Things that matter

[Gob]

England 215 & 375 beat Australia 280 & 296 by 14 runs

Okay...

So the way this works is you take the two outrageously high scores from both games....

And then add them together:

England: 590

Australia: 576

And that's how you come up with the 14 "run" difference....

(At least in Base 10...)

Jim, in a five day test, each team bats twice, so the totals from the first batting session, and the second, get added,.

[Lord Jim]

Jim, in a five day test, each team bats twice, so the totals from the first batting session, and the second, get added,.

Ahh, so we're only talking about Game One (or "Test One" if you prefer)

To reach the score:

England: 590

Australia: 576

So that represents one game (or test) of the five...

So after 5 games, will the score look something like:

England: 2,950

Australia: 2,880

Or is the series decided based on who wins the most individual games? (with these surreal "scores" that seem to bear no causal relationship to the "action" on the field) (4-1, 3-2)

And more importantly, is the scoring different on Tuesdays?

[Gob]

Or is the series decided based on who wins the most individual games?

By Jove, I think he's got it!

And more importantly, is the scoring different on Tuesdays?

Only if there's a "v" in the month.

[Lord Jim]

Only if there's a "v" in the month.

Okay, so different scoring in November then...

[dales]

No Vonder

[Daisy]

Okay...

So the way this works is you take the two outrageously high scores from both games....

And then add them together:

England: 590

Australia: 576

And that's how you come up with the 14 "run" difference....

Sort of...

The outrageously high scores come from a single game of four "Innings" with each team batting and bowling twice (it is a five day contest remember).

And your maths is correct.

But if Australia had scored fifteen more runs without the last man being caught out they would have won the test by one wicket.

with these surreal "scores" that seem to bear no causal relationship to the "action" on the field

Scoring is as follows :-

One "run" for each completed run between the batting "line" from the ball being struck to it returning to the stumps (we call it a crease but I don't need to confuse your tiny mind any more .

If the batsman hits the ball over the boundary rope and the ball hits the ground on the way they score four runs (without the need to run between the lines) if the ball doesn't hit the ground then the batsman scores six. With eleven players you can see how these large scores soon rack up.

Simple?

ETA: If I ever win big on the lottery I'm going to treat you all to an all expenses paid trip to a test match.. you'll soon learn to love the game (with a few pints in you).

[Sean]

Stay tuned for lesson two when Daisy explains the LBW rule...

[Daisy]

Easier than offside Sean

[oldr_n_wsr]

Stickball is so much easier to score.

[dales]

Cleveland Indians season ticket holder Greg Niel had the best fan day of any fan during today’s Indians game against the Royals.

Niel caught four foul balls in one game. Four foul balls. This is four more than I’ve caught in my entire life. The lesson here being, of course, that life is terribly unfair.

The sunglasses-wearing bros behind Niel get it. Life is tough. They got no foul balls. He got four. (Though he is only pictured here with three. Did he give one way?) In any event: Unfair.

The news got even better for Niel, too, as the Indians won the game, 6-4.

[Lord Jim]

Okay Daze, so what you're saying then is that basically "runs" get scored (in fact multiple runs, more if the pitcher actually manages to throw the ball all the way to the plate without having to bounce it) pretty much any time the batter is able to make contact with the ball swinging that 2X4 with a handle on the end that they call a "bat"....


But even making it that easy to score "runs", to get up over two or three hundred, the pitching must really suck wind...

Either that or they must get something like 100 outs....

I believe I've got it now

[oldr_n_wsr]

I don't think there are any "outs" (not as we know them to be). If each side gets two "plate appearances" one day for each, that's 4 days. The fifth day is to add up all those runs.
In short, every day the other team gets up. No lights in the stadium (pitch?) so they call it at sunset.

[dales]

[Gob]

Okay Daze, so what you're saying then is that basically "runs" get scored (in fact multiple runs, more if the pitcher actually manages to throw the ball all the way to the plate without having to bounce it) pretty much any time the batter is able to make contact with the ball swinging that 2X4 with a handle on the end that they call a "bat"....


But even making it that easy to score "runs", to get up over two or three hundred, the pitching must really suck wind...

Either that or they must get something like 100 outs....

I believe I've got it now

Oh god...where to begin.....

[Crackpot]

That's a whole bunch of nerd wrapped up in a nice little picture. (What does it say about me for getting it)

[Gob]

Australia's selectors are likely to revamp the top order and the bowling attack for Lord's as coach Darren Lehmann promised to keep coming back at England after the narrow defeat at Trent Bridge.

Lehmann said after the 14-run loss to England at Trent Bridge that Ed Cowan's spot would come under scrutiny for Lord's, and the team could not continue to depend on the lower order to bail out the batsman.

He said the bowlers who didn't play at Trent Bridge would be in contention to play in the Lord's Test, which starts on Thursday.

Of those, Ryan Harris appears the most likely inclusion because of his ability to swing the ball at pace, while Mitchell Starc, who had a purple patch with two wickets in two balls in the second innings but also had erratic moments, could miss out.

Mitchell Johnson infamously lost his radar in 2009 at Lord's, where accuracy is all-important because of the slope of the ground. Jackson Bird, renowned for his control, is another appealing option.

Cowan edged wafting cover drives in both innings, for a golden duck and 14, departing from the defensive role for which he was picked. ''He'll be disappointed with the shots. So are we,'' Lehmann said.

''He had a tough game. Like everyone's position, you've got to make runs and perform. So we'll sit down as a selection panel over the next couple of days and work out what we think is the best XI to play the next Test match and work from there … you've got to make runs.''

David Warner was due to join the Australia A tour in Zimbabwe on Tuesday, and there are no plans to draft an extra batsman into the squad in his absence.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/leh ... z2Z9Z64OJJ

[dales]

Monday, July 15, 2013
Posey, Romo excited to take part in Rivera’s last game


Today was media day at the All-Star Game, and first off, the one whopper of a bad question I heard today: a TV person actually asked Buster Posey if he could give Prince William and wife Kate parenting advice. “I don’t think I’m qualified to give them advice,” Posey said politely.

The main topic here at Citi Field is Mariano Rivera. It’s the Yankee great’s final game and American League manager Jim Leyland said that he will absolutely use him, preferably to close if the AL is ahead.

“I hope he gets in,” Posey said. “As a fan of baseball, I’m thrilled to be part of an All-Star Game with him, one he says will be his last, but it’s tough for me. Seeing what he’s doing now, I want him to keep playing.”

Sergio Romo, as a fellow closer, has some extra appreciation for Rivera and he said he’s never had the opportunity to speak to the all-time saves leader. “I have not had that privilege but it’s something I’d love to do. But we come back to New York in September, so I can give him some space here; I’m sure I’m not the only one waiting to say hi, shake his hand, tell him how much I respect him this week.”

Romo was thrilled to be named to the team yesterday, but he said it came as a surprise when Bruce Bochy called him into his office. “I sat down and I thought I was traded,” Romo said with a grin. “I was like, ‘Man, did I get traded?!’ and then he told me. I had a huge smile from ear-to-ear that hasn’t really gone away.”

Romo hopes Bochy uses him at some point tomorrow night. “I definitely hope he gives me the ball, no matter what the situation, even in the first inning. I’ll start if he wants me to. It’s Mariano’s farewell tour, to be a part of it is just a huge honor.”

Bochy named Mets rookie Matt Harvey the All-Star Game starter today, further disappointing Dodgers fans who’d hoped for Clayton Kershaw. Bochy also named Brian McCann to replace Freddie Freeman rather than taking Los Angeles rookie sensation Yasiel Puig.

Bochy said today that he was starting to have some concerns about needing a third catcher, because Posey turned an ankle on Sunday (he’s fine) and Yadier Molina has a knee issue. I asked him how popular he thinks he might be with Dodgers fans right now, and he said, “Well, I don’t think I was popular in the first place. But (Puig) was on the ballot, he had a chance, and when Freeman went down, I got nervous about the catching.”

Marco Scutaro is back where it all began for him – sort of. He was a rookie with the Mets in 2002 and was first called up at Shea Stadium.

“I was thinking about that earlier,” Scutaro said. “I was starting to remember all that stuff I’ve been through. It’s weird because this is the first time I’ve played here (Citi Field.) I can’t complain.

“My whole career, I never thought I’d win a ring, especially last year starting off with Colorado, a last place team, and then I found myself in the World Series. And this year, I never thought about being an All Star. I’m very blessed. Very thankful.”

Madison Bumgarner said he’s excited and “just taking it all in.”

Posey and Bumgarner both noted that the All-Star Game provides home-field advantage and the Giants certainly have benefited from that two out of the past three years.

“The whole league has seen how that’s helped,” Bumgarner said. “The National League has won the World Series the last three years.”

[Sue U]

Australia's selectors are likely to revamp the top order and the bowling attack for Lord's as coach Darren Lehmann promised to keep coming back at England after the narrow defeat at Trent Bridge.

Lehmann said after the 14-run loss to England at Trent Bridge that Ed Cowan's spot would come under scrutiny for Lord's, and the team could not continue to depend on the lower order to bail out the batsman.

He said the bowlers who didn't play at Trent Bridge would be in contention to play in the Lord's Test, which starts on Thursday.

Of those, Ryan Harris appears the most likely inclusion because of his ability to swing the ball at pace, while Mitchell Starc, who had a purple patch with two wickets in two balls in the second innings but also had erratic moments, could miss out.

Mitchell Johnson infamously lost his radar in 2009 at Lord's, where accuracy is all-important because of the slope of the ground. Jackson Bird, renowned for his control, is another appealing option.

Cowan edged wafting cover drives in both innings, for a golden duck and 14, departing from the defensive role for which he was picked. ''He'll be disappointed with the shots. So are we,'' Lehmann said.

''He had a tough game. Like everyone's position, you've got to make runs and perform. So we'll sit down as a selection panel over the next couple of days and work out what we think is the best XI to play the next Test match and work from there … you've got to make runs.''

David Warner was due to join the Australia A tour in Zimbabwe on Tuesday, and there are no plans to draft an extra batsman into the squad in his absence.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cricket/leh ... z2Z9Z64OJJ

Do you intentionally pick the stories that are the least intelligible to the non-cricket-besotted world? I read this twice, and have no idea what it means.

[Sean]

Okay Daze, so what you're saying then is that basically "runs" get scored (in fact multiple runs, more if the pitcher actually manages to throw the ball all the way to the plate without having to bounce it) pretty much any time the batter is able to make contact with the ball swinging that 2X4 with a handle on the end that they call a "bat"....


But even making it that easy to score "runs", to get up over two or three hundred, the pitching must really suck wind...

Either that or they must get something like 100 outs....

I believe I've got it now

Oh god...where to begin.....

I'm going to give it a try...

The batsmen score runs Jim, not the bowlers... although I do believe that you actually knew that you cheeky little monkey...

Also, I'd love to see you standing with a bat in front of a wicket trying to score these "easy" runs... Maybe you could do that just after you hit the top corner of a goal with a football from close to the halfway line...

[Sean]

I don't think there are any "outs" (not as we know them to be). If each side gets two "plate appearances" one day for each, that's 4 days. The fifth day is to add up all those runs.
In short, every day the other team gets up. No lights in the stadium (pitch?) so they call it at sunset.

Oh yes there are outs oldr! In fact, there are ten ways for a batsman to be dismissed. He carries on batting until he is out. This is how a good batsman can score many runs in a single innings. There is no guarantee that the teams will both complete two innings over the five days. If they don't, the match is declared a draw.