Five things I don't get about cricket

[neville cardus]

Legbyes. Why do we reward the batsman for missing the ball, and punish the bowler (or more accurately his team) for having bowled a ball which the batsman has missed?
Marking one's guard. Why's this necessary? It takes forever (especially when I'm batting), and on some surfaces can be bloody difficult. Why can't the ground staff just apply three licks of paint?
Running between the wickets. How come is this never practised or coached? It's one of the most important elements of the game, and yet I've never seen or heard of its being rehearsed.
Wides in first-class cricket. Why so much more leeway than in short-form cricket? Surely both are better when the batsman is made to play?
Danny Morrison. Explanation superfluous.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea I don't get any of these things either.

Except wides. You want to encourage run scoring in limited overs cricket. It's too easy to bowl dot balls if you had wide margins like in 2 innings cricket.

 

[TheJediBrah]

In school cricket (private school) many pitches came with the stump-lines sort of "dug in" at the crease so you could tell where the stumps were. I figure that was just because they had like 5 groundsmen at a time being paid way too much who were just bored ****less with nothing else to do.

Not that it stopped every 15 year old who thinks they're the next Ricky Ponting from taking 4 minutes taking centre, leg, centre-leg and centre-off all at the same time because they think it makes them look more like a pro batsman, mind you

 

[neville cardus]

Yea I don't get any of these things either.
Except wides. You want to encourage run scoring in limited overs cricket. It's too easy to bowl dot balls if you had wide margins like in 2 innings cricket.

Why doesn't the same logic apply for the longer game? I'm not against dot balls, per se; what I'm against is the endless shouldering of arms.

 

[neville cardus]

Hell, I'd even consider fielding restrictions of a kind. I don't think the bowling team should ever have the option of shutting things down completely.

 

[cnerd123]

Why doesn't the same logic apply for the longer game? I'm not against dot balls, per se; what I'm against is the endless shouldering of arms.

Well in current day cricket it feels unnecessary; batsman are so instinctively aggressive and run-hungry that 'negative' bowling doesn't lead to run-less and wicket-less sessions.

But in the olden days, I don't know. I guess cricketers would just get so bored, either the batsmen would slog at the wide stuff or bowlers would start looking for wickets again. Or maybe captains and coaches and selectors just don't entertain bowlers who never attack the stumps.

 

[harsh.ag]

Hell, I'd even consider fielding restrictions of a kind. I don't think the bowling team should ever have the option of shutting things down completely.

In tests, the batting side has that option. The bowling side having it too makes sense.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Legbyes. Why do we reward the batsman for missing the ball, and punish the bowler (or more accurately his team) for having bowled a ball which the batsman has missed?

Agreed

Marking one's guard. Why's this necessary? It takes forever (especially when I'm batting), and on some surfaces can be bloody difficult. Why can't the ground staff just apply three licks of paint?

good point..maybe the concern is that it won't last?

Running between the wickets. How come is this never practised or coached? It's one of the most important elements of the game, and yet I've never seen or heard of its being rehearsed.

Pretty sure it gets practised

Wides in first-class cricket. Why so much more leeway than in short-form cricket? Surely both are better when the batsman is made to play?

Have to disagree with that a little. Batsmen have an advantage with this. In LO cricket I can sort of understand although the leg side wide is a tad too harsh, but in test cricket, teams should be allowed to bowl a 5th-6th stump if they want to because test cricket involves a host of different kind of strategies, there are different moments within the game that encourage different styles of play and having the wide restriction would take something out of the game, with everyone just always attacking the stumps and bowling a more LO line,

Danny Morrison. Explanation superfluous.

When Inzamam was having a torrid time at the 92 World Cup, he had managed to play a pull shot against Morrison that went for 4 in the group stage (Got out for 5). Imran used that shot to inspire him before the semi final

 

[harsh.ag]

Legbyes. Why do we reward the batsman for missing the ball, and punish the bowler (or more accurately his team) for having bowled a ball which the batsman has missed?

The reward goes to the team, not the batsmen. In both cases, the team is rewarded/punished. The bowling side is punished, one could say, because as a fielding unit, they were unable to stop the other side taking the run even though the ball never touched the bat.

 

[neville cardus]

The reward goes to the team, not the batsmen.

Ugh. The nitpicking one encounters online. But unless you freight your every sentence with parentheses and qualifications, I suppose this is unavoidable.

In both cases, the team is rewarded/punished. The bowling side is punished, one could say, because as a fielding unit, they were unable to stop the other side taking the run even though the ball never touched the bat.

This doesn't answer the objection that the batting team is rewarded for a mistake. In fact, the only time you aren't allowed to run is when it isn't a mistake: that is, when you've padded up deliberately. Weird, that.

 

[cnerd123]

Yea nc is making a good point here. Legbyes suck. You **** up your shot and still get a run? That's not fair.

 

[morgieb]

Well tbf most leg-byes come from bad bowling down the leg-side.

 

[Burgey]

Why doesn't the same logic apply for the longer game? I'm not against dot balls, per se; what I'm against is the endless shouldering of arms.

Never underestimate the power of a good leave

 

[harsh.ag]

Ugh. The nitpicking one encounters online. But unless you freight your every sentence with parentheses and qualifications, I suppose this is unavoidable.

I wrote that because you had qualified in your original statement that it was the bowling side, not the bowler, which is punished but hadn't made the same qualification for the batsman, so I wasn't sure if you knew about it. Plus, it was tied to how the batsman, the one who made a mistake, isn't rewarded personally.

This doesn't answer the objection that the batting team is rewarded for a mistake. In fact, the only time you aren't allowed to run is when it isn't a mistake: that is, when you've padded up deliberately. Weird, that.

The batting team being rewarded is simply the flip side of the fielding side being punished. Why should the fielding unit not be punished for failing to stop a single that comes off of the pad?

When you pad up deliberately, you signal that your intention is not to score a run. You are held up to that.

 

[neville cardus]

Never underestimate the power of a good leave

It's only a good leave if the ball is relatively straight.

 

[neville cardus]

The batting team being rewarded is simply the flip side of the fielding side being punished. Why should the fielding unit not be punished for failing to stop a single that comes off of the pad?

Because it's unfair to punish someone for failing to prevent the unforseeable. You can predict where intentional shots will go; you can't set fields for accidental deflections.

When you pad up deliberately, you signal that your intention is not to score a run. You are held up to that.

Since when do we reward mere endeavour and aspiration? That's primary-schoolish.

 

[NUFAN]

I've played for a team that did running between the wickets drills during training before. Typically the training session after a couple of bad calls leading to run outs on the previous weekend.

 

[neville cardus]

I've played for a team that did running between the wickets drills during training before. Typically the training session after a couple of bad calls leading to run outs on the previous weekend.

Then your team is pretty exceptional. I see that Haigh and Kimber discussed the matter at length on a recent "Cricket Sadist Hour" podcast.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Every team I've ever been a part of practices running between wickets. Definitely not as much as other things though.

 

[neville cardus]

I need to have a word with my childhood coaches!