• Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Cricket - F--k Yeah!!!!!

In all seriousness, I learned cricket from playing a video game 20 or years ago. If EA Sports produced it, I bought it and they did a cricket game for the PS2 in 2002 or 03. I found a copy and added it to my EA Sports library. Playing it, I learned about wickets and overs and 6s (not that kind) and all the other sport-specific stuff.
This is how I learned football as a kid - thanks to Tecmo Bowl and Tecmo Super Bowl.
 
Couple of good descriptions from the other thread.

I went to England last year and went to a one-day cricket match at Edgbaston in Birmingham, which isn't the Yankee Stadium of cricket (that's Lord's), but it's one of the more prestigious grounds. Maybe like Busch Stadium, I don't know. I also got heat exhaustion from the experience, which is pretty good for England.

Anyway, I'd describe cricket to the American newby as such.

There are two bases. When the bowler (pitcher) throws it to you (with a stiff arm and on a bounce), you have to swing at it if it's going to hit the posts behind you. If you hit a grounder at a guy you don't have to run. If you don't hit it to a guy, you and your buddy on the other base run down-and-backs to score. You keep hitting until you swing and miss, you hit one that someone catches on the fly, or they hit the posts while you're still running down-and-backs. Homers are worth 6, ground-rule doubles are worth 4. When you're out, your buddy bats and he gets a new buddy. Your team bats until your whole lineup has hit and then it's their turn.

EDIT: And there's no foul balls.

Cricket is actually a fairly simple sport, like baseball as long as you don't get into the weeds with exit velocities, WAR and all that. It is played on a ground where the stumps are in the center of the field, so like somebody said earlier, there are no foul balls. There are 11 men (this is almost exclusively a male sport) on each side.

In test cricket, each match consists typically of two innings, but those can take up to five days to play. In each innings, each team sends all 11 men up and bat until 10 outs are given. Outs can be achieved by either catching a ball on the fly or knocking the bails off the wicket before the batsman crosses the line while running. An out is also called a "wicket" so if you see that, that's what that means. There are other rules that can result in an out such as blocking the wicket with your leg, etc.

The game is basically subdivided by "overs," which are a series of six bowls. A shutout over is called a "maiden over." There are several varieties of cricket, including 20-20 cricket which are 20 overs for each side, or 120 bowls total. This is designed to limit the match to about 3 hours and replicate the window of a baseball game to increase popularity.
 
When I lived and worked in Miami 20 years ago, we had an editor who was a big cricket guy. He tried explaining it to me, but alas, like others, it didn't stick.
 
My South African brother-in-law's text after I bragged about the big win:

"Pakistan has been shirt for at least 10 years. And they're always willing to bend the knee for a bribe."
 
Detroit Mercy has more of a budget for NIL than the US does for fixing cricket matches.
 
Twenty ago I was on the same flight from Bangkok to New Delhi as the Australian National Cricket team. I sat in business class (not first class) next to a team member. I asked him which country held the world championship (I thought it would be India or Pakistan). He answered testily "we are". And that is how I learned the Australians are good at cricket.

When we got to New Delhi we all had to wait an hour and a half for our luggage after a four hour flight. The team members stood with the rest of us waiting for the luggage to come out. I wonder how the United States basketball team would have reacted to waiting for their luggage. Of course it would have never happened.
 
Last edited:
Twenty ago I was on the same flight from Bangkok to New Delhi as the Australian National Cricket team. I sat in business class (not first class) next to a team member. I asked him which country held the world championship (I thought it would be India or Pakistan). He answered testily "we are". And that is how I learned the Australians are good at cricket.

When we got to New Delhi we all had to wait an hour and a half for our luggage after a four hour flight. The teal members stood with the ret of us waiting for the luggage to come out. I wonder how the United States basketball team would have reacted to waiting for their luggage. Of course it would have never happened.

I think one of the sneaky things about cricket that doesn't work for the North American audience is not the length but the game flow. It's almost as if in the NBA Finals, the Mavericks had to try and score as many points as they could in 60 minutes with unlimited number of consecutive possessions, and then the Celtics would get their turn for the same in 60 minutes (I believe they call it "the chase.") At least with baseball, having a limited number of outs forces the action to flip regularly.
 
A friend's husband is Australian. I was at their home one time and he pulled out videos of cricket matches, put them on and tried to explain. When a guy hit 18 homers in one at-bat I admitted being totally lost.
Rugby, on the other hand, might be worth a look. When I was in school, at the end of my day, I would walk to the parking lot. There was often a rugby game going on as I went past a field. I would stop and watch for a few minutes.
Now think about it and try to figure out how to teach baseball to someone who had no idea what is is all about.
 
I participate in a Leeds United message board filled with Yorkshireman and I try to be very self-deprecating about my lack of cricket knowledge. That's in opposition to my stance on rugby which suckdillyucks as a sport and I let them know it.

I actually did try to give cricket a shot and once I got past the newness, I could sort of understand it, even enjoy it, but it didn't take in any permanent sense, and I retained absolutely zero knowledge after tipping my toe in the water.

So when they were breaking down the USA's triumph, I just posted this in response.

 

Latest posts

Back
Top