Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

cs.purdue.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 66 posts

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#31

Post by danieltillett »

notahacker wrote: post #30
danieltillett wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have always wondered why we have not had a repeat of the underarm delivery [1], but just done by bowling overarm very, very slowly. As far as I know there is no rule in how fast the ball has to be bowled and if you bowled very slowly the ball would reach the batsman rolling along the ground. 1. For those that don't know the history of the underarm delivery, in a match between Australia and New Zealand the final bal…

A very slow ball with no spin is very easy to hit for six, especially if you're delivering the ball with an unnatural movement so the batsman knows your intention from your arm movement. Fast bowlers bowling towards the end of limited overs cricket and facing aggressive attacking shots actually do bowl occasional "slower balls" using their normal delivery stride to try to catch out opponents who tend to mistime shots…

I wouldn’t say it was easy to hit a slow ball that is on or near the ground for 6, especially if the bowler hides their intention by releasing the ball out of the back of their hand.

Letting the ball bounce twice was effective enough that the ECC banned it for county cricket just recently so obviously someone had the same clever idea as me :)

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#32

Post by kristianc »

Someone wrote: post #13
bvm wrote: post #10

Test cricket (international matches played over five days) is a truly wonderful experience that I urge everyone to try and watch* at least once. When you try and explain that the most engaging of matches can end in a draw, after all that time, you rarely succeed on winning over sceptics, but find a friend that is willing to sit and watch for a few days and try it out. *or listen to, it's equally at home on the radio,…

For those who don't know it: in cricket, a draw is different from a tie. A tie means both teams are equally strong, a draw that no conclusion could be reached because time ran out, either because the weaker team managed to postpone defeat long enough or because of the weather (playing in bad light or in rain makes the game too dangerous, so play can get stopped, even when one team is on the brink of victory. Watching…

Draws in Test Cricket are also fairly rare. In recent years, 75% of matches have ended in four days.

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#33

Post by yagibear »

bvm wrote: post #10

Test cricket (international matches played over five days) is a truly wonderful experience that I urge everyone to try and watch* at least once. When you try and explain that the most engaging of matches can end in a draw, after all that time, you rarely succeed on winning over sceptics, but find a friend that is willing to sit and watch for a few days and try it out. *or listen to, it's equally at home on the radio,…

"doesn't require complete concentration" is key. Many people new to watching cricket expect continuous stimulation, which it is not. It is more a meditative repetitive cycle of spaced intense activity. And it's amazing how many jobs you can get done in 30second ad breaks between overs.

People who compare cricket to baseball ("baseball on valium" as Robin Williams said) generally miss the variety that is made possible by bouncing the ball off the pitch, which greatly enriches the sport.

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#34

Post by notahacker »

j_lev wrote: post #29
redindian75 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what about the latest craze T20? It's a multibillion dollar industry! Tho I am too much of a purist to watch it often, Its far more monetarily successful than the last disruption. Its tailor made for 2000s generation who dont want to sit thro a whole day to enjoy cricket

incremental improvement

It pays vastly more than Test and One Day cricket, has radically shifted the balance between batting attack and defence (including in the One Day Cricket played today) by making strike rates matter more than batting averages, has made superstars of players that would have previously been considered severely lacking in defensive technique, encouraged athletic fielding and made Indian franchises an attractive and lucrative destination for overseas players. And probably made generations of kids grow up not wanting to be bowlers! That's a pretty radical set of changes.

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#36

Post by afhammad »

CuttlefishXXX wrote: post #25
bmsleight_ wrote: post #5

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side thats been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and whe…

Does anyone know of a good audio recording of this quote?

quote starts at 1:16

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNdCnkKhitI

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#37

Post by notahacker »

Someone wrote: post #13
bvm wrote: post #10

Test cricket (international matches played over five days) is a truly wonderful experience that I urge everyone to try and watch* at least once. When you try and explain that the most engaging of matches can end in a draw, after all that time, you rarely succeed on winning over sceptics, but find a friend that is willing to sit and watch for a few days and try it out. *or listen to, it's equally at home on the radio,…

For those who don't know it: in cricket, a draw is different from a tie. A tie means both teams are equally strong, a draw that no conclusion could be reached because time ran out, either because the weaker team managed to postpone defeat long enough or because of the weather (playing in bad light or in rain makes the game too dangerous, so play can get stopped, even when one team is on the brink of victory. Watching…

Only us Brits would invent a game decided largely by the weather.

Quite apart from rescuing a side in a desperate position by raining for two whole days, even slight changes in atmospheric conditions significantly affect the difficulty of batting for reasonably evenly matched professional sides.

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#39

Post by billforsternz »

danieltillett wrote: post #19
praneshp wrote: post #4

> "The most infamous event in cricket was the 1932-33 English tour of Australia " Many fans of the game would likely disagree; personally, a couple of match fixing scandals and the underarm delivery vs New Zealand were worse. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkQRERykq5M

I have always wondered why we have not had a repeat of the underarm delivery [1], but just done by bowling overarm very, very slowly. As far as I know there is no rule in how fast the ball has to be bowled and if you bowled very slowly the ball would reach the batsman rolling along the ground. 1. For those that don't know the history of the underarm delivery, in a match between Australia and New Zealand the final bal…

> This was the only way NZ could win

Not quite. The only way NZ could tie. Although the whole thing was deeply traumatic at the time, the incident in fact was an absolute net win for NZ. Reason: In any dispute, irrespective of the details, we can simply reference underarm bowling and immediately claim the moral high ground whilst simultaneously making big brother squirm.

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#40

Post by cam- »

CuttlefishXXX wrote: post #25
bmsleight_ wrote: post #5

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side thats been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and whe…

Does anyone know of a good audio recording of this quote?

It used to be on tea towels that you could buy for a dollar when you were on vacation in Foster-Tuncurry.
Post reply on HN