• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: Tronica

The Official BL Cricket Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
It would be disapointing to see us lose this game against the saffa's...

After Hodge getting a great double ton..

I guess if the saffas sit there and block all day, they might have a hope of pulling a draw out of their ass!
 
They don't need an all rounder with so many good batsmen and bowlers. They have so many specialists!

And I think it would be disappointing if you win ;)
 
New cricket fan here, some things about the game are still a tad confusing to me? like, what's declaring and why do it, what's the rational behind it? Can you deflect the ball with your leg and not get an LBW if you don't attempt to hit the ball with the bat in the process? How many overs does a team get in their time at bat?
 
^ Well firstly in Test cricket which played is for 5 days and each team gets two innings (bats) declaring is when a team says that they have finished batting and put the other side into bat. This can be done at anytime but a team may do it if for example on the 4th day by the team batting first in their second innings has a good lead and wickets in hand so that they can try and bowl the other team out before the end of the match.

In regards to LBW you are more likely to be given out if you use your pads and make no attempt at playing a shot. So the short answer to your question is no, if the ball was going to hit the stumps but hit your pads and you didn't try to play a shot you should be given out. Unless the ball was outside the line of leg stump.

In Test cricket each team gets as many overs as they can last for without all going out or until they declare. There are usually 90 overs bowled per day.

In One Day International limited overs cricket each team gets 50 overs.

Hope that helps, it can be a somewhat confusing sport to new comers so if you have more questions or need clarification on the above, just ask.
 
Question 1: Declaring - you declare in order to force a result. If you think you have enough runs and want to bowl the other side out, and allow enough time to do so, you declare. There is also such a thing as a double declaration, but in general, the Kiwis are only sporting enough to do such a thing.

Question 2: Yes, you can deflect the ball with your leg and not attempt to play the shot if the ball pitched outside the line, or is going down leg, or was going over the top of the stumps. However, 'padding up' to a delivery, as it is called, increases your chances of being given out, and rightly so.

Question 3: Test matches - as many as they can bat for. One day games: 50 overs in general.
 
Thanx to both of you for the replies, that helps allot, but I'm still a little foggy on the declaring issue in so far as to WHY they would not just keep at bats until they were done? Doesn't declaring give the other side a chance to catch up, technically anyway? Has that ever happened? Got to admit, I hated cricket for the first 5 years I was in oz, but I watched the ashes series and something just clicked (I even bought tix for the Boxing day match ;)), now I watch whenever I can, though like I said I'm still a bit unclear on some of the concepts, rules, etc. Again, thanx for the help.
 
The reason you'd declare is because you can't win a test match unless you bowl the other side out twice. And a test match cannot go longer than 5 days. So say for example that Australia made 340 runs in their first innings, and England made 376, giving England a 36 run lead. Lets say it's now late on day 4, and Australia has put on a massive attack and are now 6 for 531, which puts them 495 runs ahead.

If they wanted to, they could continue batting for as long as they held on to their remaining 4 wickets. But the problem is that as mentioned earlier, you can't win a test match unless you bowl the other team out twice. If Australia were to bat on and ended up all out for 680, England would have no chance of winning, but neither would Australia because by then it would be half way through day 5 (the last day), and there probably wouldn't be enough time to bowl them out for the second time.

So what Australia should do is "declare their innings closed" at some stage on day 4 when they believe that they have enough of a lead to avoid actually getting beaten, but still have enough time to bowl England out. It's basically a balancing act between playing it safe and ending up with a draw, or declaring, going for the win, but risking a possible loss by giving them a chance.

Hope that made sense! :)
 
Ahhh, so, as an example, Australia declared too late against SA in the last match and that's why mit was a draw because they didn't bowl them out twice? I think I might have it! Again, thanx for the help to all who replied, I appreciate it...
 
Yep, you've pretty much got it. Australia declared kinda late because they wanted to let Hodge get his double century. However South Africa put in an exceptional effort to last the day without losing all their wickets. Notice how they blocked or padded away almost every ball on day 5 - they knew they couldn't win so their goal was to survive the day and force a draw. Normally a declaration like Australia's would have meant a fairly easy win, so full credit to RSA for holding on.
 
Doodle said:
^ Precisely. (meant for Zero the Hero)

Or some may argue that Australia simply didn't bowl well enough. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't think it was that, I think they did declare way too late. 400 runs woulda been plenty, it's pretty much an unassailabe 4th innings total, but with 4 and half sessions to bat, it's the kinda total that another team will atleast put in a decent effort to reach, however 500 runs (or 491 in this case) is pretty well totally unreachable, and with only 4 sessions to bat, most teams would play for a draw
 
Fair point, but the fact that they had an unobtainable score also meant they could of afforded to be a lot more aggressive in the field as it really didn't matter if they conceded runs.
 
yep, it was a pretty royal fuck up on both counts... I will say that it was good to let Hodge get his double ton, atleast now he'll be brimming with confidence.
 
I don't think they had much of a chance bowling them out on that wicket - with the exception of Warne. There was little in it for the quicks. And while Warne was turning it a lot, he didn't bowl all that well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top