This is topic An incredible game of One Day cricket... in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000655

Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 01-29-2002, 04:50 PM:
 
Last night we witnessed an incredible game of cricket played in Melbourne. This win has made it the closest season I can remember. The weekend's games coming up will decide which two teams of three, Australia, South Africa or New Zealand will make it into the final series. Any team could be in...any team could be out.

Absolutely fantastic...
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0201/30/sport/sport1.html

PS: Sorry Kiwis...

---------------

"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage" - Indiana Jones.
 


Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 01-29-2002, 10:44 PM:
 
yes, it was an awesome game to watch, it just go's to show's that cricket can be entertaining!.
And those two games will be in perth, but unfortunatly i will be working all weekend.
Even though i'm from england (bognor regis) , aussies rule!!
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-30-2002, 04:22 AM:
 
Not such good news here. We just lost the one-day test series against India in the biggest possible way. Admittedly they're a very strong side at the moment but having our only two bowlers worth the name wuss out of the full series because they thought they'd be kidnapped by the Taliban didn't help.
 
Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 01-31-2002, 03:42 AM:
 
Weell we Kiwi's were ready to got to bed with a big smile on our collective faces , but I always remembered what a certain Bevan did to us before and said Naaah not again and waited for his wicket to fall and for the early retirement to bed , but horror of horrors those Aussies did it again as they do to us in most sports even our beloved Rugby Union .


 


Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 01-31-2002, 06:50 AM:
 
New Zealand cricket supporters are forming their own 'barmy army'...


 


Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 01-31-2002, 10:59 AM:
 
Paul said: "...but I always remembered what a certain Bevan did to us before."

Mr. Bevan Wright of Christie has many talents!

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
 


Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 02-02-2002, 01:35 AM:
 
Not the best way to set up for the finals ,a set up game where we (Kiwis)gave Sth Africa the bonus point and gave the Aussies the Hard task to win and gain a bonus point , for this they may have to win the Toss and bat first get a HUGE score then bowl out SA cheaply.....but if any Team can do that this Aussie Team can and if they do then I'll have to buy a Aussie Jersey, BEST of luck to the "Great Southern Land"



 


Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-02-2002, 02:03 AM:
 
Yes...the KIWI's have now made it very hard for Australia...

bring it on.
 


Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 02-03-2002, 06:05 AM:
 
Sad, but although we won the game, we lost the chance to get into the finals by not bowling out South Africa within 228 runs...

now...back to consoling myself with more Bundaberg Rum...

------------------
"It's not the years honey, it's the mileage". - Indiana Jones.
 


Posted by Paul Cassidy (Member # 951) on 02-03-2002, 08:32 AM:
 
Bonus Points system STINKS !! Time for the Rule makers to think again, Were happy to be in the finals but not that way.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-03-2002, 10:01 AM:
 
Well up here in the frozen north we're heading nicely towards losing the last one-day... India are 203-4 chasing 253 as I write, though we did just get Ganguly out so maybe there's hope yet...
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-03-2002, 02:06 PM:
 
We had an onslaught of crickets out in the west desert last summer. It is supposed to be worse this summer. Nothing like the ground moving under you while you're out camping.
Mark @ GTS
www.getgts.com
mark@getgts.com
 
Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 02-04-2002, 01:50 AM:
 
a devastating result for us aussies, it wont be much fun watching two team's that you want both to lose.
let's hope that they drop the bonus point system for next year.


 


Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-04-2002, 02:20 AM:
 
Well it seems I spoke too soon. We got them all out with one wicket remaining and India needing six runs off two balls! Talk about a nail-biting finish. NZ test series starts next week, but that means getting up at 1am next Thursday to listen (or staying up until).
 
Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 02-04-2002, 08:32 AM:
 
Well, we play a fair bit of rugby here in Canada (in fact, you Brits were kind enough to teach me how to drink beer as a teenager on a tour over there). However, as baseball was developed in the northeast States/ southern Canada, cricket is fairly obscure here. How about a primer guys? Here's what I think I know:

Leo said :India are 203-4 chasing 253 as I write...

I think that means India has 203 runs with 4 overs left (6 bowls per over) chasing 253 runs by England (side out). 6 runs for knocking it out of the park (over the rope), 2 or 3 for rolling it over, other runs scored by running back and forth between wickets while the ball is in play (1 run per or do you have to go over and back?). Batsman is "out" (?) if bowler knocks the wickets down, if they're knocked out while running in between wickets (by the ball IN POSSESSION?), or a caught "fly ball".

That's how I always understood it, now as far as how length of matches are determined, no idea???
 


Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-04-2002, 10:36 AM:
 
Not quite: England were all out (i.e. all ten wickets had fallen) for 253, then India had scored 203 runs for the loss of four wickets. At that stage, the number of overs (each consisting of six deliveries) and balls was not an issue, because assuming a reasonable run rate India could easily have won with the number that are left.

Run scoring is as follows:

Each side has eleven batsmen (one at each end of the wicket), who can be out (in other words, lose their wicket) in any one of the following ways:

The combined score of all the batsmen before their ten wickets are lost is known as the innings. The other factor which affects the overall match is the timescale. Roughly speaking there are two sorts of cricket: one-day matches or full-scale test matches. In a one day match, each side has one innings and is limited to a maximum of 50 overs. So their innings ends either when they've lost all their wickets or when they've used all their deliveries up, whichever is sooner. So if the first side scores 250 all out, or, say 250 for 7 in their first innings, the second side has to score 251 to win within their 50 overs and ten wickets. If they get 250 the match is drawn, 249 and they lose.

Full scale test matches also have a time limit: usually 3 days if it's one innings for each side, or five days for two. Here there is no overs limit for each innings, but side B has to exceed the total of side A's two innings in order to win. This introduces a strategy element which is missing from the one-day game: when to bat on and when to declare.

Let's take a hypothetical example: in a five-day match, side A scores 450 and is all out just before lunch on day two. Side B makes 300 on their first innings, but at a slow run rate and so isn't all out until teatime on day 3. In order to win the match, side A has to (i) finish the match with the higher score, and (ii) get side B all out in their second innings. By teatime on day 4, side A is in the lead by 150 having only lost two wickets, but only one day remains in the match. So the captain has to decide whether to bat on or 'declare', i.e. end the innings even though (s)he has wickets remaining. If (s)he bats on side A will increase their lead but lose the time they need to bowl out side B in their final innings, but if (s)he declares, then side B only needs to score 150 in the final day to win the match. So there is more strategy involved in test matches than in one-day games, but in many ways the one-day games are more spectator-friendly.
 


Posted by Dave Bird (Member # 490) on 02-04-2002, 03:03 PM:
 
Leo wrote:
>>If an opposing side's fielder catches the ball after the batsman >>has hit it but before it touches the ground. This is the most >>common way in which wickets are lost.

I manage a baseball club, yeah, hate those damn pop-ups!


>>If, while a batsman is running, a member of the opposing team >>causes the ball to strike the wicket. This is known as being 'run >>out' and happens very rarely in professional cricket, because it >>results from a serious error of judgement on the part of the >>batsman as to whether (s)he has enough time to complete a run >>before the ball is retrieved.

So, all runs count until the ball is fielded, BUT a runner still must make it back to his wicket? Interesting. Can a run out be accomplished by THROWING the ball into the wicket? Or just with "ball in hand"? And what if the ball is thrown wild, is it then "back in play", and the batsman can make more runs?

Lunch, 5-day tests, teatime? More importantly, when do they stop selling beer? For baseball, it's usually after the 7th inning stretch. Thanks for the lessons!
 


Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 02-06-2002, 02:41 AM:
 
It happens very, very rarely that a batsman can be dismissed by a fielder throwing the ball straight onto the wicket from somewhere out in the field, and when it does happen it's usually by accident. What normally happens is that a fielder will throw the ball either to the bowler or the wicket keeper (a fielder who is situated immediately behind the 'on strike' end of the wicket) who then throws it onto the wicket. The other function of the wicket keeper is to retrieve the ball if the batsman either fails to hit it or decides not to play any stroke, in order to stop him/her from scoring runs as it rolls off towards the back of the field.

If the ball is thrown wild ('misfielded'), yes, the batsman can carry on for as long as it takes the opposing side to sort their lives out. A careless fielding side can give away quite a few runs that way, and a batsman who overestimates how long it'll take them to get the ball back to the wicket carries the risk of being run out.

As for the beer, well they usually sell it all the way through! But more recently grounds have become more cagey about the possibility of crowd problems and many have banned spectators from bringing their own alcohol in. It's a particular issue when England plays Pakistan because of racial and religious tensions, and during the test series last year alcohol was banned altogether at some of the matches.


 


Posted by Brad Haven (Member # 954) on 02-06-2002, 10:58 AM:
 
i wish they would ban all alcohol at all one day games around the world (for cricket). who need's alcohol when the games are interesting, for test matches it should be compulsory!.
the last time i went to a one day game, it took me ages to get the chicken out of my hair and clothes, bloody drunk's started a food fight and i got stuck in the middle!!. on the same day, a brawl started just near me and a very young boy got hurt when it spread and they fell on him.
alcohol is ruining one day cricket!

 
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 03-12-2010, 05:07 AM:
 

It has been 2955 days since the last post.


 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-12-2010, 05:07 AM:
 
The IPL T20 league starts tonight.

Phil, you'll be very pleased you can catch it all on YouTube...delayed by two minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/user/IPL

[thumbsup]
 
Posted by Ian Parfrey (Member # 5122) on 03-12-2010, 06:53 AM:
 
[sleep] [sleep] [sleep]
 
Posted by John Wilson (Member # 269) on 03-14-2010, 03:05 PM:
 
quote: Me
Phil, you'll be very pleased you can catch it all on YouTube...delayed by two minutes.
Hmmmm...and Ian too, apparently. [Razz]
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2