'm always stunned how often they pull off miraculous escapes after yet another top-order collapse. The aussies always have more trouble with NZ than they should.

This is a popular perception among the English and Aussies in particular who for some reason are uncomfortable with the prospect of NZ having talented cricketers. They feel the need to justify losing by saying things like the above.

Right now NZ has one of the better one-day outfits. We’d probably be on a par with Australia and South Africa for the first time in a long time.

Our test line-up is shite though. We don’t play enough first-class cricket here to get good at it. And sadly we only get to play 2 or 3 test series for some reason.

[Bleeding Star]

I won't deny that NZ perform well on occasion, but when you look at the lineup on paper it just doesn't look that impressive. We haven't had a decent opening pair for what, a decade? While I do love the last-minute rescue from down the order, just once I'd like to give my heart a break and watch the openers score some bloody runs. And there's a severe lack of consistency in the bowling, too. One moment Mills is tearing through batsmen like there's no tomorrow, the next he's bowling waist-high full tosses.

[Cedric6014]

My arguements would be a lot stronger if we hadn't have just been demolished by India in the current ODI series, but nonetheless...

No arguements about the (in)consistency of our test side. Is is truely an appalling team.

However I'll still maintain that our one-day team is as good as most (except India obviously). Right now Vettori and Mils are respectively the 1 and 3 bowlers according to the ICC rankings. And you wont find a more consistent opening pair of McCullum and Ryder atm (again, apart from those blasted Indians). "On paper" the NZ one-day side is a strong one.