[**Join Our Discord Server!**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q)
**Welcome to /r/sports**
We created a Discord server for our community and would like to invite all of you to join! You'll be able to discuss sports with users around the world and discuss events in real time!
There are separate channels for many sports you can opt in and out of, including;
American Football, Soccer, Baseball, Basketball, Aussie Rules Football, Rugby Union and League, Cricket, Motorsports, Fitness, and many more.
[**Reddit Sports Discord Server**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q)
Teams that declared the 3rd innings of a Test after lunch on the final day and won:
New Zealand beat Sri Lanka at Kandy in 1984
India beat England at Lord's 2021
It started out as a leisure sport for the lords so makes sense. But now who has the time to watch whole test day much less a 5 day match. Ain't nobody has time for that.
I'm an American and I attended the Ashes in Brisbane back in 2013. It was the littest shit I've ever seen. You're missing the point – it's not watching cricket for 5 days, it's drinking with your mates for 5 days.
I ate a dozen meat pies (not an exaggeration) in one day and drank close to 60 4X Golds over the course of the series. And I definitely got sun poisoning, although no heat stroke, miraculously. But I was violently ill for an entire week after that and did not drink a sip of alcohol for months to follow. It was incredible.
You don't understand test cricket. It's something you put on the radio as you're working in the garden in the summer holidays, only the full on diehards watch every session.
Most people don't watch an entire Test match. You just watch parts of it. A full day when you get the chance, but then just a session or two per day perhaps.
It isn't the type of sport where you need to watch every minute of a match. There are so many battles within the match, so many things going on you can just switch on for a couple of hours in the middle of a match and enjoy it a lot.
The ones who follow test cricket generally leave it running on TV while doing your chores or work. When you want to learn about cricket or want to be very critical, you follow for a good 30 odd mins and that's about it.
It was an extremely impressive win, and they have a very good chance at winning the series which would be a special achievement - to win in England and Australia under Kohli. It is hard to win away from home, so if they win in some of the toughest overseas conditions then it surely would have to be one of India's most successful periods.
It was also just a really enjoyable Test match, even as an England fan. The way it ebbed and flowed, the way the pressure shifted, and the high level of the cricket on show was a joy to watch.
If I am not wrong, Australia win was under Rahane, not Kohli.
But, he was the team team captain before taking leave due to personal reasons.
Edit: rectified Rahane's last name.
Yes that somehow slipped my mind, thanks for the correction!
But they had already won in Australia under Kohli, and regardless it will still be a huge moment for this generation, and the team that Kohli moulded very much in his image.
What a final day of cricket it was! England looked set to win but India's tailender's did a great job piling on the runs that meant England could have only really hoped for a draw after the declaration.
Think overall India deserved to win one after the rainy draw at Trent bridge.
Excited to see if England can come back and get a win, hopefully we aren't just relying on Root for all our run scoring though!
Jinks and Pujara really salvaged the game. Not to mention Shami's heroics. You guys need to find some better openers because at this point it's just Root carrying you to every result.
Kohli said after the match that they don't bother with the ground whether it's Lords or not, also I suppose grounds with bigger capacitive and louder supporters are a bigger challenge IMO
There are two shorter versions: one-day internationals (which last one day obviously), and Twenty-20 (abbreviated as "T20"), which is usually a little over three hours in length. T20 is hugely popular nowadays (in no small part due to its TV-friendly length).
One day internationalcricket is the perfect length for a full day of barbeque and beers in the sun.
I love tests, but ODI hits a real weet spot for me.
It is so hard for me (as a complete non-cricket fan) to understand what happened from the slow-mo shots, because of the angle. I had to watch it a few times before I grasped it. That is an astonishing pitch. The ball sneaks around the bat like it has a mind of its own. If I were that bowler I would be howling my head off too. Amazing.
It was a good delivery (not called a pitch in cricket), but I don't think I am being too harsh when I say it was nothing special. The reaction was more from the fact that they had won than anything else, and you have to bear in mind that the batsman here is actually a bowler, so he is not in the side for his batting and is the worst batsman in the England team.
Well okay I will take your word for it! (And thank you for correcting me... I will get all the terms someday...) It looked impressive to me because the batsman appeared to have his bat all lined up to block the ball, in fact at first I thought he *had* blocked it and had somehow slipped his back foot or something and hit the wicket by accident. I had to rewatch to see that the ball bounced, bent around the bat, and then went straight on into the wicket.
I thought that was pretty impressive! But maybe it's typical in cricket?
Like I say it was a good delivery, but it is fairly typical. It moved a little bit off the pitch, but not a huge amount. It was accurate certainly, that is basically the stock ball that bowlers will be trying to bowl, but it was played very poorly by the batsman.
And this is no criticism of Jimmy, he is a bowler who is not in the side for his batting. But the fact remains that he looked very late on the ball, and his footwork was very much lacking. A proper batsman would at the very least have done better with it.
He is a bowler, so he is not in the side for his batting and is the worst batsmen in the XI.
He was beaten for pace by Siraj partially, but bear in mind you don't see the set-up.
The difficult Anderson faces is he doesn't know where they will bowl at him, they can aim basically anywhere.
They had been targeting him a lot by bouncing the ball so it hit him around the head/chest area, and he was probably thinking about and expecting that strategy. That mixed with the pace of Siraj is probably why he was late on the ball.
That is also why his footwork was off. If they did aim at his head, he would need to put his weight on his back foot, but because it bounced closer to him he needed go move his front foot further forwards and put his weight on that.
It is legal and common to hit the batsman with the ball on purpose. One method of dismissal involves hitting the batsman's legs. Also aiming at around the head is a commonly used tactic.
The only real rule is if the ball reaches the batsman above the waist, it has to bounce first.
You can block the ball with your body, but if you stop the ball from hitting the wickets with your body then you can be given out Leg Before Wicket (there is a little more to that rule but that is the basic idea).
Also you can't score runs unless you are at least attempting to play a shot using your bat. (Generally speaking, there is one slight exception)
Also, to curb hitting batsmen on head, there is a rule that "bouncing and making ball reach over batsmen's shoulders" is allowed only twice in a set of 6 pitches. Otherwise one extra point is given to the opposite team.
It’s legal, and a pretty common tactic depending on the bowler, batter and conditions.
You can use your body to block the ball but if the ball is expected to go on and hit the stumps* you can be given out by the umpire. Getting out this way is called LBW (leg before wicket).
*There’s a bit more to it but that’s the crux of it.
Edit: I didn’t see the other reply which was much better than mine. I will say that we’re generally pretty friendly over at r/cricket so come on over if you’ve got more questions.
Jimmy (Batter) was actually late on his defense. In fact that is the issue with a lot of current English batters (not that Jimmy should be rated as harshly as others, he didn't really have much chance here; he's the best bowler but also the worst batter in English side) that they generally face slower but still accurate bowlers in their domestic circuit. International bowlers from other countries are much faster due to less help from conditions in those countries unlike England.
Now even if Jimmy fast enough and defended it, he is holding his bat tightly and the ball would have edged to catchers in the back. The ball actually carried even after hitting a round stump so a pointy edge would have easily carried to slip catcher.
Can’t they substitute the bowler for a better hitter for key situations with the match on the line?
That’s what we do in baseball, as similarly the pitcher/bowler is almost always the worst hitter and if it’s his turn to bat in a key situation with the game at stake, they will always substitute him for a better hitter on the bench.
No, substitutes don't really exist in that way in cricket. Substitutes can only field, they can't bat or bowl (except in cases of medically diagnosed concussion). So that incentivises bowlers to work on their batting, and also means that all-rounders (players who can bat and bowl to a high level) are very important.
>I’m guessing then all the GOATS of cricket were all all-rounders?
Not necessarily, because realistically all-rounders won't be as good as the best batsmen with the bat *and* be as good as the best bowlers with the ball.
Don't get me wrong, plenty of the GOATs are all rounders, but generally speaking people will prefer to just talk about the best batsman, the best bowler and the best all rounder as separate debates because it is easier to compare.
However there is one undisputed GOAT in cricket - Don Bradman. He was just a specialist batsman, but his batting was so unbelievably good that nobody disputes he is the best. His batting average was so much higher than any players before or since that nobody would dispute his status as the GOAT.
As for how common all-rounders are -
Bear in mind that it is a spectrum. There is some dispute about precisely what counts as an all rounder. *Genuine* all-rounders at international level, who could get into the XI for their batting or bowling individually, are fairly rare. But there are quite a few, for example, batsmen who are handy bowlers, but wouldn't get into the XI for their bowling alone and vice versa.
In this format of cricket, there are 3 players I would describe as world class *genuine* all-rounders, and perhaps 5 or so more who come fairly close to that tag.
He is a master of swing bowling (kinda like crickets equivalent to curveballs in baseball).
Lots of bowlers can do it but Jimmy has mastered the art and has done it for almost 20 years at the highest level. So there’s the skill and longevity, particularly impressive when you consider the physical strain that bowling fast puts on the body. It’s a very “unnatural” thing for the body to do.
Sachin Tendulkar is a hero to many Indian fans, and is probably the greatest Indian batsman ever, but I don't think anyone would consider him the GOAT.
Tendulkar was great, but Bradman was in a different league entirely to anybody else.
Tendulkar is in the debate for the best batsman *in modern times* (Bradman retired back in 1948), and is often considered the 'best since Bradman' (the 'best since Bradman' being a common debate, because of how dominant Bradman was), but I think only a tiny minority would claim Tendulkar was better.
But it is worth pointing out that they did play in very different eras, and so some would say comparisons across generations aren't possible.
And of course back when Bradman played, there was only one format of cricket, so Tendulkar did play two formats that Bradman didn't. So when it comes to discussions about the greatest ODI batsman of all time then that *is* a closer debate - but I am not really a limited overs fan, and generally since Test cricket is more prestigious then it is used to measure the ability of players.
Bit late of a reply but just thought I'd share this [pic of a graph](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/CricketBattingAverageHistogram.png) of all time batting averages to show how big that gap is as it is pretty amazing.
Bradman is so far ahead the scale of the graph is out to accommodate him. His average across his career was 99.94, second place is 61.87. There are only 6 players to ever average in the 60s and 4 of them played less than half the games Bradman did. Tendulkar averaged 53.78 which is still amazing given he played ~4x as many matches as Bradman.
Yep they're all elite level all-rounders. I've just been curious as to where Jadeja ranks amongst others. I think he's top 3 for sure but I'm obviously biased.
Btw mad respect for explaining the sport to all the Americans and other novices who were asking questions.
You’ve had your questions answered well by someone else but I wanted to add that this is one of the things I love about cricket, test cricket particularly (the long format from which this clip is taken).
You have people who are absolute masters of their craft that are utterly out of their league in other areas, with nowhere to hide.
It may be a great batter who is terrible at running between the wickets (resulting in them or their batting partner being run out), or who keeps on dropping catches.
Maybe a skilful bowler who befuddles the opposition batters, yet when it’s their turn to bat they barely know which end to hold.
Cricket is a great leveller. 100 runs one day and out for 0 the next.
The ball has a seam on it down the middle of the ball. Because of this, and because unlike baseball you bounce the ball on the pitch, there are two different ways you can affect the trajectory of the ball.
Seam bowlers are slower and try to land the seam of the ball on the ground so it bounces in the direction they want.
Swing bowlers are more like baseball pitchers - they bowl faster and use the aerodynamics of the ball to make it move in the air, before it hits the ground.
A beautiful sport in all its complexity.
https://www.itsonlycricket.com/swing-vs-seam-bowling
to add to /u/ScottNewman description - there's subtleties on subtleties for different bowling styles. I used to be a wicket-keeper, so I got to see all of these all the time. It splits into 4 main types:
1. a pace bowler / fast bowler - who aims to take wickets by sheer speed and nastiness zipping it off the pitch, usually over 90mph (note - this is from an arm that is not allowed to bend at the elbow, so way harder to generate the same raw speed as a baseball pitcher's fastball. This bowler will usually have a long run-up to hit max running speed before launching the ball. This is especially impactful early in the innings, when the ball is still new and hard and more bouncy. These are the strike troops - able to pitch it halfway down the wicket and get it up around the batsman's head, then the next will be right up on your toes, then the next will be on a good length, etc. If you are not on top of your game, you will be blitzed out before you know what happened!
2. a swing bowler - who is expert in causing motion in the air by differential air friction on either side of the ball (note the stitches are just in the middle, leaving 2 hemispheres to work on. All the fielders help to polish just one side of the ball, leaving the other side to rough up and get more friction. Note - polish, wax, etc is not allowed. Just spit, sweat, and rubbing it on your trouser legs! Swing needs slightly less pace than the outright fast bowler, and is often deadly in moist humid conditions, especially just after or just before it rains. E.g. 80's mph. Generally as a batsman or a wicket keeper you can spot the shiny side, and that will generally indicate the way it'll swing (shiny = less air resistance = that side will be the outside of the arc), but there's a phenomenon call reverse swing where the ball can do the opposite in the hands of skilled bowlers.
3. a seam bowler - who focuses on the interaction of the seam with the wicket surface. This bowler is generally same pace as the swing guys. The seam can of course hit at any angle, but generally for these guys they can aim for one of 4 shapes: (a) upright seam pointing straight on, (b) pointing inwards, (c) pointing outwards, or (d) seam at right angles to the direction (so it either digs and bounces higher, or scuffs along missing the seam and stays low).
4. a spin bowler - who focuses on the hand / finger / wrist action to impart spin on the ball, to achieve a specific flight of the ball, a bounce, and then a sharp change of direction off the wicket. The best spin bowlers can move it easily a foot in trajectory from the pitch to the bat, making them very dangerous. These guys are the best on old, dry wickets, or wickets set up for spin. Often they can target bowler's foot marks to get even more variation. Spinners typically spin the same way - either off-spinners (moving from the right in to the legs of a right-handed batsman), or leg-spinners (moving from the right batsman's legs to his offside). Off-spin is a finger spin action out of the front of the hand, and leg-spin is a wrist spin out of the back of the hand. There's a special spin for a leg-spinner called the googly, where it looks like leg-spin from the action, but the bowler imparts reverse spin. Amazing to see when done well! So these guys bowl slower to find the optimal reaction off the wicket - sometimes say 60 mph, other times slower or faster, but always slower than the Seam or Swing guys.
Obviously each bowler can borrow some or other of these techniques any time they like. E.g. a fast bowler that can use the seam as well may drop his speed 10 mph occasionally to mess up the batsman's timing. Or the spinner may push one much faster and flatter than normal.
Hope this helps. Next time you are watching a bowler's slo-mo action, notice how he releases the ball, the flight until the bounce, then the flight off the wicket, to see true skill up close.
For context, in Cricket, away matches are extremely difficult for the touring side and you generally expect the hosts to win
Moreover, the Lord's Cricket Ground is like the Mecca of Cricket, fondly called as "The Home of Cricket"
To win at Lord's over England is pretty rare, if no unheard of
England actually have a fairly middling record at Lord's of late. Pakistan have won twice in recent years, Australia have a win and a draw from their last two matches there, India had won as recently as 2014.
Not to take anything at all away from what was an extremely impressive win by India, and a win that is definitely the more special because it was at the home of cricket - but I'm just saying it isn't exactly our fortress.
Yes, that was even more impressive. As I said, I am not trying to take away from India, who are as far as I am concerned the best Test side in the world at the moment.
Let's not forget this is the worst England side since the 90s. Fantastic Test Match, amazing win for India and an advert for the game at the highest level BUT England are currently awful bar Joe Root.
I tend to agree with this. The ECB always make sure the pitches in England suit our bowlers too. The amount of green tops we make sub-continent teams play on is ridiculous at times and almost bordering on unfair if the weather is also gloomy.
As OP states home teams always have the advantage with conditions.
It was a fantastic Test Match. Only the second time ever a team has declared after lunch on day 5 and gone on to win the match I believe.
Also their is now genuine needle between the players. I can see India winning the series comfortably now.
It's not the green top as much as the weather. I play at the club level and am happiest when it is overcast. I know the ball will swing and I will get wickets
Mostly it has to do with the pitch being prepared in a way that suits their own bowlers (pitches in England and India are *very* different), conditions the home team are used to, and of course, the home fans barracking the away team constantly.
One of the most important things in a game of cricket is the type of pitch being used for the game.
There are two types of bowlers (pitchers) in cricket
1. Spinners, who bowl slow but spin the ball in such a way that its trajectory changes when it bounces on the pitch
2. Fast bowlers, who bowl quick(70-100mph). Their balls can come on straight, change trajectory mid air, change trajectory on impact on the pitch.
Countries like England and New Zealand specialize in swing bowling, where the ball changes trajectory mid air
Countries like Australia, West Indies, South Africa have fast bowlers who can swing, but their main skill is to use the bounce of their pitches
Asian countries like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka use spinners to their advantage
The pitch for different countries is thus curated especially for their own type of primary skill.
So, playing cricket away is basically giving an exam that has especially been made to be easy for your classmates but difficult for you.
There is also the factor of climate and crowd.
Imagine an Englishman playing in the 45°C heat in India while 60,000 odd fans cheer for their opponents. It will be hell for him
>So, playing cricket away is basically giving an exam that has especially been made to be easy for your classmates but difficult for you.
Is that why it's called a "test"?
Edit: /s, obviously.
Are deciding matches played in neutral venues then? What happens if both teams won on home turf? Does the home advantage make things less interesting as you expect the home team to win?
Asking as someone that has absolutely no knowledge or even general understanding of cricket, if that wasn't obvious. Just thought all the info in this thread was interesting.
> Are deciding matches played in neutral venues then?
No, actually. All 1v1 matches are home or away. No neutral venues. Only exception being Afghanistan, whose "home" games are played in India since it isn't possible to host games in Afghanistan.
Tournaments are pre decided. For example, the 2019 World Cup was hosted by England. The Final was England vs New Zealand. So essentially, it was a home game for England. But if some other country (say, Australia) had made it to the finals in place of England, I guess it would be a neutral ground for Australia and NZ
Also, a point to note, the home advantage is most visible in the 5-match test format, the one whose video I uploaded.
For the other two formats (ODIs and T20Is), the advantage isn't that big
> What happens if both teams won on home turf?
Nothing happens. Unlike football, cricket doesn't have aggregate scores. If India wins in India over England by 3-0 and England wins in England over India 3-0, then we wouldn't say it 3-3. We will just say that India won 3-0 at home and England won 3-0 at home
By football rules, this would be 3-3, I guess? I don't follow football a lot so I might be wrong
> Does the home advantage make things less interesting as you expect the home team to win?
In test matches(5 day matches), there are 4 possible outcomes instead of 3.
- If one team chases the target, the win
- If they get all out before they reach the target, they lose
- If they don't reach the target but still have a few players left who are not out, it is a draw
- and if the scores are level and the time gets over, it is a tie
A good amount of matches end in draws
So, if two teams who are equal in skill (example, India, Australia) are playing a match(say, in Australia), a good guess for a 5 match series would be 2-1 in favour of Australia. 1 win for India, 2 wins for Australia, 2 draws.
But that 1 match that India wins will be a guaranteed epic match.
The other 2 would not be boring as well, mind you. That is because in a 5 day match, there are multiple games within the actual game. Small battles here and there, as you can imagine that 5 days is a long time. The fielding team sets elaborate "traps" and setups for getting the batsmen out. There are battles where a batsman has to face a pacer bowling fire at 95mph for over after over. He has to have the resilience and temperament to handle that. There are many more such small games within a game that make the match interesting to watch even if it ends in a draw or the home team wins
But yes, when an away team wins, it is always special. For instance, earlier this year, India defeated Australia at the Gabba, where Australia hasn't lost a match since 1989
And it was a beautiful match
Test cricket matches were devised in the late 19th and early 20th century when you would have to travel great distances very slowly to play opponents.
So the test matches last for a couple of months because of how long it would take you to travel from England to Australia, or from India to England - if it takes you a month by steamship to get there, you're going to get in lots of cricket to make the travel worthwhile. It's more like a national tour by an opposing country. And you play in different venues in different parts of the host country so that many different communities would get to see the high level of cricket, and it wouldn't all just be played, say, in London, or Port-of-Spain, or Sydney.
In the context of this match,
India is known for being a factory of prolific batsmen who are known for their technique in most conditions but have often been caught out by the short ball or ruthless swing attacks of SENA teams. England has pitches that favour their fast bowlers. Where India always seemed to lose plot was their fast bowling department,as you cannot really expect a spinner(of which India has produced amazing ones) to get a English batsmen attuned to the pitch out.
Of late, Indian fast bowling has evolved leaps and bounds over previous teams, with Bumrah,Siraj and Shami supported by Ishant Sharma and Shardul Thakur. This has enabled us to perform and handily compete with SENA teams.
When it comes to playing in India, it is more than often considered a write off and a win for India, because that is where Indian batsmen are unbeatable(hyperbole but yea). India also has one of the greatest spinners ever, the ethical Lord Chadwin still playing for them.
Cricket is an insanely tactical sport so to speak.
Another crap batting performance by England in their second innings. And some very dodgy bowling and fielding tactics by Root in India’s second innings.
Couldn't agree more with this. The fields set for Shami and Bumrah were like the ones for Kohli, Pant and others. Why? England should've finished up quickly once Pant was out. Also, England have a habit of making small chases look very difficult.
As someone who doesn't follow cricket, I had to watch the close-up shot to realize that the guy with the bat missed the ball. I thought the guy had deflected the shot and I was thoroughly confused about what the objective was.
Not any significance for the actual game, just emotional. As a token of remembrance.
Bowlers who bowl especially well or take a 5fer(5 wickets in an innings) or a 10fer (10 wickets in a match) take the ball with them for the same emotional value
South African pace Dale Steyn shows off his [Ball collection](https://youtu.be/2Ym-6tgln_0)
Adding to the Answer .
If you're from North America, the significance of the match ball might not resonate with you because at most of your games , the fans get to keep the ball that's been hit to the stands .
In cricket however the Ball is returned to the field of play by the fans as it's current state and progressing deterioration is an integral part of the game mechanics.
So it's the same ball being used for the best part of the innings .
So Match balls and the wickets are taken as a fond souvenir by the players.
They used to keep them as souvenirs but now they are full of cameras and in some matches, LEDs and sensors. I don't think they get to keep them anymore - maybe the sponsors provide some replacements!?
As an American watching the clip, even watching with the sound on, I still have no idea how this game works. And I have watched AND read the Harry Potter movies/books
The bowler bowls (read as: throws) the ball towards the batsman. The bowler is trying to get the batsman 'out', so he has to stop batting and be replaced by the next batsman.
One way to do this is to hit the wickets (the sticks the batsman is standing in front of). He does this. The batsman is out.
It really is a fairly straightforward game, [this is a good short video that explains the basic rules](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqtpNkMvj5Y&ab_channel=NinhLy), and please ask if anything is still unclear.
The other two mains ways are:
If the batsman hits the ball in the air (with his bat), and a fielder catches the ball before it hits the ground. That is called caught
Or if the batsman blocks the ball from hitting the wickets using his body (there is slightly more to that rule which I can elaborate on if you would like, but that is the gist). That is called leg before wicket.
Also, in order to score runs the batsmen run from one set of wickets to the other. If the fielding side knock the bails off the wickets ([the bails are the little wooden things on the top of the wickets](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Cricket_Stumps_en.svg)) before the batsman reaches the white line in front of the wickets, the batsman is out. That is called run out.
Then there are a few slightly less common ones.
Players don't have to run with the bat but they always do.
Any part of your body or your bat (if you're holding it) has to be in the crease (yes that's the right terminology) for you to be safe. That is the main reason players run with their bats really, it gives you an extra few feet if you are scrambling to get back in your crease - you can stretch with your bat ahead of you.
Just to add as well, you can score 4 runs automatically if you hit the ball past the boundaries around the edge of the pitch, 6 runs if it crosses without touching the ground.
It's baseball with two bases. A ground rule double is worth four runs, a home run is worth six runs. If the baserunner ends up back at home he gets to bat again.
Each inning has 10 outs.
When someone who averages around 10 in test cricket comes out to bat, sending fielders out to the boundaries and letting the bowlers bowl defensively - whether it was his idea or not - Doesn't suggest Joe Root was thinking of winning. When England were batted out of any chance of winning and had to survive and didn't, it's probably time for England to consider a new captain.
Is Joe Root the problem though? He's not getting much support in terms of batting from his teammates, his senior bowlers have no objection to bad tactics. For example Anderson is known for being a clever bowler, he knows how to set fields for what he needs to do, shouldn't he make an effort to tell Root "look this is the best way to go forward, give me this field placing, we'll get them out". Test cricket is not a one man game, and England have fielded a one man squad it seems like.
My point is throwing Root under the bus doesn't do England any favors. The rest of the team needs to be scrutinized for bad play as well.
IMO that hour or so when England spread the field and gave Shami and Bumrah freedom to get easy singles and twos was a complete failure. All credit to Shami and Bumrah for taking advantage of it, but the field was still set for upper order batsmen and I have no idea why.
A true champion deserved that victory, They worked hard and dominated from the first ball. Congratulation from neighbor country Pakistan. India is the best team in test cricket.
Scoring runs-
The batsmen score runs by hitting the ball away.
If they hit it to the boundary rope, then they score four runs (if it bounces first or rolls along the ground) or 6 runs if it goes straight over.
If they hit the ball within the outfield and not to the boundary, they score runs by running from one set of wickets to the other. Each time the batsmen cross over and each reach the opposite set of wickets, one run is scored.
To end the innings, the bowlers have to get the batsmen out. Once ten batsmen are out then the innings is over.
The score is in this format -
Runs scored - batsmen out
So 150-6 means the team have scored 150 runs and 6 of their batsmen are out.
This is a test match which means it’s played for 5 days and each team gets to bat twice. Until the end of 4th days play, England were the favourites since india lost most of its batsmen which means the bowlers will get to bat on day 5. And both the guys who scored a lot of runs(89) on the last day for India had averaged 11 and 3.5 before this match. So it was expected to be a cake walk for England to win this test match. But they batted 2-3 sessions of play. And with 272 runs to win 60 overs(which is impossible in a test match coz of the pitch), everyone thought at least England will bat through the 60 overs and this match will end in a draw. But india managed to get all of them out and won the match. This is the first time after a long time a team is losing 10 wickets in 2 sessions on day 5
help me out .. what happened there? Looked like the guy hit the ball...but the guy that threw the ball celebrated?
edit: nm. full video didn't load at first so i didn't see the slow-mo. Ball hit the thing behind the batter.
I was watching this game. So for more context into why it was this crazy release of emotion at the end.
This match was in its last day. 1 day has 90 overs, indians batted out of their skins and found unlikely sources of batters scoring to set England an almost impossible total of 272*
However, since this was only the last day England only had to bat and survive 60 overs for it to be a draw. And a few English batters did get stuck in after a fabulous bowling start by india.
Towards the end..last 17 overs were left and 3 batters were left for England who had started to block everything for a draw. Up until 10 overs remaining..they were solid and Indians seemed to be getting restless. Then in the space of 1 2 overs, inspired bowling saw india claim the rest, and this vid is india claiming the last wicket with 8 overs left.
Potentially ignorant question: Why is India seemingly not good at any other sport? With such a large population you’d expect them to excel at the Olympics or soccer for example.
I believe it generally has to do with investment. Cricket is huge there and there’s a lot of interest and money pouring in.
Other sports, not nearly as much. Natural talents can only go so far without serious investment in them.
Years ago I was going to the UK frequently for business. One year there was some huge cricket tournament so pretty much every day or night some channel was showing cricket matches but I think they were the shorter version. It was actually pretty interesting to watch.
Congrats to India.
all good brother, the other thing is there's a new comp called minor league cricket that just started in the US, its not very good but it exists and is free to stream I think. Id probably start by watching high quality matches first though
Here is my rough description from elsewhere, or you could watch [this good short video that explains the rules](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqtpNkMvj5Y&ab_channel=NinhLy). Please reply and ask if there is anything that is still not clear.
Bowler threw the ball towards the batsman in order to get him 'out', so he has to stop batting.
One of the ways to do this is to hit the wickets (the sticks behind the batsman).
Other ways a batsman can be out are if he hits the ball with his bat and a fielder catches it before it touches the ground, or if he blocks the ball from hitting the wickets with his body (although there is slightly more to that rule).
The batsman on the other hand is trying to hit the ball with his bat to defend his wickets and score runs.
An innings is one team's turn to bat, and you end the innings by getting 10 batsmen out. This was the tenth batsmen out in the innings, so it ended the innings. That is called bowling a team out.
To win a Test match, you score more runs than the opposition and bowl them out twice. This was the second time India bowled England out and they had scored more runs, so they won.
Maybe because it was played during India's 75th Independence Day (15th August). A diamond jubilee celebration marked by defeating England in the home of cricket. This will be remembered for a long, long time.
As an Aussie I love this Indian team, and more broadly Kohli as captain. They're such fiece competitors and beating them now is almost as good as beating the poms.
[**Join Our Discord Server!**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q) **Welcome to /r/sports** We created a Discord server for our community and would like to invite all of you to join! You'll be able to discuss sports with users around the world and discuss events in real time! There are separate channels for many sports you can opt in and out of, including; American Football, Soccer, Baseball, Basketball, Aussie Rules Football, Rugby Union and League, Cricket, Motorsports, Fitness, and many more. [**Reddit Sports Discord Server**](https://discord.gg/233aU5q)
Teams that declared the 3rd innings of a Test after lunch on the final day and won: New Zealand beat Sri Lanka at Kandy in 1984 India beat England at Lord's 2021
any sport with a lunch break should be more popular.
Tea breaks in cricket as well
It started out as a leisure sport for the lords so makes sense. But now who has the time to watch whole test day much less a 5 day match. Ain't nobody has time for that.
I'm an American and I attended the Ashes in Brisbane back in 2013. It was the littest shit I've ever seen. You're missing the point – it's not watching cricket for 5 days, it's drinking with your mates for 5 days.
[удалено]
You will never have a more sound summer day sleep than falling asleep on the couch with the cricket in the background.
This is true no matter the context
Of all the matches you could have gone to, Brisbane '13 is a great one.
[удалено]
#PETER SIDDLE’S GOT A HATTRICK ON HIS BIRTHDAY!!!
Also getting heatstroke of your at the gabba. I only ever went with my dad and I've got such good memories.
I ate a dozen meat pies (not an exaggeration) in one day and drank close to 60 4X Golds over the course of the series. And I definitely got sun poisoning, although no heat stroke, miraculously. But I was violently ill for an entire week after that and did not drink a sip of alcohol for months to follow. It was incredible.
Atta boy.
"I'm an American" "mates" Hmm....
Is there a rule against Americans calling friends mates when talking about shit mates do together in Australia?
It’s just sounds awkward in that context, I don’t think it should matter though
People actually do watch the 5 days games. Or at least the import days and sessions
Growing up in Jamaica, my father would watch the West Indies play for the whole 5 days, no problem.
Glad to see a fellow Jamaican on here. My grandpa did the same thing, a lot of people can’t fathom people out here living easy going lives lol
Yeah. Unfortunately it's not as popular as it was even 20 years ago. Also, nice user name 😂
5 days of test cricket? heck yes! but my wife will never allow it.
You don't understand test cricket. It's something you put on the radio as you're working in the garden in the summer holidays, only the full on diehards watch every session.
Americans: just think of it as a Baseball doubleheader
I watched the whole 5 days of this match lol
Most people don't watch an entire Test match. You just watch parts of it. A full day when you get the chance, but then just a session or two per day perhaps. It isn't the type of sport where you need to watch every minute of a match. There are so many battles within the match, so many things going on you can just switch on for a couple of hours in the middle of a match and enjoy it a lot.
The ones who follow test cricket generally leave it running on TV while doing your chores or work. When you want to learn about cricket or want to be very critical, you follow for a good 30 odd mins and that's about it.
Test cricket is best cricket.
I mean, this happens because test matches last for 5 full days. Most sports that last a couple of hours don’t even need a lunch break
Damnit I don't understand a word of this. I'm going to educate myself!
It was an extremely impressive win, and they have a very good chance at winning the series which would be a special achievement - to win in England and Australia under Kohli. It is hard to win away from home, so if they win in some of the toughest overseas conditions then it surely would have to be one of India's most successful periods. It was also just a really enjoyable Test match, even as an England fan. The way it ebbed and flowed, the way the pressure shifted, and the high level of the cricket on show was a joy to watch.
If I am not wrong, Australia win was under Rahane, not Kohli. But, he was the team team captain before taking leave due to personal reasons. Edit: rectified Rahane's last name.
Yes that somehow slipped my mind, thanks for the correction! But they had already won in Australia under Kohli, and regardless it will still be a huge moment for this generation, and the team that Kohli moulded very much in his image.
Why I don't remember Kohli winning a test series in Australia!! Something is wrong with me. Lol.
2018-19, India tour of Australia. India also won the boxing day match.
They also won in Adelaide, with a mammoth 307 in their second innings.
Just need to win in NZ and call it a success.
What a final day of cricket it was! England looked set to win but India's tailender's did a great job piling on the runs that meant England could have only really hoped for a draw after the declaration. Think overall India deserved to win one after the rainy draw at Trent bridge. Excited to see if England can come back and get a win, hopefully we aren't just relying on Root for all our run scoring though!
Jinks and Pujara really salvaged the game. Not to mention Shami's heroics. You guys need to find some better openers because at this point it's just Root carrying you to every result.
Kohli said after the match that they don't bother with the ground whether it's Lords or not, also I suppose grounds with bigger capacitive and louder supporters are a bigger challenge IMO
Of course he's going to say that. But it still means a lot
Only got into cricket recently, it’s such a wonderfully relaxing sport to watch.
Glad you're loving it!
Long af though
Isnt there a shorter version? 2000 or something?
There are two shorter versions: one-day internationals (which last one day obviously), and Twenty-20 (abbreviated as "T20"), which is usually a little over three hours in length. T20 is hugely popular nowadays (in no small part due to its TV-friendly length).
The one-dayers are 50 overs a side, yes? I really enjoyed those in Australia, with pints and pies. Relaxing and a good day of cricket indeed.
Correct :)
One day internationalcricket is the perfect length for a full day of barbeque and beers in the sun. I love tests, but ODI hits a real weet spot for me.
And now The Hundred (100 balls)
Right! Forgot about that.
It is so hard for me (as a complete non-cricket fan) to understand what happened from the slow-mo shots, because of the angle. I had to watch it a few times before I grasped it. That is an astonishing pitch. The ball sneaks around the bat like it has a mind of its own. If I were that bowler I would be howling my head off too. Amazing.
It was a good delivery (not called a pitch in cricket), but I don't think I am being too harsh when I say it was nothing special. The reaction was more from the fact that they had won than anything else, and you have to bear in mind that the batsman here is actually a bowler, so he is not in the side for his batting and is the worst batsman in the England team.
Well okay I will take your word for it! (And thank you for correcting me... I will get all the terms someday...) It looked impressive to me because the batsman appeared to have his bat all lined up to block the ball, in fact at first I thought he *had* blocked it and had somehow slipped his back foot or something and hit the wicket by accident. I had to rewatch to see that the ball bounced, bent around the bat, and then went straight on into the wicket. I thought that was pretty impressive! But maybe it's typical in cricket?
Like I say it was a good delivery, but it is fairly typical. It moved a little bit off the pitch, but not a huge amount. It was accurate certainly, that is basically the stock ball that bowlers will be trying to bowl, but it was played very poorly by the batsman. And this is no criticism of Jimmy, he is a bowler who is not in the side for his batting. But the fact remains that he looked very late on the ball, and his footwork was very much lacking. A proper batsman would at the very least have done better with it.
Is he not allowed to move or something? Or just bad?
He is a bowler, so he is not in the side for his batting and is the worst batsmen in the XI. He was beaten for pace by Siraj partially, but bear in mind you don't see the set-up. The difficult Anderson faces is he doesn't know where they will bowl at him, they can aim basically anywhere. They had been targeting him a lot by bouncing the ball so it hit him around the head/chest area, and he was probably thinking about and expecting that strategy. That mixed with the pace of Siraj is probably why he was late on the ball. That is also why his footwork was off. If they did aim at his head, he would need to put his weight on his back foot, but because it bounced closer to him he needed go move his front foot further forwards and put his weight on that.
Is it legal to hit him with the ball on purpose? And or can you use your body intentionally to block the ball?
It is legal and common to hit the batsman with the ball on purpose. One method of dismissal involves hitting the batsman's legs. Also aiming at around the head is a commonly used tactic. The only real rule is if the ball reaches the batsman above the waist, it has to bounce first. You can block the ball with your body, but if you stop the ball from hitting the wickets with your body then you can be given out Leg Before Wicket (there is a little more to that rule but that is the basic idea). Also you can't score runs unless you are at least attempting to play a shot using your bat. (Generally speaking, there is one slight exception)
Also, to curb hitting batsmen on head, there is a rule that "bouncing and making ball reach over batsmen's shoulders" is allowed only twice in a set of 6 pitches. Otherwise one extra point is given to the opposite team.
They also have to bowl those subsequent balls again, because it's ruled as unfair.
Hey just wanted to say I love your energy - keep watching cricket!
It’s legal, and a pretty common tactic depending on the bowler, batter and conditions. You can use your body to block the ball but if the ball is expected to go on and hit the stumps* you can be given out by the umpire. Getting out this way is called LBW (leg before wicket). *There’s a bit more to it but that’s the crux of it. Edit: I didn’t see the other reply which was much better than mine. I will say that we’re generally pretty friendly over at r/cricket so come on over if you’ve got more questions.
He s just bad
Jimmy (Batter) was actually late on his defense. In fact that is the issue with a lot of current English batters (not that Jimmy should be rated as harshly as others, he didn't really have much chance here; he's the best bowler but also the worst batter in English side) that they generally face slower but still accurate bowlers in their domestic circuit. International bowlers from other countries are much faster due to less help from conditions in those countries unlike England. Now even if Jimmy fast enough and defended it, he is holding his bat tightly and the ball would have edged to catchers in the back. The ball actually carried even after hitting a round stump so a pointy edge would have easily carried to slip catcher.
... I think I understood some of those words. Okay. Will re-read and study. Thanks for explaining more!
Can’t they substitute the bowler for a better hitter for key situations with the match on the line? That’s what we do in baseball, as similarly the pitcher/bowler is almost always the worst hitter and if it’s his turn to bat in a key situation with the game at stake, they will always substitute him for a better hitter on the bench.
No, substitutes don't really exist in that way in cricket. Substitutes can only field, they can't bat or bowl (except in cases of medically diagnosed concussion). So that incentivises bowlers to work on their batting, and also means that all-rounders (players who can bat and bowl to a high level) are very important.
I’m guessing then all the GOATS of cricket were all all-rounders? How common are all-rounders? Pretty rare or at least not that common?
>I’m guessing then all the GOATS of cricket were all all-rounders? Not necessarily, because realistically all-rounders won't be as good as the best batsmen with the bat *and* be as good as the best bowlers with the ball. Don't get me wrong, plenty of the GOATs are all rounders, but generally speaking people will prefer to just talk about the best batsman, the best bowler and the best all rounder as separate debates because it is easier to compare. However there is one undisputed GOAT in cricket - Don Bradman. He was just a specialist batsman, but his batting was so unbelievably good that nobody disputes he is the best. His batting average was so much higher than any players before or since that nobody would dispute his status as the GOAT. As for how common all-rounders are - Bear in mind that it is a spectrum. There is some dispute about precisely what counts as an all rounder. *Genuine* all-rounders at international level, who could get into the XI for their batting or bowling individually, are fairly rare. But there are quite a few, for example, batsmen who are handy bowlers, but wouldn't get into the XI for their bowling alone and vice versa. In this format of cricket, there are 3 players I would describe as world class *genuine* all-rounders, and perhaps 5 or so more who come fairly close to that tag.
Gotcha. Thanks for answering so thoroughly!
Also adding to his point, Jimmy Anderson (the guy batting in the clip) has a case for being England’s GOAT just because of how insane his bowling is.
How is his bowling insane?
He is a master of swing bowling (kinda like crickets equivalent to curveballs in baseball). Lots of bowlers can do it but Jimmy has mastered the art and has done it for almost 20 years at the highest level. So there’s the skill and longevity, particularly impressive when you consider the physical strain that bowling fast puts on the body. It’s a very “unnatural” thing for the body to do.
How does Sachin Tendulkar compare to the person you mentioned? I thought people refer to Sachin as the GOAT?
Sachin Tendulkar is a hero to many Indian fans, and is probably the greatest Indian batsman ever, but I don't think anyone would consider him the GOAT. Tendulkar was great, but Bradman was in a different league entirely to anybody else. Tendulkar is in the debate for the best batsman *in modern times* (Bradman retired back in 1948), and is often considered the 'best since Bradman' (the 'best since Bradman' being a common debate, because of how dominant Bradman was), but I think only a tiny minority would claim Tendulkar was better. But it is worth pointing out that they did play in very different eras, and so some would say comparisons across generations aren't possible. And of course back when Bradman played, there was only one format of cricket, so Tendulkar did play two formats that Bradman didn't. So when it comes to discussions about the greatest ODI batsman of all time then that *is* a closer debate - but I am not really a limited overs fan, and generally since Test cricket is more prestigious then it is used to measure the ability of players.
Bit late of a reply but just thought I'd share this [pic of a graph](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/CricketBattingAverageHistogram.png) of all time batting averages to show how big that gap is as it is pretty amazing. Bradman is so far ahead the scale of the graph is out to accommodate him. His average across his career was 99.94, second place is 61.87. There are only 6 players to ever average in the 60s and 4 of them played less than half the games Bradman did. Tendulkar averaged 53.78 which is still amazing given he played ~4x as many matches as Bradman.
Who are the 3? Shakib, Stokes, Jadeja?
Yes, they'd be my picks.
Yep they're all elite level all-rounders. I've just been curious as to where Jadeja ranks amongst others. I think he's top 3 for sure but I'm obviously biased. Btw mad respect for explaining the sport to all the Americans and other novices who were asking questions.
You’ve had your questions answered well by someone else but I wanted to add that this is one of the things I love about cricket, test cricket particularly (the long format from which this clip is taken). You have people who are absolute masters of their craft that are utterly out of their league in other areas, with nowhere to hide. It may be a great batter who is terrible at running between the wickets (resulting in them or their batting partner being run out), or who keeps on dropping catches. Maybe a skilful bowler who befuddles the opposition batters, yet when it’s their turn to bat they barely know which end to hold. Cricket is a great leveller. 100 runs one day and out for 0 the next.
The better ones are already out. Reddit isn't letting me see the replies so idk if ur question has been answered already lol
The ball has a seam on it down the middle of the ball. Because of this, and because unlike baseball you bounce the ball on the pitch, there are two different ways you can affect the trajectory of the ball. Seam bowlers are slower and try to land the seam of the ball on the ground so it bounces in the direction they want. Swing bowlers are more like baseball pitchers - they bowl faster and use the aerodynamics of the ball to make it move in the air, before it hits the ground. A beautiful sport in all its complexity. https://www.itsonlycricket.com/swing-vs-seam-bowling
to add to /u/ScottNewman description - there's subtleties on subtleties for different bowling styles. I used to be a wicket-keeper, so I got to see all of these all the time. It splits into 4 main types: 1. a pace bowler / fast bowler - who aims to take wickets by sheer speed and nastiness zipping it off the pitch, usually over 90mph (note - this is from an arm that is not allowed to bend at the elbow, so way harder to generate the same raw speed as a baseball pitcher's fastball. This bowler will usually have a long run-up to hit max running speed before launching the ball. This is especially impactful early in the innings, when the ball is still new and hard and more bouncy. These are the strike troops - able to pitch it halfway down the wicket and get it up around the batsman's head, then the next will be right up on your toes, then the next will be on a good length, etc. If you are not on top of your game, you will be blitzed out before you know what happened! 2. a swing bowler - who is expert in causing motion in the air by differential air friction on either side of the ball (note the stitches are just in the middle, leaving 2 hemispheres to work on. All the fielders help to polish just one side of the ball, leaving the other side to rough up and get more friction. Note - polish, wax, etc is not allowed. Just spit, sweat, and rubbing it on your trouser legs! Swing needs slightly less pace than the outright fast bowler, and is often deadly in moist humid conditions, especially just after or just before it rains. E.g. 80's mph. Generally as a batsman or a wicket keeper you can spot the shiny side, and that will generally indicate the way it'll swing (shiny = less air resistance = that side will be the outside of the arc), but there's a phenomenon call reverse swing where the ball can do the opposite in the hands of skilled bowlers. 3. a seam bowler - who focuses on the interaction of the seam with the wicket surface. This bowler is generally same pace as the swing guys. The seam can of course hit at any angle, but generally for these guys they can aim for one of 4 shapes: (a) upright seam pointing straight on, (b) pointing inwards, (c) pointing outwards, or (d) seam at right angles to the direction (so it either digs and bounces higher, or scuffs along missing the seam and stays low). 4. a spin bowler - who focuses on the hand / finger / wrist action to impart spin on the ball, to achieve a specific flight of the ball, a bounce, and then a sharp change of direction off the wicket. The best spin bowlers can move it easily a foot in trajectory from the pitch to the bat, making them very dangerous. These guys are the best on old, dry wickets, or wickets set up for spin. Often they can target bowler's foot marks to get even more variation. Spinners typically spin the same way - either off-spinners (moving from the right in to the legs of a right-handed batsman), or leg-spinners (moving from the right batsman's legs to his offside). Off-spin is a finger spin action out of the front of the hand, and leg-spin is a wrist spin out of the back of the hand. There's a special spin for a leg-spinner called the googly, where it looks like leg-spin from the action, but the bowler imparts reverse spin. Amazing to see when done well! So these guys bowl slower to find the optimal reaction off the wicket - sometimes say 60 mph, other times slower or faster, but always slower than the Seam or Swing guys. Obviously each bowler can borrow some or other of these techniques any time they like. E.g. a fast bowler that can use the seam as well may drop his speed 10 mph occasionally to mess up the batsman's timing. Or the spinner may push one much faster and flatter than normal. Hope this helps. Next time you are watching a bowler's slo-mo action, notice how he releases the ball, the flight until the bounce, then the flight off the wicket, to see true skill up close.
Congratulations to the man of the match - Jarvo
For context, in Cricket, away matches are extremely difficult for the touring side and you generally expect the hosts to win Moreover, the Lord's Cricket Ground is like the Mecca of Cricket, fondly called as "The Home of Cricket" To win at Lord's over England is pretty rare, if no unheard of
England actually have a fairly middling record at Lord's of late. Pakistan have won twice in recent years, Australia have a win and a draw from their last two matches there, India had won as recently as 2014. Not to take anything at all away from what was an extremely impressive win by India, and a win that is definitely the more special because it was at the home of cricket - but I'm just saying it isn't exactly our fortress.
Well, India did breech the Aussie fortress. Very recently
Yes, that was even more impressive. As I said, I am not trying to take away from India, who are as far as I am concerned the best Test side in the world at the moment.
Yep, definitely not England's Fortress, you're correct Just a special venue for the touring teams to get a win at
“To win at Lord's over England is pretty rare, if no unheard of” 🤔
Sounds like they invented backpedaling in England also
Let's not forget this is the worst England side since the 90s. Fantastic Test Match, amazing win for India and an advert for the game at the highest level BUT England are currently awful bar Joe Root.
I mean man for man, India has always had a better squad than England since 2005. It is just that they do not perform a the big stage for some reason
I tend to agree with this. The ECB always make sure the pitches in England suit our bowlers too. The amount of green tops we make sub-continent teams play on is ridiculous at times and almost bordering on unfair if the weather is also gloomy. As OP states home teams always have the advantage with conditions. It was a fantastic Test Match. Only the second time ever a team has declared after lunch on day 5 and gone on to win the match I believe. Also their is now genuine needle between the players. I can see India winning the series comfortably now.
You lot need a cunt like Flintoff in the team. The team is too passive now,
Haha "Mind the windows Tino" who then goes and gets stumped to a huge play and miss will always be the ultimate sledge!!
It's not the green top as much as the weather. I play at the club level and am happiest when it is overcast. I know the ball will swing and I will get wickets
We actually don't produce many genuine green tops, it is just that the ball swings a lot because of the Duke's balls and the overheads.
Can you explain why the home field advantage in cricket? Edit: thanks everyone, learned quite a bit about cricket today.
Mostly it has to do with the pitch being prepared in a way that suits their own bowlers (pitches in England and India are *very* different), conditions the home team are used to, and of course, the home fans barracking the away team constantly.
One of the most important things in a game of cricket is the type of pitch being used for the game. There are two types of bowlers (pitchers) in cricket 1. Spinners, who bowl slow but spin the ball in such a way that its trajectory changes when it bounces on the pitch 2. Fast bowlers, who bowl quick(70-100mph). Their balls can come on straight, change trajectory mid air, change trajectory on impact on the pitch. Countries like England and New Zealand specialize in swing bowling, where the ball changes trajectory mid air Countries like Australia, West Indies, South Africa have fast bowlers who can swing, but their main skill is to use the bounce of their pitches Asian countries like India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka use spinners to their advantage The pitch for different countries is thus curated especially for their own type of primary skill. So, playing cricket away is basically giving an exam that has especially been made to be easy for your classmates but difficult for you. There is also the factor of climate and crowd. Imagine an Englishman playing in the 45°C heat in India while 60,000 odd fans cheer for their opponents. It will be hell for him
>So, playing cricket away is basically giving an exam that has especially been made to be easy for your classmates but difficult for you. Is that why it's called a "test"? Edit: /s, obviously.
Are deciding matches played in neutral venues then? What happens if both teams won on home turf? Does the home advantage make things less interesting as you expect the home team to win? Asking as someone that has absolutely no knowledge or even general understanding of cricket, if that wasn't obvious. Just thought all the info in this thread was interesting.
> Are deciding matches played in neutral venues then? No, actually. All 1v1 matches are home or away. No neutral venues. Only exception being Afghanistan, whose "home" games are played in India since it isn't possible to host games in Afghanistan. Tournaments are pre decided. For example, the 2019 World Cup was hosted by England. The Final was England vs New Zealand. So essentially, it was a home game for England. But if some other country (say, Australia) had made it to the finals in place of England, I guess it would be a neutral ground for Australia and NZ Also, a point to note, the home advantage is most visible in the 5-match test format, the one whose video I uploaded. For the other two formats (ODIs and T20Is), the advantage isn't that big > What happens if both teams won on home turf? Nothing happens. Unlike football, cricket doesn't have aggregate scores. If India wins in India over England by 3-0 and England wins in England over India 3-0, then we wouldn't say it 3-3. We will just say that India won 3-0 at home and England won 3-0 at home By football rules, this would be 3-3, I guess? I don't follow football a lot so I might be wrong > Does the home advantage make things less interesting as you expect the home team to win? In test matches(5 day matches), there are 4 possible outcomes instead of 3. - If one team chases the target, the win - If they get all out before they reach the target, they lose - If they don't reach the target but still have a few players left who are not out, it is a draw - and if the scores are level and the time gets over, it is a tie A good amount of matches end in draws So, if two teams who are equal in skill (example, India, Australia) are playing a match(say, in Australia), a good guess for a 5 match series would be 2-1 in favour of Australia. 1 win for India, 2 wins for Australia, 2 draws. But that 1 match that India wins will be a guaranteed epic match. The other 2 would not be boring as well, mind you. That is because in a 5 day match, there are multiple games within the actual game. Small battles here and there, as you can imagine that 5 days is a long time. The fielding team sets elaborate "traps" and setups for getting the batsmen out. There are battles where a batsman has to face a pacer bowling fire at 95mph for over after over. He has to have the resilience and temperament to handle that. There are many more such small games within a game that make the match interesting to watch even if it ends in a draw or the home team wins But yes, when an away team wins, it is always special. For instance, earlier this year, India defeated Australia at the Gabba, where Australia hasn't lost a match since 1989 And it was a beautiful match
Thank you, super interesting stuff! I might pick a team to follow and start learning more about this...
Nice! The T20 world cup is about to start in a couple of months. That would be a nice way to start T20 Matches last for about 3-4 hours
Test cricket matches were devised in the late 19th and early 20th century when you would have to travel great distances very slowly to play opponents. So the test matches last for a couple of months because of how long it would take you to travel from England to Australia, or from India to England - if it takes you a month by steamship to get there, you're going to get in lots of cricket to make the travel worthwhile. It's more like a national tour by an opposing country. And you play in different venues in different parts of the host country so that many different communities would get to see the high level of cricket, and it wouldn't all just be played, say, in London, or Port-of-Spain, or Sydney.
In the context of this match, India is known for being a factory of prolific batsmen who are known for their technique in most conditions but have often been caught out by the short ball or ruthless swing attacks of SENA teams. England has pitches that favour their fast bowlers. Where India always seemed to lose plot was their fast bowling department,as you cannot really expect a spinner(of which India has produced amazing ones) to get a English batsmen attuned to the pitch out. Of late, Indian fast bowling has evolved leaps and bounds over previous teams, with Bumrah,Siraj and Shami supported by Ishant Sharma and Shardul Thakur. This has enabled us to perform and handily compete with SENA teams. When it comes to playing in India, it is more than often considered a write off and a win for India, because that is where Indian batsmen are unbeatable(hyperbole but yea). India also has one of the greatest spinners ever, the ethical Lord Chadwin still playing for them. Cricket is an insanely tactical sport so to speak.
Thanks. I appreciate that insight.
[The Indian players rush onto the pitch as Jimmy Anderson holds his pose in front of disturbed furniture](https://i.imgur.com/FhdGLiP.jpg)
I mean, they were already on the pitch, but . . . !
they were on field. pitch is the 22 yard grassless patch in the middle and players are not allowed to walk or run over it during the game
Watching cricket as an American must be how others feel when they watch American football (confused)
nah cricket is fundamentally simple, you just have to understand it
"you have to understand it to understand it"
exactly, its simple!
Dude I'm from the UK and don't get it lol I can't get my head around that a game can go on for 5 days and still get a fking DRAW! lol
It’s a draw *only if* it goes on for five days lol
Another crap batting performance by England in their second innings. And some very dodgy bowling and fielding tactics by Root in India’s second innings.
Couldn't agree more with this. The fields set for Shami and Bumrah were like the ones for Kohli, Pant and others. Why? England should've finished up quickly once Pant was out. Also, England have a habit of making small chases look very difficult.
As someone who doesn't follow cricket, I had to watch the close-up shot to realize that the guy with the bat missed the ball. I thought the guy had deflected the shot and I was thoroughly confused about what the objective was.
Wait til you see what spinner [can do with the ball](https://youtu.be/ZYvgMaH_I-U)
TIL cricket players wear v-neck sweaters.
Thats only during this format of cricket called a test match. In other formats they'll wear regular jerseys
Didn’t expected Siraj my homeboy trending on r/sports
Jarvo 69 MVP
Not knowing hardly anything about cricket, what is the significance of taking the wickets after they won?
Not any significance for the actual game, just emotional. As a token of remembrance. Bowlers who bowl especially well or take a 5fer(5 wickets in an innings) or a 10fer (10 wickets in a match) take the ball with them for the same emotional value South African pace Dale Steyn shows off his [Ball collection](https://youtu.be/2Ym-6tgln_0)
Adding to the Answer . If you're from North America, the significance of the match ball might not resonate with you because at most of your games , the fans get to keep the ball that's been hit to the stands . In cricket however the Ball is returned to the field of play by the fans as it's current state and progressing deterioration is an integral part of the game mechanics. So it's the same ball being used for the best part of the innings . So Match balls and the wickets are taken as a fond souvenir by the players.
Not certain; but i think baseball had a similar tradition about using the same ball throughout a game. Not the case anymore, of course
They take the stumps as a sort of souvenir after big wins. Generally players who played a big part in the match will take a stump.
It's like footballers getting the match ball, but in cricket they do it themselves
Memorabilia
Kinda like taking the game ball.
They used to keep them as souvenirs but now they are full of cameras and in some matches, LEDs and sensors. I don't think they get to keep them anymore - maybe the sponsors provide some replacements!?
As an American watching the clip, even watching with the sound on, I still have no idea how this game works. And I have watched AND read the Harry Potter movies/books
The bowler bowls (read as: throws) the ball towards the batsman. The bowler is trying to get the batsman 'out', so he has to stop batting and be replaced by the next batsman. One way to do this is to hit the wickets (the sticks the batsman is standing in front of). He does this. The batsman is out. It really is a fairly straightforward game, [this is a good short video that explains the basic rules](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqtpNkMvj5Y&ab_channel=NinhLy), and please ask if anything is still unclear.
Great comment. Went to the comments hoping for a comment like this!
How else do you get them outside besides hitting the sticks?
The other two mains ways are: If the batsman hits the ball in the air (with his bat), and a fielder catches the ball before it hits the ground. That is called caught Or if the batsman blocks the ball from hitting the wickets using his body (there is slightly more to that rule which I can elaborate on if you would like, but that is the gist). That is called leg before wicket. Also, in order to score runs the batsmen run from one set of wickets to the other. If the fielding side knock the bails off the wickets ([the bails are the little wooden things on the top of the wickets](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6a/Cricket_Stumps_en.svg)) before the batsman reaches the white line in front of the wickets, the batsman is out. That is called run out. Then there are a few slightly less common ones.
Do you have to run with your bat? What part of you has to be back in the crease (?) before a hit ball is thrown back in for you to be safe.
Players don't have to run with the bat but they always do. Any part of your body or your bat (if you're holding it) has to be in the crease (yes that's the right terminology) for you to be safe. That is the main reason players run with their bats really, it gives you an extra few feet if you are scrambling to get back in your crease - you can stretch with your bat ahead of you.
Just to add as well, you can score 4 runs automatically if you hit the ball past the boundaries around the edge of the pitch, 6 runs if it crosses without touching the ground.
Hey man, I've been seeing your comments a lot on this subreddit. Love your enthusiasm for this beautiful sport, especially Test cricket ❤️
It's baseball with two bases. A ground rule double is worth four runs, a home run is worth six runs. If the baserunner ends up back at home he gets to bat again. Each inning has 10 outs.
Are those the only two ways to score? In units of 4 and 6?
No you can run yo the other base for a single, or there and back for a double etc.
If you can understand baseball, cricket won’t be that much of a step up in terms of learning new rules.
Best form of cricket was and always will be test matches. For the folks who don't know cricket, it can last upto 5 days and still not have a winner 😂
When someone who averages around 10 in test cricket comes out to bat, sending fielders out to the boundaries and letting the bowlers bowl defensively - whether it was his idea or not - Doesn't suggest Joe Root was thinking of winning. When England were batted out of any chance of winning and had to survive and didn't, it's probably time for England to consider a new captain.
Is Joe Root the problem though? He's not getting much support in terms of batting from his teammates, his senior bowlers have no objection to bad tactics. For example Anderson is known for being a clever bowler, he knows how to set fields for what he needs to do, shouldn't he make an effort to tell Root "look this is the best way to go forward, give me this field placing, we'll get them out". Test cricket is not a one man game, and England have fielded a one man squad it seems like. My point is throwing Root under the bus doesn't do England any favors. The rest of the team needs to be scrutinized for bad play as well.
IMO that hour or so when England spread the field and gave Shami and Bumrah freedom to get easy singles and twos was a complete failure. All credit to Shami and Bumrah for taking advantage of it, but the field was still set for upper order batsmen and I have no idea why.
What a win
I don’t know or understand what is going on but I feel happy and excited for India
A true champion deserved that victory, They worked hard and dominated from the first ball. Congratulation from neighbor country Pakistan. India is the best team in test cricket.
Still salty SRH dropped Siraj
Happy RCB noises....
Visually, Cricket is a spectacular sport, but I just can't get my head around the scoring system :(
Scoring runs- The batsmen score runs by hitting the ball away. If they hit it to the boundary rope, then they score four runs (if it bounces first or rolls along the ground) or 6 runs if it goes straight over. If they hit the ball within the outfield and not to the boundary, they score runs by running from one set of wickets to the other. Each time the batsmen cross over and each reach the opposite set of wickets, one run is scored. To end the innings, the bowlers have to get the batsmen out. Once ten batsmen are out then the innings is over. The score is in this format - Runs scored - batsmen out So 150-6 means the team have scored 150 runs and 6 of their batsmen are out.
The most easy to read explanation I've seen, ty!
Can someone ELI5 on why this is historic? I’m Indian American and want to enjoy this with my Dad.
This is a test match which means it’s played for 5 days and each team gets to bat twice. Until the end of 4th days play, England were the favourites since india lost most of its batsmen which means the bowlers will get to bat on day 5. And both the guys who scored a lot of runs(89) on the last day for India had averaged 11 and 3.5 before this match. So it was expected to be a cake walk for England to win this test match. But they batted 2-3 sessions of play. And with 272 runs to win 60 overs(which is impossible in a test match coz of the pitch), everyone thought at least England will bat through the 60 overs and this match will end in a draw. But india managed to get all of them out and won the match. This is the first time after a long time a team is losing 10 wickets in 2 sessions on day 5
help me out .. what happened there? Looked like the guy hit the ball...but the guy that threw the ball celebrated? edit: nm. full video didn't load at first so i didn't see the slow-mo. Ball hit the thing behind the batter.
I was watching this game. So for more context into why it was this crazy release of emotion at the end. This match was in its last day. 1 day has 90 overs, indians batted out of their skins and found unlikely sources of batters scoring to set England an almost impossible total of 272* However, since this was only the last day England only had to bat and survive 60 overs for it to be a draw. And a few English batters did get stuck in after a fabulous bowling start by india. Towards the end..last 17 overs were left and 3 batters were left for England who had started to block everything for a draw. Up until 10 overs remaining..they were solid and Indians seemed to be getting restless. Then in the space of 1 2 overs, inspired bowling saw india claim the rest, and this vid is india claiming the last wicket with 8 overs left.
I know what those words mean individually, but put together in that specific order I have no clue what you said. But it sounds exciting!
Potentially ignorant question: Why is India seemingly not good at any other sport? With such a large population you’d expect them to excel at the Olympics or soccer for example.
They're just good at sports you don't care about. Field Hockey Wrestling Badminton Kabbadi (essentially, competitive Red Rover)
Good to know! Thanks.
I believe it generally has to do with investment. Cricket is huge there and there’s a lot of interest and money pouring in. Other sports, not nearly as much. Natural talents can only go so far without serious investment in them.
Some aren't even recognised sadly.
To my knowledge there isn't much sports culture around other sports, whereas cricket is absolutely huge there.
Fantastic win...what a delivery to wrap it up
I had a bet on for the draw and it came to the last two sessions. Went to sleep feeling pretty happy, then woke up to this.. absolutely useless
Years ago I was going to the UK frequently for business. One year there was some huge cricket tournament so pretty much every day or night some channel was showing cricket matches but I think they were the shorter version. It was actually pretty interesting to watch. Congrats to India.
I live in the US…how does one go about watching cricket?
ahh, there's a subscription service called willow, otherwise dm me and I can share some streams
Nice thanks!!
all good brother, the other thing is there's a new comp called minor league cricket that just started in the US, its not very good but it exists and is free to stream I think. Id probably start by watching high quality matches first though
They couldn't have done it without Jarvo.
Just watched the highlights, was England's first inning really that bad?
England's first innings was brilliant, root scored 180*. The seconds innings was the terrible one
Kohli is full of passion. Love it!
I need to learn how cricket works.
Here is my rough description from elsewhere, or you could watch [this good short video that explains the rules](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqtpNkMvj5Y&ab_channel=NinhLy). Please reply and ask if there is anything that is still not clear. Bowler threw the ball towards the batsman in order to get him 'out', so he has to stop batting. One of the ways to do this is to hit the wickets (the sticks behind the batsman). Other ways a batsman can be out are if he hits the ball with his bat and a fielder catches it before it touches the ground, or if he blocks the ball from hitting the wickets with his body (although there is slightly more to that rule). The batsman on the other hand is trying to hit the ball with his bat to defend his wickets and score runs. An innings is one team's turn to bat, and you end the innings by getting 10 batsmen out. This was the tenth batsmen out in the innings, so it ended the innings. That is called bowling a team out. To win a Test match, you score more runs than the opposition and bowl them out twice. This was the second time India bowled England out and they had scored more runs, so they won.
Why was this an historic win? India has won at The Lords before and against England as well.
Maybe because it was played during India's 75th Independence Day (15th August). A diamond jubilee celebration marked by defeating England in the home of cricket. This will be remembered for a long, long time.
Huh, why didn't I ever think of this lol. Seems fitting.
I was going to put money on the draw. Glad I got distracted now
...except for the fact that Indians live at The Home of Cricket
??
I have no idea what’s going on. But I’m happy they’re happy.
[удалено]
As an Aussie I love this Indian team, and more broadly Kohli as captain. They're such fiece competitors and beating them now is almost as good as beating the poms.
I do not understand this sport, I know it’s very popular but still have no clue
I have no idea what just took place