After seeing so many cricket threads on this board which I do not understand, seeing so many cricket results in English newspapers and on BBC World which I do not have the faintest idea what mean, I'm turning to my fellow posters who maybe can explain a little bit about this sport. I've learned a bit myself, but I'm struggling with the following points:

1) Can a batsman hit the ball and not run?

2) I think I've seen somewhere that results are given like "Australia beat England by 8 wickets and 38 overs". I understand that 8 wickets mean that Australia have 8 batters left, but what does the 38 overs mean?

3) What are the differences between five-day and one-day internationals?

4) How are runs given for extras?

5) What, exactly, is an over?

1) Yes - especially if English. We specialise in hitting the ball and being caught by the wicket-keeper.

2) They had 8 wickets left / or 38 overs still to go when the game was won (in a limited over game)
Of course England beating Australia by 10 wickets is something no-one would understand

3) Um - 4 days.

Test matches are played over 5 days, 2 innings each - game ends when time is up - if no-one has won, it's a draw.
One day matches are played over a ficxed number of overs each - usually 50, one innings each. Highest score wins.

4) One run for no-balls and wides (more if run more), however many you run for leg byes and byes (4 if reaches boundary, 0 if dont run).

5) 6 balls. Bowled from alternate ends by different bowlers.

Hat-trick = 3 wickets in 3 balls - see also below
Batting collapse = England batting
Dropped catch = England Fielding
Spectators ducking = England Bowling

As you may tell I'm not too optimistic about our chances against Australia.....

1) Yes, he is under no obligation to run.

4) One run for no-balls and wides is added to the team's score, but not that of the batsman. Can be as many as run for byes and leg byes.

5) An over is six balls. A bowler bowls one over, then another bowler bowls an over from the other end.

2) and 3)

A five day international is a Test Match. This is true cricket, and the most respected. In this, each team has a maximum of two innings (turns to bat). For the match not be a draw, the team with the fewer runs has to have completed both of their innings.

E.g. - Australia bat first, score 200 :D
England go in and score 150 :(
Australia then go in for their second innings and make only 100.
Now, England will need to score 151 to win the match. It doesn't matter if they haven't completed their second innings when they pass the Aussies' total, becasue the Aussies cannot bat again.

Consider this, however:

Australia - 300
England - 300
Australia - 200

If, at the end of five days, England are still in their second innings,and have scored, say 150, then the match is a draw. England have scored fewer runs than the Aussies, but becasue England are still in - i.e. Australia haven't been able to get them all out - England have gained a draw. If England had scored more, then they would have won - see previous scenario - if Australia had bowled out England for less than 200 (the differnece between the teams) Australia would have won.

A one-day match is where each team has a certain number of overs (usually around 45-50) in which to score as many as they can. At the end of the allotted overs, the other turn has a turn regardless of the number of wickets lost by the first team. However, as soon as team has lost its ten wickets, that is the end of their innings, whether they've had 4 or 40 overs.

EDIT - Add this to Col's post. See if it makes any sense...

Thanks, Col and pillager. It does seem to make a bit more sense now, although I think you have to be of a cricket-playing nation to understand all the rules. In Norway, we opened our first cricket pitch last year - we had to, because of Pakistanis who have migrated into our country. I should try to watch them some time. Who knows, maybe in ten thousand years we'll be able to beat Bangladesh ;).

Ooh, steady on. Don't set your targets too high. I'd suggest starting with England before getting up to the level of Bangladesh.

Originally posted by Pillager
Ooh, steady on. Don't set your targets too high. I'd suggest starting with England before getting up to the level of Bangladesh.

A more true thing was never said. Losing to a joke side in a friendly is rather bad. :evil:

Losing to a joke side in a friendly is rather bad.
Not if you lose with dignity.
I'd suggest starting with England before getting up to the level of Bangladesh.
I suggest starting with England and never leaving. That way you will be guarantee victory almost every time (we may manage to get a draw here or there especially if we are playing in England and the weather is bad).

There is something about an Englishman creating a sport that stops for rain that I never could understand. However it seems that Englishman had a lot of foresight. Bad weather is practically our only hope of drawing.

Anyone know of a good site that will teach me cricket rules? A cricket for idiots if you will?

Originally posted by cameramano
Anyone know of a good site that will teach me cricket rules? A cricket for idiots if you will?

http://www-uk.cricket.org/link_to_database/ABOUT_CRICKET/EXPLANATION/


The above link is one of the best. It's even got 'Cricket for Americans', which is quite humorous. It tries to compare it to baseball, which might help you understand it better.

Happy reading....

From the link in the section explaining cricket to Americans:
teams are called "sides"
:lol: That one puzzled me for a while too.
"different strokes for different blokes"
Never heard of that saying.
scoring one run, this is called a "single."
A single means scoring one run?!? Will the shocks never cease?
You can bowl overarm or underarm
Underarm?

Originally posted by MrPresident
From the link in the section explaining cricket to Americans:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"different strokes for different blokes"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Never heard of that saying.



No, nor I; and I'm not sure I want to know any more about it.

Originally posted by MrPresident
Underarm?

I thought you couldn't bowl underarm ever since the infamous NZ vs Aus incident a while back.

What was that incident? I'm a bit curious.

Oh, and England was lucky again v Western Australia - the match ended in a draw although WA had 120 runs more (I suspect this is something of the charm with cricket)

Originally posted by Håkon
What was that incident? I'm a bit curious.

Okay, this is all what my grandad has told me, and with him being 71 years old it might not be 100% accurate :D.

It happened in a New Zeleand vs Australia test match at least 25 years ago (not sure of exact date).

Aus needed only 1 or 2 runs to take the match and they had a good few wickets in hand, but because it wasn't long until stumps (end of day's play) on day 5 they only had 3-4 overs to get the runs in. Still a very easy task though, only 2 runs from 30 odd balls isn't askinf for much and the Aussie batsmen were cruising at this point so were easily going to make it everyone thought. But then the NZ captain had a brilliant idea.

He orderd two of his bowlers to bowl underarm very slowly, so it bounces 3-4 times down the wicket a a mind numbingly slow speed. The Aus batsmen just couldn't get any power into their shots since the ball was so low and going so slowly, they cold barley get it off the square. NZ bowled 4 maidens and the test match was drawn. Australia later lodged a complaint to the ICC (International Cricket Council, the equivilant of FIFA or IOC), but they sad there was nothing in the rules saying you couldn't bowl in such a manner. But to prevent any future problems, the ICC changed the rules so you had to bowl overarm and the ball could only bounce a maximum of 2 times down the wicket.

I think ;).

Bzzz! Wrong. :p

It was in a one day international game played in Australia, at the MCG in 1978, or thereabouts. It was in the finals of the tri-series, and Australia was already in front, and did not want to lose the game, as then they would have to travel for the decider.
As such, they wanted to win the game. It became close as the game went on, with New Zealand chasing an Australian total.
The Australian captain, Greg Chappell, had his brother Trevor bowl the final over. The equation came down to New Zealand needing a six off the last ball to tie the game, and survive in the series. On strike was New Zealand tailender Brian McKechnie, a former rugby player capable of giving the leather a hefty whack
Chappell called over the umpires, and indicated that he was going to have Trevor bowl the last ball underarm. His reasoning is that it would be impossible to hit such a delivery for six.
(His elder brother, former captain Ian, was in the commentary box, IIRC, along with Richie Benaud)
To the amazement of the crowd, T. Chappell ran in and bowled the last delivery slowly along the ground. McKechnie blocked it with a flourishing defensive shot, and then hurled his bat away in disgust.
Big amount of fuss kicked up in New Zealand, and Greg Chappell attracted much criticism.
There was no ICC at that time, under that name.
The action was within the letter of the law, but against the spirit of the game, and was subsequently banned. Not that anyone has since even thought of doing it, nor had it made an appearence at international level before the incident.

So, mordheim got it utterly wrong, proving the Australian excellence in cricket extends beyond the boundary :D

Originally posted by Håkon
Oh, and England was lucky again v Western Australia - the match ended in a draw although WA had 120 runs more (I suspect this is something of the charm with cricket)

Draw here is of a different meaning than you would find in other sports; it does not imply a tie, or an even sharing of the game. It means that a result has not occured. In the situation of this game, it was a short game, of only 2 days.
This is a pointless exercise, in my opinion, as there is little to no hope of a result in that time. Tests are played over 5 days, and first class cricket over 4.
This is not to let England off the rack; they batted disgracefully, and allowed an understrength first class side to totally outclass them.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
So, mordheim got it utterly wrong, proving the Australian excellence in cricket extends beyond the boundary :D

Eh, close enough :D.

Originally posted by Håkon
What was that incident? I'm a bit curious.

Oh, and England was lucky again v Western Australia - the match ended in a draw although WA had 120 runs more (I suspect this is something of the charm with cricket)

A draw in cricket is different to a draw in just about any other sport.

In cricket you can have 5 outcomes;

1. Win (or Loss)
2. Tie - both sides score exactly the same number of runs.
3. Draw - no result at the end of the alloted time/overs.
4. No Result - Something happened to stop the game prior to it becoming official.
5. Abandoned - Game never started.