Questions from an American: Learning from the beginning

[harsh.ag]

Here's an odd question: Is there some reason that no-one tells Steven Smith to stop picking his toes and put his shoes on? The camera has focused in on him at least three times so far, showing him sitting barefoot and making devout work of picking his toes... in public... on live television... representing his team and his country... in front of the entire world. Am I the only person that finds that disgusting and completely distasteful? Just thinking about it makes me want to throw up in my mouth.

When you've seen batsmen with acts like crotch adjustments after every delivery, you tend to view this kind of thing in a benign manner.

 

[Gob]

Here's an odd question: Is there some reason that no-one tells Steven Smith to stop picking his toes and put his shoes on? The camera has focused in on him at least three times so far, showing him sitting barefoot and making devout work of picking his toes... in public... on live television... representing his team and his country... in front of the entire world. Am I the only person that finds that disgusting and completely distasteful? Just thinking about it makes me want to throw up in my mouth.

Kane Williamson also does that but not as well as Smitteh of course

 

[Pratters]

This is a lovely question JR. Cricket is a game which happens over the day. After a few hours, social norms which we put on ourselves domestically disappear. When you are watching a game for hours in the crowd, only for a while can you keep yourself away from the fellow spectators. A wage earner and a local politician might watch the game together and start discussing after a while. Same goes for the players. Only for a while can you sit uptight in a chair. After a while, a player will read a paper, drink a cup of tea or pick his toes or open some of his clothing if it's too hot. It's quite interesting. Steven Smith was seen tying his hand hair in knotts a few matches ago. The camera focussed on his missues laughing widely at this. That was some thing I hadn't seen am Australian captain do before on national television. But what do you do while watching other people bat to while away the time!

 

[Dan]

Smitteh is a man of strange mannerisms, lets be honest.

 

[Joseph Redgate]

But what do you do while watching other people bat to while away the time!

With all due respect and in a good spirited nature, are you saying that it is understandable and acceptable for people to remove their clothes and tend to personal grooming in public for reason of boredom and passing the time of day?

 

[Dan]

Well the dressing room is theoretically private

 

[Joseph Redgate]

Is there a definitive rule to which a team captain adheres when declaring his team's runs?

 

[adub]

Is there a definitive rule to which a team captain adheres when declaring his team's runs?

again just tactical consideration.

Usually just made a calculation that he has enough runs, but how much longer is left in the game in order to bowl the opposition out is also important.

You might also like to time your declaration in order to make it hard for the opposition. For example a 30-40 minute spell before the end of play is popular because because it gives you a chance to get a spell out of your opening bowlers before stumps and then again first thing the next day, plus opening batsmen hate having to come out for a short session - you're only just getting into your innings and you're done for the day and have to start again tomorrow.

 

[Gob]

again just tactical consideration.

Usually just made a calculation that he has enough runs, but how much longer is left in the game in order to bowl the opposition out is also important.

You might also like to time your declaration in order to make it hard for the opposition. For example a 30-40 minute spell before the end of play is popular because because it gives you a chance to get a spell out of your opening bowlers before stumps and then again first thing the next day, plus opening batsmen hate having to come out for a short session - you're only just getting into your innings and you're done for the day and have to start again tomorrow.

Follow on? I've heard this term several times in the recent Australia vs New Zealand test so a)what is follow on and what enforcing the follow on means?b) is it mandatory?

 

[Red]

Follow on

In a two innings match, if the side batting second scores substantially fewer runs than the side batting first, the side that batted first can force their opponents to bat again immediately. The side that enforced the follow-on risks not getting to bat again and thus the chance of winning. For a game of five or more days, the side batting first must be at least 200 runs ahead to enforce the follow-on; for a three- or four-day game, 150 runs; for a two-day game, 100 runs; for a one-day game, 75 runs. The length of the game is determined by the number of scheduled days play left when the game actually begins.

To answer Gob's questions:

a) the side batting second can be forced to bat again if they make significantly less runs than the team that batted first

b) no

 

[adub]

Follow on? I've heard this term several times in the recent Australia vs New Zealand test so a)what is follow on and what enforcing the follow on means?b) is it mandatory?

If the team batting second is all out (or declares - but no one would) for 200 (or more) less than the team batting first the first team's Captain can ask the second team to 'follow-on' which means they have to bat again (the second team's 2nd innings). If the combined total of the second team's two innings surpasses the first team's innings then the first team gets to bat again to try and win.

It's completely optional and since India beat Australia after following on in 2001 it's not as popular as it used to be. These days teams prefer to bat again and set a big target (450+) rather than enforce the follow-on as it gives the bowlers a rest. Usually these days captain's only tend to enforce the follow on if they are running out of time for the win (say after losing time to rain).

 

[Howe_zat]

As a general rule you should declare about a session and a half later than the fans start saying you should

 

[Dan]

If the team batting second is all out (or declares - but no one would) for 200 (or more) less than the team batting first the first team's Captain can ask the second team to 'follow-on' which means they have to bat again (the second team's 2nd innings). If the combined total of the second team's two innings surpasses the first team's innings then the first team gets to bat again to try and win.

It's completely optional and since India beat Australia after following on in 2001 it's not as popular as it used to be. These days teams prefer to bat again and set a big target (450+) rather than enforce the follow-on as it gives the bowlers a rest. Usually these days captain's only tend to enforce the follow on if they are running out of time for the win (say after losing time to rain).

I've actually done this in an ICC save, iirc. 9 down, about 160 behind on a sunny day. Day 4 was predicted for grey clouds and rain, so I didn't want to bat last on it.

If my tail-enders had made the 10 runs and forced the opposition to bat again, I'd have been in a worse position -- conditions wise -- chasing, than if I followed on and got to set a target.

 

[adub]

True enough Dan, instead of never I should have said only in the very rarest of occasions and again only for a tactical advantage that someone new to the game would struggle to comprehend.

Lawson of course famously declared NSW at 0/0 in an attempt to force a result, but it's a pretty rare event where you'd want to be following on.

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Follow on? I've heard this term several times in the recent Australia vs New Zealand test so a)what is follow on and what enforcing the follow on means?b) is it mandatory?

stop trolling

 

[Howe_zat]

I've actually done this in an ICC save, iirc. 9 down, about 160 behind on a sunny day. Day 4 was predicted for grey clouds and rain, so I didn't want to bat last on it.

If my tail-enders had made the 10 runs and forced the opposition to bat again, I'd have been in a worse position -- conditions wise -- chasing, than if I followed on and got to set a target.

Surely if there's any tactical advantage to following on IRL then the opposition would never enforce it

 

[adub]

Surely if there's any tactical advantage to following on IRL then the opposition would never enforce it

It's a big gamble, which is why it almost never happens.

 

[Dan]

Surely if there's any tactical advantage to following on IRL then the opposition would never enforce it

Naturally, but ICC isn't IRL. We'd all hate cricket if it was a real-life version of ICC.

 

[Howe_zat]

Naturally, but ICC isn't IRL. We'd all hate cricket if it was a real-life version of ICC.

If cricket was a real life version of my ICC 2005 save England would be world champions in both formats with an opening batsman called Norman Tetley who averages 85

I'll take that over reality tbh

 

[AndrewB]

If the team batting second is all out (or declares - but no one would) for 200 (or more) less than the team batting first the first team's Captain can ask the second team to 'follow-on' which means they have to bat again (the second team's 2nd innings).

The declaration bit happened in the Worcs-Northants game in 1979 - Gifford evidently didn't realise that a washed-out first day changed the follow-on margin from 150 to 100.