Hard News: How about that cricket, eh?
162 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Newer→ Last
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
not sure if this link will work…
That is wonderful. Just magic.
-
In a similar vein, the Crusaders listening to the final over at the training ground in Pretoria.
-
Chris Werry, in reply to
Start your own league. We did at out local cricket club: 6 weeks from Feb to mid March, 6pm to 8pm on Wed nights. 8 a side, no pads, soft(er) balls, no lbw, 3 step max run up, must retire at 25, no pitch required just some painted lines on the local footy ground. We now have 8 teams of creaky, old men actually playing the game instead of just talking about it. Club gets 60 new members and $500 a week extra bar revenue.
-
Alan Perrott, in reply to
isn't it just - by all accounts he's in London.
-
Stuart Coats, in reply to
Every club has teams that compete in social grades. A bit like Ben I didn't get into the teams at high school but I am now in a 40-over per side league that plays on Saturdays. We are very mixed ability! There are also tonnes of 20/20 teams out there if you want a shorter game. The nature of cricket, however, is that the better players always get a better game. I can bowl, so I get to open the bowling (I'm also captain this year so I get to choose to bowl with the wind!) and I'll generally bowl my full quota so I get to be a bit more active in the field. However I can't bat to save my life (imagine Chris Martin but worse) so I bat at 11. This means that for half the game I am unemployed unless I umpire. Our best batsmen bat at the top of the order and use up most of the overs, as is only right and proper, and you have to accept that will be the case. The worst days - you bat at 6, get out for a duck and then don't bowl. Those days suck!
-
Carol Stewart, in reply to
Every club has teams that compete in social grades. A bit like Ben I didn't get into the teams at high school but I am now in a 40-over per side league that plays on Saturdays.
That's good to hear, Stuart. My 15 year old lad adores cricket but is much more of a social player - he's actually quite a good captain as he understands the game well - but isn't much of a batsman. Good to hear of these pathways to enjoy the game in years ahead.
-
Culturally, the Australian cricket team really can be a bunch of nobs.Warner, Watson et al seem to revel in the ugly Aussie image. It's been part of the DNA for decades (Chappelli etc) but it does seem to have developed further)
I can't work out if it's because they're tone deaf, or they don't care, or if they believe it gives them a competitive advantage. I suspect the latter (and they may be right, a riled opponent is a distracted opponent)
-
Chris Werry, in reply to
We have a full employment policy in comp. Each innings is 16 overs and everyone must bowl 2 overs. No ducks, compulsory retirement at 25 plus the last batsmen gets a runner means you almost always get a bat no matter how awful you are.
-
Mike O'Connell, in reply to
It did strike me as strange in that if the ball had clipped the wire it would only have been a more difficult catch to take. But I can see a rationale for for ruling it a “dead ball”, as Steve H indicated would likely be the case
From what I understand, should the ball strike any object in the field of play (e.g. a spare fielding helmet behind the keeper - and I have seen this happen), then five runs is signalled (though not sure if players then swap ends for the odd number).
What happens if e.g., it strikes something above - a bird or a wire - or a drone (that will happen sooner or later) I'm less sure - dead ball I think.
I noticed Steyn had a 'sand castle' by his run-up start. If a straight drive had clipped that, I wonder if a five would have awarded?
-
Wonderful game, I danced like a loon and hugged a few strangers when Elliot connected for that six. Think I'm still buzzing.
Don't think I can ever remember a game that swung back and forth so often - when we were batting it seemed like every over, even every ball, I was re-adjusting my predictions as to who would win. On paper, our required run-rate should have been easily achievable - but with Bren, Guptill, Williamson, Taylor and then Anderson out, and facing those bowlers, I was never confident.
Really impressed by the crowd. A lot less nasty than in the Aussie match (where there were plenty of chants of 'Johnson's a wanker' and a few, far worse but thankfully not as widespread, of 'Johnson's a faggot'). Whereas on Tuesday, after AB's interview he walked across the field and into the stand near me, and everyone gave him a standing ovation. Sure, it's easy to be generous when you win, but it was still a nice gesture.
On a more negative note: wish they'd get rid of spider-cam. It was annoying me, and I wonder if it ever distracts the players? And if it had cost SA Anderson's wicket that would have been terrible. I could have done without the ground announcer trying to be clever and playing Everybody Hurts when Corey got out - we've got a match a win, it's at a crucial moment, try to rev the crowd and the players up FFS.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
Which region are you in Chris?
-
Stuart Coats, in reply to
I have no problem getting a bat, my problem is more getting the bat to hit the ball!
-
On reflection I’ve really found the last handful of weeks fascinating, watching the World Cup. BMac is a brilliant captain but I think he’s often been overrated in terms of how much NZ has relied on him having a good innings.
Not so long ago, critics (including the Australian team) were claiming that if he failed to fire then the rest of the NZ team would fail around him, which didn’t happen.
Then critics claimed that the middle order had never been properly tested, which doesn’t seem to have come to anything either.
Then critics were claiming that New Zealand would choke when it reached the knockout phase and things became more serious, which didn’t happen.
Then critics claimed that as soon as NZ struck some real opposition in the knockout phase, namely South Africa, it would choke and fall apart. I think I was also wondering about this and I’m really glad that the they’ve proved they could play to such a high standard, irrespective of the result.
Even now, much of the international analysis seems to be about how it was South Africa which lost the match, that they would have won if it weren’t for a missed chance our two, that they were beaten by the rain intervention which prevented them from going more nuts in the last few overs than DL predicted, you name it. Some commentaries don’t even acknowledge that NZ also played to a strategy and to strengths, and won it at the same time.
Last night I was browsing some Indian media comment threads, and there was an underlying tone that the NZ team has conditioned itself to playing on small, windy rectangular grounds, and that they’ll choke as soon as they hit the MCG.
And yet I just don’t care any more, because to me this New Zealand team has proved that even of there’s another in the world better than them, they’re probably still the best and most positive one day men’s team which New Zealand has ever fielded on the world stage, no matter how others try to justify writing them off. No matter what the conditions our what the opposition has thrown at them so far, they’ve pulled together and managed to pull off a win. From what I’ve seen, they’re also acting as great role models, which is something you don’t always get from sports teams, including past NZ cricket teams. I’m rather proud of that and I think everyone else should be too.
It’d be great to see a win for them on Sunday, but as long as they show up to compete, I don’t really mind what happens. It’s just a game after all. A fun one to follow, though.
-
Hilary Stace, in reply to
The Club we were involved with only seems to do Junior Cricket. But thanks for that information. Will follow up. My son already does swimming, golf and indoor football with Special Olympics which now also does Unified sport (meaning for anyone), but cricket is his favourite and SO, being a US programme, doesn't do that.
-
SteveH, in reply to
From what I understand, should the ball strike any object in the field of play (e.g. a spare fielding helmet behind the keeper – and I have seen this happen), then five runs is signalled (though not sure if players then swap ends for the odd number).
What happens if e.g., it strikes something above – a bird or a wire – or a drone (that will happen sooner or later) I’m less sure – dead ball I think.
I noticed Steyn had a ‘sand castle’ by his run-up start. If a straight drive had clipped that, I wonder if a five would have awarded?
The 5 runs for hitting a spare fielding helmet are penalty runs. They are awarded because the fielding team was responsible with the interfering object. I'm not sure that the laws permit the same penalty to be applied if the ball hits a bowlers sand pile. I suspect that ball would remain live just as it does if it hits an umpire.
If a ball hit an obstacle that wasn't left by a fielder (e.g. a bottle thrown by the crowd, a bird on the field, or a flying drone) it would be up to the playing conditions the umpires had decided before the game. It could remain live or be ruled a dead ball. Similarly a wire could count as part of the boundary (so a six) or result in a dead ball, depending on what was decided before the game.
-
Paul Williams, in reply to
Grant Elliot is old. Old enough to have lost the sledging snarl of youth, Old enough to enjoy the game. Old enough to celebrate success because after all the years of trying when you finally achieve something like this you think of all those times when you were truly pissed off and this one moment makes it all worthwhile. Old enough to understand that it is sport. Merely an invented game. This twinkling moment that should, in the light of day for the loser, bring the realisation expressed by ABD coming to the press conference: “The sun will still come up tomorrow”.
Well said Ross.
Culturally, the Australian cricket team really can be a bunch of nobs.Warner, Watson et al seem to revel in the ugly Aussie image. It’s been part of the DNA for decades (Chappelli etc) but it does seem to have developed further)
I both agree and disagree. Most of them, their on-field persona at least, is oafish and many Australian are disdaining. There's exceptions though. Michael Hussey for instance, I always liked for the spirit he played with. Brett Lee too and also Gilchrist. My ten year old daughter plays in a Friday night competition and was wrapped to have met Hussey and proudly displays his signature.
-
llew40, in reply to
Yeah fair point - guilty of a gross generalisation. It does seem at times like a 'brand' they are keen to cultivate.
-
The #MCGissobig hashtag is going off on Twitter. Great fun.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I always liked for the spirit he played with. Brett Lee too
If you overlook those beamers he bowled ...
-
loving #MCGsobig, we shall conquer them with unremitting sarcasm.
-
Emma Hart, in reply to
Brett Lee too
If you overlook those beamers he bowled …
Yeah, I can't remember a moment of Brett Lee's onfield career where he wasn't a stereotypical angry fast-bowler. I remember a couple of high-scoring tight one-dayers against us where he bowled several above-head-height no-balls - either he was trying to scare our batters on purpose, or he couldn't control his bowling under stress.
Off-field, it appears to be a completely different story:
-
am I the only one who wondered (for the briefiest of seconds) whether SA would bowl that ball underarm?
-
Underarm's illegal now. Sorry!
As for Hayden, he's right about the MCG, but never mind. We need a new panto villain. Wayne Barnes is getting old.
-
bmk, in reply to
I always liked for the spirit he played with. Brett Lee too
If you overlook those beamers he bowled ...
Yes I was going to make the same comment but beaten. The thing about his beamers too was they only came when he was getting hit. In fact I have to say Brett Lee is probably the archetypal bad Aussie sportsman that I think of. Mike Hussey definitely came across as a much better sportsman.
-
Soon Lee, in reply to
Don’t think I can ever remember a game that swung back and forth so often...
Yes, according to Mark Stafford from the TAB, favouritism changed 31 times during the match.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.