Sidebottom has been mentioned before but where did Trott come out of?
couldn’t tell you, he just gava an interview with SNN and he has a fairly heavy south african accent…
[quote=“Shadow”]
I’m not even going to try to explain … :D[/quote]
if there was a sensible and logical explanation to a sporting contest ending in a draw while the scores at the end of it were not even remotely level, then im sure a man of your eloquence would offer it up.
Warwickshire, averaging 99 this season apparently
Unlike some other ball sports, such as soccer, rugby, gaelic football, etc, cricket does not have both teams taking turns at “offense” and “defence” for prolonged periods. As this is the case in cricket, a result cannot be declared unless both sides have had the same opportunity to score, though a team can always declare early or decline to bat twice but then it’s on their own head.
Baseball and Softball also have innings but in these games the innings are much shorter and the game must be completed whereas Test cricket is time limited and the innings are longer.
In One Day (50 Over) and Twenty20 (20 Over) matches, where a result must be had, the Duckworth Lewis method is applied. But in both of these formats there is only one innings per side.
(How about the fact that the Lions won the 3 match series 2-1 even though they were beaten on points over the series?)
Is this a serious question or a ‘pop’ at cricket?
If it’s the former, then the simplest way of explaining it is that you must bowl the opposition out twice to win a test match. Each team bats twice so that involves taking 10 wickets in each innings and 20 wickets in total. At that stage, the team with the most runs on the board wins.
In this latest 5-day test match, a considerable amount of time was lost due to rain. Australia made 263 all out in their first innings (in other words, England and Wales took 10 wickets to bowl them out) and the home side responded with 376 all out for a first innings lead of 113 runs.
Australia then commenced their second innings but they were on the back foot as there wasn’t enough time left in the game for them to make a big tally second time around (say 500 runs) and then try to bowl England and Wales out for 386 or less (remember E&W were leading by 113 runs after the first bats by each side).
So the only potentially positive result yesterday was if E&W bowled Australia out cheaply enough again (say for somewhere around 250). That would have left them with enough time to chase the 135 odd runs (250 - 113 lead from first innings) to win the game.
However, Australia batted well to ‘save’ the game yesterday. At one point, Australia were 161/4 so they were effectively only 48 runs ahead and England and Wales would have sniffed a victory if they could have got the last 6 lads out quickly. But Clarke and North batted them to safety and they finished on 375/5.
But, as neither team had taken 20 wickets, the amount of runs scored by each side was immaterial and so the game was a draw.
In laymans terms you have 5 days to win a test match. If neither team wins within 5 days then its a draw regardless of who done what in the match.
Unless you’re Hanse Cronje, in which case that’s the time allocated for you to try and lose the match.
He’ll have no problems being selected so…
There’s neither sense nor logic involved HBV, part of its beauty…
Yeah, Owais Shah seems to be completely discarded now. In decent form as well.
I like it Bandage, well put. 
[quote=“Bandage”]Is this a serious question or a ‘pop’ at cricket?
If it’s the former, then the simplest way of explaining it is that you must bowl the opposition out twice to win a test match. Each team bats twice so that involves taking 10 wickets in each innings and 20 wickets in total. At that stage, the team with the most runs on the board wins.
In this latest 5-day test match, a considerable amount of time was lost due to rain. Australia made 263 all out in their first innings (in other words, England and Wales took 10 wickets to bowl them out) and the home side responded with 376 all out for a first innings lead of 113 runs.
Australia then commenced their second innings but they were on the back foot as there wasn’t enough time left in the game for them to make a big tally second time around (say 500 runs) and then try to bowl England and Wales out for 386 or less (remember E&W were leading by 113 runs after the first bats by each side).
So the only potentially positive result yesterday was if E&W bowled Australia out cheaply enough again (say for somewhere around 250). That would have left them with enough time to chase the 135 odd runs (250 - 113 lead from first innings) to win the game.
However, Australia batted well to ‘save’ the game yesterday. At one point, Australia were 161/4 so they were effectively only 48 runs ahead and England and Wales would have sniffed a victory if they could have got the last 6 lads out quickly. But Clarke and North batted them to safety and they finished on 375/5.
But, as neither team had taken 20 wickets, the amount of runs scored by each side was immaterial and so the game was a draw.[/quote]
A bit clearer but still sounds ridiculous. Id imagine this 5 day cricket throws up a lot of draws.
After 5 days hard graft surely they could come up with a result one way or the other.
[quote=“HBV*”]A bit clearer but still sounds ridiculous. Id imagine this 5 day cricket throws up a lot of draws.
After 5 days hard graft surely they could come up with a result one way or the other.[/quote]
Yes, depending on the weather, there can be a lot of draws. County cricket (4 day I believe) throws up a lot also. But a draw is a result of sorts, inasmuch as a team in a hole after a bad start can play for a draw.
[quote=“HBV*”]A bit clearer but still sounds ridiculous. Id imagine this 5 day cricket throws up a lot of draws.
After 5 days hard graft surely they could come up with a result one way or the other.[/quote]
It does HBV, but in be 5 days of high drama. Test cricket in particular has become pretty exciting in recent years, with run rates increasing. Can be fascinating stuff, far superior to the pyjama forms of the game.
You’d wanna hear the shite that Rocko was talking about this last night. What an absolute loser.
Looks like Flintoff could be out of the fourth test with Trott taking his place, harmison likely to return as well
Freddie is definitely out according to bbc sport. If the Tans pick Trott you can see exactly what their tactics are? Lets not lose. When [not if] Mitchell Johnson starts to get the breaks the England bowlers have been getting watch this series turn on its head.
Very interesting. These back-to-back tests were always going to be a struggle for him but he’ll hopefully be able to play at The Oval after some rest. There’s now the temptation to go somewhat defensive and play the extra batsman, Trott, and only go with 4 frontline bowlers - somewhat similar to the final test in 2005 when Collingwood came in for one of the injured bowlers (Simon Jones, I think - can’t remember).
But Broad hasn’t been very threatening with the ball and an attack of Anderson, Onions, Broad and Swann looks pretty lightweight. That’s why Harmison might be considered now - they probably feel Trott batting at #6 and Prior moving down to #7 will give them enough batting depth so they can possibly afford to lose Broad’s runs lower down the order and compensate for missing Flintoff’s pace and bounce by getting Harmison in there. That said, Flower gave Broad a fair bit of praise in the media the other day too.
I earnestly await the confirmed team news.
Prior is doubtful for England now.
Clark is in for Australia, probably for Hauritz.