Originally Posted by Grayling (Post 11727418)

Plenty of 'whoppers' to be found on here:lol:

Proper fishing later, and tomprrow as well.

Presumably you have been called up to open for Australia tomorrow after your spectacular performance the other day:rolleyes::lol::lol:

Originally Posted by Pollyana (Post 11727452)

Shame you three are all so busy scoring points off each other that you don't have time to share thoughts on the game with someone who is trying to get interested in it.

Originally Posted by BEVS (Post 11727393)

I might take this opportunity, during this interlude from the subject of cricket , to state that I simply do not understand the game of cricket.

Yes. I know a very hard ball is thrown in all manner of ways and that the bloke at the other end needs to not only hit the thing but then to decide to run for points or .....not which is also for points :unsure:

I have watched m'Dad play when I was a kid, but ice-cream & a picnic tea was involved in that.

So. How does cricket work other than a way to spend a Sunday afternoon.

Worth a watch? Not worth a watch?

Originally Posted by stevenglish1 (Post 11727474)

Worth a watch without a doubt, the king of sports IMO. But do yourself a favour, enjoy it for what it is, a game. A skilful, physically and mentally demanding game that can enthral or bore to death depending on how you think, but a game none the less, we're not talking the end of days if we lose ;) Might be worth getting into the 20/20 games for starters, bit of fun and you've only wasted an evening if you don't like the principles of the game. Test cricket is best though :)

Originally Posted by Pollyana (Post 11727449)

If you want a quick game where you just go for a day & want to see a result, try and get to a one day international. I know a lot of people prefer Test cricket, and I do love it myself, but not everyone has the frame of mind to sit through a multi-day game.
If you can get to a one-day game you would see both teams bat and bowl :thumbup: Well worth a watch.
To put it at its most basic, its like rounders :D One team is batting and tries to get as many runs as possible (between the wickets) the other team tries to get them out by bowling at them and catching balls. There is a lot more to it, and I will probably get slammed for reducing the game to its lowest common denominator, but if you really know nothing, thats where to start. One team bats, the other bowls & fields. Then you work up from there to start learning the tactics which come into play depending on whether its a one day game or a longer one.

Originally Posted by OzTennis (Post 11727544)

Test matches HAVE become quick games because of ummm the 'quick' games. A test match in the past normally went into the 5th day and sometimes would end in a draw. When was the last time a test match ended in a draw if there wasn't a lot of play lost through the rain? The last 9 Ashes test matches have invariably finished on day 3 or day 4. I therefore don't make the distinction between tests and the shorter forms I used to. You see plenty of kamikaze batting in tests which you rarely saw before.

Originally Posted by stevenglish1 (Post 11727548)

What he said, test cricket has been forced to reinvent itself as an exciting crowd pleaser, which can't be seen as a bad thing. Geoff Boycott anyone???

Originally Posted by stevenglish1 (Post 11727548)

What he said, test cricket has been forced to reinvent itself as an exciting crowd pleaser, which can't be seen as a bad thing. Geoff Boycott anyone???

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 11727786)

The short nature of tests, especially this Ashes, is largely down to pitch preparation suiting bowlers. Big green monsters ..... we should see another one at the Oval, the pitch traditionally that doesn't do green.

That's what England have ordered and fair enough. Its their pitches.

But it does reduce the game time, which is not good for test match cricket.

Had Australia figured out the right line and length to bowl we could have seen Nottingham and Birmingham go down in 2 days.

Originally Posted by Pollyana (Post 11727449)

To put it at its most basic, its like rounders :D

Originally Posted by OzTennis (Post 11728345)

So your theory is that pitches with a bit of seam are a completely new thing in England and when the tests lasted longer the pitches were totally benign? I still think the volume of 20 and 50 over cricket has had it's effect on test cricket batsmen.

Thanks again for the lesson on how simple the game is and what we should have done; I'm sure none of that occurred to them. In sport knowing and doing can be quite different things sometimes.

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 11728363)

You can't be Eddie the Expert in everything.

Originally Posted by Beoz (Post 11728363)

Happy to help. You might be an expert in tennis but your cricket knowledge is incredibly weak. It's nothing to be ashamed of. You can't be Eddie the Expert in everything. Happy to admit I know very little about tennis.