Very nice SirFozzie. A nice short and complete explanation of the whole sport. It’s not complicated. Apologies for saying “throw” instead of bowl. I knew better.
Throwing versus bowling is easier to see than describe. A straight arm is all you need to know for the basics - the ICC regulation is that the elbow should bend no more than 15 degrees. Basically it’s like windmilling your arm round.
The wrist can be twisted as far as you like - that’s key for slow bowlers to get the bowl to spin, and to a lesser degree for quicker bowlers to bowl cutters.
Dennis Lillee had what was considered a pretty much perfect bowling action (for a fast bowler, slow bowlers are more complicated). Check him out on YouTube. See how many slips he has in to dismiss Knott! He was clearly going for an outside edge. But he actually gets him LBW, by changing it up and bowling different delivery - the batsman was expecting it out to his right (offside) but it came in around the centre of his body.
Glenn McGrath is another one with a lovely action - see him absolutely destroying us with a series of lethal off-cutters (balls bouncing off the ground going from the bowler’s left to right) in the first Ashes test in 2005. A lot clearer than the Lillee one, and a better demonstration really.
although this game has barely changed in what, 8 years, i still get plenty of mileage from it every couple of years.
revelling in my ashes victory over the aussies, if only i was the real life captain…
Here’s an example of what a spin bowler can do to the ball when it hits the ground:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNIUjI_LINE
There are three types of cricket matches:
TEST MATCH/FIRST CLASS: The “Long-Form” of cricket, Test Matches are between international sides (the Ashes series, for example, between Australia and England, is what’s going on right now), and First-Class matches are between county or regional sides. Test Matches can go up to five days, First-Class matches can go up to four. Both sides bat twice, and this form of the game is unique that no matter how bad one team is beating the other, unless the losing side is completely out (ie, lose 10 of their batsmen in both innings), the game is a draw.
ONE DAY CRICKET: This is the shorter traditional form of cricket: Each team has 50 overs (remember, an over=six balls, delivered from a bowler, so 300 balls), to score as many runs as possible. Once they’ve batted for 50 overs (or lost their 10 wickets), their inning is complete, and the other team tries to beat their score.
TWENTY20 CRICKET: The latest version of cricket, a game can take about 2-3 hours, which is very popular for TV and the like, each team only has 20 overs to score as many runs as possible. To many cricket purists, the game is a bastardization of their beloved game, but the fans seem to love it and the TV folks love it.
The spin bowler Shane Warne in the clip above also goes down as about the best spin bowler ever, amazing to watch even though he wasn’t on your side
Fair enough, I just thought it would be enough to say that bowling isn’t throwing.
It’s been covered, and like they say, the only real rule is that the arm be as straight as the player can physically make it.
If you’re interested there is some information about the game here. SirFozzie seems to have you covered.
Rock- I thought you were just using ‘throw’ to explain to someone who doesn’t know the game without using technical terms. I just wanted to clarify something, which ended up confusing them even more.
Addendum: How to confuse someone who doesn’t know about cricket: show them this.
Cricketers make amazing catchers too as highlighted below. Reaction times for some catches are incredible.
Ah ha, but what about theKing of Spain’s ball? Okay, it’s not as good, but it annoys the Australians if you say it is ;).
If we’re posting cricket videos though, these catches are phenomenal.
Incidentally, I’m just back from a game of cricket. We won by over a 100 runs in a 20 over game.
How is the audio commentary of the games? For me cricket is bound up with radio 3 commentators filling the airtime for days at a time with gentlemans banter. BTW BloodBowl has a set a high bar recently.
Thanks for all the clarification. I’m moving to Australia in Novemeber and learning cricket is high on my to-do list. I don’t care for Footy and MLB isn’t so easy to watch from the other side of the world.
I’ll give Ashes 2009 a whirl on 360 when I get there.
What determines when the bowler can bowl (pitch, toss, etc) at the wicket? Does he have to wait for the batsmen to be in a particular zone? Is there some kind of “set-up” signal given to indicate that everybody is ready, or is it somewhat more organic than that?
The batsman has to have taken his stance in front of the stumps before the bowler starts his run up. If there’s an issue before the delivery is made, the batsman can walk away from the stumps and the ball will be declared dead (this is typically met with boos from the crowd!). Or, the umpire can make the bowler stop part way through this run up, for example if there’s an issue with the sight screens or any other such disruption.
the bowlers Holding, the batsmans Willey.
So, that would usually happen either after the fixed number of runs were given (due to out of bounds), or because the batsmen are cowering in the wicket safe-zones to avoid being tagged out?
Also, what determines which of the 2 batsmen is bowled to? Does it depend on who’s at which wicket?
Thanks to everybody for the explanations. My wife and I have had a half-understood version of the cricket rules ever since she took a class on British colonialism in India as described through the metaphor of cricket (including watching Lagaan), but we never really knew what was going on.
Well he has to indicate if he’s going to bowl “over the wicket” (meaning his bowling hand is closest to the stumps), or “Around the Wicket” (his bowling hand is furthest from the stumps).
It’s not like baseball, where you have oodles of fiddling with batting gloves, etcetera, the batsman usually is ready well before the bowler (remember, for seam bowlers, they have a running start!)
You swap ends that you bowl at each over. (you need at least two bowlers, you cannot bowl two overs in a row…) Here’s an example
(Bowler A) x --------y (Bowler B)
For the first over, Bowler A will bowl towards y. It doesn’t matter WHICH batsman is there… he’s going to bowl six balls that way. So, if an odd amount of runs are scored, then the batsman will change mid-over.
For the second over, bowler B will bowl towards x, back and forth, etcetera
I think I understand your phrasing, and therefore “yes”.
Also, what determines which of the 2 batsmen is bowled to? Does it depend on who’s at which wicket?
The only time this is arbitrary is when the innings first start, and it’s over to the first two batsmen as to who faces the very first delivery. After that, it’s all ordained by the run of play.
When a boundary is scored (four or six runs) the batsmen return to their original positions.
You don’t bowl to a specific batsman per se, you bowl to one of the two wickets for one over (normally starts pavilion side, doesn’t it?). So one bowler bowls six balls to one end, then another bowler (can’t bowl two consecutive overs) bowls to the other end.
The batsmen run between the wickets themselves, so say a batsman hits it and calls for a run. He runs to the opposite wicket and his partner runs to his wicket. Whoever is at the wicket receiving the bowling that over then bats, so you can bowl to a different batsman potentially every ball. Every over is bowled to one of the wickets, 'though. For another run, they run back to their positions and so on.
You can’t tag a player with the ball. That’s bad sportsmanship and I haven’t personally seen it happen. In order for a running batsman to be out (if not caught etc) the opposition have to knock the bails off the stumps (bits balancing on sticks respectively) of one of the wickets before the batsman running toward those wickets is in (reaches the marked-out area). I think you’re going for a baseball comparison there but I’m not sure. It’s the word ‘cowering’ that’s confusing me for some reason.
Addendum: Damn it, type faster boy.
Thanks all! I had the impression that the batsman being bowled to could change mid-over but didn’t understand the mechanism by which that would work. I think I understand it now though.
I apparently misunderstood the way wickets function (while running), so the “cowering” comments didn’t make sense, but I have a slightly better grasp now (ie I think I could watch a match and figure out specific points of confusion instead of just being generally mystified).
Thanks again.
Simple - the batsman changes in mid-over if they score one or three runs. If they hit two runs, obviously they both run to the other wicket and then back again, so the same batsman is at the wicket being bowled to.
I think the basics of cricket are simple to grasp if you sit down and watch it with a very vague idea of what’s going on (more so than, say, American football), but it has probably the most confusing terminology of any mainstream sport and the most of it to boot. It’s like learning Japanese - you should stop looking for analogues with what you’re used to, because the overall ruleset is so different that you’ll trip up.
I’m going to play this Ashes game listening to the Test Match Special on 5 Live. I suggest everyone does the same.
You may not be able to get TMS from BBC if you live in the US…
The Ashes Series is a five match series, currently they’re about to play the final Test, the series is tied 1-1 (with two draws). Now the strategy comes in to play, since Australia currenty hold the Ashes, they do not need to win the match to keep the trophy. England DO have to win, and thus it’s an interesting difference in strategy.
The England player to watch is Andrew “Freddie” Flintoff. He’s a… unique player, he can make a difference both bowling and batting. He’s… got somewhat of a mystique about him, he made a huge difference in the last English Ashes series win, in 2005. Then they made him captain in 2007 when they played the series in Australia, and they got swept. He’s a bit like Babe Ruth, Larger then Life, figuratively and literally.
The reason why it’s so interesting is that he announced before the Ashes series that he was going to retire from first-class and Test cricket, because his body pretty much can’t play four/five days with any regularity. He missed the Fourth Test (which England got killified in), due to a knee injury. So, it’s set up for the Hollywood ending…