Cricket things that annoy you

[BrownYouGun]

Club cricket starting at 12:30 / 1:00 on a saturday meaning that it takes your whole day because there's not realistically anything you can do prior to it starting. If it started at say 10am and finished around 3/4 instead of 6/7 suspect there'd be more people willing to play

 

[Dhoni Dakurri]

Club cricket starting at 12:30 / 1:00 on a saturday meaning that it takes your whole day because there's not realistically anything you can do prior to it starting. If it started at say 10am and finished around 3/4 instead of 6/7 suspect there'd be more people willing to play

I disagree - that wipes your morning and arvo. Used to be able to get plenty done in the mornings playing cricket.

 

[CakeEater]

Batsman showing the reverse side of their bats when reaching milestones.

But then you wouldnt get this:

 

[Crashy]

Club cricket starting at 12:30 / 1:00 on a saturday meaning that it takes your whole day because there's not realistically anything you can do prior to it starting. If it started at say 10am and finished around 3/4 instead of 6/7 suspect there'd be more people willing to play

Admittedly I'm a B grade hack, start at 8:30 and be at the pub by 1 .. works well for me

 

[Gethelred]

I disagree - that wipes your morning and arvo. Used to be able to get plenty done in the mornings playing cricket.

Not really. It looms like the specter over the rest of the day if you're playing in the afternoon. There's also the problem that - due to Covid - an awful lot of lower grade comps are all one day comps. Where you'd be playing 60 odd overs in a day's play, now you're playing 75+ overs and most lower sides are s**t at getting through the overs quickly, so the games themselves are taking longer.

 

[FRUMPY]

Club cricket starting at 12:30 / 1:00 on a saturday meaning that it takes your whole day because there's not realistically anything you can do prior to it starting. If it started at say 10am and finished around 3/4 instead of 6/7 suspect there'd be more people willing to play

Yeah kick those pesky kids off the ground in the morning - that'll get more people playing the game.....

i think the 5 hours in the field in 30+ degree heat while your mates are at the beach or at the pub might have more of an effect on playing numbers

or the fact you get out first ball and sit around watching grass grow the rest of the afternoon.....

 

[BrownYouGun]

Yeah kick those pesky kids off the ground in the morning - that'll get more people playing the game.....

i think the 5 hours in the field in 30+ degree heat while your mates are at the beach or at the pub might have more of an effect on playing numbers

or the fact you get out first ball and sit around watching grass grow the rest of the afternoon.....

Never played on a ground that has kids game on prior to it so not sure what you mean

The games go for 5+ hours and you’re missing the beach / pub regardless, if you start earlier you can go down after the match finishes at 4-5 instead of after 7 which is the whole reason I think they should start earlier.

 

[Gethelred]

Yeah kick those pesky kids off the ground in the morning - that'll get more people playing the game.....

i think the 5 hours in the field in 30+ degree heat while your mates are at the beach or at the pub might have more of an effect on playing numbers

or the fact you get out first ball and sit around watching grass grow the rest of the afternoon.....

Just get forward, mate. Can't make runs if you're out.

 

[PhatBoy]

Umpires that are weak as absolute piss.

Yesterday, I'm batting. My team is an old blokes and kids XI, and our opposition are a group that flit from club to club as a unit; if anyone is in any danger of promotion up the grades at any point, they leave that club. As a consequence, they're a good deal better than this comp, because no club is just going to insert a team into a middle grade when you haven't seen them play and none of them train with you.

We're 3 for not many, and they bring on a big right hander; he's bowling off five steps, but the keeper's back so I don't think he's bowling spin. True to form, he isn't; there's a bit of a suspicious bend to his elbow at the point of release, and that first ball is flung straight at my head rather quickly.

For whatever reason, we had an official umpire this week. He calls the no ball, and I get over almost getting brained. I've a helmet on, he missed me, he apologised; it can happen. But then, an over or so later, he does it again, and this time he gets me. To put this into context, the ball came off the top of my helmet, and almost went for six.

I have a fourteen year old, a thirteen year old and a sixteen year old in this team.

According to the rules, you bowl two waist high beamers you're struck for dangerous bowling. I say this to the umpire; the bloke umms and ahs, and then proceeds to say, "We know what the rules are, we don't have to apply all of them."

I proceed to say, "That's your decision to make, but this is mine: either this bowler is struck from the attack, or I'm taking my side from the field. I'm sorry, but I do not feel that you are affording my team the safety they are due under the rules."

The opposition captain agrees to take him from the attack, and things are amicable enough. The umpire, absolutely gutless in the moment, tells me, "I think that's the right decision."

fu** off. He's almost hit me the first time with a bowling action that resembles a baseball pitcher, and he got me the second time. He's lucky he did that to me and not the bloke batting without the helmet earlier in the day.

I get that we need umpires and we need to encourage more people to umpire, but this dickhead was genuinely worse than not having an umpire at all.

I’ve probably regaled this one before but in a similar vein, a few years ago I played a season of presidents cup locally which basically stipulates you have to have 4 players under 16, 4 over 18, and the other three can be whatever mix you want. It’s made up mostly of dads who want to have a game of men’s cricket with their sons, kids getting their first taste of senior play, and ex top graders who just want to have a run around.

When I played I was told I was on a batting restriction - I had to retire at 50 and could only go back out when we were 9-down.

For context, I was a bowler who could bat a bit in first grade, I never hit a century and had maybe half a dozen 50s. So the expectations are pretty clear: even mediocre players are not supposed to bully the younger blokes.

My general MO when facing young blokes was to nudge singles and maybe hit a boundary every 3 overs if I got a really rank ball. I bullied one - he was a leggy and was going to get me out if I tried to block him so I planted him for a 6 and apologised to his dad that was keeping.

Anyway, I really enjoyed it most weeks as everyone played it in the right spirit.

We played against a club that most people ******* hate and this 45-year-old who played a LOT of first grade and was inexplicably liked despite being a complete c**t, comes out to open against us.

This guy was one of those losers that at 43-44 insisted on playing first grade even when his club was stacked with kids that were good enough to get a go.

Anyway we open with one of our 15 year old bowlers. He proceeds to slog the first three balls over the onside for 2 fours and a six. Fourth ball he absolutely stripes this ball to shortish mid wicket and breaks a 14 year old’s wrist. He walks off the field in tears.


I thought well at least that might end the display of *******tery.

Nope. He bashes the next two balls over mid on.


Fair to say I haven’t spoken to him since

 

[Gethelred]

I’ve probably regaled this one before but in a similar vein, a few years ago I played a season of presidents cup locally which basically stipulates you have to have 4 players under 16, 4 over 18, and the other three can be whatever mix you want. It’s made up mostly of dads who want to have a game of men’s cricket with their sons, kids getting their first taste of senior play, and ex top graders who just want to have a run around.

When I played I was told I was on a batting restriction - I had to retire at 50 and could only go back out when we were 9-down.

For context, I was a bowler who could bat a bit in first grade, I never hit a century and had maybe half a dozen 50s. So the expectations are pretty clear: even mediocre players are not supposed to bully the younger blokes.

My general MO when facing young blokes was to nudge singles and maybe hit a boundary every 3 overs if I got a really rank ball. I bullied one - he was a leggy and was going to get me out if I tried to block him so I planted him for a 6 and apologised to his dad that was keeping.

Anyway, I really enjoyed it most weeks as everyone played it in the right spirit.

We played against a club that most people ******* hate and this 45-year-old who played a LOT of first grade and was inexplicably liked despite being a complete c**t, comes out to open against us.

This guy was one of those losers that at 43-44 insisted on playing first grade even when his club was stacked with kids that were good enough to get a go.

Anyway we open with one of our 15 year old bowlers. He proceeds to slog the first three balls over the onside for 2 fours and a six. Fourth ball he absolutely stripes this ball to shortish mid wicket and breaks a 14 year old’s wrist. He walks off the field in tears.


I thought well at least that might end the display of *******tery.

Nope. He bashes the next two balls over mid on.


Fair to say I haven’t spoken to him since

What a cnut.

 

[The hands of stone]

Club cricket starting at 12:30 / 1:00 on a saturday meaning that it takes your whole day because there's not realistically anything you can do prior to it starting. If it started at say 10am and finished around 3/4 instead of 6/7 suspect there'd be more people willing to play

My last season playing we finished at 7pm 4 out of 5 Saturdays in a row . Fair to say I wasn't popular on the home front for a while as the whole reason I went back to club cricket was to avoid the travel and late finishes of premier cricket.

Its a real issue I think. Our club has lost 3-4 decent players who have retired early cos of it . And that than flows through the rest of the club

 

[Cleavy]

the terminology that has crept into the commentary, e.g. nicking off. also JB referring to Tassie as "Punter town".

 

[Brenton Davy]

Eden Park, Auckland. Cricket is not meant to be played on a postage stamp! 40 metre boundaries are a joke and this place makes a mockery of the game. Either get a decent size stadium in Auckland that can accommodate cricket and more than 8,000 spectators or don’t play cricket there at all.

 

[Jamurp]

Eden Park, Auckland. Cricket is not meant to be played on a postage stamp! 40 metre boundaries are a joke and this place makes a mockery of the game. Either get a decent size stadium in Auckland that can accommodate cricket and more than 8,000 spectators or don’t play cricket there at all.

I was in NZ just before the pandemic and visited a local park in New Plymouth which had a couple of small grandstands, noticed how tiny it was and wondered whether they played cricket there but thought surely not as it was too small, month or so later I log onto youtube and there's a steam of the NZ big bash equivalent being played at that very oval, I was baffled haha, boundaries had to have been 20-30m from the pitch.

Eden Park is way too small for international matches though, crap for bowlers.

 

[PhatBoy]

I was in NZ just before the pandemic and visited a local park in New Plymouth which had a couple of small grandstands, noticed how tiny it was and wondered whether they played cricket there but thought surely not as it was too small, month or so later I log onto youtube and there's a steam of the NZ big bash equivalent being played at that very oval, I was baffled haha, boundaries had to have been 20-30m from the pitch.

Eden Park is way too small for international matches though, crap for bowlers.

It can’t be that bad.

Statistically this century batting has been more difficult at Eden Park than at Lords. Ease of batting isn’t determined purely by where the boundaries are.

If it was, the MCG would be a bowler’s paradise wouldn’t it.

 

[Brenton Davy]

It can’t be that bad.

Statistically this century batting has been more difficult at Eden Park than at Lords. Ease of batting isn’t determined purely by where the boundaries are.

If it was, the MCG would be a bowler’s paradise wouldn’t it.

Eden Park not 'fit-for-purpose': NZ Cricket | cricket.com.au

Pocket-sized Auckland venue's cricket-hosting future in doubt following scathing assessment from NZC…

www.cricket.com.au

 

[Gethelred]

The advice 'Just bowl on the stumps'.

Does no-one genuinely think they - the English bowlers, coaches, captain, selectors, queen, her generals; the entire British ******* Commonwealth - have not considered that maybe they should bowl on the stumps?

What do they think the coaches/players do with their time?

For all that I think they've got their lengths wrong, the above exposes a misunderstanding of how wickets are taken. Mistakes don't get you wickets, not by themselves; indecision is what gets you a wicket, because it causes a mistake against a ball you shouldn't be playing the way you opted to play it. Indecision gets you leaving the ball on off stump; indecision gets you prodding at balls that look like they could engage the wickets despite being half a foot to a full foot outside off; indecision gets you charging then changing your mind on what shot you're going to play which causes you to miss the ball; indecision causes you to half play a shot and it doesn't clear the infield.

You see a predominantly fifth stump line at test level because - shock horror - what do people think gets bowled at first class level??? On the decks you get at first class down to park turf, you're going to get absolute minefields to roads, and you're going to have to become very, very good at defending and scoring off the stumps.

Why is swing bowling effective? Why does a spinning ball force false shots? Why does a changeup, a variation work? Because it places the player into indecision in very specific ways and tries to do so for specific shots: outswing try and compel the bat to play a straight bat shot to a ball that isn't hitting the stumps, inswing tries to draw an attacking shot (a cover drive) to a ball on them; a spinner forces play of a ball well wide of off or leg purely because it's going to turn; a change up ball is disguised to hide that it will do something different purely to put that moment of indecision in a player's mind as they're trying to play the shot, whether a flipper or wrong 'un or a slower ball.

Honestly. Do people actively try to avoid understanding what bowling entails? 'Just bowl on the stumps'. For *'s sake.

 

[PhatBoy]

The advice 'Just bowl on the stumps'.

Does no-one genuinely think they - the English bowlers, coaches, captain, selectors, queen, her generals; the entire British ******* Commonwealth - have not considered that maybe they should bowl on the stumps?

What do they think the coaches/players do with their time?

For all that I think they've got their lengths wrong, the above exposes a misunderstanding of how wickets are taken. Mistakes don't get you wickets, not by themselves; indecision is what gets you a wicket, because it causes a mistake against a ball you shouldn't be playing the way you opted to play it. Indecision gets you leaving the ball on off stump; indecision gets you prodding at balls that look like they could engage the wickets despite being half a foot to a full foot outside off; indecision gets you charging then changing your mind on what shot you're going to play which causes you to miss the ball; indecision causes you to half play a shot and it doesn't clear the infield.

You see a predominantly fifth stump line at test level because - shock horror - what do people think gets bowled at first class level??? On the decks you get at first class down to park turf, you're going to get absolute minefields to roads, and you're going to have to become very, very good at defending and scoring off the stumps.

Why is swing bowling effective? Why does a spinning ball force false shots? Why does a changeup, a variation work? Because it places the player in indecision in very specific ways and tries to do so for specific shots: outswing try and compel the bat to play a straight bat shot to a ball that isn't hitting the stumps, inswing tries to draw an attacking shot (a cover drive) to a ball on them; a spinner forces play of a ball well wide of off or leg purely because it's going to turn; a change up ball is disguised to hide that it will do something different purely to put that moment of indecision in a player's mind as they're trying to play the shot, whether a flipper or wrong 'un or a slower ball.

Honestly. Do people actively try to avoid understanding what bowling entails? 'Just bowl on the stumps'. For fu**'s sake.

This times 100x

I get the basic assessment that’s come out of a few days of this series: ‘only xxx balls they bowled on day one were hitting the stumps.’ Yes there can be a point where you don’t bowl enough balls at the stumps but seriously how many top six batsman are just going to miss straight balls when it’s not moving a lot? More to the point, players like Warner, smith and Marnus eat straight bowling for dinner. Against quality batsmen hunting the stumps should only be a shock tactic, not a tactic.

 

[FredLeDeux]

The advice 'Just bowl on the stumps'.

Does no-one genuinely think they - the English bowlers, coaches, captain, selectors, queen, her generals; the entire British ******* Commonwealth - have not considered that maybe they should bowl on the stumps?

What do they think the coaches/players do with their time?

For all that I think they've got their lengths wrong, the above exposes a misunderstanding of how wickets are taken. Mistakes don't get you wickets, not by themselves; indecision is what gets you a wicket, because it causes a mistake against a ball you shouldn't be playing the way you opted to play it. Indecision gets you leaving the ball on off stump; indecision gets you prodding at balls that look like they could engage the wickets despite being half a foot to a full foot outside off; indecision gets you charging then changing your mind on what shot you're going to play which causes you to miss the ball; indecision causes you to half play a shot and it doesn't clear the infield.

You see a predominantly fifth stump line at test level because - shock horror - what do people think gets bowled at first class level??? On the decks you get at first class down to park turf, you're going to get absolute minefields to roads, and you're going to have to become very, very good at defending and scoring off the stumps.

Why is swing bowling effective? Why does a spinning ball force false shots? Why does a changeup, a variation work? Because it places the player into indecision in very specific ways and tries to do so for specific shots: outswing try and compel the bat to play a straight bat shot to a ball that isn't hitting the stumps, inswing tries to draw an attacking shot (a cover drive) to a ball on them; a spinner forces play of a ball well wide of off or leg purely because it's going to turn; a change up ball is disguised to hide that it will do something different purely to put that moment of indecision in a player's mind as they're trying to play the shot, whether a flipper or wrong 'un or a slower ball.

Honestly. Do people actively try to avoid understanding what bowling entails? 'Just bowl on the stumps'. For fu**'s sake.

On the other hand, the great Brian Statham famously said that he bowled at the wicket, rather than at the edge of the bat, because the first was 70 times as wide as the latter.

 

[Gethelred]

On the other hand, the great Brian Statham famously said that he bowled at the wicket, rather than at the edge of the bat, because the first was 70 times as wide as the latter.

What I'm talking about is not not bowling at the wickets. What I'm talking about is getting the bat to think the ball is on the wickets when it isn't, or to think it won't hit when it will, using your skills as a bowler.

People watching the sport bemoan bad shots, because the popcorn view of cricket is encouraged by commentary and the establishment desperate to sell T20 tickets. Not all bad shots are the result of poor batting; sometimes, a bowler has worked you into the position of believing you need to play at every ball and you prod at one you could've and should've left; a bowler has you stepping across your stumps to play a block, and pins you to the crease LBW.

England in 2010-11 famously bowled full in that series, because their plans were very much to attack the stumps; they did so fully cognizant of the risk they were running, but a mitigated risk by their own runmaking in that series. Their plans were thus: put 500+ on the board and bat themselves to a position of being unable to lose, then let Australia try to win from a position of inferiority. Australia then proceeded to try to win, only to find themselves grating against the fact that they needed to make runs and make em fast against a moving ball on the stumps; that provoked the indecision I'm talking about.

You're not removing the option of bowled or LBW from the equation. You're simply trying to avoid becoming predictable or giving the bat too many easy runs where they are strong with your length as much as your line.

 

[t_94]

People bowling in a hat.

 

[Silly Mid On]

Related to following cricket:

BigFooty posters saying a test match will be a draw on day 1 or 2 after a wicket-less session

 

[PhatBoy]

Related to following cricket:

BigFooty posters saying a test match will be a draw on day 1 or 2 after a wicket-less session

Or blaming the wicket any time there is a partnership, as though no good pitch has ever had a higher stand than 50-60 runs before

 

[big_e]

If they can put the sponsors' logos on the jumpers, surely they can put the players' names and numbers.



And if anyone says they shouldn't have numbers and names on the shirts anyway, it's been a godsend when teaching my kids about the game this summer. Having a 6yo say "number 9 is bowling, that's Anderson!" has been brilliant.

 

[Richard Cranium]

If they can put the sponsors' logos on the jumpers, surely they can put the players' names and numbers.



And if anyone says they shouldn't have numbers and names on the shirts anyway, it's been a godsend when teaching my kids about the game this summer. Having a 6yo say "number 9 is bowling, that's Anderson!" has been brilliant.

Is your 6yo unable to read the names on the bottom of the screen?