The Summer Game

[rayge]

I hated playing cricket as a child, but as an adult, with the advent of colour TV, multiple cameras and all the bells and whistles, I've grown to love the long form of the game, which these days means basically Test cricket, as the county game is never on TV. Living as I do just 15 minutes walk from Somerset's county ground (where, incidentally, a women's test, England vs S. Africa began today) I really ought to give it a go, although it is an expensive day out for an impoverished pensioner like myself. I don't actually hate the short forms of cricket, but essentially they are different games.

I know I'm probably talking to myself here (although I think DF is a fan), but the new management of the English test team has really switched the game up a notch or several, and the current three-match series with the world champs, New Zealand, has just been stunning to watch.

Has anyone else noticed/ does anyone else care?

[Markus]

I'll never get cricket but i was amazed to see how much the top level guys get paid. There's some good money in it.

[DarknessFish]

Yeah, I love a spot of cricket, I just rarely get to watch any anymore since I don't have Sky TV and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of streaming via twitter in the same way there is for football. I've only been to a couple of live internationals, one test match vs Australia, and a one-dayer against NZ, but both times it's been a great day. Helps that you can drink along and not pay much attention.

From the highlights, the last test in particular seemed pretty mental, especially that first England innings. We looked to have absolutely thrown the game away before Bairstow and Overton started showing the rest of the team how easy the game is. I've never been a subscriber to the test-batsman theory that it's better to just stay in and accumulate runs over time. Play the shots, have a bit of fun and hope for the best.

[souphound]

Not my cup of tea at all. I think a lot of that has to do with what you've been exposed to, especially when growing up. I can watch a baseball game (without undue enthusiasm nowadays since we lost our home town team). The two sports are similar in many ways, but I have played and watched baseball, but not cricket.

One thing that is easily noticeable about baseball, with regards to its evolution, is that 50 years ago, there were quite a few "out of shape" players - you know, the non-athletic-looking types who for whatever reason excel at hitting a moving ball with a club. From what I can see, there are very few of those guys making it these days. Same can be said of the old time (ice) hockey goons. Their job was just to drop the gloves and get something started or retaliate for a past act. That's pretty much gone from the big leagues too.

Has cricket seen any such evolution?

[rayge]

Jun 27, 2022 15:17:43 GMT DarknessFish said:

Yeah, I love a spot of cricket, I just rarely get to watch any anymore since I don't have Sky TV and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of streaming via twitter in the same way there is for football. I've only been to a couple of live internationals, one test match vs Australia, and a one-dayer against NZ, but both times it's been a great day. Helps that you can drink along and not pay much attention.

From the highlights, the last test in particular seemed pretty mental, especially that first England innings. We looked to have absolutely thrown the game away before Bairstow and Overton started showing the rest of the team how easy the game is. I've never been a subscriber to the test-batsman theory that it's better to just stay in and accumulate runs over time. Play the shots, have a bit of fun and hope for the best.

Mental is a good word for it. Today was pretty remarkable. 130 needed to win, 7 wickets and four or five hours to get them, but sod that, bish bosh, knock them off in an hour and free up the afternoon. Bairstow got a fifty in 30 balls. It's unreal. England were set a target of 290, pretty daunting under most circumstances but never had any doubt they would get them.

[rayge]

Jun 27, 2022 15:29:01 GMT souphound said:

Not my cup of tea at all. I think a lot of that has to do with what you've been exposed to, especially when growing up. I can watch a baseball game (without undue enthusiasm nowadays since we lost our home town team). The two sports are similar in many ways, but I have played and watched baseball, but not cricket.

One thing that is easily noticeable about baseball, with regards to its evolution, is that 50 years ago, there were quite a few "out of shape" players - you know, the non-athletic-looking types who for whatever reason excel at hitting a moving ball with a club. From what I can see, there are very few of those guys making it these days. Same can be said of the old time (ice) hockey goons. Their job was just to drop the gloves and get something started or retaliate for a past act. That's pretty much gone from the big leagues too.

Has cricket seen any such evolution?

Maybe. There were a fair few portly batsmen about in the 50s and 60s, certainly - Colin Cowdrey and Colin Milburn come to mind -  a fair few rough and ready, beer and fags working class northern fast bowlers, like Fred Truman, pipe-smoking balding spin bowlers (Tony Lock), and booze, ganja, pie and curry loving all-rounders (well, maybe just Ian Botham). Not so much nowadays: since the distinction between amateurs and professionals (Gentlemen and Players, as they were quaintly known) was abolished, and the new one-day versions of the game eventually proved global TV catnip, generating a lot of money to develop the professional game, that kind of maverick, skilled but chronically unfit player has passed from the scene.

[~ / % ? *]

It seems like a nice summer time game, with a rarified aire of polo.

Quite a few of the baseball/softball batting cage practice places around here also teach/double as cricket centers. It is fascinating to watch. The biggest thing is the cricket kids tend to naively spill into the batting cage areas, not realizing the danger of the hit ball.

[rayge]

Not the case nowadays for many reasons, but when I was a young man cricket had more fatalities than rugby, boxing, football and other competitive contact sports, usually due to being hit on the head - sometimes the heart - by a bat or ball.

[Sneelock]

too many rules.
I can barely wrap my brain around baseball.

[cousinlou]

Jun 27, 2022 15:40:49 GMT rayge said:

Jun 27, 2022 15:17:43 GMT DarknessFish said:

Yeah, I love a spot of cricket, I just rarely get to watch any anymore since I don't have Sky TV and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of streaming via twitter in the same way there is for football. I've only been to a couple of live internationals, one test match vs Australia, and a one-dayer against NZ, but both times it's been a great day. Helps that you can drink along and not pay much attention.

From the highlights, the last test in particular seemed pretty mental, especially that first England innings. We looked to have absolutely thrown the game away before Bairstow and Overton started showing the rest of the team how easy the game is. I've never been a subscriber to the test-batsman theory that it's better to just stay in and accumulate runs over time. Play the shots, have a bit of fun and hope for the best.

Mental is a good word for it. Today was pretty remarkable. 130 needed to win, 7 wickets and four or five hours to get them, but sod that, bish bosh, knock them off in an hour and free up the afternoon. Bairstow got a fifty in 30 balls. It's unreal. England were set a target of 290, pretty daunting under most circumstances but never had any doubt they would get them.

 You might have well started to explain nuclear energy to me with the same result.

[Markus]

I still don't get the rules of cricket if i'm been honest. Are you looking for the most runs or wickets? Do you have a certain amount of wickets that have to be hit before you can stop the other team running? Is it timed somehow?

[DarknessFish]

Jun 27, 2022 15:29:01 GMT souphound said:

eball, with regards to its evolution, is that 50 years ago, there were quite a few "out of shape" players - you know, the non-athletic-looking types who for whatever reason excel at hitting a moving ball with a club. From what I can see, there are very few of those guys making it these days. Same can be said of the old time (ice) hockey goons. Their job was just to drop the gloves and get something started or retaliate for a past act. That's pretty much gone from the big leagues too.

Has cricket seen any such evolution?

Not many of the top level players are out of shape anymore, but you do get the occasional outlier, such as the West Indies' Rahkeem Cornwall, who topped the scales at 22 stone when he made his international debut in 2019:



Some proper world-class test players like Inzamam-ul-Haq, and ultra-Aussie 'tache demons Merv Hughes and David Boon weren't exactly skinny either.

[fonz]

Jun 27, 2022 15:58:28 GMT rayge said:

Jun 27, 2022 15:29:01 GMT souphound said:

Not my cup of tea at all. I think a lot of that has to do with what you've been exposed to, especially when growing up. I can watch a baseball game (without undue enthusiasm nowadays since we lost our home town team). The two sports are similar in many ways, but I have played and watched baseball, but not cricket.

One thing that is easily noticeable about baseball, with regards to its evolution, is that 50 years ago, there were quite a few "out of shape" players - you know, the non-athletic-looking types who for whatever reason excel at hitting a moving ball with a club. From what I can see, there are very few of those guys making it these days. Same can be said of the old time (ice) hockey goons. Their job was just to drop the gloves and get something started or retaliate for a past act. That's pretty much gone from the big leagues too.

Has cricket seen any such evolution?

Maybe. There were a fair few portly batsmen about in the 50s and 60s, certainly - Colin Cowdrey and Colin Milburn come to mind -  a fair few rough and ready, beer and fags working class northern fast bowlers, like Fred Truman, pipe-smoking balding spin bowlers (Tony Lock), and booze, ganja, pie and curry loving all-rounders (well, maybe just Ian Botham). Not so much nowadays: since the distinction between amateurs and professionals (Gentlemen and Players, as they were quaintly known) was abolished, and the new one-day versions of the game eventually proved global TV catnip, generating a lot of money to develop the professional game, that kind of maverick, skilled but chronically unfit player has passed from the scene.

Cowdrey was a true gent. I met him once. Literally everyone thought he was a lovely bloke

[rayge]

Jaysus, it's happening again. Best part of 400 runs to win, around 150 overs to get them in, and Lees and Crawley have gone hogwild, knocked off 70 in 90 balls.

[Markus]

I saw a short video of verbal handbags at recent international match. I always find that funny. A slight possible scrap in cricket? i just imagine passive aggressive polite retorts to each other.