Basic questions

[weldone]

Is there a scenario (more likely for limited over contests) in which the batting side declares its batsman out so it can get a preferred matchup?

No

 

[cnerd123]

You can retire a batsman out whenever you want, but cutting a batsman's entire innings short just so that he doesn't have to play out an over or spell from one specific bowler is basically so counterproductive it's a dumb move in almost any situation.

Even if you want the batsman out to bring another one in to slog - they get just try to slog themselves and if they get out, good. Best case scenario this guy gets some quick runs. Worst case he's out after 1 ball and you get what you want.

 

[rodk]

You can retire a batsman out whenever you want, but cutting a batsman's entire innings short just so that he doesn't have to play out an over or spell from one specific bowler is basically so counterproductive it's a dumb move in almost any situation.

Even if you want the batsman out to bring another one in to slog - they get just try to slog themselves and if they get out, good. Best case scenario this guy gets some quick runs. Worst case he's out after 1 ball and you get what you want.

Makes sense, but this was what I recall from a t20 which I think was an IPL match: the batting team needed about 12 or 13 runs with one over (but a few wickets) left. IDK if they had any better player for the situation still on the bench, but it seemed like a time to play any cards they were still holding.

 

[trundler]

Any captain would already take things like that into account when sending in the next batsman anyway. That essentially makes such a move pointless.

 

[weldone]

Makes sense, but this was what I recall from a t20 which I think was an IPL match: the batting team needed about 12 or 13 runs with one over (but a few wickets) left. IDK if they had any better player for the situation still on the bench, but it seemed like a time to play any cards they were still holding.

Even if there's a better player on the bench for a situation like that, it's not easy for him to just hit from ball 1 with good accuracy. It makes sense for the settled batsmen to slog even if he's a slightly worse slogger than the player on bench.

 

[rodk]

The Willow Network also started showing the new thing, t10. It seems like there were a huge number of runs scored in that format; some had 140 or more, Final, T10 League at Sharjah, Dec 2 2018 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo whereas in the international test matches that were shown, the scores were relatively low: today, New Zealand had 229 runs all day (90 overs). http://www.espncricinfo.com/series/...ealand-vs-pakistan-3rd-test-nz-in-uae-2018-19

Is there an explanation for the hugely different rate of runs per over?

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

U wanna see I draw a graph?

 

[weldone]

The objectives of the two formats are different. Objective in the first one is to maximise runs with two constraints - 10 overs and 10 wickets. Objective in the 2nd one is to maximise runs with one constraint - 10 wickets (there's also a constraint of time but that's not important most of the times). Speed comparison between 100m sprint and marathon is a bad parallel but I hope that drives the point.

 

[rodk]

The objectives of the two formats are different. Objective in the first one is to maximise runs with two constraints - 10 overs and 10 wickets. Objective in the 2nd one is to maximise runs with one constraint - 10 wickets (there's also a constraint of time but that's not important most of the times). Speed comparison between 100m sprint and marathon is a bad parallel but I hope that drives the point.

Agree it is poor comparison. Unless you are saying that exhaustion of the batsmen is playing a role in how much they can score, then I'm not clear why a team that can score 140 runs off of 60 balls in one version can't do anything remotely close to that in the other.

 

[weldone]

rodk is asking the same question again and again. Do you not understand the concept of different formats? Do you complain why marathon runners are not running like Usain Bolt, or why tour de france cyclists are not moving as fast as they can over 200m, or why English Channel swimmers are not swimming as fast as Michael Phelps? The answer is simple - the objective is different. Is that so difficult to understand?

 

[weldone]

Agree it is poor comparison. Unless you are saying that exhaustion of the batsmen is playing a role in how much they can score, then I'm not clear why a team that can score 140 runs off of 60 balls in one version can't do anything remotely close to that in the other.

It's not a question of "can" or "can't" - it is a matter of objective. If I tell you to eat as much as you can during your lunch, will your objective be to finish the lunch in 1 minute?

 

[rodk]

rodk is asking the same question again and again. Do you not understand the concept of different formats? Do you complain why marathon runners are not running like Usain Bolt, or why tour de france cyclists are not moving as fast as they can over 200m, or why English Channel swimmers are not swimming as fast as Michael Phelps? The answer is simple - the objective is different. Is that so difficult to understand?

I think it may be the other way round -- you don't understand the format of racing. Racers are going as fast as they can to cover the required distance, whatever it may be, to the point of exhaustion. Cricket isn't asking for that. Cricket is a relay race, with 11 guys going from here to there, but it doesn't seem like low scores reflect batsmen pacing themselves for the long haul as might a marathon runner or Channel swimmer. It should be 11 guys using themselves up entirely, and if those guys can produce 140 runs for 60 balls in one version, why can't they do the same thing in the other versions?

 

[weldone]

It's difficult to explain objective to someone who does not have any clue.

Why don't footballers try to score more own goals?

I am sure they can score more own goals if they try. Why don't they?

Because maximising own goals is not the objective of a football team.

Maximising scoring rate is not the objective of a test match batting unit.

 

[weldone]

If tomorrow ICC says test matches will be won by the team with better scoring rate, I'm sure you'll see scoring rates go up significantly (and you'll own CW - as most of us will lose interest in the game).

 

[Bijed]

The Willow Network also started showing the new thing, t10. It seems like there were a huge number of runs scored in that format; some had 140 or more, Final, T10 League at Sharjah, Dec 2 2018 | Match Summary | ESPNCricinfo whereas in the international test matches that were shown, the scores were relatively low: today, New Zealand had 229 runs all day (90 overs). NZ 229/7 (90.0 ov, BJ Watling 42*, WER Somerville 12*, Yasir Shah 3/62) - Stumps | Match Report | ESPNCricinfo

Is there an explanation for the hugely different rate of runs per over?

Weldone's answer is correct, however, I think that as much as anything we're seeing such huge scores in the T10 league because the boundaries are very small, so it's really easy to hit fours and sixes, even pretty badly played shots will often reach the boundary

 

[rodk]

Why don't footballers try to score more own goals?

I am sure they can score more own goals if they try. Why don't they?

Because maximising own goals is not the objective of a football team.

Don't get me started on soccer. It is an awful game to watch. I'm sure they could score more, but it turns out that winning games 5-4 is less productive in the standings and in the various tournaments than winning 1-0, so teams play the latter rather than the former.

Maximising scoring rate is not the objective of a test match batting unit.

But maximizing the runs is the goal, short of situations where a team is trying to force a draw. I get it that there may be other situations where A doesn't want B to hit at all, and thus gets into stalls, but if they can get a huge score the way T10 teams can, why wouldn't they do that instead of playing a game of keep away? Why wouldn't teams push as hard as they can in the last innings if they can score prodigiously?

 

[srbhkshk]

I think it may be the other way round -- you don't understand the format of racing. Racers are going as fast as they can to cover the required distance, whatever it may be, to the point of exhaustion. Cricket isn't asking for that. Cricket is a relay race, with 11 guys going from here to there, but it doesn't seem like low scores reflect batsmen pacing themselves for the long haul as might a marathon runner or Channel swimmer. It should be 11 guys using themselves up entirely, and if those guys can produce 140 runs for 60 balls in one version, why can't they do the same thing in the other versions?

It's been explained multiple times but here's a lowdown -

1. Scoring runs in tests is far harder than in limited overs because -
a> Test pitches are tougher for batting.
b> Red ball swings more than the white ball.
c> You can reverse swing the ball in tests.
d> There is no restriction on how many overs a bowler can bowl.
e> There are very few fielding restrictions compared to limited overs.

Ignoring everything above, the even more important point is that 350 all out in 80 overs is better than 300 all out in 40 overs.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

$10 bet that the next question from rodk is: "What is reverse swing?"

 

[weldone]

Rodk, why do you think chess players don’t play normal length matches as fast as blitz chess? My 3 year-old nephew can play faster than Gary Kasparov ‘s normal length matches.

 

[rodk]

$10 bet that the next question from rodk is: "What is reverse swing?"

Nope. Already looked it up.

Rodk, why do you think chess players don’t play normal length matches as fast as blitz chess? My 3 year-old nephew can play faster than Gary Kasparov ‘s normal length matches.

Maybe they should play blitz chess. If you didn't follow it, the championship last week went to blitz game tie breakers after the 12 scheduled matches all ended drawn, satisfying no one.

And it is a bad example. Chess isn't different because it is 25 minutes, just more prone to errors because of the accelerated pace. Cricket's pace doesn't accelerate in the shorter versions. It isn't less contemplative. The rules don't differ other than for the length. I get the idea that the pitch is set up differently for t20 and that will increase scoring. I get that a more worn out ball will move differently and that will decrease scoring. I get it that there are fewer power plays relative to the length of the contest and that suppresses scoring. What I'm not getting is why 5 day cricket does not see batsmen trying for the bleachers on a regular basis, as seen in t10 and t20. I get it that being too aggressive means that you risk losing wickets, but being passive means depriving yourself of runs, IMHO.

As for whomever asserted that the ovals are smaller, I did see that the t10 title match was played in a venue with a relatively short diameter of 145 meters. But the batsmen were putting shots into the audience. Those sixes seemed like sixes anywhere. Plus the venue is where lots of ODI's are played. If it was all wrong to play there, they wouldn't, would they?

Also, it sounds logical that the t10 scoring is going to be against better quality bowling. In that format, a team doesn't need everyone to be able to bat and bowl well; they can load up on specialists. If the 20% rule applies, then all the specialists are going to be fresh when it is there turn to bowl. Yet they seem to be getting pounded.