i'm asking what is cricket test series

[Dunleavy]

england just embarrassed themselves vs west indies, I got that much. But what happens next? I see they will play again Friday, and it’s all part of a 5 match “test”. So the score would be 1-0? With no carry over of score to Friday? and they’re ties right, and if you get to 3 then you win, so a country could win 3.5 to 1.5 or 3 to 2 or tie at 2.5

I’m I in the ball park

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by Dunleavy

england just embarrassed themselves vs west indies, I got that much. But what happens next? I see they will play again Friday, and it’s all part of a 5 match “test”. So the score would be 1-0? With no carry over of score to Friday? and they’re ties right, and if you get to 3 then you win, so a country could win 3.5 to 1.5 or 3 to 2 or tie at 2.5

I am not a cricket fan, but perhaps I can shed some light on this.

England are playing a 4 game Test Series against the West Indies. Each game is a Test Match. England were hammered yesterday, so the West Indies have a 1-0 lead in the series.

If a match is drawn, the series score does not change. If the second test were drawn, it would still be 1-0 to the West Indies.

All test matches are played, even after the result of the series has been decided. Scores do not carry over from one test match to the next. Every match is a totally new game.

[Oilers9911]

You are mostly right. A test series is just like a North American playoff series in that it is a series of games. With test cricket, because of the travel, international matches are made up of a series of tests. Usually 5, sometimes 4.

There is a difference between ties, and draws. A draw is where the match ends without a winner. On the last day of the test, let's say England needs 300 runs to win and the West Indies need 7 wickets (outs) to win, if neither is accomplished by the end of play on the final day the match is a draw. Now, if England gets the same score as the West Indies and then the West Indies gets the last wicket then it is a toe...draws are not rare at all, ties are.

So it is not uncommon to see a 5 test series score like this:

West Indies 3
England 1
1 Match drawn.

Hope this helps.

Scott.

[Pumpy Tudors]

If the test matches take this long, I can't imagine how long the real ones must take!

[Crapshoot]

Cricket is beyond awesome. England, for those of you lacking context, have an ability for self-destruction and self-loathing matched only by say, Detroit Lions fans. They're not a bad team, but they find a way to look awful - consistently.

[Dunleavy]

1 point to Crapshoot

how the hell did England lose this (yeah i know it was a draw)


but really what the heck is going on, this is the score

England: 566-9d & 221-8d 

West indies: 285 & 370-9

and that's a draw? i know england went first and put up a huge number, then they choose to bat again when they didnt need to, what i'm not sure about (among other things) is how is this a draw. just taking a guess here, is there a time limit rule that the test must be completed in 5 days? that would explain why the scores are uneven and why it was a mistake for england to bat again

[Crapshoot]

Ran out of time; in this case, the light levels were too low

[MartinD]

Originally Posted by Dunleavy

1 point to Crapshoot

how the hell did England lose this (yeah i know it was a draw)


but really what the heck is going on, this is the score

England: 566-9d & 221-8d 

West indies: 285 & 370-9

and that's a draw? i know england went first and put up a huge number, then they choose to bat again when they didnt need to, what i'm not sure about (among other things) is how is this a draw. just taking a guess here, is there a time limit rule that the test must be completed in 5 days? that would explain why the scores are uneven and why it was a mistake for england to bat again

There is a time limit on a Test match - maximum of 5 days, with a scheduled 90 overs (540 balls) in each day. (It's possible for there to be less than 90 overs in a day, usually due to the weather.)

If the team that bats first has a lead of 200 or more after the first innings (as happened here, with England being 281 ahead (566 - 285)), they have the option of making the other team bat again, i.e. changing the order of the second innings (so instead of the order being Eng-WI-Eng-WI, it becomes Eng-WI-WI-Eng). The problem with this is that it means that England would have been in the field for a very long time - fielding (and bowling) is much harder work than batting (where you have only two guys batting at a time, rather than all 11 on the field) - and two of their (five) main bowlers (Harmison and Flintoff) weren't 100% fit. In these circumstances, it made sense for them to bat again and give their bowlers a chance to rest and recover.

A Test match is only 'won' (by the team with more runs) if all four innings are completed, with the match being declared a draw if at least one innings is not completed. In this case, the West Indies were still batting at the close of play, so the match is drawn - even though England were well ahead, they didn't manage to finish the West Indies off.

Martin

[Warhammer]

I still prefer Brockian Ultra Cricket.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by MartinD

There is a time limit on a Test match - maximum of 5 days, with a scheduled 90 overs (540 balls) in each day. (It's possible for there to be less than 90 overs in a day, usually due to the weather.)

If the team that bats first has a lead of 200 or more after the first innings (as happened here, with England being 281 ahead (566 - 285)), they have the option of making the other team bat again, i.e. changing the order of the second innings (so instead of the order being Eng-WI-Eng-WI, it becomes Eng-WI-WI-Eng). The problem with this is that it means that England would have been in the field for a very long time - fielding (and bowling) is much harder work than batting (where you have only two guys batting at a time, rather than all 11 on the field) - and two of their (five) main bowlers (Harmison and Flintoff) weren't 100% fit. In these circumstances, it made sense for them to bat again and give their bowlers a chance to rest and recover.

A Test match is only 'won' (by the team with more runs) if all four innings are completed, with the match being declared a draw if at least one innings is not completed. In this case, the West Indies were still batting at the close of play, so the match is drawn - even though England were well ahead, they didn't manage to finish the West Indies off.

Martin

There are a couple of other reasons for not enforcing the follow-on - ie reversing the order of the innings to make the opposition bat twice in a row.

1) The pitch deteriorates over the 5 days and on the last day it's often more difficult to predict the movement of the ball when it strikes the pitch. It is therefore more difficult for the batsman and the last innings score of a match is often the least of the four even when it is completed. By reversing the order England would have batted on a deteriorating pitch.

2) Already 200 or more ahead, if the team then takes its innings in correct order and scores say 300 runs then the opposition is faced with a massive 500 or more runs to win on a last innings pitch. This simply isn't going to happen and the opposition faces the psychological problem of playing for a draw at best. Their heads are down and the match is yours to win.

If, by contrast, you force the second innings on the opposition and they make a reasonable score - say 350 - then you are faced with the tricky 150 to make on a deteriorating pitch. It is not that unusual that a team, forced to follow on, goes on to win the game despite the significant deficit in first innings scores.

Yet another determinant is the weather. If bad weather is expected over the subsequent days of play then you would force the follow-on in the hope of shortening the match. The game is not extended beyond the 5 days if bad weather shortens play (though there can be small additions at the end of a day's play if play has been interrupted by bad weather that day). The shortened game will help the opposition force a draw.

In this case I presume England were confident the weather would remain good.

[Young Drachma]

Alan Stanford got indicted. So much for the growth of Twenty20

[Young Drachma]

Or I guess we have to put all of our hope into the Indian Premier League.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Alan Stanford got indicted. So much for the growth of Twenty20

There are many cricket fans who will not be troubled by that

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

There are many cricket fans who will not be troubled by that

Hahaha...that's probably how he got indicted. Some rabid cricket fan upset at the popularity of Twenty20. But that said, the crowds they get really makes it awesome. Though all of those 6s make it look like batting practice...

[Young Drachma]

The baseballization of cricket, in pictures:



And I love every minute of it.

[AlexB]

Bizarre events in the first One day International between England & West Indies...

West Indies chasing a decent England total, but light is fading and there are spots of rain. Both of these mean that the batting side can be offered the opportunity to call an end to play. When play finishes early in an ODI the Duckworth Lewis system determines who wins - a calculation of runs scored against wickets lost against the first score...

West Indies accepted the light, so called the game off, but they were behind on the D/L by one run! If they had hit a boundary in the remaining three balls of the half-finished over, they would have won. But they misread their charts and actually called their team in when they were losing... Chaos ensues.

This tour has been bizarre from start to finish - a 5 day Test that lasted 10 balls; two poor England declarations that cost wins and the series; flat, boring wickets; a controversial test of a video referral system; and now a team comes off the pitch for bad light in the mistaken belief they are winning, at a ground that has floodlights that remain switched off...

Just amazing, and with only 22 balls left in the match, how can it be decided like this?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Bizarre events in the first One day International between England & West Indies...

West Indies chasing a decent England total, but light is fading and there are spots of rain. Both of these mean that the batting side can be offered the opportunity to call an end to play. When play finishes early in an ODI the Duckworth Lewis system determines who wins - a calculation of runs scored against wickets lost against the first score...

West Indies accepted the light, so called the game off, but they were behind on the D/L by one run! If they had hit a boundary in the remaining three balls of the half-finished over, they would have won. But they misread their charts and actually called their team in when they were losing... Chaos ensues.

This tour has been bizarre from start to finish - a 5 day Test that lasted 10 balls; two poor England declarations that cost wins and the series; flat, boring wickets; a controversial test of a video referral system; and now a team comes off the pitch for bad light in the mistaken belief they are winning, at a ground that has floodlights that remain switched off...

Just amazing, and with only 22 balls left in the match, how can it be decided like this?

Ok, help me out. How long is an ODI? Like how many overs? Or is it based on a number of balls?

You just explained how they decide who wins in one when it gets dark, but...maybe that's why people like Twenty20 so much? I mean, jesus, that sounds worse than the BCS.

[SirFozzie]

50 Overs (6 balls an over, so 300 deliveries) or until you lose 10 wickets.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

50 Overs (6 balls an over, so 300 deliveries) or until you lose 10 wickets.

Based on that premise, I now finally understand why Twenty20 is such an abomination. It'd be like calling 3 innings of baseball a proper game.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Based on that premise, I now finally understand why Twenty20 is such an abomination. It'd be like calling 3 innings of baseball a proper game.

Twenty20 is fun, but owes a lot more to chance than other variants of the game. Unfortunately the ICC and broadcasters are doing Twenty20 to overkill to try and cash in in the short term, without any thought of long-term effects.

[SirFozzie]

And compared to a test match, it's like a one inning game. There's no "World Test Championship" (due to the fact that so many results are draws), but it's the most important type of cricket. There is a quadrennial World Cup for the One Day (50 over) version of the game, and of course, now a 20/20 World Championship as well.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Jari Rantanen's Shorts

Twenty20 is fun, but owes a lot more to chance than other variants of the game. Unfortunately the ICC and broadcasters are doing Twenty20 to overkill to try and cash in in the short term, without any thought of long-term effects.

Yeah, I've noticed that difference too and how much it the matches would turn into who could hit the most 6s rather than being about tactics. I do love it because it makes the game go faster and generally holds my attention better -- and Twenty20 World Cup was a blast -- but...I think you make a valid point.

[AlexB]

Our captain Andrew Strauss was interviewed prior to the game and said 'this is as a good a time as any to get our first win of the winter'... No Straussy, the good time time get the first win of the winter would have been the first game, not the seventh international match...

[Young Drachma]

Indian Premier League is being moved out of India for this season, due to security concerns.

BBC SPORT | Cricket | IPL will be staged outside India

IPL will be staged outside India

Next month's Indian Premier League will be held outside the country after organisers failed to secure government approval for the matches to go ahead.

The tournament clashes with the upcoming Indian general election, prompting fears over security.

England and South Africa have both confirmed they have been approached by the IPL about hosting the event.

Fears over safety were heightened after recent attacks on Sri Lanka's players in the Pakistan city of Lahore.

IPL organisers have blamed the government for being unable to provide security for the showpiece tournament.

"Due to the attitude of the government that it cannot provide security for the tournament, we are forced to take a decision to move the IPL out of India," said the country's cricket chief Shashank Manohar.

"A final decision on the venue will be announced in two to three days."

The England and Wales Cricket Board (ECB) has released a statement confirming it has been asked by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) to examine the feasibility of hosting the 2009 tournament.

"Officials from both Boards have held exploratory discussions to relocate the tournament to England and Wales," read the statement. "Further meetings will be held during the forthcoming week."

ECB chairman Giles Clarke had earlier said that England "stand ready to help" if the IPL asked for assistance.

"We've got a close and friendly relationship with the BCCI and if they need any help on matters we'll be delighted to help if we can," Clarke told BBC Radio 5 Live's Sportsweek programme.

And Minister for Sport Gerry Sutcliffe said he was confident England could host the event if required.

We have to ensure that the quality of the tournament as expected by our fans is delivered to the fullest without any compromise
IPL commissioner Lalit Modi
"I'm sure it would be possible (to stage the IPL in England)," he told the BBC.

"We have picked up lots of experience recently of hosting world-class events and the ECB can do that."

There are logistical complications arising from the tournament being held in the UK as England play three Tests and five one-day internationals against the West Indies between 21 April and 26 May, which is then followed by the ICC World Twenty20 from 1 June.

Cricket South Africa (CSA) has also announced in a statement that they have been approached by the BCCI.

"We received an official approach this morning to be one of several options they are considering to host the tournament outside India," said CSA chief executive Gerald Majola. "We do not know what the other options are and it is not for us to comment on that.

"At this stage we are looking forward to holding discussions with IPL officials to discuss the proposal in detail."

The Sri Lankan Cricket Board have told BBC World Service Sport that they have offered to host the tournament.

"Being a neighbouring country we feel we would be the ideal location for them to come and play this tournament," said the secretary of the Sri Lankan Board, Nishantha Ranathunga. "It is a good opportunity for Sri Lanka as well."

General elections in India are spread over five days between April 16 and May 13, cutting significantly into the IPL's schedule which runs from April 10 to May 24.

Two proposed itineraries were made to India's federal Home Ministry by IPL organisers but both were rejected as the chief ministers of Maharashtra and Andra Pradesh refused to allow the tournament to take place alongside the elections.

Federal Home Minister P. Chidambaram said last week the elections were "unquestionably" the first priority for India's government.

"I can't exempt any state government from giving to the election commission the forces they have promised," he said.

"I have also made it clear that I cannot spare any central paramilitary forces (for the IPL)."


Moutarde
Despite previous denials from IPL commissioner Lalit Modi that the tournament could be moved out of the country, the decision of the two states forced the hand of the BCCI.

Concerns about security have been heightened after the recent attacks on the Sri Lankan cricket team in the Pakistani city of Lahore at the beginning of March.

The owners of the eight IPL franchises have been involved in discussions with event organisers and Manoj Badale, the chief executive of the Rajasthan Royals, who won the IPL last year, said a number of factors need to be considered before a choice of venue is made.

"There are all sorts of implications but the financial ones are significant," he told BBC Radio 5 Live. "I think at this stage we've got clarity of what these options mean."

"South Africa and England are definite options. The weather and the availability of grounds are a massive consideration.

"Dubai has definitely been looked at and a couple of other options in the Middle East.

The huge amounts of money involved in the IPL has attracted some of cricket's best players to the event, including England duo Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff, who become the most costly cricketers at the auction in February when they were sold for $1.55m (£1.1m) each.

However, numerous players have voiced concerns about their safety with Pietersen stating recently that he would withdraw if his security fears were not dealt with.

Flintoff though has expressed his disappointment at being denied the chance to savour the experience in India.

"It's disappointing news because one of the big attractions for me about the IPL was playing in India," he said. "It's unfortunate but if we don't do that this year then hopefully we can do it again next year."

Modi said the integrity of the event was paramount in any decision that is made and hinted that the IPL would be willing to underwrite the losses of the franchises arising from the decision to move the tournament abroad.

"The revenue model and costs is of no concern and should not be a concern," he said. "Revenue is not the issue. The issue is the integrity of the tournament. This is a 59-match tournament and it will remain a 59-match tournament.

"The president of the BCCI has authorised the IPL to ensure that we do not cut corners and we deliver a tournament of world standard wherever it is played in the world."

Despite the change in venue, Modi insists that the tournament schedule will go ahead as originally planned, including start times for matches.

"We have to ensure that the quality of the tournament as expected by our fans is delivered to the fullest without any compromise," he said.

"What is critical for us is that Indian viewers get to watch the matches at 1600 and 2000 IST. That is what we are aiming for and that is what we will achieve."

This would mean fixtures will be at 1130 and 1530 GMT in England.

[AlexB]

England save the 1st Ashes Test by batting out the last ten overs with the last pair of batsmen - Jimmy Anderson (who is not a bad tail ender to be fair) and Monty Panesar who is basically clueless! We took the mickey a bit by sending on the 12th man & the physio a couple of times, but it didn't end up affecting the result.

However the main reason for the post is the freakiest catch I have ever seen - BBC SPORT | Cricket | Joyce dismissed by freak catch

[AlexB]

OK, after winning the 2nd Test, and the 3rd being drawn, the Convicts destroy us in the 1st day of the 4th. The only solace is the BBC text commentary (which is how I keep in touch at work) which included the line...

If England were a woman, I'd burst into the house this evening and shout "I'm leaving you, you cow!"

and in equal measure. Trench humour is our strength!