Cricket things that annoy you

[Gethelred]

The absolute furphy that is "That's a catch that should be taken at international level!" or "shouldn't be dropping that!" from commentary.

I'm watching the Aust-India womens's series, and Ash Gardner got dropped a few times. First, she got dropped in a bit of a dolly, but the other two would've been genuine screamers. The second was a cut shot a full metre and a half away cover side from point and dipping hard after the fielder dived, and she would've got to it perhaps a few centimetres above the deck; the third was in the outfield and taken on the dive, the catch taken but the ball bobbling out once elbows hit the deck.

There are players who are known from jnrs to national colours for their ability in the field; Cam Green's an example, so's Jemima Rodrigues. In Australia, we're well known for refusing to select players if they fall outside certain criteria, regardless of quality; you've got to match a certain physical makeup, adhere to fitness and athletic standards, and you've got to be able to field. You don't make those standards, you're not going to get picked regardless of quality.

This has led to some pretty ****ing spectacular cricketers sitting outside the ones. Brad Hodge. Stuart Cosgrove. Usman sat outside the XI for a very long time on these grounds. But we're getting a little afield.

You're gonna drop catches. You simply ****ing are. The amount of catches you drop will absolutely play a role in the result of a match, but this is also determined by the quality of your opponent's batting against your bowling. Some sides and bowlers do not rely on catches to take wickets, getting most of theirs through LBW's and bowled. To depict a dropped catch as anything more serious than but a chance gone begging - which is all it ****ing is - is to catastophise.

The phrase "You expect those catches to be taken at this level" is a profoundly arrogant one. You never dropped a catch, mate? You never had something go wrong? We're not ****ing robots; cricket's only an interesting sport because we're not robots. We miss runouts; we fail to execute basic shots or bowl in good areas due to exhaustion; through grit and focus you overcome those things and thus are winners made.

It's not the catches you drop that determine the games you win, but the ones you take.

 

[PhatBoy]

The absolute furphy that is "That's a catch that should be taken at international level!" or "shouldn't be dropping that!" from commentary.

I'm watching the Aust-India womens's series, and Ash Gardner got dropped a few times. First, she got dropped in a bit of a dolly, but the other two would've been genuine screamers. The second was a cut shot a full metre and a half away cover side from point and dipping hard after the fielder dived, and she would've got to it perhaps a few centimetres above the deck; the third was in the outfield and taken on the dive, the catch taken but the ball bobbling out once elbows hit the deck.

There are players who are known from jnrs to national colours for their ability in the field; Cam Green's an example, so's Jemima Rodrigues. In Australia, we're well known for refusing to select players if they fall outside certain criteria, regardless of quality; you've got to match a certain physical makeup, adhere to fitness and athletic standards, and you've got to be able to field. You don't make those standards, you're not going to get picked regardless of quality.

This has led to some pretty ****ing spectacular cricketers sitting outside the ones. Brad Hodge. Stuart Cosgrove. Usman sat outside the XI for a very long time on these grounds. But we're getting a little afield.

You're gonna drop catches. You simply ****ing are. The amount of catches you drop will absolutely play a role in the result of a match, but this is also determined by the quality of your opponent's batting against your bowling. Some sides and bowlers do not rely on catches to take wickets, getting most of theirs through LBW's and bowled. To depict a dropped catch as anything more serious than but a chance gone begging - which is all it ****ing is - is to catastophise.

The phrase "You expect those catches to be taken at this level" is a profoundly arrogant one. You never dropped a catch, mate? You never had something go wrong? We're not ****ing robots; cricket's only an interesting sport because we're not robots. We miss runouts; we fail to execute basic shots or bowl in good areas due to exhaustion; through grit and focus you overcome those things and thus are winners made.

It's not the catches you drop that determine the games you win, but the ones you take.

Agree with this though probably haven’t thought about it in those terms before.

Catching is something that you can only practice to a technical level to a certain degree before you are ONLY relying on hand eye and nothing else.

With bowling and batting there are always adjustments you can be making to your game that can make a difference somehow but come on, aside from making some differences to your athleticism maybe in the gym, after you’ve perfected some basic balance routines and where to be standing and positioning your hands, and determining where best to be focusing your eyes as the bowler is coming in (either on the ball, or the bat), what more can you do? From there it becomes a matter of your natural skills and instincts taking over

No one tries to drop catches and for some players when they are having a rough trot with it the ball literally seems to follow them: Latham in that innings of England’s the other day.


Then you look at a video of Paul Vautin running towards the boundary with the ball coming from over his right shoulder and he takes the best catch of all time and you start to question your own existence.

 

[Black Diamond]

Problem is if you reject the “catch that should be taken” call, then why not reject every observation?

If a commentator says “shouldn’t have played that shot” or “shouldn’t bowl this line” then you should reject those calls for the exact same reasons.

 

[PhatBoy]

Problem is if you reject the “catch that should be taken” call, then why not reject every observation?

If a commentator says “shouldn’t have played that shot” or “shouldn’t bowl this line” then you should reject those calls for the exact same reasons.

But either way a shot that shouldn’t be played a player has that choice. And that’s manifested numerous times a game when you see those beehive graphs and you realise that the same player has probably faced the same ball a dozen times and left that ball alone or played a defensive shot - then for some reason he has a wild swing or something and gets himself out next time he gets a ball in that spot.

That’s an outcome based on poor decision making more than poor execution which is where the criticism comes from. Half the time with catching - and yes there are still catches that are just put down due to poor execution I don’t think anyone could deny that - the ball just gets dropped and no decision making comes into it.

 

[Gethelred]

Problem is if you reject the “catch that should be taken” call, then why not reject every observation?

If a commentator says “shouldn’t have played that shot” or “shouldn’t bowl this line” then you should reject those calls for the exact same reasons.

... I mean, my reaction to an awful lot of cricket coms is essentially this, and I do generally reject those calls for similar reasons. I've a number of posts in this thread and his forum attacking commentators for the mindless "Just bowl on the stumps!" as though that's the be all, end all of bowling at international level.

Commentators are paid to fill the space between balls, and they really do talk an awful lot of absolute tripe.

On the weekend, I'm at mid off. Bloke bowling is someone I've played a lot of cricket with and captained for a while; I know how he bowls, what motivates, and I know that he frequently has trouble bringing his arm over at precisely the same angle every time. When it's good and high, he's very hard to play, but it makes him wayward.

He drops a few short and a few wide, and I've got first slip - who's a bloody idiot - telling me to make sure he knows to bowl off stump in specifically those words.

It's shit criticism, and it's bad advice. He's not deliberately bowling badly, nor do people deliberately seek to drop catches or bowl bad lines or lengths. Players aren't metronomes.

 

[sherb]

A few commentary ones, commentators who -

• Clearly don't do any (or enough) research and then get caught out because of it
• Repeat the same words/phrases - eg James "Extraordinary" Brayshaw
• Prattle on seemingly endlessly, giving the impression that they are seriously in love with their own voice - eg Langer

 

[PhatBoy]

Stuart Clark is very good I’ve found. He doesn’t say more than he needs to and just speaks common sense and he has the capacity to understand that there are times when a team will suffer a result or an outcome that isn’t of their doing.

For example the other night he was talking about how India were probably a little wasteful in that night session to McSweeney and Labuschagne.

He gave an appraisal the next day that was along these lines to start play.

‘I don’t think India bowled badly but they probably tried a little too hard for wicket balls and fed the Australian batsmen too much in areas where they could score a bit easier and where they weren’t in as much danger. What you would prefer to see is making them a bit more uncomfortable and just say to the two batsmen, here you go, if you want to cover drive you way as a pair and as a team to 350 then that’s ok but you’ll have had to earn it a bit tougher than what it’s been so far working the ball through the onside, or behind square on the offside.’

I mean in that instance it was something that was hypothetical but he obviously understands that there are situations where a team can do the right things, and the opposition will simply handle it and you dip your lid and say ‘too good.’

 

[nobbyiscool]

Stuart Clark is very good I’ve found. He doesn’t say more than he needs to

Cricket NSW wishes that were true...

 

[eddiesmith]

The absolute furphy that is "That's a catch that should be taken at international level!" or "shouldn't be dropping that!" from commentary.

I'm watching the Aust-India womens's series, and Ash Gardner got dropped a few times. First, she got dropped in a bit of a dolly, but the other two would've been genuine screamers. The second was a cut shot a full metre and a half away cover side from point and dipping hard after the fielder dived, and she would've got to it perhaps a few centimetres above the deck; the third was in the outfield and taken on the dive, the catch taken but the ball bobbling out once elbows hit the deck.

There are players who are known from jnrs to national colours for their ability in the field; Cam Green's an example, so's Jemima Rodrigues. In Australia, we're well known for refusing to select players if they fall outside certain criteria, regardless of quality; you've got to match a certain physical makeup, adhere to fitness and athletic standards, and you've got to be able to field. You don't make those standards, you're not going to get picked regardless of quality.

This has led to some pretty ****ing spectacular cricketers sitting outside the ones. Brad Hodge. Stuart Cosgrove. Usman sat outside the XI for a very long time on these grounds. But we're getting a little afield.

You're gonna drop catches. You simply ****ing are. The amount of catches you drop will absolutely play a role in the result of a match, but this is also determined by the quality of your opponent's batting against your bowling. Some sides and bowlers do not rely on catches to take wickets, getting most of theirs through LBW's and bowled. To depict a dropped catch as anything more serious than but a chance gone begging - which is all it ****ing is - is to catastophise.

The phrase "You expect those catches to be taken at this level" is a profoundly arrogant one. You never dropped a catch, mate? You never had something go wrong? We're not ****ing robots; cricket's only an interesting sport because we're not robots. We miss runouts; we fail to execute basic shots or bowl in good areas due to exhaustion; through grit and focus you overcome those things and thus are winners made.

It's not the catches you drop that determine the games you win, but the ones you take.

I’ve probably mentioned it on here before, but seeing international cricketers drop easy catches always makes me feel better and more annoyed at teammates who berate someone dropping catches off their bowling. Especially when those same players drop them as well…

 

[Trojan90]

Without going into who to blame or were I stand on the sandpaper thing... Seeing the decline of Smith and feeling robbed of a year of prime Smith. We all missed out on that, especially the kids of that time.

 

[Drunkcat]

T-20 such crap, nothing beats test cricket when you have 2 good sides and no roads.

 

[big_e]

There have been 49 tests this year. One abandoned, leaving 48 with results.

Draws - 1
Wins by an innings - 5
Wins by 100+ runs - 16
Wins by 5+ wickets - 18

Games that might reasonably be considered close - 7 out of 48.

There's good and bad in every format.

 

[ioppolo]

One draw, that must be close to the lowest amount in a year in recent times.

 

[cricketnut14]

There have been 49 tests this year. One abandoned, leaving 48 with results.

Draws - 1
Wins by an innings - 5
Wins by 100+ runs - 16
Wins by 5+ wickets - 18

Games that might reasonably be considered close - 7 out of 48.

There's good and bad in every format.

yeah 3 draws in this wtc cycle and i think 6 in the last one.

with 20/20 cricket (faster scoring rates) and points up for grabs in the WTC - teams are playing for results.

most games don't even go the 5 days now.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Brisbane hosting tests any later than the start of November. It's called wet season for a reason.

 

[greatwhiteshark]

yeah 3 draws in this wtc cycle and i think 6 in the last one.

with 20/20 cricket (faster scoring rates) and points up for grabs in the WTC - teams are playing for results.

most games don't even go the 5 days now.

It’s not that they are playing for results, it’s more that the way they play now they can’t last the match time and hence results happen easily. It’s not a coincidence that since 20/20 arrived test results have happened a huge percentage of times.

 

[Cleavy]

whatever that Test replay Fox were showing last night where a split screen/picture in picture focussing on the commentators in the box commentating while the action was on.

EDIT: Fox Box "An inside look at the Fox Cricket commentary team during the second Test between Australia & India, from Adelaide."

 

[peternorth]

When they talk about how the "weather's closing in".

Of course its closing in. In fact, the weather is already there! Its everywhere, all the time, ever present.

 

[010203]

T10 cricket - the most meaningless junk.

 

[cricketnut14]

rain delays - full stop.

and the countless repeats of caught out and the talk with the kids etc

 

[Jatz]

T10 cricket - the most meaningless junk.

Saw that in the programming last night.

What on earth is the point.

 

[the_interloper]

Talk about 4 day tests, I really don't know why you would.

This is why you wouldn't:

• 5 days is great for rain affected tests like this one
• Teams struggle to get through 80 overs, if they want to have a 4 day test with 100 overs a day it will never work
• I can't see it attracting any more fans
• State cricket associations won't like it as they won't get a chance to collect 5 days of tickets

 

[PhatBoy]

Talk about 4 day tests, I really don't know why you would.

This is why you wouldn't:

• 5 days is great for rain affected tests like this one
• Teams struggle to get through 80 overs, if they want to have a 4 day test with 100 overs a day it will never work
• I can't see it attracting any more fans
• State cricket associations won't like it as they won't get a chance to collect 5 days of tickets

Guys who push this stupid envelope like Vaughan etc already lament the ability of guys to play versatile cricket: yes Vaughan loves the way England play but he’s also been critical that they can’t be flexible and play slow when they need to and take their time.

Why on earth would he want to force teams into a situation where they feel like they HAVE to play turbo charged cricket and make all their decisions with time in the back of their mind each and every game? It’s one thing when it pisses down rain but to do it every single game robs each match of its uniqueness

 

[cats_09]

Talk about 4 day tests, I really don't know why you would.

This is why you wouldn't:

• 5 days is great for rain affected tests like this one
• Teams struggle to get through 80 overs, if they want to have a 4 day test with 100 overs a day it will never work
• I can't see it attracting any more fans
• State cricket associations won't like it as they won't get a chance to collect 5 days of tickets

The women play 4 day tests and a common talking point after matches is "we need to move to 5 day test matches", especially if they lose a day to rain as it does impact the ability for an outright result

Why are they suddenly pushing for 4 days on the mens side of things

 

[the_interloper]

The women play 4 day tests and a common talking point after matches is "we need to move to 5 day test matches", especially if they lose a day to rain as it does impact the ability for an outright result

Why are they suddenly pushing for 4 days on the mens side of things

I haven't heard of one good argument for it, there's been some debate over it for a few years for some reason.

I mean if a full day of a Test is washed out and it's 5 days that's only 20% of potential game time as opposed to 25% in a 4 dayer.