[Durham Giant]

Re: Cricket World Cup : Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:22 pm  

Fungus The Muffin Man wrote: Very clever smartarse. Most useful I mean how does it equate out on the field as I had a quick look on google and couldn't find anything about a bowling powerplay. I understand that in the batting powerplay there can only be 3 outfielders. So what's different in a bowling one? Not being smart. I just highlighted the difference. there is not one except that one is nominated by the batting team an dthe other by the bowling team. Powerplay 2 and Powerplay 3 are five-over spells in which only three fielders may be outside the fielding circle, but there are no requirements about close catchers. They must be taken within the 50-over innings. The fielding side decides when to take one of these powerplays, and in a rule change introduced in October 2008, the batting side decides when the other powerplay is taken. BBC is your friend http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket ... efault.stm

Fungus The Muffin Man wrote: Very clever smartarse. Most useful I mean how does it equate out on the field as I had a quick look on google and couldn't find anything about a bowling powerplay. I understand that in the batting powerplay there can only be 3 outfielders. So what's different in a bowling one? Not being smart. I just highlighted the difference. there is not one except that one is nominated by the batting team an dthe other by the bowling team. Powerplay 2 and Powerplay 3 are five-over spells in which only three fielders may be outside the fielding circle, but there are no requirements about close catchers. They must be taken within the 50-over innings. The fielding side decides when to take one of these powerplays, and in a rule change introduced in October 2008, the batting side decides when the other powerplay is taken. BBC is your friend http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket ... efault.stm

Re: Cricket World Cup : Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:38 pm  

Ordsall Quays Red wrote:

Exactly. You could even argue that we could/should have won all of our games in this group so far...

Could also spin that around and argue we could'a lost all our games too.

God knows what's going to happen, although - I'd love to see this

Bangladesh beat South Africa
West Indies smash India (something like Chris Gayle and Pollard scoring big 100s and India skittled)
India crash out on net run rate to England

Re: Cricket World Cup : Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:37 am  

I'm still trying to work out how a team can lose to Ireland and Bangladesh and still be in with a chance of winning the tournament. Hey ho, I won't complain too loudly if we do!

It's been entertaining at least.

[John_D]

Re: Cricket World Cup : Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:12 pm  

Insipid from Bangladesh and we're through. Likely to end up playing Sri Lanka though, which could spell trouble

Re: Cricket World Cup : Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:45 pm  

Aye, Sri Lanka in Sri Lanka it is.

See if we can use our powerful batting line up to give Murali a farewell to remember.

Re: Cricket World Cup : Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:10 pm  

5ives odis each side bats for 5 overs at a time, then swap over. No WUM, discuss

5ives odis each side bats for 5 overs at a time, then swap over. No WUM, discuss

[John_D]

Re: Cricket World Cup : Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:51 pm  

flipper wrote: 5ives odis each side bats for 5 overs at a time, then swap over. No WUM, discuss Two things. One - it's been tried by splitting a 40-over game into two sections of 20 and was consigned to the dustbin marked 'supersub'. Two - five-ives? What sort of name is that?

flipper wrote: 5ives odis each side bats for 5 overs at a time, then swap over. No WUM, discuss Two things. One - it's been tried by splitting a 40-over game into two sections of 20 and was consigned to the dustbin marked 'supersub'. Two - five-ives? What sort of name is that?

Re: Cricket World Cup : Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:29 am  

John_D wrote:

five-ives? What sort of name is that?

The link reveals it was thought up by someone called "Dick Wood", which probably explains a lot.

Are we going to get a ten minute break every five overs while people change into and out of protective batting gear?

The repeated attempts to reinvigorate 40/50 overs cricket have just made it even less appealling to me. I feel it's already been superseded by Twenty20 (another silly name) and should be consigned to the dustbin. I haven't bothered attending a 40 or 50 overs game at The Oval since 2007, even though I'm a Surrey member, can get a frequent bus service between my home and the ground with only a short walk at each end, and the games usually take place on days when I'm free to go.

I enjoy going to the T20s after work, despite the proliferation of inattentive oafs attempting to set off "Mexican waves" behind the bowler's arm, and go to as much Championship cricket as I can.

Re: Cricket World Cup : Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:11 pm  

flipper wrote: 5ives odis each side bats for 5 overs at a time, then swap over. No WUM, discuss If it replaces the snoreathon thats test cricket then I'm up for it.

flipper wrote: 5ives odis each side bats for 5 overs at a time, then swap over. No WUM, discuss If it replaces the snoreathon thats test cricket then I'm up for it.

Re: Cricket World Cup : Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:17 pm  

Prince of Denmark wrote:

The link reveals it was thought up by someone called "Dick Wood", which probably explains a lot.

Are we going to get a ten minute break every five overs while people change into and out of protective batting gear?

The repeated attempts to reinvigorate 40/50 overs cricket have just made it even less appealling to me. I feel it's already been superseded by Twenty20 (another silly name) and should be consigned to the dustbin. I haven't bothered attending a 40 or 50 overs game at The Oval since 2007, even though I'm a Surrey member, can get a frequent bus service between my home and the ground with only a short walk at each end, and the games usually take place on days when I'm free to go.

I enjoy going to the T20s after work, despite the proliferation of inattentive oafs attempting to set off "Mexican waves" behind the bowler's arm, and go to as much Championship cricket as I can.

Each to their own I guess but I have to agree with you. The middle 30 overs of a 50 over game are neither the intricacies/tactics of test match cricket nor the cut and thrust of T20. A problem for this particular form of the game indeed......