Trobriand Cricket

[Simon]

A unique form of the game from Papua New Guinea.
Somehow i cant see this taking off.

- A Modified game of cricket played between various villages of Papua New Guinea's Trobriand Islands. The competition is known as Kayasa and is complete with ritual displays and gifts of food.

- A major feature of Trobriand cricket are chants and dances performed at the beginning and end of each innings. They are carried out in military fashion, are sometimes ****** in nature and can also be used to taunt their opponents. During play chants are used for the fall of each wicket: 'We soldiers have come bringing hand bombs blowing up wickets. POW! POW! POW! or 'LOW TIDE, HIGH TIDE. TIDAL WAVE! TITAL WAVE!'

- The number of players is not confined to the traditional 11 each side. If 50 players turn up for a game, then 50 play.

- Players always wear a box, many, though, nothing more. Face paint is used, coconut oil covers their bodies, which supposedly frees-up inhibition and makes him more courageous.

- Bats and balls are made of wood, but are smaller, as are the stumps, whcih are positioned closer together. Bats are also curved-shaped, and are treated by a magician to assist accuracy.

- Each batsman has his own runner

- Each team has its own umpire, who is also permitted to play. he is also allowed to use magic powers to improve his bowlers chances of taking wickets or to protect his batsmen when at the crease.

- The home team is always expected to win as a mark of respect, although the winning margin should not be great, so as not to cause humiliation or offence to the visitors.

 

[Bazza]

Nice!

Yeah I'm sure it's not meant to take off, but you could say that it is increasing the worldwide popularity of the game, and maybe one day PNG will be able to field a side in the proper game?

 

[Gotchya]

Each team has its own umpire, who is also permitted to play. he is also allowed to use magic powers to improve his bowlers chances of taking wickets or to protect his batsmen when at the crease.

The home team is always expected to win as a mark of respect, although the winning margin should not be great, so as not to cause humiliation or offence to the visitors.

hmm..So we should call an Indian series Trobriand Cricket then ?

j/k :P

 

[Rich2001]

Nice!

Yeah I'm sure it's not meant to take off, but you could say that it is increasing the worldwide popularity of the game, and maybe one day PNG will be able to field a side in the proper game?

Well that bottom line might not be that far off, afterall Kent's WK was born in PNG.......

Admittly he then went to live in Australia and developed his game there before coming to England.

 

[aussie_beater]

hmm..So we should call an Indian series Trobriand Cricket then ?

j/k :P

what's that supposed to mean ?

 

[marc71178]

j/k?

I think it means Joke!

However the words pot, kettle and black spring to mind coming from a Pakistani!

 

[Don Ricardo]

what's that supposed to mean ?

He's refering to the fact that india generally wins their home matches but not their away ones, and also the fact that some of their local umpires are a bit "hometown" in their decisions

 

[aussie_beater]

He's refering to the fact that india generally wins their home matches but not their away ones, and also the fact that some of their local umpires are a bit "hometown" in their decisions

That's utter rubbish.

Umpiring mistakes aren't localized to India. All over the world there have been horrendous umpiring over the years.

 

[Rik]

That's utter rubbish.

Umpiring mistakes aren't localized to India. All over the world there have been horrendous umpiring over the years.

Sri Lanka :rolleyes:

 

[Top_Cat]

I don't think he was talking about 'mistakes' as much as he was referring to 'bias'.

 

[aussie_beater]

Sri Lanka :rolleyes:

And Australia....I remember the 1991 series between India and Aus and everybody got so disgusted by the standard of umpiring that Gavaskar wrote a column saying that Aus was playing every match with 12 players on their side.

Its has happened everywhere....Pak had umpiring controversies...remember the Shakoor Rana and Chris Broad incidents of 1987 ?

 

[aussie_beater]

I don't think he was talking about 'mistakes' as much as he was referring to 'bias'.

And are you suggesting, there is bias in the umpiring in India ?? .....Ganguly was the worst affected player by umpiring mistakes in the last series played in India(India-WI).

 

[Top_Cat]

And Australia....I remember the 1991 series between India and Aus and everybody got so disgusted by the standard of umpiring that Gavaskar wrote a column saying that Aus was playing every match with 12 players on their side.

I remember that series and it was pretty bad, especially the LBW calls. Some of them were atrocious.

 

[Top_Cat]

And are you suggesting, there is bias in the umpiring in India ?? .....Ganguly was the worst affected player by umpiring mistakes in the last series played in India(India-WI).

*I* am not suggesting anything. Just clarifying that Don Ricardo wasn't talking about the 'standard' of umpiring in India.

And in my years of watching cricket, I've only seen one match involving Australia in India where the umpiring actually affected the result and that was the second innings of the first Test of the series where Sidhu didn't fail to hit a 50 in all of his innings of the series (when was that; 1998?). That was just disgraceful but other than that, the umpiring has been fine. I think Venkat and what's his name from South Africa were the umpires for the series. You don't get any better than that.

EDIT: Nope I was wrong, Venkat was only the umpire for that first Test and George Sharpe was the other one. Still, looking at the umpires for the rest of the series, I don't think the Aussie could complain about them too much. It was just sub-standard play which buggered them up.

Also, looking at that first Test, it reminded me of how many terrible decisions there were in that second innings. Four of Australia's batsmen were simply not-out, Venkat giving one of them I recall. Anyway, that's the only example I can think of like that in recent years.

 

[Rik]

I think Venkat and what's his name from South Africa were the umpires for the series. You don't get any better than that.

David Orchard by any chance? He's been quite dodgy over here several times...

 

[aussie_beater]

*I* am not suggesting anything. Just clarifying that Don Ricardo wasn't talking about the 'standard' of umpiring in India.

And in my years of watching cricket, I've only seen one match involving Australia in India where the umpiring actually affected the result and that was the second innings of the first Test of the series where Sidhu didn't fail to hit a 50 in all of his innings of the series (when was that; 1998?). That was just disgraceful but other than that, the umpiring has been fine. I think Venkat and what's his name from South Africa were the umpires for the series. You don't get any better than that.

No that series in 1998 between India and Aus had some guy from England called Sharp(don't remember his full name) and Venkat.I saw that complete match live.Only one bat pad decision looked suspect in the TV replays out of some 3 or 4 in which the batsman went away showing disappointment at the dismissals.And moreover almost all of them were given by Sharp.

If you ask me, I would say the India-Pak test match in Bangalore in 1987 which Pak won by 16 runs was the one match where an umpiring error probably cost India the match.It was when Gavaskar was declared caught for 96 when the ball clearly came off his shoulder.

 

[aussie_beater]

Also, looking at that first Test, it reminded me of how many terrible decisions there were in that second innings. Four of Australia's batsmen were simply not-out, Venkat giving one of them I recall.

Can't agree with you there..... most of those decisions were quite fair....the only one where the TV replays showed an error was probably the one given by Venkat and it was a bat pad for one of the Waugh brothers or Ponting...not sure who it was.

 

[Top_Cat]

No that series in 1998 between India and Aus had some guy from England called Sharp(don't remember his full name) and Venkat.I saw that complete match live.Only one bat pad decision looked suspect in the TV replays out of some 3 or 4 in which the batsman went away showing disappointment at the dismissals.And moreover almost all of them were given by Sharp.

True but come on! Both Waughs, Ponting and Reiffel were clearly not-out, especially with the benefit of replays. I mean, Australia being 3/31 overnight certainly wouldn't have helped their chances to even draw the match but losing those four on the last day destroyed any chance they may have had.

Mind you, that's just my opinion.

Also, as I said that's the only example I've seen. The Aussies complaining of umpiring decisions in other matches is a bit rich and in most cases, completely wrong.

In Australia, the only decision which literally cost Australia match was in 1992 against the WI here in Adelaide. Mind you, the umpiring decisions in the hours before that point probably cost the WI the match too..............

 

[aussie_beater]

True but come on! Both Waughs, Ponting and Reiffel were clearly not-out, especially with the benefit of replays.

Like I said, I can't agree with you there.The replays in 3 out of those 4 cases proved nothing.Only the one that Venkat gave looked like a bad one.And Aus lost that match at the start of the Indian second innings and that memorable Tendulkar onslaught... it was a foregone conclusion on the fifth day with Kumble on fire and some vicious uneven bounce and turn.

 

[Don Ricardo]

Well, what about Harbajan's hattrick when he had warne out caught in close in off a bump ball. That was replayed on various talk/comedy shows in australia as if it were some sort of joke that international umpiring could be so poor