mcgillianaire (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mcgillianaire) wrote2007-08-09 01:15 pm
mcgillianaire) wrote2007-08-09 01:15 pm
Entry tags:
Day 1 @ The Oval, England v India, 3rd and Final Test (India leads the series 1-0)
LUNCH: India 1/117. (Karthik 50*)
Excellent start, excellent session. Karthik notched up his 6th Test fifty (and 3rd of the series), as India won another good toss and chose to bat. Jaffer got things going in the 4th over of the morning, and since then the Indians have scored more than 4 an over. The only English success came at 62, when Vaughan's strategic placement of Pietersen halfway between the inner-circle and boundary at a squarish-third man, enticed Jaffer to play straight into his hands after a brisk 35. (He had earlier hit an upper-cut six in the same area). The captain, Rahul Dravid, walked-in and began in rather brisk fashion himself. At one point he was even scoring more than a run-a-ball, but with lunch just around the corner, he pulled down the shutters and let his partner run the shop. The Oval has played true to its nature in recent times: a belter to bat on, and nothing less than 650 in under two days, will provide enough time for teams with these kinda bowling attacks to push for victory within five. India needs 350 from today's play, and without losing too many more wickets.
TEA: India 3/211. (Karthik 91, Dravid 55)
A disappointing last hour for India, as they lost Dravid and Karthik within the space of a couple overs. Only twenty-six runs were scored in the second hour, as England sensed an opportunity to claw their way back into the game. With SRT and Ganguly at the crease, I'd say it's even stevens. This partnership and the next one could make-or-break India's chances of forcing a win. Off to tea!
STUMPS: India 4/316. (Karthik 91, Dravid 55, SRT 48*)
Despite one unlucky umpiring decision against Karthik, and another shocker against Ganguly; India took the honours on the 1st day at The Oval. Two of the Fab Four are still at the crease. SRT and Laxman, who incidentally became the ninth Indian batsman to cross 5000 Test runs, will be expected to shepherd India into a winning position tomorrow. Today however, began with a flurry of runs and for half the day, the run rate was well above four an over. Then England pegged India back with a coupla wickets, and the runs dried up. SRT in particular gave the impression that he was going to be the last man standing, as he ground his way to 48* in just over three hours. Dravid will be pleased that his boys scored more than 300 runs, without losing too many wickets; but England will not feel too outdone, especially after it looked like they were in for a fruitless and tiring day's effort. Little was mentioned about the weather, which incredibly has produced yet another 24hrs without precipitation in the capital. Given India's seemingly solid position, it might as well not rain for at least another day or two. It also looks like India are more interested in batting long enough to avoid a loss, yet offer themselves just about enough time to theoretically force a result if the bowlers get stuck in. Given how brilliant the umpiring's been this series, we might just have a result, regardless of how well India and/or England play. But for now, dinner calls!
Excellent start, excellent session. Karthik notched up his 6th Test fifty (and 3rd of the series), as India won another good toss and chose to bat. Jaffer got things going in the 4th over of the morning, and since then the Indians have scored more than 4 an over. The only English success came at 62, when Vaughan's strategic placement of Pietersen halfway between the inner-circle and boundary at a squarish-third man, enticed Jaffer to play straight into his hands after a brisk 35. (He had earlier hit an upper-cut six in the same area). The captain, Rahul Dravid, walked-in and began in rather brisk fashion himself. At one point he was even scoring more than a run-a-ball, but with lunch just around the corner, he pulled down the shutters and let his partner run the shop. The Oval has played true to its nature in recent times: a belter to bat on, and nothing less than 650 in under two days, will provide enough time for teams with these kinda bowling attacks to push for victory within five. India needs 350 from today's play, and without losing too many more wickets.
TEA: India 3/211. (Karthik 91, Dravid 55)
A disappointing last hour for India, as they lost Dravid and Karthik within the space of a couple overs. Only twenty-six runs were scored in the second hour, as England sensed an opportunity to claw their way back into the game. With SRT and Ganguly at the crease, I'd say it's even stevens. This partnership and the next one could make-or-break India's chances of forcing a win. Off to tea!
STUMPS: India 4/316. (Karthik 91, Dravid 55, SRT 48*)
Despite one unlucky umpiring decision against Karthik, and another shocker against Ganguly; India took the honours on the 1st day at The Oval. Two of the Fab Four are still at the crease. SRT and Laxman, who incidentally became the ninth Indian batsman to cross 5000 Test runs, will be expected to shepherd India into a winning position tomorrow. Today however, began with a flurry of runs and for half the day, the run rate was well above four an over. Then England pegged India back with a coupla wickets, and the runs dried up. SRT in particular gave the impression that he was going to be the last man standing, as he ground his way to 48* in just over three hours. Dravid will be pleased that his boys scored more than 300 runs, without losing too many wickets; but England will not feel too outdone, especially after it looked like they were in for a fruitless and tiring day's effort. Little was mentioned about the weather, which incredibly has produced yet another 24hrs without precipitation in the capital. Given India's seemingly solid position, it might as well not rain for at least another day or two. It also looks like India are more interested in batting long enough to avoid a loss, yet offer themselves just about enough time to theoretically force a result if the bowlers get stuck in. Given how brilliant the umpiring's been this series, we might just have a result, regardless of how well India and/or England play. But for now, dinner calls!
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
At the top of the match
What's that all about? Minimum overs until what? I've never encountered mention of a minimum number of overs per innings in test cricket anywhere else...?
no subject
a) An innings finishes, in which case 2 overs are taken out of the equation during the 10 minute changeover.
b) The playing conditions state that the day's play has to end at a particular time, even if the stipulated amount have not been bowled.
It's interesting you bring it up today because the playing conditions here stated that regardless of how many overs had been bowled, play was to end at 6:30pm latest. As it happened, England were on course to finish bowling the stipulated 90 by the original scheduled close of play of 6pm, but they got lethargic during the latter-half of the day and ended up bowling 89 overs by 6:29pm. The umpires had a choice to either stop play then, or go ahead, as they did, and finish the 90 overs. I don't think however, they would've done the same thing had only 88 or fewer overs had been bowled. (Of course, had there been rain, then the 6:30pm late finish would've gone out the window and they would've tried to fit in play as late as the light and conditions held up). Another of cricket's wonderful idiosyncrasies.
no subject
Assume India were X number of runs for 9 wickets down at 87.5 overs at 6:17, and then got all-out on the last ball of the over. Though two minimum overs remain to be bowled during the day, given the fact that 2 overs are taken out of the stipulated 90 at the end of an innings, and the fact that it's already past 6pm, and less than 5 minutes to go after the innings break, chances are the umpires would call it a day and start afresh the next day. (You can use the rough calculation of 5 minutes equaling an over, therefore ideally, teams should bowl all 90 overs in exactly 6 hours. In practice, this happens very rarely. Even in India or Sri Lanka when the spinners are on and overs are bowled quickly, the shorter days force play to be abandoned due to bad light).
=========
On a separate note, you're aware that after every 80 overs in any single innings, assuming the innings has gone on for that long, the bowling captain has the choice of using another new ball. The old ball is no longer used for the remainder of innings (although I wonder if
no subject
> aware that after every 80 overs
Yes. The
no subject
Again, the umpires don't have a choice, unless they make the wrong decision. In the situation you outline, there have been 88 overs bowled. Add two for the change of innings and you get 90. As long as it's passed the scheduled stumps time (6pm), it's stumps.
And it's 4 minutes per over, not 5.
Slow over-rates are, I think, a phenomenon of the last fifty years. If you look at some scorecards from before WWII, you'll often see more than 100 overs being bowled in a day. (Though check to see how many balls were in each over.)
what the rules are in Tests for replacing balls, particularly in terms of whether they are allowed and/or do use previously used balls in the same match/series
If a ball becomes unfit for play, or stops satisfying the regulations somehow, then it gets replaced with a ball of comparable wear. Where these balls come from I don't know - I think they come from balls that were used in innings that ended early in first-class matches in the home country.
The exception to this in Test cricket is that is the ball is more than 110 overs old, and it needs to be replaced, it gets replaced by a new ball.
It is not, as I read things, compulsory to take a new ball at the start of the second innings (you can keep using the one you used in the first innings), but I don't know of any team doing this at international or first-class level.
no subject
>Slow over-rates are, I think, a phenomenon of the last fifty years.
Indeed. But like you've told me before, I need to check-up and make sure with the number of balls per over. I didn't know till a few years ago for example that some Tests were played with 4 ball overs! But as far as slow over-rates go, I'm with Boycott on this one. Captains (and by extension, their teams) don't care about them much because the penalty is mild. I think teams should work harder at bowling 15 overs an hour, if not, they should be penalized heavily for not doing so. I accept excuses when captains want time to set fields, but there's gotta be a limit. If after I go through all those old scorecards and find decent evidence, I will make a post about it. (*scribbles mental note, one of gazillion other posts to make between now and death*)
>The exception to this in Test cricket
Ah yes.
>not, as I read things, compulsory to take a new ball at the start of the second innings (you can keep using the one you used in the first innings)
This is true. I can't remember an instance this was invoked but I remember hearing about it on the radio commentary. I believe another listener sent an email about it asking if it had ever happened. I'm not sure if Bearders found an answer for it.
no subject
I just said that as a general warning to people looking at old scorecards - the over-rates were definitely higher. eg (at random), here, 487 six-ball overs in four days.
I didn't know till a few years ago for example that some Tests were played with 4 ball overs!
Some were played with 5, back in the 1890's.
I'd like to play with eight-ball overs sometime (not that I've played for several years anyway...). It's been less than 30 years since we had them in Australia.
no subject
This is a recent change, and one which caused some mild outrage during the 2005 Ashes series. Previously, you just kept playing until either the required number of overs had been bowled or it got too dark to keep playing. They changed the playing conditions a couple of years ago to say that play had to stop half an hour after the scheduled stumps (ie, at the end of the over in which the clock ticks over to 6:30). It may be different outside England and Australia, not sure.
ended up bowling 89 overs by 6:29pm. The umpires had a choice to either stop play then, or go ahead, as they did, and finish the 90 overs. I don't think however, they would've done the same thing had only 88 or fewer overs had been bowled.
Nope. The umpires have no choice in this situation. If the clock hasn't ticked over to 6:30 by the time they're in position for the next over, then the next over gets bowled, regardless of whether it's the 80th or 89th or 90th.
no subject
I knew it! I was confused as to why the commentators said play would end at 6:30 tonight, come what may. I was sorta hoping it would meander onto 7pm. Is it cause for worry when one is diagnosed with a case of wishing for Timeless Tests of 10 hours each day?
>The umpires have no choice in this situation.
Gotcha. I should've mentioned however that in today's instance, the analog clock at the ground showed 6:29 but the electronic one said 6:30 when the umpires decided England had to bowl the final over.
no subject
The umpires have to decide on one clock to use at the start of the match, and stick to it.