I have some Cricket questions:

[Shane1988]

Hi guys,

For starters, I must politely ask that this thread not be moved to a different, less-active forum because it is quite important that I receive some feedback on this.

I write about sports for a living, but for the first time in my life I'll be writing about cricket in less than 36 hours and, quite honestly, I know absolutely NOTHING about the sport. It is currently 02:14 am at my current location and I will be writing about tomorrow's Ashes test between England and Australia.

Right now, the score is Australia 570 - 117-4 England. Does this mean that Australia have scored 570 runs, and England have scored 117 so far from their four of 11 batsman?

Also, is this the score for this particular test or the whole series? England, according to my television, trail by 453 (runs?) so, as I said, is this is the deficit for the test or the series?

If you could answer these couple of questions I would REALLY appreciate it.

Thank you.

 

[Daemon]

117-4 means England have scored 117 for the loss of 4 batsmen. It's the total number of runs scored by the 4 batsmen that got out as well as the two out in the middle (plus extras like wides and no balls of course).

The 453 is the deficit for the match.

 

[benchmark00]

Would you like a job writing for the front page of this website?

 

[Shane1988]

No thank you, mate.

So, England's seven remaining batsmen must score more than a combined 453 runs to win the test. Is this correct?

 

[Daemon]

No thank you, mate.

So, England's seven remaining batsmen must score more than a combined 453 runs to win the test. Is this correct?

No. Both teams get to bat twice.

 

[Shane1988]

I thought Australia had already batted, hence the 570. Now I'm not sure where this figure has come from, unless that was there total from the previous test?

Oh, sorry. Both nations bat twice, so Kevin Pietersen and Carberry - both of whom were bowled out - will bat again. After both teams have batted twice I assume they take their best scores, and whoever have the highest are the winners.

 

[Daemon]

I thought Australia had already batted, hence the 570. Now I'm not sure where this figure has come from, unless that was there total from the previous test?

There are 4 innings in a test match, 2 per team.

In each innings, one team bats and the other fields. In the first innings of the match Australia batted first and scored 570.

England is currently playing in their first innings and have scored 116/4; they have 454 less runs than Australia.

No matter what England end up scoring in this second innings, Australia will have the option of batting again to increase their total runs for the match.

If they score 400 this time, Australia will have a lead of 170 runs. Australia will then bat again in for their second innings, adding to this lead of 170 runs. If Australia scores 200 in their second innings, the lead will be 370 (200+170).

England will then bat again for second innings and will need to score 370 runs to win the match.


There are other things such as follow ons and stuff if your first innings deficit is >200, but unless you have match specific questions I think google is a better option.

 

[Zinzan]

Hi guys,

For starters, I must politely ask that this thread not be moved to a different, less-active forum because it is quite important that I receive some feedback on this.

I write about sports for a living, but for the first time in my life I'll be writing about cricket in less than 36 hours and, quite honestly, I know absolutely NOTHING about the sport. It is currently 02:14 am at my current location and I will be writing about tomorrow's Ashes test between England and Australia.

Right now, the score is Australia 570 - 117-4 England. Does this mean that Australia have scored 570 runs, and England have scored 117 so far from their four of 11 batsman?

Also, is this the score for this particular test or the whole series? England, according to my television, trail by 453 (runs?) so, as I said, is this is the deficit for the test or the series?

If you could answer these couple of questions I would REALLY appreciate it.

Thank you.

With the greatest respect, why the hell would someone who knows nothing about cricket be writing about it when there's so many thousands of sources carrying cricket news out there?

 

[Shane1988]

Because my job description entails every major sport. I can write about all of them - with the exception of Cricket. They, my employers, are not aware of this and hopefully they won't be because I am professional. The aim is to absorb as much information as I can in an effort to disguise my limited experience.

Thank you, Daemon. Your explanation is appreciated.

 

[Zinzan]

Because my job description entails every major sport. I can write about all of them - with the exception of Cricket. This will soon change, though.

Thank you, Daemon. Your explanation is appreciated.

But who's reading you is my point and why would a cricket fan suddenly switch to a writer that doesn't know anything about the game? lol....Just makes no sense

 

[Shane1988]

Yes, I think I see your point now.

I work for a large, British website and those who will be reading my report on the test match are not aware that I know nothing about the game. They're not going to be reading my report. They'll be reading the website's report.

They won't be "switching" to me. They're already frequent visitors of the site, and hopefully I don't give them a reason not to return.

 

[Zinzan]

Yes, I think I see your point now.

I work for a large, British website and those who will be reading my report on the test match are not aware that I know nothing about the game. They're not going to be reading my report. They'll be reading the website's report.

They won't be "switching" to me. They're already frequent visitors of the site, and hopefully I don't give them a reason not to return.

\

Lol, Doesn't say much about the vetting skills of the people who employed you does it?

 

[Shane1988]

You seem a little upset over all of this, and I have no idea why.

For your information, yes I was of course vetted. I was asked to write a number of news stories on a number of different sports prior to securing the position. Cricket, as it happens, was not one of them. Put yourself in their shoes; would you subject interviewees to in-depth quizzes on every major sport from football to horse racing? If so, I think you might find that you could not employ a single person because, believe it or not, not many people are equally as comfortable when writing about every sport.

Those who are aware of the sports which they're a little rusty on are simply expected to learn and, correct me if I'm wrong, but am I or am I not debating this on a Cricket forum? I am, yes, which means that I'm learning in a bid to better understand the game.

 

[Jono]

You seem a little upset over all of this, and I have no idea why.

 

[Zinzan]

You seem a little upset over all of this, and I have no idea why.

.

On the contrary, find it bizarrely funny, hence the 'lol's

 

[harsh.ag]

You seem a little upset over all of this, and I have no idea why.

For your information, yes I was of course vetted. I was asked to write a number of news stories on a number of different sports prior to securing the position. Cricket, as it happens, was not one of them. Put yourself in their shoes; would you subject interviewees to in-depth quizzes on every major sport from football to horse racing? If so, I think you might find that you could not employ a single person because, believe it or not, not many people are equally as comfortable when writing about every sport.

Those who are aware of the sports which they're a little rusty on are simply expected to learn and, correct me if I'm wrong, but am I or am I not debating this on a Cricket forum? I am, yes, which means that I'm learning in a bid to better understand the game.

Okay. I will help you on this.

In a cricket test match, the two sides playing each get two innings to bat while the other side does the bowling and fielding. The winner is decided by adding up their scores for both innings. Whichever team has the higher total score, wins. The results and scores of earlier matches in the series do not matter for a single match.

In this match, Australia batted first, and in their 1st innings, scored 570 runs for the loss of 9 wickets with the help of two centuries (100+ runs) by their captain, Michael Clarke and wicket-keeper (think catcher in baseball), Brad Haddin. Usually, a team is bowled out (i.e. loses all 10 wickets) before the innings ends, but they can declare before if they think they have gotten enough runs).

Next, England batted. They have now been bowled out, i.e. lost all 10 wickets for 172. So, they now have a first innings deficit of 398 runs, which they must try to make up for. A fast bowler named Mitchell Johnson caused much of the damage by taking 7 wickets.

Now, Australia are batting again, their 2nd innings. They will look to score a few runs (around 200+) and declare again. They can, of course, be bowled out for far less.

After that add 398 to Australia's 2nd innings score, and that's the score England will have to make in their 2nd innings if they want to win the match. This must be done within 5 days. Today is the 3rd day.


However, I would like to add that if you are truly a professional as you claim, you should tell the website operators the truth that you don't know anything about cricket.

 

[ajdude]

fake it till you make it imo

 

[watson]

This may clear things up.

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in the side that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.

When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!


Cricinfo - Cricket explained

 

[Agent Nationaux]

However, I would like to add that if you are truly a professional as you claim, you should tell the website operators the truth that you don't know anything about cricket.

Lol, why would anyone do that?

You get an opportunity you take it, otherwise someone else will. No one is brilliant at everything or has knowledge in all fields. Therefore we will all get jobs/tasks that will be a challenge for us. To just say, sorry but I am not good enough or I don't know the subject area is just giving up.

 

[Shane1988]

Good point.

Anyway, Australia can go 2-0 in the series on the fourth day, yes? I'm pulling an all-nighter to watch this for six hours - then my shift starts!