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

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#51

Post by danieltillett »

billforsternz wrote: post #39
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…

> 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.

I have never understood the huge fuss about the underarm delivery. It was legal and just showed that Greg Chappell knew the rules. The way the NZ batsman (I have forgotten who he was) chucked a wobbly and threw his bat away was worse as it is actually contrary to the rules.

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#52

Post by windowsworkstoo »

flashman wrote: post #46
yagibear wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

When watching cricket on television, the commentary team is crucial. One of the greatest commentary teams of modern times is generally acknowledged to have consisted of Richie Benaud, Tony Greig, Ian Chappell, and Bill Lawry. From Benaud's understated command of the game's history and personalities, to Lawry's excitable tone and banter with Greig, these four men anchored decades of cricket coverage and may have done…

Yes, and unfortunately now we have a mob of idiots in the Channel 9 Commentary box. ABC Grandstand radio all the way....

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#53

Post by mc32 »

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…

In the same vein:

"The missile knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the missile from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't. In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the missile is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the missile must also know where it was.

The missile guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the missile has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error."

Audio on yt[1]

[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZe5J8SVCYQ

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#54

Post by carpo »

yagibear wrote: post #33
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…

When I was young, our concentration would always lapse. We would watch the first hour or so, then start itching to play, so we'd run outside and have our own game of cricket in the backyard. Mum would yell if a wicket was taken, and we'd rush back to the lounge room to watch the replay. Good times!

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#56

Post by batiudrami »

redindian75 wrote: post #28
j_lev wrote: post #24

Cricket is a great example of where disruption created a larger pie for the incumbent. Kerry Packer popularised the One Day International at a time where the (five day) Tests were on their last legs, which in turn re-ignighted interest in the Tests. Cricket has experienced no other disruption prior or since.

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

The funny thing is I love Test cricket and I love T20 - but have no time for One Dayers. Even though it was created first, it just strikes me as being the worst of both worlds.

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#57

Post by [deleted] »

notahacker wrote: post #37
Someone wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#58

Post by dwd »

windowsworkstoo wrote: post #52
flashman wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When watching cricket on television, the commentary team is crucial. One of the greatest commentary teams of modern times is generally acknowledged to have consisted of Richie Benaud, Tony Greig, Ian Chappell, and Bill Lawry. From Benaud's understated command of the game's history and personalities, to Lawry's excitable tone and banter with Greig, these four men anchored decades of cricket coverage and may have done…

Yes, and unfortunately now we have a mob of idiots in the Channel 9 Commentary box. ABC Grandstand radio all the way....

I would take Agnew, Blofeld and co. any day over the Ch.9 commentary. Cake anyone?

If you go to the game it's more about the drinking and general atmosphere. Not many sporting events can match Boxing Day at the G.

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#59

Post by dwd »

trequartista wrote: post #2

This is like Cricket 101 - a wonderful introduction to the rules of cricket. However, this is from 2009 and as such slightly dated. Recent years have seen the explosion of Twenty20 (20 over games - shorter and supposedly more entertaining) as well as other innovations like Batting and Bowling powerplays and so on.

There's an error regarding bowling. The bowlers arm does not have to be straight; the law is that you must not straighten it during the bowling action. Muralitharan who bowled with a bent arm was the reason we have a 15deg rule.

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#60

Post by lucozade »

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,…

Indeed. I took a few sceptical European friends to a game in an English village while I was at university.

We spent a lovely afternoon sitting on the grass, drinking good beer, having a nap and chatting amiably to the players (whilst they were playing). All without missing anything important in the game.

Result? 100% conversion. And once they discovered the joys of TMS? True believers.

Post reply on HN