The Battle for the Ashes: who will win?

[DerSchwarzfalke]

Cricket is the only thing wikipedia has failed to teach me. It is a sport I have resigned myself to never understanding.

[Kontiki]

I don't think it's an actual sport. It's just an excuse to insert random, sometimes meaningless words into sentences to confuse non-Brits, or those whose greatest achievement was being colonized by the Brits.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by St Leo
Has a sofa materialized on the playing field yet?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by DerSchwarzfalke
Cricket is the only thing wikipedia has failed to teach me. It is a sport I have resigned myself to never understanding.

Two teams of eleven players. They each take turns to have one "Innings" in which one team bowls/fields, while the other bats.

There are two batters on the field, taking position at the opposing wickets. One is bowled at. If he gets the chance, he can run so that the two batsmens change ends. If they make it, without the ball hitting the wicket before they arrive, they score a "run". They can keep running and score more "runs" if they get the chance.

There are other rules, but those are the basics.

[Alexander's Horse]

don't give the secrets away

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Kontiki
I don't think it's an actual sport. It's just an excuse to insert random, sometimes meaningless words into sentences to confuse non-Brits, or those whose greatest achievement was being colonized by the Brits.

But that is exactly why it is such an incredible sport to watch on BBC television. "Oh, look at him mphfoobleflfling the ball", in Her Majesty's best English...

[Alexander's Horse]

its very relaxing to watch

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
its very relaxing to watch

Only if you have no idea what's going on and with a lot of sixpacks nearby...

Referee's checking the door...

[Straybow]

Obviously we need a whatthehelliscricket dot com website.

[Hueij]

Originally posted by Straybow
Obviously we need a whatthehelliscricket dot com website.

We don't, it'll take the charm out of the sport...

"ooh, just in the nick of time." "Yes, but look at that jump."

[Lung]

You'd have to be stupid to not be able to understand cricket. Mostly it comes from descriptions such as

"One side goes out to bat, while the other goes out to field. The side that goes out to bat sends 2 players out to bat, whereby they stay out until they get out, when they then go in, to be replaced by another batsman who goes out until he gets out. Once they all get out, they go in, along with the other team who goes in, having been sent in to bat. They then send two players out to bat until they get out, whereby they than go in....." etc...

That would confuse anybody. A simpler version is...

"One side bats in order to score as many runs as possible, while the other attempts to stop them by getting all of their batsment out. They do so by bowling to the batsmen and trying to hit their stumps or get them caught off their bat. Meanwhile, the batsmen try to hit the ball to score runs, by getting to the other end before the bowling side can hit the stumps with the ball".

There are many rules about batting and bowling, and other ways to get them out and score runs, but until you understand the first part, there's no point explaining the rest!

[Alexander's Horse]

nah I think cricket is a game you need to grow up with to really appreciate.

For example there is always an immense amount going on, almost too much to process at any given time, and this is why people can watch or listen to the game for hours on end totally engrossed and fascinated by it, but it seems to the uninitiated that nothing is happening.

[Lung]

You mean something is actually happening?!!!

The funny thing is that Yanks think its slow, yet they watch Baseball and American Football which is more standing around talking than actually playing anything. They give us a run for our money when it comes to slow sports

Go the Aussies. I see they put the Poms in place yesterday. The best part of it was that the pommie batsmen were ****scared of Brett Lee

[Alexander's Horse]

Australia innings (50 overs maximum) R M B 4 6
+AC Gilchrist c Jones b Tremlett 18 38 31 2 0
ML Hayden c Jones b Flintoff 39 94 56 5 0
*RT Ponting c Giles b Harmison 27 51 40 4 0
DR Martyn not out 68 118 81 3 0
A Symonds run out (Trescothick) 73 94 81 4 2
MEK Hussey c Collingwood b Flintoff 5 9 10 0 0
SR Watson not out 11 7 7 1 0
Extras (lb 12, w 7, nb 6) 25
Total (5 wickets, 50 overs, 211 mins) 266

DNB: GB Hogg, JN Gillespie, B Lee, GD McGrath.

FoW: 1-44 (Gilchrist, 9.1 ov), 2-95 (Ponting, 20.2 ov),
3-96 (Hayden, 21.1 ov), 4-238 (Symonds, 45.2 ov),
5-247 (Hussey, 47.5 ov).

Bowling O M R W
Gough 10 0 41 0 (3nb)
Tremlett 9 0 53 1 (1nb, 1w)
Harmison 9 2 44 1 (2nb, 2w)
Flintoff 10 0 55 2 (3w)
Giles 9 1 44 0 (1w)
Collingwood 3 0 17 0

England innings (target: 267 runs from 50 overs) R M B 4 6
*ME Trescothick c Gilchrist b McGrath 0 23 15 0 0
AJ Strauss b Lee 3 17 13 0 0
VS Solanki c Ponting b Hogg 34 87 69 2 0
PD Collingwood b McGrath 0 1 2 0 0
A Flintoff c Gillespie b Hogg 44 90 61 6 0
KP Pietersen c Hussey b Symonds 19 37 28 2 0
+GO Jones c Hayden b Watson 23 45 30 2 0
AF Giles c Symonds b Lee 4 4 3 1 0
CT Tremlett c Hussey b Gillespie 8 25 18 0 0
D Gough not out 46 50 47 7 0
SJ Harmison not out 11 37 17 0 0
Extras (lb 8, w 6, nb 3) 17
Total (9 wickets, 50 overs, 217 mins) 209

FoW: 1-4 (Strauss, 4.3 ov), 2-6 (Trescothick, 5.1 ov),
3-6 (Collingwood, 5.3 ov), 4-85 (Solanki, 24.4 ov),
5-94 (Flintoff, 26.6 ov), 6-123 (Pietersen, 33.4 ov),
7-133 (Giles, 34.5 ov), 8-145 (Jones, 37.6 ov),
9-159 (Tremlett, 40.5 ov).

Bowling O M R W
Lee 10 2 27 2 (1nb, 4w)
McGrath 10 1 31 2 (1nb)
Gillespie 9 0 36 1 (1w)
Watson 8 0 51 1 (1nb, 1w)
Hogg 6 0 19 2
Symonds 7 0 37 1

[The Emperor Fabulous]

...You guys play a game where the point is to win ashes?

Lame