An Explanation of Cricket (2009)
cs.purdue.edu
cs.purdue.edu
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!
"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]
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, where you can keep up in a state of semi-aware engagement. Test cricket doesn't require complete concentration, just a willingness to know what is going on.
Draws can be very interestng even if the teams involved have widely different strengths.
Ties in test cricket are extremely rare. There were 2 in over 2000 tests since 1877.(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tied_Test)
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.
In the period from 1950-2000, 40% of games ended in a draw (http://www.espncricinfo.com/blogs/content/story/629608.html)
Also, even 20% is huge for readers from the U.S, where the whole concept of undecided games is rare.
Once you know the rules (easy* ) and start to understand the strategy (hard) then test cricket is fascinating and pretty exciting!
* The easy rules are easy, then there about a thousand weird rules that hark back to ol' England. You take "tea" for example. Though my favourite is that if a ball is damaged or goes missing in the middle of a game, they go down to a kind of ball library and choose other balls that would be in similar condition (ball condition is extremely important and plays a major part in game strategy). Then both team captains must decide which of the candidates should be used.
it also happened last night, Australia vs England ODI on the run that brought up James Taylor's 100.
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.
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.
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.
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
In New Zealand in the months following the underarm disgrace, my ten-year-old friends would establish the rules for our games of backyard cricket by asking, "proper bowling or Australian rules?"
1. For those that don't know the history of the underarm delivery, in a match between Australia and New Zealand the final ball was bowled underarm so the batsman had no chance of hitting the ball over the fence for 6. This was the only way NZ could win. For historical reasons bowling underarm had been allowed, but it had not been used for more than 100 years.
Edit. There have been some changes to the rules so you can't let a ball bounce more than twice now [2]. You should be able to bowl very slowly though.
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 when the ball arrives slightly later at ~70mph rather than the expected ~85mph. But you're not going to catch them out with a gentle 30mph lob down the pitch, 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...
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
I agree, however, that what we are discussing is a matter of opinion.
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.
Cricket has experienced no other disruption prior or since.
The reason Twenty20 was incremental was because it took an entrepreneur like Packer, with connections and money, to prove that cricket could even be changed in the first place.
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.
I grew up playing cricket.I recently broke my foot playing after not having played for 15 years(collided with an idiot that ran across the pitch close to my crease to backup the wicket in an attempt to run me out).
Go West Indies(we sure aren't what we use to be)!!
I feel like cousin avi from snatch here, that or rick in that it appears like you're just shuffling english words together in a sentence.