Cricket for Americans – a primer
I take requests. In this case, it was to explain the basics of cricket. Indifference to cricket is a defining characteristic of the American sports fan.. Our devotion to soccer is rabid by comparison. This is odd, in that cricket is a team sport with a broad presence across the world and is a close cousin to baseball. Furthermore, American cricket was once a genuine thing. Not recently, but still… This is our loss. Cricket is a great game. We are missing out.
I was, for most of my life, completely typical in my indifference. Then I got interested in early baseball. I soon realized that to understand what was going on in antebellum baseball, I had to know something about cricket. Partly this was abstract stuff: how clubs were organized and interacted with one another, and the like. But the game itself influenced the rules of baseball. Cricket was more the more mature and prestigious game, and many baseball players also played cricket. Whenever a problem arose in baseball, they naturally looked to see how cricket dealt with a similar problem.
It clearly behooved me to learn something about the game. I started with book learning, but this only takes you so far. Fortunately, there turned out to be ample opportunities to watch local amateur matches. Who knew? American cricket is still (or, more accurately, once again) a thing, but only among certain immigrant groups. In practice this means there are your Indian clubs, your Pakistani clubs, and your occasional West Indies club. I started showing up to matches of a local (Indian) club. They were initially startled by my presence, but once they figured out I was there to learn about cricket, and wasn’t interested in debating its relative merits with baseball, they were very welcoming, and even shared subcontinental snacks with me. I started out trying to simply figure out what was going on, mentally translating everything in terms of baseball. Once I got past that, I came to appreciate the game in its own right.
With these preliminaries out of the way, how is the game played? There is a notion that cricket is a deeply mysterious and ridiculously complicated game. This idea arises partly out of American laziness (and I write this as a lazy American myself). If the game is ridiculously complicated, we can’t be blamed for not bothering. A certain sort of cricket enthusiast is flattered by the idea that he has mastered such a mystery, and a slightly different sort of cricket fan who enjoys dismissing Americans as unable to understand an adult game, playing the child’s game of baseball instead. These are all misguided, both ideologically and factually. Cricket is no more complicated or difficult to understand than is baseball. Neither is it any less. Both can be enjoyed with just a basic understanding, and both have depths (and specialized vocabulary) to explore. Today I am just going for the basics.
Its underlying structure is familiar: the game is divided into innings, with the two teams alternating between fielding and batting. The batting side tries to score as many runs as possible, while the fielding side tries to put them out. A specially designated player delivers the ball to the player at bat, who attempts to hit the ball. If we hits it well, runs can result. If he hits it poorly, he can be put out. Cricket is, in short, a simple game. You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes it rains.
The basic template allows for a lot of differences, starting with the field. Baseball and cricket are played on fields roughly the same size, but the layouts are different. A baseball field is more or less square, with the most important bits in one corner. This is because the field is divided into fair and foul territory, with foul territory relatively unimportant. The field is laid out to maximize the more important fair territory. A cricket field is oval, with the most important bits in the middle. This is because there is no foul territory. Every direction is fair. Hitting a ball directly backwards is a legitimate tactic, and there needs to be space allocated for this.
Players don’t run a circuit of bases, but back and forth between two lines (charmingly denominated the “popping creases”) about 58 feet apart. There are always two offensive players on the field, the active batsman and his partner, and they crisscross back and forth when running, each time scoring one run. If they end the play on the opposite side from where they started, which player is the active batsman switches. They don’t have “at bats” in the baseball sense. They play until they are put out. The inning lasts until ten of the eleven batsmen are out, leaving the lone man “not out” but without a partner.
An additional feature is that bowling (the analog to pitching) is broken up into “overs” of six balls each. At the end of each over a new bowler comes in from elsewhere in the field, bowing in the opposite direction.
The plate umpire in baseball keeps the pitcher and batter honest by calling balls and strikes. Cricket doesn’t have these. The batsman is charged with defending his wicket: three upright stakes, the “stumps,” with two cross-pieces, the “bails,” laid atop them. If the bowler can hit the wicket and knock the bails off, the batsman is “bowled out.” This is pleasingly objective compared with the amazing variable strike zone, and there is a visceral satisfaction to the bails going flying. The kicker is that the bowler can bounce the ball off the ground. Baseball’s curve ball relies on subtle aerodynamic force to deflect the path of the ball. People were arguing as late as the mid-20th century whether this is real or an illusion. This question never arose about a cricket “spinner.”
There are various other ways to put a player out. A fielder catching a fly ball results in an out, just like in baseball (but a more difficult accomplishment: there is more effective territory to defend, and no gloves). The final way is to knock the bails of the wicket with the ball while the runner is between the popping creases, in which case he is “run out.” Or the wicketkeeper (analog to the catcher) can do this on a bowled ball should the batsman step in front of the popping crease, in which case he is “stumped.”
The final key is that the batsman is not required to run. Once a baseball batter hits a fair ball, he is committed. He can’t stand at the plate and say he wants a redo. A cricket batsman can (and does) do just this. This won’t help him if he hit a fly ball that is caught, but if he hits a ground ball toward a fielder, and isn’t sure he can safely run on it, he can hold tight and try again. Much of the difference in strategy between the two games derives from this difference.
This should be enough to figure out what is going on. The cricket cognoscenti out there are howling in anguish at that claim. There are lots of things I haven’t mentioned: wides, no balls, the mysteries of the leg before wicket, and so on. I have barely scratched the surface of cricket vocabulary. (There really is something called a “googly,” roughly analogous to a screwball.) And so on and so forth, endlessly. Those are those depths to explore. I am just trying to help people watch a YouTube video.
Which brings us to what to do with this newfound information. Cricket is available on cable, but probably not to you, or not without paying extra. ESPN3 is an online possibility, but YouTube is the quickest and easiest (and freest) route. But first a word about different cricket formats. The traditional form is nearly open ended: two innings and as long as it takes. This mostly survives as international “test match” cricket, but limited to five days, at which point they will call it quits. This is considered the highest level of cricket, and favored on principle by the purists, but the excessive length limits it potential, but as a spectator and as a participatory sport. Nowadays most cricket is “one day.” It is only one inning, and that is capped with a maximum number of overs. At first this was fifty overs, which took pretty much all afternoon. A newer format is “Twenty20” (or “T20”), with one inning of twenty overs. This lasts about the same as a baseball game. The strategy is very different, as the cost-benefit analysis of batting strategies are changed. The purists harrumph their disapproval, but actually being able to play or watch an entire game without a major life commitment has made the format popular. My suggestion is to go to YouTube and punch in “IPL” (India Premier League) for some T20. You can choose between highlights and full matches.
Best of all, however, is to see a game live. Cricket, like baseball, is best viewed in person. Many parts of the country have amateur leagues. The tradeoff is that the level of play is much lower, but you can also ask questions. If you don’t mind being the only white person present, this is the best way to appreciate the game.
Many years back, the Bell Labs location where I worked had a fair number of scholars and specialists working temporarily from the UK, and a bunch of recreational slow-pitch softball leagues. The Brits always put together a team for the bottom league (unofficial slogan: “Softball is an excellent reason to go out for beer and pizza”). It always took a couple of games for the newcomers to learn things like base running (“You can overrun first and home, but not second and third?”), but man, they could hammer that big slow-moving ball right from the beginning.Report
Everything I know about cricket I learned from reading Paddington books. And from watching it aerially from my room on the 7th floor of one of McGill’s residence halls.
Thank you for the primer! It fills in a lot of gaps for me.Report
Paddington inspired me to try marmalade. Mmm…Report
The front page picture got cropped awkwardly. Points to anyone who can identify either gentleman.Report
This is very helpful – thanks for this, Richard. Here’s a question that’s often the biggest obstacle to me understanding cricket: what do cricket scores mean, and how can I tell if, after the first day of a test match, a team is doing well or poorly? For instance, how do I interpret a score of, say 287/6 – 125/3?Report
This is a hard call, because so much depends on so much. You wouldn’t see “287/6 – 125/3.” The “287/6” format only applies while one side’s inning is ongoing: they have scored 287 runs so far, for six wickets (i.e. six outs, of the total ten, keeping in mind that you put your better batters in early). Once that side’s inning is complete, you are given just the number of runs scored. The thing is, I didn’t get into strategy and scoring rate, or playing for a draw and declaring one’s inning closed. Briefly, a test match lasts five days. This is not necessarily five days of actual play. If, for example, it rains all day the first day, that is still the first day. Actual play will take place the remaining four. Similarly, if it rains the last day, then that is that. If the two innings have not been completed at the end of the fifth day, the match is a draw, which is not the same thing as a tie but has the same effect of neither side winning. So if you don’t think you can win, you can play for a draw. And if you are the batting side and do think you can win but you need to hurry things up a bit, you can declare your inning closed, i.e. end it peremptorily, giving you more time to get the other side out and finish the job. But you better be pretty sure you have enough runs to come out ahead. So it gets complicated. Read the commentary, keeping in mind that cricket commentary is as prone to bloviation as in any other sport.Report
Thanks – this makes much more sense now. So a proper score after an inning and a half would be something like 287-125/3, which, if I’m understanding you correctly, would pretty much mean that the team that’s batting is almost guaranteed to lose because they would need their three worst batters to score 163 runs. Right?Report
125/3 means there are three outs, not that there are three more chances. So it is far from disastrous. And depending, of course, on which inning we are talking about and how many days are left, and the weather forecast.Report
First you need to learn to read the pitch surface and the weather. Cracked, dusty, or lush (with grass) surfaces are difficult to score on, because they turn and/or bounce the ball more or unpredictably. Overcast, humid, or breezy weather makes it difficult to score due to increased swing of the ball; stadium lights have a similar effect at times. A damp outfield makes Fours less likely; however dew on the field (happens under stadium lights) makes fielding and bowling (less grip on the ball, and one half of the ball can’t be kept dry) difficult.
My best advice is to look at recent first day totals for that team, and recent first day totals for that ground. Then using that, and your knowledge of the surface and weather, arrive at probable total and compare the current score against that.Report
(There really is something called a “googly,” roughly analogous to a screwball.)
Which make it very amusing that Google calls someone who embodies its corporate values “Googley”.Report
Amusing indeed, for in cricket, spin bowling is the art of deception and subterfuge.
Scroll down on this page for some passages about Googlys and other spin bowling: https://instagram.com/t.wijeReport
One thing that puzzles me about cricket, which I know mostly from Wodehouse and other British novels, is that batters and bowlers are often singled out for praise, but no one ever talks about fielding. Or base running, for that matter. Surely both are important skills.Report
There is very little equivalent to baseball’s base running. You don’t have anything like stolen bases. Think of how in baseball the batter hits the ball and you think “single” or “double” but a fast runner might stretch that single into a double or that double into a triple. Cricket is sort of like that, but less so. In baseball runs are far more valuable than outs. This is why teams will sacrifice an out just to increase the likelihood of subsequently scoring a run. Cricket is the opposite. outs are far more valuable than runs, so you rarely risk being “run out” (thrown out running). As a first approximation, any cricketer who is run out made a mistake by running in the first place (or his partner did, or there was a communication screw up between them). So in baseball when we talk about someone being a great runner, we mostly mean that he is good at base stealing, and secondarily that he can make an extra base than could a slow runner. Cricket completely lacks the former, and mostly lacks the latter.
Fielding is harder to explain. One might expect that with outs being so hard to get, there would be a lot of emphasis on fielding. Partly the explanation seems to be that any individual fielder will only rarely be given the opportunity to make a catch. There are, in a two-inning game, at most twenty outs. Only a fraction of these will be on fly catches, and these will be divided among nine fielders (eleven players minus the bowler and the wicketkeeper). Compare this with how often the shortstop touches the ball. So there isn’t a lot of opportunity to display your mad fielding skillz, should you be possessed of them. The way this seems to play out is with lower expectations. When two professional baseball clubs toured England in 1874, playing both baseball and cricket, they were met with a lot of polite noises, plus what seem to be to be sincere praise for their fielding. I think this was due to a combination of the Americans being more practiced in the art and their pursuing it more aggressively.
As a historical note, the early professional cricketers tended to be bowlers. Batting was the more fun activity that the dues-paying club members wanted to do. So in part the reason to pay professionals was to take the less-fun but necessary task of bowling, both in practice and by extension in matches.Report
The standard of fielding in Baseball is far superior. Especially in throwing. That said, everybody loves a good catch at Point, or Slip, or on the boundary (see YouTube). Often the best fieldsman is sent to field at Point. When I was a kid, Jonty Rhodes of South Africa was everybody’s fielding hero.
Bad running is criticized; especially if the batting partner is sacrificed due to poor decision making, slow running, or messy ‘creasing’ (completing a run). Occasionally good decision making in taking a run is praised. ‘Keeping the scoreboard ticking over’ is generally a good thing to do if both batsman are competent, as it denies the bower a consistent target. If one of the batsmen is incompetent (their strength is in bowling, not batting), then the better batsman is expected to not expose the other to the bowler – which may mean refusing to take a run.Report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KK21LIfAF6I If it helps..Report