<< CERTITUDE IMPOSSIBLE ~ MAIN ~ THE FORK DOES NOT SYMBOLISE RUDD >>
ANSWER MISREAD
Australian athletes are sometimes criticised for ultra-competitive or unsportsmanlike behaviour. Let it be known, then, that English bowlers twice sent down unreachable deliveries late in Australia’s second Third Test innings for no other reason than to cheat Adam Gilchrist out of a batting record. AlphaMikeFoxtrot:
Gilly denied the world record for the fastest 100 by a deliberate wide by the bowler. HOGGARD - it’s English for ‘chickenshit’.
It’s also Australian for “1/85 off 20 overs”. Well bowled, Matthew. Nice line in the Guardian:
With nothing to lose, and his reputation for swashbuckling batsmanship to regain, Gilchrist set himself to commit mayhem. And on a day when the temperature topped 100F, his aggression froze the blood.
Maybe Gilchrist’s been taking batting lessons from notorious coolerist Al Gore. Despite negative English tactics, the Australian wicketkeeper still managed to nail some records:
• The innings is the fastest century by an Australia batsman in Test matches, beating Jack Gregory’s 67-ball ton against South Africa in Johannesburg in 1921.
• He also bludgeoned the most expensive over in the history of Ashes Tests, taking 24 off one Monty Panesar over, including three sixes and a four.
• Boasting 12 boundaries and four sixes, the innings also completed a century in the session between tea and stumps, replicating Doug Walters’ famous achievement at the same ground in 1974.
And the best thing? Gilchrist’s malevolent scoring was all due to a mistake. Gilchrist and batting partner Michael Clarke asked team management if they should chase quick runs, and misunderstood the reply:
“We read the answer as a yes, apparently it was a no,” Gilchrist said.
“At our boot camp communication skills were one of the topics and obviously we didn’t pass ...”
UPDATE. Much dispute in comments over that wide Hoggard ball. Let’s see what the papers say:
• Gilchrist’s next ball had to be hit for three, but the wily Hoggard bowled well outside off stump. It would have been a wide in one-day cricket ...
• [Gilchrist] was 97 after 54 deliveries but missed a wide 55th ball from Matthew Hoggard ...
• His chance to break the record on ball 55 was thwarted when Matthew Hoggard bowled wide, well outside off stump.
• Gilchrist was able to recall, too, the moment his chance for glory died, when he failed to make contact on a widish ball from Hoggard ...
• It was a full, wide delivery ...
• That 55th delivery to Gilchrist, wide outside the stump was vile ...
• Hoggard fired one wide of the stumps ...
Of course, hopeless Reuters gets it completely wrong:
He took a single off the next delivery and missed his last chance to break the record when Matthew Hoggard sprayed the ball wide down the leg side.
Innings? Batsmen? Bowlers? What in the hell are you talking about? Almost sounds like you’re talking about baseball but only if you’re on acid. Must be soccer. Crazy ferriners.
Posted by Shaky Barnes on 2006 12 16 at 02:17 PM • permalinkTim: You could be writing in Aramaic for all I understand when you write about cricket. And yet… I read the entire post with slavish devotion.
Must…get…a hobby…
Posted by Not My Problem on 2006 12 16 at 03:17 PM • permalinkI would have read this post with slavish devotion, except that it’s not written in any language know modern to civilization.
You aren’t going Mel Gibson on us, are you, Tim?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 12 16 at 04:07 PM • permalinkApparently, Gilchrist didn’t know that the record was on so the fact that Hoggard bowled a wide is less evil than it looked at the time.
Posted by Jack Lacton on 2006 12 16 at 04:13 PM • permalink#9 Harry
Good to see that you park your IQ on the end of your name.
Posted by Jack Lacton on 2006 12 16 at 05:44 PM • permalink#2 Shaky, I’ll translate into Baseball for you. Gilchrist’s innings [an ‘at bat’ that can go on in definitely] was the fastest to 100 runs in 130 years of Oz cricket ‘world series’ history. Not bad?
It was like one batter hitting 6 homers in one game - almost never done.
Australia has 6 absolute champions in the same team. Warne, McGrath, Ponting, Gilchrist and a very great opening pair in Langer and Hayden.
This has to be the best team of all time.
Eat your hearts out, NZers and Poms!Hey Tim! 10 new threads overnight! Getting into the Gillie spirit? Most new threads in a day during an Ashes Test?
And to those wondering about this cricket stuff. Sheesh! We’ve been trying to educate you:
and here
But if all else fails try here and for beginners, here!
Get with the program, people… there’s an entire season of cricket to come!
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 12 16 at 06:11 PM • permalink#7: I’m pretty new to the game but I’m finding it’s not all that hard to bluff your way. Just about any phrase of the form (fraction)(preposition)(big number)(preposition) will probably turn out to mean something in cricketese.
Posted by Paul Zrimsek on 2006 12 16 at 06:12 PM • permalinkHere, allow me to translate:
Over : Six pitches.
“Six” : Home run
“Four” : No home run, but made it to home base anyway.
“1/85” : One batter out but scored 85 runs.
Century: Batter got a lot of runs, is a legend.
Innings: Same as in baseball, only it lasts until all batsmen but one are out, or else they “declare” - give up their innings voluntarily.
Test Match: Game that runs for five days. Yes, you read that right.Imagine a baseball field with no first or third base, and with a second batsman on second. And the bats are square, not round. And the pitcher throws overarm. That ain’t so different from cricket. Except cricket is a lot less boring ;)
Sorry Tim, I am not impressed by these records. See the entry for “records”. I was trying to find the famous literary piece about it being the first time a whatatever had been scored in wherever by a vicar on a Tuesday, or something like that. It is very amusing, unlike England which is pathetic.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 12 16 at 07:00 PM • permalink#3 Richieboy, I must agree with you there. In fact, this very afternoon, in my local bar, I was explaining the art and trickery of bowling to a Canadian. I used this very example.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 12 16 at 07:02 PM • permalink#13 SCD, what do you mean by “an entire seasion of cricket”?
I thought cricket was like diving in Canada, a sport that goes on and on year round, year after year.
What defines the diving “season” is that period of the year when it is warmer IN the water than OUT. Of course, in cricket it is always warmer to be IN rather than OUT.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 12 16 at 07:09 PM • permalinkwimpy: There’s an entire season of cricket between Australia and the Poms, in Australia. Most of the summer, so ending in February or March sometime. After the Tests, we go to the One Day series. (One Day matches = 50 overs a side, one innings each, complete result in a day, or usually, day/evening).
But yes, after the season in Australia, the Australian team will generally go on tour to the Northern hemisphere or equatorial regions and play another series against, say, the West Indies (confederation of small Carribbean nations - fantastic cricket there!) or India etc. So the cricketers get a couple of months off between tours / home series of about 4 months each.
Perhaps a better analogy to Canada might be curling. The playing time as I recall from my time there was defined as periods of sobriety when matches could be played, and periods of being pissed as a newt when you could still play, but unlikely to get the rock in the (correct) house.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 12 16 at 07:19 PM • permalinkOh, and harry one - just bugger off will you? We let you win the Ashes last time for the same reason we let you win the Rugby World Cup last time. We felt sorry for the old country and didn’t want you to pull out of the competitions completely, out of shame. We wanted you in there, so we could then humiliate the Poms for another 10+ years.
If there’s one thing worse than a moonbat troll, its a whining pom supporter when the Aussies are humiliating them.
Clueless, unfunny, tedious and pathetic.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 12 16 at 07:25 PM • permalink....furthermore Hoggard did NOT bowl a wide when Gilchrist was nearing his ton, rather he bowled an excellent full lenght delivery about a foot wide of off-stump, Gilchrist moved toward leg to give himself room to drive and missed it, simple as that!
One thing worse than whingeing aussies its lying aussies!
More like jai-alai.
Apparently, Gilchrist didn’t know that the record was on so the fact that Hoggard bowled a wide is less evil than it looked at the time.
Unless Hoggard WAS aware if it which makes it worse. Although I’ve heard Hoggard interviewed and I doubt he’s aware of his own middle name, let alone a slightly obscure 21 year-old record.
PW : Well, there’s only one pitcher, and the ball moves too fast for the batters to be able to hit it between them (and I don’t think they’re allowed). Plus there’s no net in the middle ;)
So, still more similar to baseball I think. The two batters are there so that the same guy isn’t facing the same bowler, pitch after pitch, until he gets out. They swap around at least once an over, making things more interesting, plus you have the running-between-bases thing like in baseball, which they both have to do.
#19 When all else fails, you can guarantee the dentally challenged English proletariat will suggest Australians have an inferiority complex. Their in-bred German royals give them a sense of vicarious social altitude.
And that’s fine.
But cricket is a game of statistics and measurable realities, Harry.
We are superior - simple as that.
We’re not heartless, however. Many Australians do feel genuinely sorry for the English team.
`` “1/85” : One batter out but scored 85 runs.’‘
If he’s already out, how can he score more runs?
::scratches head::
Posted by Sonetka's Mom on 2006 12 16 at 07:53 PM • permalink#2&37; - I’m sure I’m not the first to post this simple explanation of the rules:
You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that’s in the side that’s in goes out, and when he’s out he comes in and the next man goes in until he’s out. When they are all out, the side that’s out comes in and the side that’s been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay all out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!
As a cynic, I might add ‘And Australia wins’.
:(#28 stop continental drift.
So you LET us win the ashes and the rugby?
Gee thanks, and here’s me thinking we won on merit. Can you show me any of my posts that “whine” about losing? But your post is one big whinge, followed by the usual schoolboy insults. And “NO” I won’t bugger off,(even if you say it in a very gruff voice) I’ve as much right as you have to stir up forum readers.Just because I’m not singing your tune doesn’t mean I can’t have my say. If your feelings are hurt then don’t read any more.We’re not heartless, however. Many Australians do feel genuinely sorry for the English team.
With all respect C.L.; I read statements like this every Ashes series, and I absolutely can’t concur. The natural state of the Englishman is abject failure, and it’s the solemn duty of all Australians to facilitate the course of nature.
If you want to be cured of your magnanimity, I can retrospectively advise spending the summer of 2005 as an Australian in England (or even Ireland, for God’s sake).
I see the Hoggard “wide” is rapidly becoming this forums plastic turkey moment!
Let’s try to nip this in the bud right now -
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
@*******************************************@
@!!!!! HOGGARD DID NOT BOWL A WIDE !!!!!!!!!@
@*******************************************@
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@You guys can’t fool me. I actually have British friends, and they have assured me that the whole entire point of cricket is skip out of work and sit in the stands all day long, drinking beer.
Posted by Shaky Barnes on 2006 12 16 at 08:15 PM • permalinkIt was not possible that Gilchrist was counting the balls he faced, let alone that Hoggard was, so neither of them would have known that Gilly was approaching the record; and the scoreboard wasn’t going to show it - even though they put the congrats up for 2nd fastest when he made the hundred.
The amazing thing is that some of the commentators seemed to assume that Gilly was aware of it.
DaneF,
Someone cared enough to lie about it!
I suppose this fantasy narrative of perfidious Englishmen serves some sort of purpose within the Australian psyche but unless you grow out of this suppurating inferority complex you will remain forever whinging malcontented losers and graceless insufferable winners!
G’Day
Hoggard bowled a wide? On purpose?
Swine!
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 12 16 at 08:59 PM • permalinkA curse on you, so called “England” and all your bowl-a-wide-on-purpose yah, let’s just do it to ruin everything denizens.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 12 16 at 09:02 PM • permalinkRichieboy,
who lied? Are you reading the Grauniad or Financial Times? (No, don’t answer. Please.)
We’re not malcontented mate, we absolutely love this: Poms in their natural state of humiliation and despair. Maybe it won’t last long but God it’s sweet while it does.
And I’m not racist. Some of my best friends are English. It’s just very hard to get a conversation going with them these days.
Sonetka’s Mom:
`` “1/85” : One batter out but scored 85 runs.’’
If he’s already out, how can he score more runs?
Sorry, I explained that poorly. That’s the score for the team. One batsman is out, but so far the team has scored 85 runs. The batting side is out entirely once they have 10 outs, because there are 11 on the team and it takes two to bat. So it’s a race to see how many points you can score before there are 10 out, or you run out of time.
The batters put in first are typically better than the last ones, so the score usually increases less as each batsman is out somehow (caught, bowled, stumped, LBW, etc.).
harry one:
So you LET us win the ashes and the rugby?
Gee thanks, and here’s me thinking we won on merit.England…. win on merit. Hmmm. England… win on merit No, no matter which way I say it, it just doesn’t sound right!
England, 60 million ‘strong’, the grand cricketing nation (and practical inventor of the sport) couldn’t win the Ashes for what - 16 years? Five series? And the grand rugby playing nation, and inventor of that sport too, never won a Rugby World Cup, whilst Australia had won twice.
Take it from me, laddy. “Merit” had nothing to do with it. Just ask the current England selectors. They were both a fix. We knew if we didn’t let you win you’d go off and sook forever and then who could we beat up on?
And “NO” I won’t bugger off,(even if you say it in a very gruff voice) I’ve as much right as you have to stir up forum readers.Just because I’m not singing your tune doesn’t mean I can’t have my say. If your feelings are hurt then don’t read any more.
Ouch! That hurt! I don’t suppose you want to explain Hoggard’s deliberate wide, do you?
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 12 16 at 09:15 PM • permalinkSome people need a life. Or a valium.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 12 16 at 09:33 PM • permalink#40 Harry, We let you win the Ashes [by 2 runs actually] ‘cos we are smart enough to know how to fill all the grounds and make heaps of money out of this summer.
Oz summers were getting sooo boring with us always holding the Ashes.
It’ll be 3 nil in Melbourne, but the tickets are already sold!We might have to give you some of it, but you get the picture. Invest in a new coach…
I think this will be the year for a second 5-0 Ashes scoreline.
As I said -BEST TEAM EVER.Sorry Richieboy, I apologize for `Dickhead’. That was uncalled for.
Said in the fine tradition of cricket. I can just imagine Shane Warne saying something similar to a Pom he sledged :-)
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 12 16 at 09:41 PM • permalinkTroll alert. Twice banned xyzl has slunk back as lzyx. Its fevered hatred of the American President means that it comes into cricket threads as well.
Speartime please.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 12 16 at 09:43 PM • permalinkScoop: Warnie’s a cheat! Oops, no, sorry, it’s a column by respected disgruntled former English something or other, Mike Gatling.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,23069-2506982,00.html
I wonder why they bother.Could it be that Public School thing? You know,they just love being regularly humiliated and flogged.It’s not just at cricket that they display their pathetic ineptitude,at the 2006 Commonwealth Games the Poms won 110 Medals,Australia 221.At the Athens Olympics,Australia won 49 Medals,the Poms 30,they even managed to finish behind those sporting powerhouses Italy and South Korea and just a tick in front of Cuba.Is there any sport at which this sorry mob excel?
First it was ITALICS, then it was BOLD, and now it’s UNDERLINE.
People, watch that font door! Make sure it’s closed, mmmmm’kay?
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 12 16 at 10:10 PM • permalinkYo, lzyx, since you keep on posting the same YouTube link, it’s you that holds the position of the dim bulb on the Christmas tree.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 12 16 at 10:12 PM • permalinkHey! Anyone watching Channel 9? There’s Richie, out in the sun, not wearing the cream jacket!
What’s going on? I detect a tremor in the fabric of the universe.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 12 16 at 10:21 PM • permalinkNB For the benefit of American readers - England is a portion of a small island situated off the coast of Belgium.
Englanders are best known for poor dental hygiene and - on the rare occasion when they are not accidentally bowling wide deliveries - bowling wides on purpose.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 12 16 at 10:25 PM • permalink#66, Margos Maid:
Americans are most generally aware of the location and general disposition of past enemy. England is a friend, for now, but it hasn’t always been the case and probably wont be the case in the not too distant future.
They’re much too close to France, in geographical terms, to resist the creeping crud of euromoronisms for much longer.
My minim of decimal currency:
One of the (many) reasons I love cricket is the fact that the umpire will never give a batsman out unless there is an “appeal ” (see “HOWZAT??!!!???)
A possibly apocryphal tale is told of a bowler sending in a fast-medium in-swinger on a good length just outside off.
Seam upright—the ball straightened and caught the batsman “pad-bat” plumb on middle.
No appeal. Not a sound.
As he strolled past the ump to take the ball for his next delivery, he quietly inquired, “How was that one, then?”.
Up went the Umpire’s finger and the batsman was back in the pavillion LBW.
(#65, SCD: I nearly choked on my Vic Bitter when I saw that! Ritchie not in cream? The world is indeed going to hell in a handcart…)
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 12 17 at 12:20 AM • permalinkvis. supra, no. 72:
“As he strolled…” meaning the Bowler, obviously.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 12 17 at 12:23 AM • permalinkSo
global warmingclimate change makes polar bears’ balls smaller, but English bowlers’ wider? Has Al Gore been informed?Posted by andycanuck on 2006 12 17 at 12:29 AM • permalinkBTW…If the Umpire didn’t call a “wide”, it was not a wide. End of story.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 12 17 at 12:33 AM • permalink#75 - Thank you MentalFloss - cricket is a game of rules - rules enforced by fallible humanity. A delivery is only wide if it is recorded by the scorers as wide which (ideally) only happens when the umpire calls the delivery wide.
[Just in case this is interpreted as sarcastic - it was not meant that way]
#72, MentalFloss:
I’m gonna try a translation. Let me know how close I got.
A possibly apocryphal tale is told of a bowler sending in a fast-medium in-swinger on a good length just outside off.
Spooky story is told of a man in a hat that sends quick spirit readers of partner swapping ghosts…(rest probably code or special spirit reader lingo).
Seam upright—the ball straightened and caught the batsman “pad-bat” plumb on middle.
Everything looked ok and all were paying attention when some guy with bats got caught stuffing his middle with plumbs.
No appeal. Not a sound.
She was both ugly and quiet.
As he strolled past the ump to take the ball for his next delivery, he quietly inquired, “How was that one, then?”.
Up went the Umpire’s finger and the batsman was back in the pavillion LBW.
This seems to imply that the umpire and the guy with the bats were very “friendly” and would meet at the back of the tent for the purposes of allowing the umpire to diddle the bat guy with his finger. (LBW may refer to a lubricant?)
Tsk. Grimmey. Its obvious that you’ll have to watch all of the remaining cricket this summer. Every ball.
Arrange the beer tanker first, then we’ll arrange the video feed.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 12 17 at 01:27 AM • permalinkClose enough, Grimmy.
I do fear for you, however.
Mayhap your fearless foray of forensic fervor, your diligent and dedicated dissection of the still quivering corpse of modern history to determine the role of Rationalism and Romanticism revealed in the events therein has left you too long probing the dank and noisome recesses of the individual and collective bowel of humanity.
Then again, it could be your just havin’ a go.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 12 17 at 01:34 AM • permalink#75 Well obviously, since wides don’t count as balls faced then when someone claims the bowler bowled wide to stop a record number of balls faced century then it’s pretty damn obvious what they mean.
Since a ball called wide by the umpire wouldn’t count against balls faced, that couldn’t be what was meant…
The word “wide” is an English word outside of the rules of cricket and that’s the word being applied to the delivery.
#80 I don’t give a flying fuck what you want to call it.
When the Umpire’s arms go out horizontally to signal the scorers a “wide”, that is what matters.
A wide ball is called when the batsman, playing a normal stroke, is unable to reach the ball (also applies to a bouncer above head height). However a ball cannot be called wide if:
1. It is out of the batsman’s reach as a result of him moving away from it.
2. The batsman can bring the ball within reach by playing a conventional stroke.
3. The ball touches the batsman’s bat or any part of his body
If Gilly (knew about it and) wanted the record, he could have moved across his stumps and square cut the delivery to off.
I may be a transplanted “seppo” that grew up playing Baseball but, after that statement at #80, I’ll pit my knowledge of Cricket against yours any day of the week.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 12 17 at 01:52 AM • permalinkThat’s right the ball wasn’t “a wide”. It was just wide in the general English sense, you know: “he snicked the ball wide of second slip”.
Which statement didn’t you like?
That wides don’t count as balls faced.
That a wide wouldn’t hinder the speed of a century?.
That the word “wide” is used to refer to things other than a Wide ball.And also, you missed:
4. The delivery is a no-ball.
I still can’t think of a synonym for wide in this context - there must be one though but all I can think of all mean “broad” which is wrong, for the moment I’m stuck with wide.
I’m sure Gilly didn’t two hoots about the record, or even know what the number of balls faced was. And the delivery wasn’t a wide. It was however, wider than the usual delivery. Nothing wrong with that of course, bowling way outside off isn’t exactly novel.
As an Aussie expat I’ll gladly accept a challenge at cricket tivia (though anything in the last few years I know nothing about due to living in a cricketless land).
The WACA is no stranger to deliberately illegitimate delivery controversy. On the last day of a Shield match in 1994-95, Victorian captain Deano ordered the present captain of the Canadian team John Davison, then a Victorian trundler, to bowl repeated deliberate no-balls (that season experimentally worth two runs each), with the hope of enticing WA back into a run chase they’d given up on. Umpire Terry Prue advised that this was not in the spirit of the game, Davison completed the over legitimately and the game ended in a draw.
Here in France news of the Ashes is mainly by net or Sky in a bar. That said, last nght was a ripper.
Had read of Gilly’s century before heading out for a wedding of some friends. Thought I would be the only non-French person there but - lo and behold - there was one other fella from England and our friendly hosts had sat us side by side for the reception. An enjoyable time was had by all - especially by this Aussie who got to explain in French why the guy next to me was not keen to discuss the cricket.
BTW - Explaining cricket to the Frogs is a damn sight harder than explaining it to the Seppos. No baseball analogy to fall back on and most of the white cloth is in storage for the next German invasion.
Posted by Villeurbanne on 2006 12 17 at 12:45 PM • permalinkGrimmy. A good challenge, but I’ll try.
1. Is the offense forbidden the use of their hands when blocking the defensive rushers?
Only when bowling down the leg side, from around the wicket. Otherwise there’s a chance of being given out ‘not playing a stroke’.
2. Is direct head to head contact penalized?
Direct ball to head contact is not penalised. But to answer your question, no, the third umpire cannot use ‘snicko’ in his deliberations, but I think stump cam is OK.
3. Which one’s the quarterback and is he protected by a set of “pink tutu” rules?
Pink tu-tus briefly made an appearance in cricket during the first “World Series Cricket’ one day series. They decked out each team in coloured flannels and the West Indians (a team of mean mo’f….ers then) had to endure a nice pinkish outfit (but without the frilly bits).
But again, to answer your question - Tony Greig will often stick his key into the pitch before each days play and show us “the kreked port of the wicket..” Its these cracked parts of the wicket that sometimes make the ball rise off a short length, resulting in a pop up catch for the fielder placed at silly mid on.Any further questions grimmy, you only have to ask.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 12 17 at 08:34 PM • permalinkPS. Just incase I’ve miscommed. It’s not cricket or cricket fans I’m goofin on, it’s my own lack of understanding or comprehension.
I’m almost motivated to study up on the sport just so I’ll know what’s going on, the dang game has been around since almost before days had names, after all.
But, I’m still fair certain, that even if I really knew the rules and such of the game, I’d have zero clue what y’all are talking about.
Btw, what’s a googlie? I remember a movie about some Brits and one of them was bragging about his “googlie” in cricket? I think it was in reference to a pitch?
A googly is a word used in cricket mostly to befuddle and impress non cricketers.
Ahem. More precisely:
“A googly, or a “wrong’un”, is a delivery which looks like a normal leg spinner but actually turns towards the batsmen, like an off break, rather than away from the bat.
Unlike a normal leg break, a googly is delivered out of the back of the hand, with your wrist 180 degrees to the ground.” (See link below)
I’m sure that makes sense, but see here for an illustration. Also flippers and doosras; just a word of advice though. this is a BBC - AKA The Poms - site. What would they know about good spin bowling?
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 12 17 at 09:30 PM • permalinkGoogly
This is a delivery by a right arm spin bowler which to a right hand batsman appears as if it will spin from leg to off, however, spins in the opposite direction.“inside curve”?
Cheers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2006 12 17 at 09:37 PM • permalinkYeah, Grimmy, all that physics stuff about differential drag causing spin etc.
In cricket, as opposed to baseball, there are some additional considerations.
Because the ball (usually) bounces each delivery, a cricket ball gets a lot more worn than a baseball. Thus as the match goes on, the ball’s characteristics change quite a bit. Early on, it is nice and polished and shiney and suitable for fast bowling. As the ball becomes worn, it is more suitable for the spinners.
The bowlers are allowed to ‘polish’ the ball. That is, rub it on their clothes (usually on the side of the groin, which is an attractive sight for the ladies), but they can’t use any substance on the ball. What the bowlers do is preferentially polish just one side of the ball, thus enhancing its ability to curve in the air.
Its usually the bounce of the ball which a spinner uses most to deceive the batsman. After curving left or right or not curving in flight, after bouncing it might break left, or break right, or spin straight on etc., just a few feet from the batsman, so he gets just a tiny fraction of a second to know where its going to go.
Google “Shane Warne” and you’ll be entertained. However if you google
“Shane Warne -sex” you’ll get far fewer results, but more relevant to on-field activities ROFL!Your cricket education should include reading about the Ball of the Century as well.
Posted by Stop Continental Drift! on 2006 12 17 at 10:18 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
All’s fair in love and war.
And cricket!