Cricket stuff that doesn't deserve its own thread

[Jnr.]

That is outstanding, and for a good cause!

 

[GotSpin]

Awesome in everyway

 

[Daemon]

Man what a backyard. Would be so gun growing up there.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Fun fact: this was played at the same ground as the 1009* innings.

 

[watson]

Just noticed that CricketArchive spells Leyland's first name as Morris, not Maurice.

The Home of CricketArchive

This is actually correct as Morris appears on his birth certificate. Apparently, the name Maurice was first accidently used by Wisden, and the mistake has stuck ever since.

So Morris Leyland it is.

 

[Scaly piscine]

So err yea the Masters Cricket League (MCL) - some interesting ideas on retired players there.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

A team innings is measured in runs per over, bowling economies are measured in runs per over, but why does individual batting still use runs per 100 balls? Would make it much easier to understand for people new to the game if a batsman's SR was runs per over.

 

[honestbharani]

Because batsmen typically do not get to face the full over. And measuring per 100 balls makes a lot of sense over a whole career as batsmen with decent careers end up facing thousands of balls anyways.

 

[Daemon]

Because batsmen typically do not get to face the full over. And measuring per 100 balls makes a lot of sense over a whole career as batsmen with decent careers end up facing thousands of balls anyways.

I think he means instead of runs per 100 balls, you just calculate runs per 6 balls. It'd be easier to compare economy rates with strike rates that way.

 

[honestbharani]

Oh ok. Yeah, probably... but somehow I think the 100 balls actually makes it easier. Might be interesting if some broadcaster started using it though.

 

[cnerd123]

Ive seen some TV channel do that once - they adjusted the Strike Rates to make them the Batsmen's 'scoring rate' or something.

Its an interesting idea. Would be unintuitive to me since I'm so used to the normal SR, but might be easier for newer fans to grasp.

 

[AndyZaltzHair]

Graham Ford to take the job,

Graham Ford has left Surrey to coach Sri Lanka again | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Adders]

A team innings is measured in runs per over, bowling economies are measured in runs per over, but why does individual batting still use runs per 100 balls? Would make it much easier to understand for people new to the game if a batsman's SR was runs per over.

I often find myself converting SR to rpo as it just seems to make more sense to me........so I reckon this isn't a bad idea.

The other thing I don't like is in LO games towards the end of the chasing innings when they start talking about runs required and balls remaining...........that **** just doesn't compute with me at all. 120 required off 80 balls......wtf?? tell me it's 9 runs per over, that I understand.

 

[Daemon]

I often find myself converting SR to rpo as it just seems to make more sense to me........so I reckon this isn't a bad idea.

The other thing I don't like is in LO games towards the end of the chasing innings when they start talking about runs required and balls remaining...........that **** just doesn't compute with me at all. 120 required off 80 balls......wtf?? tell me it's 9 runs per over, that I understand.

Haha I actually like that. Somehow makes the game more exciting if you think in terms of actual runs and balls left if it's a close one.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea I have always preferred runs/balls than rpo.

 

[Victor Ian]

once i was at a ODI at the MCG - At the end on the scoreboard it displayed Run Rate Required...6 per over, 7 per over, 9 per over 15 per over, etc. The last amount was Run Rate Required... ALOT. Now that is simple to understand!

 

[indiaholic]

Enjoyed reading this:

Ed Smith: Why T20 batting needn't be all about on-side power-hitting | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Senile Sentry]

Always wondered why no balls are counted against batsman's 'ball faced' count when by default they are legally invalid deliveries.

 

[Prince EWS]

Always wondered why no balls are counted against batsman's 'ball faced' count when by default they are legally invalid deliveries.

It's because batsmen can score runs off them. A batsman could theoretically have 4 (0) otherwise.

 

[Senile Sentry]

It's because batsmen can score runs off them. A batsman could theoretically have 4 (0) otherwise.

Yes what is wrong in that? The delivery is considered invalid from the team's point of view anyways, why deny the benefits to the batsman? The bowler bowls a 150 full toss missile at the batsman's head which he fends off and get called a no ball but still loses a delivery against his name? That is not just imho.