The Ashes 2010/2011 thread

leighton said:
It is a bit stupid that when you play for as long as they do in test cricket that they cant get a winner out of the match. No wonder a lot of people think that the test game is stupid or boring. Maybe a change in the rules would sort it out and give it a more attacking game. Or simplely whoever scored the most over those 5 days just get the win no matter what happens.
Click to expand...

In fairness test cricket has changed a lot over the last 10 or 15 years. Teams tend to score runs at a quicker rate than they perhaps used to, which in turn has added to the excitement somewhat. However, it can still be a real war of attrition at times but slow scoring doesn't always equate to boring cricket. I remember an Ashes test match at Lords in 1993. Australia were the dominant force in that series and were well on top in that particular test but Mike Atherton put up a tremendous rearguard action. In the 2nd innings he successfully dealt with Australia's devastating pace attack and the mesmerising spin of Shane Warne and never remotely looked like getting out while the rest of his team-mates collapsed like the proverbial house of cards. There were moments in his innings when he had to fend off ball after ball without adding to his score, but nonetheless he was closing in on a heroic century when he was cruelly and unexpectedly run out on 99 after turning and slipping when making the final run that would have given him his ton. With it went any chance England had of saving the game but it was still a great spectacle seeing such a fantastic innings when the odds were so heavily stacked against him.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RROnrYzRhBs" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RROnrYzRhBs</a>
 
M18CTID said:
In fairness test cricket has changed a lot over the last 10 or 15 years. Teams tend to score runs at a quicker rate than they perhaps used to, which in turn has added to the excitement somewhat. However, it can still be a real war of attrition at times but slow scoring doesn't always equate to boring cricket. I remember an Ashes test match at Lords in 1993. Australia were the dominant force in that series and were well on top in that particular test but Mike Atherton put up a tremendous rearguard action. In the 2nd innings he successfully dealt with Australia's devastating pace attack and the mesmerising spin of Shane Warne and never remotely looked like getting out while the rest of his team-mates collapsed like the proverbial house of cards. There were moments in his innings when he had to fend off ball after ball without adding to his score, but nonetheless he was closing in on a heroic century when he was cruelly and unexpectedly run out on 99 after turning and slipping when making the final run that would have given him his ton. With it went any chance England had of saving the game but it was still a great spectacle seeing such a fantastic innings when the odds were so heavily stacked against him.
Click to expand...

True, for similar reasons Ponting's ton at Old Trafford in 05 is the greatest 100 I've seen. You've got to respect the character of Ponting. He was under so much pressure that day and turned out that performance.
 
dannybcity said:
M18CTID said:
In fairness test cricket has changed a lot over the last 10 or 15 years. Teams tend to score runs at a quicker rate than they perhaps used to, which in turn has added to the excitement somewhat. However, it can still be a real war of attrition at times but slow scoring doesn't always equate to boring cricket. I remember an Ashes test match at Lords in 1993. Australia were the dominant force in that series and were well on top in that particular test but Mike Atherton put up a tremendous rearguard action. In the 2nd innings he successfully dealt with Australia's devastating pace attack and the mesmerising spin of Shane Warne and never remotely looked like getting out while the rest of his team-mates collapsed like the proverbial house of cards. There were moments in his innings when he had to fend off ball after ball without adding to his score, but nonetheless he was closing in on a heroic century when he was cruelly and unexpectedly run out on 99 after turning and slipping when making the final run that would have given him his ton. With it went any chance England had of saving the game but it was still a great spectacle seeing such a fantastic innings when the odds were so heavily stacked against him.
Click to expand...

True, for similar reasons Ponting's ton at Old Trafford in 05 is the greatest 100 I've seen. You've got to respect the character of Ponting. He was under so much pressure that day and turned out that performance.
Click to expand...

That was indeed a tremendous innings - when he finally got out we were left with 4 overs to get the last wicket but didn't quite manage it :(
 
dannybcity said:
If people want to think it's boring leave them to it, it's there loss.
Click to expand...

A game lasting 5 days and no winner. I'm wetting myself with excitement at the thought of watching that again.
 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JojnoSO4MDc[/youtube]


as hostiles as it gets- gripping stuff.
 
Im only young so didnt get to see much of Mcgrath and didnt see any of the top West Indians but this is the best over of bowling ive ever seen.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2UnMxR3IM[/youtube]
 
anybody got a copy of that piece explaining cricket to a yank?

'the team thats out, tries to get the team thats 'in' out. When the team that's in is 'out', the team thats out tries to get the team that's in, but was out, out .. something like that... funny as fuck!

-- Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:49 pm --

anybody got a copy of that piece explaining cricket to a yank?

'the team thats out, tries to get the team thats 'in' out. When the team that's in is 'out', the team thats out tries to get the team that's in, but was out, out .. something like that... funny as fuck!

====================

Found it


The Basic "Rules" of Cricket:

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in, until he's out.

When they are all out, the side that's out comes in, and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.

When both sides have been in and out, including the not outs, that's the end of the game.

Source: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.neforum2.co.uk/smf/cricket/the-rules-of-cricket-(just-for-americans" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.neforum2.co.uk/smf/cricket/t ... -americans</a>)/#ixzz16i87uFW8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.