The dictionary definition of "swoop" is "To move in a sudden speed" so if we "swooped" on Joey O'Brien then McBenni was swooping all last season and Tottenham have "swooped" to sign Scotty Parker!
By the way, there's another cracking test match unfolding at Trent Bridge. What idiot decided Broad should bat at 9 exactly?
26 comments:
Go Go hammers
Where did you want him to bat HF? Every batsman before him is better than him at the moment
Cobblers, he should be ahead of Bresnan!
I like Broad as he is well fit
Bresnan is a better batsman at the moment and his record shows it. Although whether or not Bresnan should be in the side is debatable. If they had a proper bowler instead, I'm sure Broad would be pushed up.
Nonsense. Bresnan cobbles together runs and will never bat higher than 8 at test match level. Broad is a test match number 7 and is the key to a truly balanced England team. We need to give up on Morgan, move Prior to six and Broad to seven. Then we can include a fifth bowler. As for England not having an alternative to Bresnan, Finn is the real deal too.
Broad either gets 50 or 0 as I think it was Nassa who rightly pointed out. Seems very talented but very unrelieable and there is no denying that Bresnan is the better batsman of the two.
kevin manchester writes..
that's what i like about england selectors they know their own minds and having picked the best eleven they stick with class knowing it will out- true morgan's had a mare but like pietersen believing he can smash a ton double quick is not just a forelorn hope; they know he will..hence sticking with him and not returning to the revolving door selection policy of the 90's .let's pray for a close cloudy day tomorrow and as boycott said with this being a 250 par wicket it could yet be an interesting and close contest,although i fear if broad can manage 60 odd then tendulka or yuvraj(youvray?) can magic up centuries each--what a great game! Perhaps being hammers and having had such god awful management for so long is one of the reasons we love and appreciate a classy and well run outfit like the england cricket team.
Trouble is Kevin, they have set their hearts on a 6-4 balance plus wicket keeper when it could be 5-5, with Broad given the responsibility as the genuine all rounder, especially with Bresnan at 8 and Swann at 9. That would still be a strong batting line up and might encourage Pietersen to play with more responsibility. As for Morgan, that action is very suspect and as Boycott says, he isn't a player you want in the team when your backs are against the wall. He scores when the team makes big scores. When the team is struggling, he fails.
Tommy, ignore averages. Broad plays shots that Bresnan could only dream of. Broad is the new Flintoff but we can afford to bat him at 7 because Prior is so good. I am a stats man but you can see class, and Broad has it. Play him at 7 and he will average in the 30s with the bat. Play him at 9 at it will be mid 20s.
1) I have decided that I want to understand Cricket. HF and Stani, it's on you. Teach me. Complete my training into full anglophile loony.
2) Stani.....good to have you back.
LOL Dave, now that is a challenge! We need a start point. Do you play chess? Do you like baseball? If so, you need to imagine the two combined!
Now, in baseball, at any given time it is one against one, pitcher against the guy with the bat (a batsman?), although the guy with the big glove shouts coded clues apparently. In cricket, it is all 11 against one, with the captain of the fielding team playing a huge role as he picks the right type of bowler to most inconvenience / disconcert the batsman, and the best field placings to cut off his run flow and take catches. Unlike in baseball, the fielders can be positioned anywhere on the field of play, except on the wicket itself (the bit down the midddle between bowler and batsman).
Now, add into the equation the fact that at any given time there are two batsmen "in", one on strike (facing the bowler) and the other "off strike" (at the same end of the wicket as the bowler). These two batsmen work as a team. They may try to organise things so that each faces the bowling he is best suited to bowling and to protect a weaker batsman from a certain type of bowler. So, at the beginning of a new batsman's innings, his partner may deliberately choose to face the majority of the bowling from the strongest bowler, allowing the new batsman to "play himself in" against weaker bowling. The established batsman may also try to score runs faster for a while to take the pressure off his team mate to score as he plays himself in. The fielding team, meanwhile, are doing their best to achieve the opposite: to stop the run flow from the established batsman and to get the new batsman on strike against the stronger bowler - thus the comparison with chess!
Now, instead of one "pitcher", at any given point in the game, two bowlers work in tandem. One bowler bowls 6 balls from one end, then the field switches around and the other bowler bowls six balls from the other end, then they switch again. Unlike in baseball, the bowlers bounce the ball before it reaches the batsman and, according to how you hold and bowl the ball, the bounce will vary. Fast bowlers will hit the wicket hard, making the ball bounce towards the chest, throat and face of the batsman at speeds of around 95 mph. If that ball hits you, it hurts like hell and broken fingers are common place.
Swing bowlers look to make the ball curve in the air, either swinging in to the batsman or away from the batsman. The poor batsman has to react as the ball moves in the most extravagant ways.
Seam bowlers aim to make the ball "move off the pitch". There is a seam that runs around the ball and if you land the ball on the seam, or with a "bias" to left or right, the ball will move after it has bounced, jagging to the left or to the right.
Finger spinners put spin on the ball as they bowl it so it moves in the air and after it bounces acoording to the direction of the spin imparted by the movement of their fingers on the ball, and wrist spinners move their wrists in the most extravagant ways to impart spin, making the ball spin or jag to the left or right after it has bounced.
The poor batsman has to contend with all this and with the vagaries of the pitch. Some wickets are "good" which means that as the ball bounces, it stays on a true line and bounces at a consistent height, except for the "movement" imparted by the bowlers. If the wicket is "bad", the ball will bounce at different heights and move to left and right as it hits patches of grass or cracks in the wicket. At times, it becomes almost impossible to bat because one ball will fly at your throat and the next will skoot along the ground after bouncing.
Then the weather conditions play a part. If it is cloudy, the ball moves through the air much more, "swinging" in an extravagant fashion. If the sun is out, the ball will stop moving in the air, but the soil of the wicket then dries, cracks appear, and spinners and seamers aim to hit these cracks to make the ball move more.
Still with me? The aim of this is to show you how much more complicated the game is than baseball. I will explain how batsman can be dismissed next time if you want another lesson.
If we had five bowlers in the team who would you pick? Anderson, Broad,
Tremlet, Finn, Swan. Possibly interchanging Finn with a slow bowler according to wicket and then which additional slow bowler?
At the moment, I would play Bresnan ahead of Finn because he swings it and for his batting. He is a good number 8! There is an Asian spin all rounder isn't there? Not sure about his name but he could come in for Bresnan when a second spinner is required.
Cheers Dave! ...and don't listen to HF with his 'poor batsman' malarkey. It's a batsman's game!
Here's a little clip that explains a few things:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8XpSO1kaHo
This one will give you the complete ins and outs....ahem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNdCnkKhitI
....a must watch!
If they want swing, they should keep Shahzad HF. He's been unceremoniously dumped for some reason.
But, all things considered, I would probably keep the current side (with Bresnan) with Bopara coming in for Morgan (something they were thinking of doing before the series but opted for Morgan) being the only change.
I agree if two spinners were required, they could opt for Rashid who is a genuine all-rounder. Nice article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2019503/Mushtaq-Ahmed-earned-stripes-England.html
It's a batsman's game? A bowler makes a mistake, it goes for four, no problem, he bowls another ball. A batsman makes a mistake, innings over!
Batting in test cricket has to be the most pressurised job in sport, outside perhaps of a penalty shoot out. It is one man against eleven and he has two different jobs, to survive and to score. He knows that every ball could be his last. The focus and concentration goes on for up to six hours. Unlike in golf, he is playing for his team and for his country, and, in the case of Pakistan, for leg breaking match fixers! (sorry, couldn't resist! ; })
Indeed I do, HF. I have asked questions to friends before, so some very rudimentary things are clear. 6 balls to an over, etc. The scoring is the most complicated part for me. I think if I get a handle on that I will be more than halfway there.
And I have used the chess comparison for baseball as well. The notion that so many mini-games can happen within the larger game, all while nothing is physically happening, is what makes baseball a very exciting game as well.
Stani, I will most certainly watch both of those clips. Cheers.
Scoring is simple Dave. You score a run if both batsmen get to the other end of the wicket. You score two if they get back to where they started. You score three if they get back up the other end again. If the ball crosses the "boundary" (the edge of the playing area) without bouncing, you score six, and if crosses the boundary after bouncing, you score 4. All "points" are scored "runs" in cricket because you run between the wickets to score.
The only other way of scoring is through "extras". If the bowler steps over the "crease" with his leading leg whilst bowling, it is a "no ball". The batsman can't be out and an extra "run" is awarded. This is to stop bowlers cheating by running down the wicket and bowling the ball at the stumps from a couple of yards away.
If the bowling bowls the ball too wide of the wicket, a run is awarded for a "wide".
There are also "Byes" and "Leg Byes". A bye is scored if the batsman tries to play the ball, misses, and the wicket keeper (the guy in cricket with the big gloves!) fails to gather the ball, enabling the batsmen to "cross" and get to one another's ends.
A Leg Bye is scored if the batsman tries to hit the ball, fails, the ball hits his body (usually the leg) and goes into a gap in the field that enables the batsmen to cross and get to each other's ends. You can score one, two, three or even four as Leg Byes or Byes, depending on how many times the batsmen cross and whether or not the ball crosses the boundary rope.
That's basically it!
Much more complicated is how batsmen are dismissed!
But when I see a cricket score, there are two numbers. The first is the runs scored. That I know. But the second number is what I need help with. I believe it refers to the number of wickets the bowling team achieved while the batting team is scoring those runs. But how that second number correlates to who wins and loses is confusing to me. I THINK I have seen teams with less runs win due to the number of wickets, but I could be wrong.
And a batter is out if someone in the field catches the ball without a bounce (like baseball), or if the batter misses the ball and hits the wicket behind him. Right? Then the next batter is up?
LOL Batsman, not batter! No, you can't win a game by scoring less runs, but you do win a game by taking more wickets, though in the one day game you can win a game scoring less runs and taking lless wickets, but that's very confusing!
I am a fan of test cricket played over 5 days. To win, you have to score more runs than the opposition but it gets very complicated from there because of declarations!
Now, if you see a score of 345-6, that means a team has scored 345 runs and lost 6 wickets. That is straightforward, unless you are in Australia where you will see it expressed as 6-345 just to confuse you Yanks!
Now, both teams have two innings. That means each member of the team is allowed to bat twice. But sometimes, a team chooses to declare if they think they have enough runs in each innings and want to bowl. We will leave for a later lesson why a team would choose to do this!
If a team doesn't declare, they bat until ten men are "out". The last man doesn't have to be dismissed because there must always be two men at the wicket at any given time. Still with me?
Assuming no team declares, you add the totals of both innings together to see who wins the game. Often, the team batting fourth will score enough runs to win before all their wickets fall.
So, lets say England are playing India. England score 200 first innings; India score 200 first innings; England score 200 second innings; then India need 201 in their second innings to win the game. If they lose ten wickets before they score 200, they lose. If they are all out for 200, the game is tied. If they score 201, India win, no matter how many wickets have fallen and the game stops at that point.
But then we need to explain draws which are not the same as ties!
OK. Batsmen it is. Sorry for the faux pas. And sorry I forgot to type USA before my name. There is another poster that goes just by Dave and if he hates cricket I hope I didnt annoy him too much!
Believe it or not, I have a basic understanding of declarations. I even had a chat with my friend during the last ashes about it because I believe there was a test in which England declared. I asked because I wondered if England were at a disadvantage for batting first. In baseball batting in the bottom half of the ninth inning does have its moments of glory.
So I guess Ive seen scores from one day tests where the wickets were the deciding factor and thus confused me.
But Im enjoying this. I may need a chat one day, on my phone bill, to reall hash it out. I can see how once you understand it, you can easily love it.
That would be cool Dave, drop me an email and I can let you have my number. When next in England I could accompany you to a game of cricket and talk you through it.
Declarations exist, of course, because the game is time bonded. A match is drawn, as opposed to tied, when there is no definite reesult after 5 days - due either to the weather (preventing both sides from completing two innings) or to the failure of the bowling side to bowl out the opposition in the last of the four innings or for the batting team in that innings to score sufficient runs to win the game.
What many do not understand is that "draws" are often the most exciting games. If you get down to the last hour of 5 days and the last two batsmen are "hanging in there", desperately fighting not to lose their wickets, and the bowling team are doing everything they can to take that wicket, then the game is truly gripping.
USA Dave - You haven't annoyed me in the slightest my friend! I don't hate cricket, in fact I enjoy it very much. I don't follow it as much as when I was younger and used to play, but I still get drawn in and glued to the occasional test series.
I just recently sat on the pavilion deck at a match on the local village green actually. A pint of cider in one hand and a cheese roll in the other. little kids were teetering on the edge of the pond, whilst feeding the ducks and the swans to the one side of me, while the patrons of the pub garden were dodging and guarding their pints from the occasional 'sixes' to the other.
I actually witnessed a direct hit on some poor guy's pint, of course this was greeted with a huge roar from the small gathering of sun baked locals. I'm still not sure if it was for the sweeping strike of the batsman or for his pin-point accuracy resulting in the destruction of our friends pint. Needless to say there was at least one person not applauding that shot.
I hope you enjoy your experience of cricket as much as I have Dave, whether it be Lords, the 'village green' or watching the T.V in your back yard. It's a little bit like marmite..you'll either love it..or you'll hate it!
Just emailed you, HF.
A little story, Dave.
Abiut 10 years ago my wife and I visited our friends in Woldingham, Surrey. We made toast in the morning and grabbed what we THOUGHT was jam.
Marmite.
I wanted to die then and there. Might have been a better option, actually.
But Im still ready to learn this Cricket thing, friends!
HF, did you get my email?
Post a Comment