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

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#61

Post by stevetrewick »

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…

>just like a decent tennis player will not have difficulty returning an attempted drop shot serve.

County champ tennis player and LTA coach here. You might not see this much from tour players (though Razzano had a crack at it in Paris this year [0]) but I can assure you a well executed 'drop shot' serve will befuddle even the most experienced player. So much so that it is considered unsporting [1]. In fact, 'under hand' serving is allowed in tennis but it is conventional - though not a rule - to inform your opponent that you are doing so for this very reason.

For a quick take on why, your expectation (long serve) will be violated. While you're getting over that you'll need to be running up court (getting on for 12m depending on where you were standing to receive) starting from a stance that was balanced to go left or right. By the time you get there, you're likely going to be hitting the ball on the drop with an over extended racquet which limits your shot selection quite drastically, and the whole back of the court is now open, rendering you vulnerable to a lob or passing shot - the very things that make drop shots such an effective weapon.

I know a few players who are constantly working on their drop serves, but it is a super hard shot to play well, which is at least one of the reasons you won't see it much at pro tournaments, another being that spectators will literally boo you.

(edit: balance parens)

[0] http://m.tennis.com/photos-video/2015/05/videos-razzano-late... [1] http://m.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/07/gentlemans-disagreement...

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#62

Post by ilitirit »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBRAzmaq5x0

Gotta love a game that has fielding positions "Silly Point", "Deep Square Leg", "Cow Corner" and "Short Third Man".

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Cricketf...

Cricket is to me one of those sports that I hated the idea of playing and watching, but I always enjoyed it when I did.

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#63

Post by billforsternz »

danieltillett wrote: post #51
billforsternz wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I have never seen a single serious commentator defend the underarm delivery in this way. A few (including Greg Chappell himself) have offered up excuses, but your perspective (Greg Chappell did absolutely nothing wrong) is unique in my experience. Richie Benaud's reaction is canonical in this respect youtube.com/watch?v=mIL6KZox6Ao

The reason for near universal opprobrium is that in cricket fair play is supposed to trump strict interpretation of the rules.

I do agree with you in one respect, I didn't like Brian McKechnie's reaction either. Much more classy to remain aloof. Alternatively I would have liked to see him pick up the ball, toss it up and attempt to clear the boundary with a free hit. Why not at that stage.

Incidentally, amazingly enough McKechnie was a central figure in another one of the great national sporting controversies of the 20th century in a different sport entirely. Particularly bizarre given that he was never much more than a journeyman in either sport (cricket and rugby). On that occasion we were on the wrong side of history, or sportsmanship anyway. Andy Haden dived out of a lineout in injury time against Wales, and McKechnie kicked the penalty to retain our long unbeaten streak against the Welsh. But that's another story.

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#64

Post by danieltillett »

billforsternz wrote: post #63
danieltillett wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have never seen a single serious commentator defend the underarm delivery in this way. A few (including Greg Chappell himself) have offered up excuses, but your perspective (Greg Chappell did absolutely nothing wrong) is unique in my experience. Richie Benaud's reaction is canonical in this respect youtube.com/watch?v=mIL6KZox6Ao The reason for near universal opprobrium is that in cricket fair play is supposed to t…

Yes I do seem to be in the minority on this - I do have a love of the creative use of rules though :)

Australians seem to want to forget about the whole episode, while kiwis seem to want to bring it up everytime they can. Far worse things have happened in cricket without them getting the same attention - for example the rebel tours of South Africa in the 1980s.

Re: An Explanation of Cricket (2009)

#65

Post by billforsternz »

danieltillett wrote: post #64
billforsternz wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never seen a single serious commentator defend the underarm delivery in this way. A few (including Greg Chappell himself) have offered up excuses, but your perspective (Greg Chappell did absolutely nothing wrong) is unique in my experience. Richie Benaud's reaction is canonical in this respect youtube.com/watch?v=mIL6KZox6Ao The reason for near universal opprobrium is that in cricket fair play is supposed to t…

Yes I do seem to be in the minority on this - I do have a love of the creative use of rules though :) Australians seem to want to forget about the whole episode, while kiwis seem to want to bring it up everytime they can. Far worse things have happened in cricket without them getting the same attention - for example the rebel tours of South Africa in the 1980s.

You're right we do like to bring it up all the time. I remember watching and the anger still burns.... It's hard enough to compete with Aus in Aus without playing against a stacked deck. Example; In that game Greg Chappell was cleanly caught by a brilliant diving catch by Martin Snedden. TV replays showed it was a clean catch. At the time all convention dictated that the umpire's decision could only be "out". In those days you were supposed to trust the players to be honest. For some reason Chappell was allowed to discuss the matter with the umpires and then to stay in, and only his innings kept Aus in the game. It should really not have come down to the last ball.... To be honest that little bit of chicanery offended me more than the underarm thing. Casts a shadow over an otherwise great batsman's reputation in these parts. Perhaps it is time for me to get over it.....
Post reply on HN