Hacker News Reader

Comment by bvm | Hacker News Reader

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, 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.

View on HN

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 the weather forecast is very important in test cricket)

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)

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

That's recent because, one could claim, test cricket has suffered from the loss of attention span of "kids these days" (prime example: the Ashes this year consisted of a few slightly lengthened 20/20 games and a ODI, with no test match in sight :-))

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.

The Ashes was 5 Test matches, as always: Sophia Gardens, Lord's, Edgbaston, Trent Bridge, The Oval.

You missed the sarcasm/irony/humour in the post you replied to.

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.

Test cricket is the ONLY cricket... none of this one-day nonsense ;)

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.

My favourite weird rule is the one where the bails are already broken and the stump needs to be removed from the ground to affect a run out or stumping. Nice example here from the 2011 world cup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXChmlp2g0Q

nitpicking: ... to effect a run out

Great rule indeed

it also happened last night, Australia vs England ODI on the run that brought up James Taylor's 100.

"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.

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 more than anyone else to dispel the myth of its tedium.

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.

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!

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com