Who is Patel? is he knew?

Prior to moving to Canada, cricket was my favourite sport and I heavily followed the game, even following county level cricket for a few years. However as I currently have no friends who follow cricket my love for the sport has dwindled and for the past few years I have only followed cricket during the world cup and the ashes.

The biggest thing stopping me from getting back into cricket is how unfamiliar I am with the current field of players, and if I was to participate in the sport I would have to ask myself many of the questions that are similar to the one I asked above.

Maybe I will utilize this thread to get back into cricket.

Just watch any match in which Ishant Sharma is bowling. You will instantly get back into it. I saw him bowl two wides, two sixes, and two wickets in the span of a single over. He's amazing.

I have never, with the help of aids or diagrams or what have you, been able to "get" cricket...the most I comprehend of this game is 1. It makes Brits laugh any time baseball is brought up (and I still love my baseball) and 2. The Fifth Doctor once bowled that ball they use past a guy and was extremely excited about it for all of five seconds while his companions clapped before the shit hit the fan.

Samit Patel is well known for this run out.

http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2013/content/story/632559.html

But he's a solid batsman who is left out on the England squad for no reason other than his weight, as far I can tell.

I don't know why cricket has this reputation for being complicated. Maybe because there's a bit of jargon involved. But the rules are straight forward. Far simpler than rugby or golf.

I don't know if it's that I feel it's complicated...it just isn't something I "get."

Soccer was another sport I historically didn't care for, but I in generally "got" it, but just didn't care for it until I saw the World Cup (and even then...once every four years is enough for me...my friend loves to root for Man U and England, so she wants to see the 2016 Euro Cup...and eh, an excuse to go out to a bar and drink and watch a sporting game, sure, sounds like fun, but I'd never watch it more than that on my own.)

Baseball, like opera and Shakespeare, I could never imagine being without.

Cricket...I just don't "get."

Well since I don't know what the hell you mean by "get", I have no response. There is no accounting for taste.

Also, delightful that you call Man U, Man U, but I wouldn't call it that to a supporter's face. They tend to find it offensive.

Ah...! A cricket thread.
Putin you made me "Lol" with that reply including Ishant Sharma.
He is quite unpredictable in terms of his bowling performance. Like most of the matches he seems like a complete waste and there are thousands of his memes over the internet. And sometimes he shines through like he did in last match.

It seems like whenever India are on I catch the end of the match when they put Ishant in, and he never disappoints me in terms of entertainment value. I'm sure he gives India fans fits, but he keeps making Dhoni look like a genius.

"I saw him bowl two wides, two sixes, and two wickets in the span of a single over. He's amazing."
Not sure how the first 4 qualify as amazing, lol

I suppose I could start by watching the test starting this Sunday between India and England and slowly get back into the game through there.

"http://www.espncricinfo.com/county-cricket-2013/content/story/632559.html"
LMFAO

"I don't know why cricket has this reputation for being complicated. Maybe because there's a bit of jargon involved. But the rules are straight forward. Far simpler than rugby or golf."
I'd probably say golf is a fair comparison. The absolute basics are just as simple as each other, but golf gets far more complicated when it comes to what clubs your using, etc.

"Baseball, like opera and Shakespeare, I could never imagine being without.

Cricket...I just don't "get.""
What don't you get about it? As a baseball fan you should probably enjoy cricket as the concept is similar, except:
10 outs an innings instead of 3, 2 innings a game instead of 9.
Getting to 'first base' counts as a run, instead of requiring getting back home.
Batters bat until they're out instead of only once.

After that the differences between baseball and cricket narrow.

That said I'm sorta with Obi when it comes to soccer, I watch the Eurocup, Copa America and World Cup and thats it. The reason I don't watch premier league soccer is for a similar reason that I don't watch cricket. I have no loyalties to any teams, which makes it hard for me to watch.

With countries at least I will have some loyalties based on how much I like the country.

Sports for me is very much about emotion and passion, if your not shouting and screaming at your tv at some parts, and jumping up and down in excitement during other parts, you're not doing it right.

"Not sure how the first 4 qualify as amazing, lol"

Because you go from thinking he's terrible to the greatest fast bowler ever in the span of seconds. You never know what he will do. As a neutral it's great to watch.

"The reason I don't watch premier league soccer is for a similar reason that I don't watch cricket"

Meh, I usually build relationships with teams by supporting particular players first. Like I'm sure there is a Canadian soccer player playing somewhere in the top divisions. The problem is players come and go so quickly. The other problem is following the seasons of top flight can be pretty dull because only a couple teams have a shot at winning any given year. In cricket I don't really have any loyalties although I tend to follow England the closest.

"I usually build relationships with teams by supporting particular players first."
I'm sorta in between on that list. Like the only reason why I was cheering for Argentina last world cup was Messi.

For the most part, when I first get into a sport, I'll start cheering for a team for one of a few reasons (mostly jumping on a BW the first opportunity I get) but once I choose a favourite team I will generally stick with that team for a long time (I wont say life cause lets face it, a 20 year old who hasn't been following any sport for more then 7 years can't really claim permanent loyalties, especially when most of those loyalties have never been tested, eg I'm a Red Wings and Patriots fan.)

"Like I'm sure there is a Canadian soccer player playing somewhere in the top divisions."
Canada sucks at soccer so they'd probably be boring to watch lol, anyway, 2 Canadians play for Queens Park, there are a couple of players in the championship league but just Queens Park (which recently got promoted to the Premier League, lol).

Though the nationality of a player is mostly irrelevant (most of the hockey players I like a Europeans) for when I decided whether to like him.

Sportsmanship and how exciting he is to watch are the two qualities I care for the most.

"The other problem is following the seasons of top flight can be pretty dull because only a couple teams have a shot at winning any given year."
But that's the same for North American sports; the Jacksonville Jaguars and Edmonton Oilers aint winning any time soon.

While there is more variety due to a salary cap, at the start of the season its always relatively obvious which teams will do well and which teams wont, but you're right soccer needs some sort of drafting system and salary caps to balance out the team.

Problem with drafting is that how can you fairly split the drafts between the teams in a tiered league system. Problem with a salary cap is what's to stop all the players from moving to Spain and Germany which don't have cap restrictions.

"But that's the same for North American sports; the Jacksonville Jaguars and Edmonton Oilers aint winning any time soon."

Yes but I can name a dozen teams that have won a championship in American football and hockey in the last couple of decades. Look at the winners of the EPL since it formed, it's basically 3-4 teams. And as soon as any of the lower teams get good players, they get snagged up by bigger clubs.

"Problem with drafting is that how can you fairly split the drafts between the teams in a tiered league system. Problem with a salary cap is what's to stop all the players from moving to Spain and Germany which don't have cap restrictions."

Right, I don't really think there's any solution to the problem since the league went corporate and big tv money got involved. I'm just saying it's one of the drawbacks of the sport.

"I saw him bowl two wides, two sixes, and two wickets in the span of a single over. He's amazing."
That's just.......WEIRD. Were the balls in that order?

As for baseball vs. cricket:
Cricket is definitely less complicated than rugby, at least for me. I can watch a cricket match and understand exactly what's going on. With rugby, I frequently get confused. I read a lot about cricket and its rules before I ever watched a match, and it didn't make much sense. But after watching a couple of hours' worth of highlights it was all pretty crystal clear. I confess I haven't done my homework on rugby, so maybe that would make a difference.

But cricket and baseball only similar in the fact that there are bats (even though they're shaped quite differently), fielders, outs, runs, and innings. Baseball, for example, has hits, errors, home runs (not to be confused with regular runs), foul balls, and RBIs, none of which exist in cricket. Cricket has byes, boundaries, wickets, overs, and centuries, none of which exist in baseball.

Other cricket weirdnesses from the baseball fan's perspective:
- They bat from the middle of the field?!?!?!
- Where's the catcher?!?!?!
- Where are the bases and the foul lines?!?!?!
- Where's the home run wall?!?!?!
- Why are there TWO runners going back and forth?!?!?! And why do they carry their bats?!?!?!
- LBW?!?!?!?!
- They bounce the ball when they pitch it? How is that legal?!?!?!
- What do you mean "It's bowl. Pitch is the dirt bit that they bat on"?!?!?!

I'm sure cricket fans could list plenty of baseball weirdnesses in return. But I'm so used to baseball I'm not sure I could list them straight off.

"Yes but I can name a dozen teams that have won a championship in American football and hockey in the last couple of decades. Look at the winners of the EPL since it formed, it's basically 3-4 teams. And as soon as any of the lower teams get good players, they get snagged up by bigger clubs."
But isn't that the same as baseball? As for Hockey over the last six years there has been a consistent top of the league:
Kings: 2 Cups and a conference final appearance.
Hawks: 2 Cups and a conference final appearance and a presidents trophy
Bruins 1 cup, a final appearances, a conference final appearance and a presidents trophy.
Pens: 1 Cup, a finals appearance, a conference final appearance

While in soccer there is a few select teams that always do well, at least the premier league has multiple teams with large bankrolls, its not like La Liga where if you're not Barcelona or Madrid you're not winning anything or Bundesliga where Bayern Munich has won 23 of its 51 titles.

"Where's the catcher?!?!?!"
He's called a wicket keeper...

"But isn't that the same as baseball?"

No.

The Red Sox, Cardinals, Giants, White Sox, Yankees, Phillies, and Marlins have all won titles in just the past decade. The Rays, Astros, Rockies, Rangers, and Tigers have also managed to get into the WS.

"As for Hockey over the last six years there has been a consistent top of the league:"

Canes, Redwings, Bruins, Blackhawks, Ducks, Kings, Penguins, Lightning, Devils...it's a different team winning virtually every year.

ok yeah, looking at it, EPL is a little less balanced then I thought

Anyway, I'm awake and so I'm living streaming the game. Just started now, England won the toss and elected to bat.

Patel was not chosen for England

Obi - cricket rules are really simple...

You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that’s in the side that’s in goes out, and when he’s out he comes in and the next man goes in until he’s out. When they are all out, the side that’s out comes in and the side that’s been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out. When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game!

Wait, so am I in or out?

78/1 at lunch, Cooke had a bit of a scare early on but is looking comfortable now, I was making myself coffee when the wicket fell so missed it.

Fasces "Wait, so am I in or out?" In, but anytime you want to come out please announce it here or in the LGBT Times.

Great opening session for England. Cooke silenced the critics a little bit.

Also great win for South Africa in Sri Lanka. Can't believe they pulled it off.

A very little bit. The reality is that he was damn close to being out on a couple of occasions for a very low score yet again. If the total inspires him to a more convincing display in the 2nd innings it may encourage people to give him the benefit of the doubt. As things stand, though, I'm still very much in the give him a rest camp.

Moeen Ali hauled 5 as England have India on the brink of humiliation, courtesy of spin.

Also, in baseball news, does anybody think the Red Sox will give up Lester or the Rays, Price?