RugbyRebels

Polished em off there!!

Jamieson's ridiculous career start continues.

Now we see how poor the batting conditions really are...

Jeez this summer weather is shit even by NZ cricketing standards. Only two days to play so have to try force a result. Might as well see if Williamson and Taylor can set a platform then roll de Grandhomme, Southee, Jamieson, and Wagner out up the order to fire from the hip for some quickfire runs -- and hope that Taylor doesn't run them all out.

That or just declare from behind and try heap the psychological pressure on India to set a target against Jamieson and Southee on an overcast day.

shame, intriguing match damp squidded.

Though it is a nice comment from the weather on the absurdity of a one off test match to determine the 'winner' of test cricket. I suppose if the gimmick gets them extra coverage raising the profile there's something in it, and it's just not for grumpy gits such as me who'd put it on a par with who finishes runner up to best in show at Crufts

They are going to use the extra day tomorrow, apparently, so might make a game of it.

That was a hell of a game of cricket.

Well done En Zee, good performance.

Just goes to show what you get when you take players with complementary skills, put them together and work on your test match skills.

Thoughts?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/57697159

I don't mind the tariff in isolation, I do mind they've picked on one player and then only because it got some publicity. It's not exactly impartial and overly reactive, nothing new for sport administrators

Hundred? Thoughts?

Apathy

I have tickets booked for Headingley in three weeks. I’ll let you know then.

Fitting into a 3 hr slot, city based teams rather than counties, equal money for ladies teams, max 20 balls per bowler..
16.4 overs is a thrash at any time - will certainly bring razzmatazz
and a different fan base.
The Covid thing will skew the initial public response but if they can fit it in , no harm in giving it a go.
The boundary looked well short in that first game.

Galfon wrote: The Covid thing will skew the initial public response

I needed 3 tickets on any two of three dates at Headingley. Both dates are mid-week, were sold out for tickets in the family stand, sold out for gold tickets on one date and not enough left to have three people sat together on the other date but I did finally get three silver tickets sat together....... until they made me sign up and consequently emptied my basket.
So, I’ve deduced two things from the purchase, I think it’s going to be popular at least initially - I believe today’s match is a sell out - and buying tickets will take longer than an innings.

I also tried to get back on the site when needing to confirm the date whilst telling the long suffering Mrs Mellsblue she has a Thursday evening to herself and the site had crashed or was trying to put you in a queue. This was during yesterday’s match so I’m guessing demand was at it’s peak.

I’d therefore recommend that if you want tickets you get them ASAP and that you do it on your employer’s time.

Galfon wrote:Fitting into a 3 hr slot, city based teams rather than counties, equal money for ladies teams, max 20 balls per bowler..
16.4 overs is a thrash at any time - will certainly bring razzmatazz
and a different fan base.
The Covid thing will skew the initial public response but if they can fit it in , no harm in giving it a go.
The boundary looked well short in that first game.

It always is in for women's cricket.

Banquo wrote:

Galfon wrote:Fitting into a 3 hr slot, city based teams rather than counties, equal money for ladies teams, max 20 balls per bowler..
16.4 overs is a thrash at any time - will certainly bring razzmatazz
and a different fan base.
The Covid thing will skew the initial public response but if they can fit it in , no harm in giving it a go.
The boundary looked well short in that first game.

It always is in for women's cricket.

Sexist.

Banquo wrote:

Galfon wrote: The boundary looked well short in that first game.

It always is in for women's cricket.

Yes - it just looked weller short than expected, but then it was the relatvely large Oval playing area...just wondered if this franchise was tweaking things in a bit for more excitement.

Simply no idea who the hundred is catering for that didn't already have an option in 20/20

About the only amusement is asking cricket statisticians how they're planning to amalgamate stats across the formats now overs aren't a thing

Galfon wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Galfon wrote: The boundary looked well short in that first game.

It always is in for women's cricket.

Yes - it just looked weller short than expected, but then it was the relatvely large Oval playing area...just wondered if this franchise was tweaking things in a bit for more excitement.

definitely, enabling more 6's I'd think.

Digby wrote:Simply no idea who the hundred is catering for that didn't already have an option in 20/20

About the only amusement is asking cricket statisticians how they're planning to amalgamate stats across the formats now overs aren't a thing

Look at the crowd last night for clues. Albeit enabled by a load of free tickets. Its young kids and non cricketing parents, to whom 6 ball overs, changing ends and all that are a bit of a mystery. Its a pretty inaccessible game tbh, though less so than RU. Neither bother me, but that's not the point.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Galfon wrote: The boundary looked well short in that first game.

It always is in for women's cricket.

Sexist.

Same as shorter tennis matches and different tees with golf I suppose. Sure things will fudge together over time.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Galfon wrote:Fitting into a 3 hr slot, city based teams rather than counties, equal money for ladies teams, max 20 balls per bowler..
16.4 overs is a thrash at any time - will certainly bring razzmatazz
and a different fan base.
The Covid thing will skew the initial public response but if they can fit it in , no harm in giving it a go.
The boundary looked well short in that first game.

It always is in for women's cricket.

Sexist.

I don't think so, I think its good of the authorities to help em out as they can't learn to time a ball and an egg at the same time.

Banquo wrote:

Digby wrote:Simply no idea who the hundred is catering for that didn't already have an option in 20/20

About the only amusement is asking cricket statisticians how they're planning to amalgamate stats across the formats now overs aren't a thing

Look at the crowd last night for clues. Albeit enabled by a load of free tickets. Its young kids and non cricketing parents, to whom 6 ball overs, changing ends and all that are a bit of a mystery. Its a pretty inaccessible game tbh, though less so than RU. Neither bother me, but that's not the point.

I think I've said this before but I was once sat watching test cricket on TV and the girl I was living with ( who's Greek/American) sat watching for 10 minutes or so before asking how do you know who's on which team? It remains one of my favourite ever questions.

Cricket does have some accessibility problems, but so do F1 and NFL and they seem to have the funding most other sports can only of, most sports will need some introduction really, most of what anyone consumes they were assimilated into from a young age

Digby wrote:Simply no idea who the hundred is catering for that didn't already have an option in 20/20

About the only amusement is asking cricket statisticians how they're planning to amalgamate stats across the formats now overs aren't a thing

The key is it being on terrestrial TV. Millions of kids don't have access to Sky. The terrestrial channels didn't want an 18 team T20 competition.

The move to a smaller field is a good idea. The IPL and Big Bash work well with 8. From what I have read, part of the reason for moving from 120 balls to 100 is about fitting it into a suitable terrestrial TV spot and rest of the tweaks to try and make it easier to understand (not sure it does tbh).