Most amazing achievement 99.9% of Americans won't care about

[skp]

I posted in Rec.sports.cricket about this topic last month regarding some matches that took place in the DLF cup in Malaysia. I would be interested in your thoughts as well on the topic:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.s...6a385568e24c16
?lnk=st&q=spadmanabhan%40blgcanada.com&rnu m=13#eb6a385568e24c16

[skp]

[ QUOTE ]
I know the answer, but from what I understand even ardent cricket fans have trouble with the Duckworth/Lewis system (although i guess 2+2ers aren't typical).

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only do ardent cricket fans not get it, even players and management don't get it. In a crucial 2003 World Cup match, South Africa miscalculated the required target based on the D/L method and fell 1 run short. I forget the details but what I mean by that is that they had to get (say) 231 to win, but thought it was 230 and the batsmen out there in the middle took only one run on the last ball when they could easily have taken two (or something like that.... the details may be wrong but the point remains that they somehow royally buggered up the whole thing).

They failed to advance as a result of that blunder. As you can imagine, there were lots of guys involved in South African cricket who lost their jobs after this boneheaded move.

[jstnrgrs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know the answer, but from what I understand even ardent cricket fans have trouble with the Duckworth/Lewis system (although i guess 2+2ers aren't typical).

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only do ardent cricket fans not get it, even players and management don't get it. In a crucial 2003 World Cup match, South Africa miscalculated the required target based on the D/L method and fell 1 run short. I forget the details but what I mean by that is that they had to get (say) 231 to win, but thought it was 230 and the batsmen out there in the middle took only one run on the last ball when they could easily have taken two (or something like that.... the details may be wrong but the point remains that they somehow royally buggered up the whole thing).

They failed to advance as a result of that blunder. As you can imagine, there were lots of guys involved in South African cricket who lost their jobs after this boneheaded move.

[/ QUOTE ]

so is there no official announcement of the revisied traget? Whatever system is used, I would think that the team batting second would be told what target it has to chase.

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A star batsman like Australia's skipper, Ricky Ponting, might never get out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would a skilled batsman be able to defend his wicket indefinately if he is not trying to score runs? If so, I would think that a team chasing an unreachable target should be able to secure a draw every time. Couln't the batsman just deflect the ball into the ground on every ball until times up? (Is this really that hard to do with a big cricket bat, and the restrictions on bowling form?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Great question. In theory this is possible, but in practice it is possible only when there is little time left in the match.

An analogy in baseball to playing this way would be a hitter who takes pitches until he has 2 strikes. This puts the hitter on the defensive, and has to protect the plate more. The pitcher has more options regarding pitch type/location, and fielding settings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an attacking pitch in baseball would be something like a low/away curveball or a high/tight fastball. A pitch intended to strike a batter out. But there is the risk that your curveball hangs up and becomes a good hitting pitch. But if you're against a defensive batsmen, it's not such a risk to throw attacking pitches. Similarily, you can set the field placements in a more attacking manner.

The same concepts apply in cricket. In test (5-day) matches, there are no fielding restrictions. So fielding teams can set several players very close to the batsmen, and pitch in precise locations that increase the likelyhood that the batsmen tips the ball for a catch. Many outs in cricket occur with the baseball equivalent of a foul tip. So the fielding team can set many fielders behind the batsmen and hope for a tip catch. It seems counterintuitive, but generally attacking batsmen are harder to get out (unless they become reckless). Scoring runs in cricket reduces pressure, and forces the bowler to make adjustments. Going back to the baseball analogy, a pitcher can keep going to his "money" pitch against someone who is not a thread to hit an extra base hit. But he needs to be more careful and defensive when pitching to attacking hitters. With a huge lead, the bowling team can place an attacking field and bowl wicket-taking (ie money pitches) continuously. Eventually a batsmen will make a mistake.

In the old days there were many draws in test matches. But test match cricket has changed drastically in the last 5 years, and matches these days rarely end in draws.

I (and many cricket purists) prefer test matches to their one-day counterparts. A one-day match is much more predictable, due to the fixed length game, fielding restricts. Also from a TV viewing point of view, there are less breaks in one-day matches (about 3 1/2 hours and then a break).

edit: This is a cool book about an English cricketer tthat tries to learn to play baseball. Opening line "Cricket and baseball are like parents and their children; so much in common but a total mystery to each other"

Playing hardball: Cricketer tries baseball