Football vs. American "Football"?

[DQuaN]

Let's not forget Ben Thatcher's elbow on Pedro Mendez



Ouchy.

 

[Famine]

Oooh. Heated much?

WRT tactics. American Football is, undoubtedly, a more tactical sport - in the same way that chess is more tactical still. You have a wide variety of preset "plays" (or "gambits" in chess) to choose from, all of the pieces move in a preset pattern depending on the play/gambit, a great deal of time to plan your next move and a good opposition consists of identifying and countering that play. The Quarterback (King) is the most important player by far, so much so that when tackled (threatened) they have their own special word - sacked (check).

Enough of that analogy now.

You could make a case for American Football havng more efficient communication - after all, after each play, everyone stops and decides what to do next, without all the hubbub of ongoing play. But a lot of the tactics in football require unspoken communication - for instance, the offside trap requires all (four usually) defenders to identify a threat and move up, in unison, the pitch to catch the striker between their line and the goalkeeper. But there's also the opportunity for the same kind of communication as is in American Football - the free kick. Players will get together, decide which of the "plays" they've developed on the training ground they'll use this time and, when play is restarted (from the team kicking the ball, just like a "hike"), they'll execute the play - and a good defence will anticipate the play and counter it.

If an American Football team loses its #1 Quarterback for any reason, almost regardless of any other player in the side, its chances of winning a particular game nosedive markedly. If a football team loses its captain, or goalkeeper, or striker, or superstar, the chances of them getting a result fall, but not significantly - unless you lose all of them. So you could make an argument that American Football is much less of a team sport than Football is, in that a collection of weaker individuals playing as a team can beat a collection of strong individuals playing as individuals in football, but American Football is all about the individual (the individual being the Quarterback).


So in many respects, while American Football may allow for more efficient communication and be more tactical, football has more types of communication and the lack of breaks in play requires more "on-the-fly" tactics. That's not to say that footballers are smarter than American footballers - most of our footballers struggle with tying their own laces. Wayne Rooney may have a brilliant tactical brain - allowing him to be in the right place at the right time - but I've seen more rewarding interviews with livestock.

 

[Dave A]

I don't see one as being notably any more tactical than the other, I just see the way the tatics are worked out as being different. I probably won't see it any different until I'm shown some examples of where that isn't the case. But I've seen nothing in American football that suggests to me that it's a more tactical game. Both just coordinate differently.

 

[Sureboss]

American football is a more strategic, more cereberal game. Just admit it and let's move on. It's just way more complex. Soccer is conceptually quite simple. Sure there are formations, but it's just nowhere near as strategic as American football... not even close.

Earlier on I believe you said "You've never seen a NFL game have you?"

I ask "Have you ever seen inside a dressing room of a top soccer club?"

Try telling a soccer manager soccer doesn't involve a lot of strategy.

 

[YSSMAN]

If an American Football team loses its #1 Quarterback for any reason, almost regardless of any other player in the side, its chances of winning a particular game nosedive markedly. If a football team loses its captain, or goalkeeper, or striker, or superstar, the chances of them getting a result fall, but not significantly - unless you lose all of them. So you could make an argument that American Football is much less of a team sport than Football is, in that a collection of weaker individuals playing as a team can beat a collection of strong individuals playing as individuals in football, but American Football is all about the individual (the individual being the Quarterback).

That, for the most part, depends largely on the team and how strong their depth is. Take a team like the Philadelphia Eagles, of whom lost their "star" quarterback due to a leg injury, and they have manged to do well with a second-string QB formerly of the Detroit Lions (have I mentioned how much our team sucks?). Same goes for the Dallas Cowboys, where their first-string QB is out on injury, and their second-string guy has done wonders for the team.

...What it comes down to in that regard is that the QB isn't everything in football, despite what the common idea may be. Certainly, you aren't going to win many games with a freshman quarterback fresh out of college with little-to-no experience in the NFL, but even old-time champions of yore such as Bret Farve struggle year-after-year.

It is indeed the cohesive nature of the NFL team that makes them successful, not just a few talented players here and there. Look at teams like the New Orleans Saints and the Chicago Bears. They really don't have any major outstanding "stars" on the team, but because of the fact that they work together so well, they have managed to clinch their respective divisions for the playoffs.

Go back to a team like the Dallas Cowboys or the Atlanta Falcons, teams that have the one or two "star" player setups, and their winning percentages are really hit-and-miss. Sure, they may blow-up on some teams one week that should have been much harder to defeat, and then the next they are practically on their knees with teams like Detroit (we suck).

...Just thought I'd vent a bit there...

 

[FoolKiller]

But the Quarter back's decisions are made without physical pressure. Sure he knows mentally that he can't screw up, and he knows that soon there will be an attack, and he knows that soon he might get tackled.

But he's not being tackled, he's not under attack, he's not being scored against and he's not under physical pressure as he is making decsions.

He has 4 seconds max, and that is IF the rest of his team does their job correctly. If he isn't quick enough or someone slips he can take a hard hit mid-back that can knock him out of the game (unless you're Brett Favre and then you play with the dislocated thumb).

As you like military analogies, it's like a company being ambushed, and the CO is more concerned about where his gun aimed than where everyone elses aimed.

Those other guns can create interception, sacks, fumbles, or even hurt on of his own players if he doesn't throw teh ball right. Trust me, he cares where those other guns are aimed.

Sure, that's not the complete fault of the QB as he can't possibly give real time orders in 20 second bursts of play but it is a trait of the game. A trait that nonetheless takes away from the leadership.

A non-leader quarterback will find his linemen not blocking fully because they don't care, or in some cases letting a guy through just to be an ass. He has to be a leader in teh eyes of his players or they won't play for him.

Edit: And before somebody posts it, no golf is not more strategic than american football. It's more precision oriented, but it isn't more strategic. There's a lot of technique and analysis invovled in setting up the shot precisely, but that's not strategy.

Have you seen my slice? all thsi talk of technique and analysis makes me wonder if you haven't watched me trying to figure out how to get out of the trees.

Now, a lot of people actually like when the running back takes the ball all the way to the end zone evading 5-7 defenders on the run...be it on an interception or a simple offensive play, and THOSE plays, are shown on ESPN like "wow just look at that play". And that's when I think, "so that's what people really like, the adrenaline of seeing someone running across the field without nobody taking him down" but, don't we see this all the time in soccer?

And this is why I hate highlight reels. They are fun to watch but they never give credit to the players that made it so the ball carrier only had to avoid five defenders instead of all 11. There are many more things going on than just what the guy with the ball is doing. If he isn't aware of his blockers then he will run into defenders, but if he follows his blockers he can run 90 yards without being touched (see Ohio State vs Florida from two nights ago).

A receiver has to worry about just as much as he has to watch sidelines, defenders, and try to catch the ball in a way that won't get him hit in mid-air. Once the ball hits his hands he has to worry about a dozen things until he can see open field in front of him, and then still he needs to check his back.

Heck, in the middle of all this confusion the ball carrier even has to worry about if he is holding, and protecting, the ball correctly because having it stripped can ruin an otherwise beautiful play and defenders will do everything from grabbing and yanking on the ball to beating it with their fists or hitting it with their helmet.

 

[Famine]

That, for the most part, depends largely on the team and how strong their depth is. Take a team like the Philadelphia Eagles, of whom lost their "star" quarterback due to a leg injury, and they have manged to do well with a second-string QB formerly of the Detroit Lions (have I mentioned how much our team sucks?). Same goes for the Dallas Cowboys, where their first-string QB is out on injury, and their second-string guy has done wonders for the team.

...What it comes down to in that regard is that the QB isn't everything in football, despite what the common idea may be. Certainly, you aren't going to win many games with a freshman quarterback fresh out of college with little-to-no experience in the NFL, but even old-time champions of yore such as Bret Farve struggle year-after-year.

It is indeed the cohesive nature of the NFL team that makes them successful, not just a few talented players here and there. Look at teams like the New Orleans Saints and the Chicago Bears. They really don't have any major outstanding "stars" on the team, but because of the fact that they work together so well, they have managed to clinch their respective divisions for the playoffs.

Go back to a team like the Dallas Cowboys or the Atlanta Falcons, teams that have the one or two "star" player setups, and their winning percentages are really hit-and-miss. Sure, they may blow-up on some teams one week that should have been much harder to defeat, and then the next they are practically on their knees with teams like Detroit (we suck).

...Just thought I'd vent a bit there...

It's a fair point, but...

Outside the US, where it's not livin' and breathin' NFL... Which NFL players has anybody actually heard of?

Apart from "The Refridgerator", who we only knew because he was immensely fat, they're all Quarterbacks - Dan Marino, Brett Favre, Joe Montana, Joe Namath, John Elway.

Now I can't answer the next question, but... In the US, where it's not livin' and breathin' football, which footballers have you actually heard of?

 

[OZZYGT]

Now I can't answer the next question, but... In the US, where it's not livin' and breathin' football, which footballers have you actually heard of?

Yeah, I nearly slapped one of my co-workers when he asked : Who's Pele?

 

[YSSMAN]

Now I can't answer the next question, but... In the US, where it's not livin' and breathin' football, which footballers have you actually heard of?

Well it is largely going to depend on how much you follow football, or even how old you are. I think most Americans could point to Beckham as the biggest football star in Europe, however there are a few others that would usually be identifiable. Obviously it was Pelé that brought a lot of the sport to the forefront in America, and for the most part, many of the Brazillan players are somewhat popular in America. That is of course, if you follow soccer at all.

...I will mention Zinedine Zidane, however he is now retired...

I tend to pick a few guys from the World Cup and attempt to follow them, but it usually doesn't work out too well. I really liked keeping my eye on Miroslav Klose and Bastian Schweinsteiger during the World Cup this past summer, just so I have a better reason to follow Deutscher Fussball...

So I guess we are pretty much tied up in that respect. Not many Europeans know people who play (US) football, and not too many Americans know the folks who play (world) football.

What about basketball? (lol)

 

[zoxxy]

I'll say what John Cleese said.

In American football they only use their feet on kickoff, on which you have a player that you take in from the bench. The 'ball' he kicks isn't much of a ball at all - more like a bouncy, orange lemon.

I don't remember it exactly though.

 

[Famine]

Well it is largely going to depend on how much you follow football, or even how old you are. I think most Americans could point to Beckham as the biggest football star in Europe, however there are a few others that would usually be identifiable. Obviously it was Pelé that brought a lot of the sport to the forefront in America, and for the most part, many of the Brazillan players are somewhat popular in America. That is of course, if you follow soccer at all.

...I will mention Zinedine Zidane, however he is now retired...

I tend to pick a few guys from the World Cup and attempt to follow them, but it usually doesn't work out too well. I really liked keeping my eye on Miroslav Klose and Bastian Schweinsteiger during the World Cup this past summer, just so I have a better reason to follow Deutscher Fussball...

So I guess we are pretty much tied up in that respect. Not many Europeans know people who play (US) football, and not too many Americans know the folks who play (world) football.

That wasn't necessarily the point, but it's a fair one.

The comparison was because most of the American Footballers non-Americans can name are Quarterbacks, whereas most of the footballers Americans can name are not in any specific single position - you name one out-and-out striker, two wingers and a centre midfielder. This kind of advances my "American Football teams are based round an individual and Football is more a team game" idea.

What about basketball? (lol)

Quite

I can't name a single icehockeyist either.

 

[Sureboss]

He has 4 seconds max, and that is IF the rest of his team does their job correctly. If he isn't quick enough or someone slips he can take a hard hit mid-back that can knock him out of the game (unless you're Brett Favre and then you play with the dislocated thumb).

Bert Trautman once played the last 15 minutes of an FA Cup Final (our biggest domestic cup competition) with a broken neck. Though I do ask why didn't Favre put the thumb back in?

In terms of bravery I'll have to do a shout out to Cricketers, batsman and sometimes short leg/silly point. Cricket balls travelling at upwards of 80 MPH hurt when they hit you.

 

[FoolKiller]

Deutscher Fussball...

There's a professional German fusball league? Do they have air hockey too?


I think that Americans would be more likely to tell you who is on the women's US soccer team than who Pele is. This just goes to show that if world football players would strip when they win games we would pay more attention.

 

[Specialized]

.......women's US soccer team .............. players would strip when they win games ..........

My god, you have just invented the best game ever. I applaud you sir! Can you just change the rules slightly so that they strip regardless of goals? Also are there regulations for vetting players so they meet a certain aesthetic criteria?

Spec....

 

[Danoff]

Oooh. Heated much?

WRT tactics. American Football is, undoubtedly, a more tactical sport - in the same way that chess is more tactical still. You have a wide variety of preset "plays" (or "gambits" in chess) to choose from, all of the pieces move in a preset pattern depending on the play/gambit, a great deal of time to plan your next move and a good opposition consists of identifying and countering that play. The Quarterback (King) is the most important player by far, so much so that when tackled (threatened) they have their own special word - sacked (check).

Thank you thank you thank you. When you've got a half dozen guys on the sidelines whose only job is to strategize, and these guys are connected wirelessly to the field, I don't think there's any way to see AF as less strategic. That doesn't necessarily make it better, just more strategic.

You could make a case for American Football havng more efficient communication - after all, after each play, everyone stops and decides what to do next, without all the hubbub of ongoing play. But a lot of the tactics in football require unspoken communication - for instance, the offside trap requires all (four usually) defenders to identify a threat and move up, in unison, the pitch to catch the striker between their line and the goalkeeper. But there's also the opportunity for the same kind of communication as is in American Football - the free kick. Players will get together, decide which of the "plays" they've developed on the training ground they'll use this time and, when play is restarted (from the team kicking the ball, just like a "hike"), they'll execute the play - and a good defence will anticipate the play and counter it.

I don't disagree with any of that.

If an American Football team loses its #1 Quarterback for any reason, almost regardless of any other player in the side, its chances of winning a particular game nosedive markedly. If a football team loses its captain, or goalkeeper, or striker, or superstar, the chances of them getting a result fall, but not significantly - unless you lose all of them. So you could make an argument that American Football is much less of a team sport than Football is, in that a collection of weaker individuals playing as a team can beat a collection of strong individuals playing as individuals in football, but American Football is all about the individual (the individual being the Quarterback).

It's hard for a team to win without a good QB, he's the prime decision maker on the field and the game is laregly about strategy. If he can't change the play after he sees it isn't working, the team is up the creek.

So in many respects, while American Football may allow for more efficient communication and be more tactical, football has more types of communication and the lack of breaks in play requires more "on-the-fly" tactics.

While I disagree that there are more types of communication (you should see the guys on the sidelines with their crazy hand singals, and the bizarre code speak that QBs belt out at the line that, when strung together, actually means something to the players), I agree that EF requires more on-the-fly adjustments. It's a more fluid game to be sure.

I think we can safely come up with the following two lists of pros for each sport.

American Football
- More tactical, chess-like
- More violent
- Breaks in play allow for detailed analysis for/by the audience on any play
- More types of scoring
- More scoring and yardage gained means more visible progress.
- More types of atheletes on the field at once
- Strength and precision oriented

European Football
- More fluid game play makes coordination more difficult (and therefore more impressive)
- More fluid game play means constant action
- Less scoring means scores are more exciting and impressive.
- Less scoring means openents have a shot to win pretty much until the end of the game (keeping the game interesting)
- Endurance and precision oriented
- Wild swings in play are more common giving you an anything-can-happen feeling


Personally, I like the AF list better. The low scoring and the wild swings in play make me feel like there's no point in watching an EF match. I can see why some people like it, it just isn't for me. I prefer the well-thought-out mythodical chess/war-like scenarios in AF to the fluid adlib style of play in EF. Again, I can see why people prefer EF, I just prefer the AF list of pros.

(Note: The above is not to say that I don't like to see adlib plays in AF. I think Michael Vick is one of the most fun QBs to watch because he adlibs so much of the time - it's explosive, anything can and does happen. But it's still more controlled and strategic than EF. Some people may find that a weakness of AF, and I can see why they might think that. But I don't agree.)

 

[xXSilencerXx]

I love both sports.

I like the violence and strategy of football, but I also like the constant moving and on the fly strategy of soccer.

I can't really decide which I like better. I'd probably play football if I was givin the choice since I've only been allowed to play 3 seasons of it compared to the 17 seasons ( one each spring and fall 10 -12 games each ) of socer I've played. But overall I enjoy playing each alot and don't really know why Americans tend to not like soccer. I like soccer alot and probably will play it as long as I can.

Also on a side not I'm built more for soccer. It's a lot easier for a small fast guy to ply soccer than it is in football. I don't have to be built like a body builder to play soccer. I just have to be fast, have ball control, and be able to work well with my team. I don't have to be tall or extremely muscular to excell in soccer.

 

[Danoff]

This is just such a great shot (comes from cnn.com), it goes really well with the Shockey no helmet play recently

I find it rediculously absurd that players will keep playing with no helmet, but I like that they're motivated. Way to take one for the team!

 

[Famine]

Oh, and basketball's extreme high scores have nothing on cricket...

 

[Danoff]

Oh, and basketball's extreme high scores have nothing on cricket...

I'll admit, I know almost nothing about cricket. The extent of my knowledge is that they wear funny clothes, have a wide odd-looking bat, and there are pegs in the ground.

How many scores are we talking about?

 

[Dave A]

Anything less than 200 is a low score.

 

[Famine]

I'll admit, I know almost nothing about cricket. The extent of my knowledge is that they wear funny clothes, have a wide odd-looking bat, and there are pegs in the ground.

How many scores are we talking about?

An average test match ends up with over 1,000 points scored - the recent 5-test-match Ashes series between England and Australia ended up with 5,644 points scored in total.

Twenty20 matches (20 overs [each of 6 valid balls] for each side) can end up with over 400 points scored inside a couple of hours.

 

[Danoff]

An average test match ends up with over 1,000 points scored - the recent 5-test-match Ashes series between England and Australia ended up with 5,644 points scored in total.

Twenty20 matches (20 overs [each of 6 valid balls] for each side) can end up with over 400 points scored inside a couple of hours.

What's the highest number of points given out on a particular play?

 

[Famine]

What's the highest number of points given out on a particular play?

Nominally 6, though there is no technical upper limit.

 

[Dave A]

another Cricket stat, Brian Lara scored 400 points in one innings himself, he holds the record.

 

[Danoff]

Nominally 6, though there is no technical upper limit.

That's a ton of scoring. If an average match has 1000 points (per team right?), and the nominal score is 6 points, that's over 150 scores. Compared to basketball which has somewhere between 30 and 50 scores/game/team, that's 3 times as much scoring. They must score a point like every 5 seconds... unless the matches are really long.

 

[Famine]

That's a ton of scoring. If an average match has 1000 points (per team right?), and the nominal score is 6 points, that's over 150 scores.

Well over. Most scores are 1 or 2 runs. Only a few get 4 (a boundary shot that hits the ground before it crosses the boundary) or 6 (a boundary shot that clears the boundary without hitting the ground).

More than 6 is rare.

Compared to basketball which has somewhere between 30 and 50 scores/game/team, that's 3 times as much scoring. They must score a point like every 5 seconds... unless the matches are really long.

Twenty20 games are usually over in 2/3 hours and see a maximum combined score of 450 (though more is possible).

One Day games usually last one day (though nearer 6/7 hours) and generally see maximum combined scores of 500 or so.

First Class games last 4 days, with about 1000 runs scored between the teams.

Test Matches (internationals) last 5 days, with about 1000 runs scored between the teams.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Not for a sprinter (which many football players are). There is an endurance element for the linemen, but it isn't running, it's wrestling. There are lots of different types of athletic ability.

Try sprinting 100 yards at full pace, it's really not that simple.

Generals aren't typically on the front lines.

I didn't say they were, I said they were calling the 'soldiers' back.

Have you ever actually watched an American football game?

I have never watched a whole game. I will admit that now. While I would really like to try and push my way through the viewing of one whole game it's impossible in my household due to NFL only being available on Sky and that is only on the family TV downstairs.

I do however, watch half hour chunks as and when I can.

But...

Flag football with a 7-alligator count.

Seriously, EE, you might want to talk to Troy Smith about that comment.

I think you're getting me out of context. The QB does make decisions on where to pass the ball and where to move to avoid tackles and whether the pass isn't possible and he should run it. But we were at the time talking team tactics. And how the QB has time to talk through the team tactics for the next play, something you don't get so much of in soccer as the play is more constant.

Oh and...

Since when has Soccer's objective been to evade a tackle?

Since there was a defense? I mean serious, do you have a very limited perception of a tackle?

Congratulations! You have succeeded in looking like a complete ass by dragging out the "lol ur 13 wtf omg lol" countermeasure. You know, that is really old and a bit too played out now.

And so is claiming a thread is pointless and stupid only to pop in once and a while to make pointless and stupid posts.

In American football, the point of running the ball is to evade all 11 defenders successfully and get the ball to the end zone. This is a rare occurance when it comes to breaking large runs (i.e: 10+ yards). In soccer, the running up the field bit is not nearly as spectacular. Why? Because they are just dribbling the ball upfield. Really, there isn't much to it. I want you to tell me which is easier: Dribbling a soccer ball down a field, or successfully getting away from 11 brick walls (moving at incredible speeds), and then running 30+ yards to an end zone.

Who you play with, the physically handicapped?

Now, do you see why breaking a huge run in American football is so much more interesting than in soccer? 90% of soccer (pulling statistics out of my ass here) is running. I've played both sports (Soccer for 2 years, and Football for 2) on organized teams, so I know a bit about both (admittedly more about football than soccer). I know that playing attacker or midfielder in soccer requires more running than anything, and I'm also aware of many of the techniques used in-game. You just assume that I am young, stupid, and know absolutely nothing about soccer because I contested your comment. Wrong.

No you're wrong.

While midfielders will do the most running than any position, attack and defense are almost even. 'Target men' who's job it is to win the ball in the air will often run less than an offensive wing back. That wing back (that's left or right defense) will have to travel up and down the field often in full support of the midfield winger. The best example of this is the partnership between Gary Neville and David Beckham when Becks was still at Manchester United.

While I can't say Ozzy went the best way about making his points, you really aren't as correct as you believe you are MachOne.

another Cricket stat, Brian Lara scored 400 points in one innings himself, he holds the record.

Don't get me started on cricket!

I can watch 20/20 but a full game is only great when it's on in the background. However, I do marvel at the swing the guys can put on a cricket ball.

 

[Danoff]

Test Matches (internationals) last 5 days, with about 1000 runs scored between the teams.

So then a scores/minute number might actually be lower than basketball, but since they play all day it ends up being higher.

Still, when you're playing for that long, it does tend to keep things from getting super exciting.

 

[Famine]

So then a scores/minute number might actually be lower than basketball, but since they play all day it ends up being higher.

That's the one.

Cricket is like this:
Each team has 11 men.
There's a scoring team ("batting") and a non-scoring team ("fielding").
The batting team has 2 men batting. One "on-strike" - receiving the ball - and one "off-strike".
The fielding team has one man behind the on-strike batsman, one man throwing the ball ("bowling") and 9 men ready to catch.
The pitch ("wicket") has two ends, 22 feet apart, with stumps at each end. The whole field is massively larger - another 30 yards in each direction.

The job of the batting team is to score points. They do this by hitting the ball and then running. There is no obligation to run, and there is no limit on the number of balls they can face (unlike baseball). They can run if they want, and they can run whenever they want for however many times they want. If they hit the ball hard enough for it to reach the boundary rope then they score a boundary and don't have to run - they get 4 runs if it bounces before crossing the boundary and 6 if it doesn't - but if the on-strike batsman runs, the off-strike one must too - both batsmen must remain at opposite ends of the pitch before each ball. The batsmen defend the stumps.

The bowler's job is to get the ball from one end of the pitch to the other and hit the stumps but he must have a bowling action, rather than a throwing one, and the ball must contact the ground once at or before the time it connects with the stumps. The guy on the fielding team stood behind the batsman - the "wicketkeeper" - has the job of catching all the stuff the batsman lets through which doesn't hit the stumps. The other nine guys are there to collect the balls the batsman hits and return it to the wicket area to minimise the runs.

Batsmen are "out" if:
1. The bowler directly hits the stumps, removing the bails from the top - "Bowled"
2. The batsman blocks the passage of the ball to the stumps with his leg (not quite all of the conditions, but good enough) - "Leg Before Wicket" or "LBW"
3. A fielder (including the bowler or wicketkeeper) takes a direct catch from a batsman's strike without the ball hitting the ground - "Caught"
4. The batsman has advanced down the wicket to play a stroke, misses and the wicketkeeper retrieves the ball and contacts the stumps, removing the bails, before the batsman recovers to the crease - "Stumped"
5. The batsman hits the ball twice - "Hit Twice".
6. The batsman hits his own stumps, removing the bails, with any part of his body or bat - "Hit Own Wicket".
7. The batsman uses his hand to contact the ball at any time - "Handled".
8. The batsman's shot is fielded and returned, contacting the stumps and removing the bails, before he has reached the crease he's running to - "Run Out".
9. The batsman obstructs a fielder from fielding the ball in any way - "Obstructing the Field".
10. The batsman takes more than three minutes from the previous batsman's dismissal to assume his position at the crease - "Timed Out".

A run is scored if:
1. The batsman successfully reaches the opposite crease (22 feet away) before the ball is returned. Note that a batsman only reaches the crease when a part of his body or bat touches the ground at or beyond it.
2. The bowler bowls a no-ball (bowler's foot beyond non-striker's crease) or a wide (ball is off-target).
3. A Boundary shot is played (4 or 6 runs).

Each bowler gets an Over of 6 deliveries (plus additional ones for each no-ball or wide). Then the bowler is changed for a different one (with no limit on how many Overs each may bowl) and the bowling end changes.

The batting side has 10 "outs" before the team is out (no-one to pair with the 11th player). Then the sides switch over.

If a team is still batting when the allotted time (in first class and test match cricket) is over, the match is drawn, regardless of the score... This is very common.

There's some additional nuances, but that's pretty much it.

Still, when you're playing for that long, it does tend to keep things from getting super exciting.

My description of the game above should convey the idea of just how dull cricket is.

 

[Sureboss]

So then a scores/minute number might actually be lower than basketball, but since they play all day it ends up being higher.

Still, when you're playing for that long, it does tend to keep things from getting super exciting.

But to keep at such a mental and technical height for a whole 5 days (with most days being of about six to six and a half hours long with some batsman batting for whole days they show unbelievable ammounts of skill.

The most runs from one shot was about 280 when a ball got lost in very high grass (this was a quite a while ago though, but to run 18 yards 280 times is some effort

Cricket is a sport where it can take a while to understand it, there are loads of different bowling styles: Right Arm Fast which is 90 MPH plus, Right Arm Medium Fast, tends to be from about 80-85, these guys tend to be very accurate or offer swing, Right Arm Medium, about 70 Mph, they tend to be part timers who come on occasionally if the batsman are on top of the bowlers to nab a wicket. You've got people doing the same but with their left hand, though they tend to be alot less frequent, though Wasim Akram probably combined swing and pace at around 90Mph, he was a fantastic cricketer.


You've then got the spinners: Right Arm Leg Spin, this tends to be viewed as the hardest bowling style as very few are succesful but Shane Warne, who is arguably the greatest bowler of all time maybe greatest cricketer who has over 700 wickets and over 3,000 runs he infact has just retired from international cricket. They spin the ball from right to left, but have variation balls, where they can spin the ball to go the other way from normal but the batsman can't always tell as the bowler can sometimes not change his action on the ball. Off Spinners spin the ball from right to left (or off stump to leg stump thus the term 'Off Spinners', reverse it for the term 'Leg Spinners', Sri Lankas Muttiah Muralitharan is probably the greatest off spinner in the world atm, maybe off all time too, probably just pipping Jim Laker. Off spinners also have variation balls with Murali having a very famous Doosra, when bowling this ball he nearly breaks the rules, infact he was tested and many contest his action when he bowls it. I don't as he is double jointed and has proven that he can't actually bowl that ball with a straight arm. You've also got Left Arm spinners, the most famous example would be Monty Panesar who is gaining massive cult status in the cricketing world for enthusiasm and being a nice bloke too. They spin the ball from leg to off but can be called Left arm off spinners because of the fact they do the same as right handed off spinners, but reversed obviously due to the fact they bowl with the other hand and thus mirror it.

Off all the ball types a bowler can bowl I'll do a list for each type that I can think of:

Right Arm fast, fast-medium and medium: Inswinger, Outswinger, Seam up (this is when the ball of the seam is facing up but there is no swing implemented), off cutter, leg cutter, slower ball, yorker, bouncer. Also when the ball gets a bit older the ball can reverse swing, this is one of the bowlers best weapons as a batsman can be fooled as the ball can seem to be a normal outswinger but because of certain conditions on the ball (I can't think of it's explanation atm) the ball actually swings in and a batsman can sometimes be bowled if they don't read it properly. You can also do reverse swinging outswingers. Same deliveries for the Left arm fast, fast-medium and medium.

Right arm Leg Spin: Leg Spinner, Googly, Flipper, Arm ball and top spinner, not all leg spinners can bowl these but the best often have a variation ball, Warne was famous for his flipper, which is a ball that is bowled with a flat trajectory but it decieves the batsman quite often as it seems a short pitched ball but is actually pitched up the batsman can get bowled, LBW or caught.

Right arm Off Spin: Off Spinner, Doosra, Teesra (only Harbhajan Singh bowls this as I know), I can't think of any more at the moment there are more though.

Left Arm Spinners, don't tend to have as much variation, but bowlers like Monty Panesar and to a lesser extent Ashley Giles get good bounce which can decieve a batsman.

Cricket is an unbelievably complex game and it's probably taken more about 2-3 years to have a good knowledge of the game. I've barely touched the surface of some parts of bowling, like how swing is impacted by weather conditions and shining the ball or how reverse swing can be a controversial concept. I've not touched on batting or the dozens of shots they can play to score runs.

It's a great game and it's even better when you know more about the game. It also tends to be an all round game as our cricket summer lasts from about April-September, then the international players will often play away tours in places like Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and sometimes the West Indies. Cricketers tend to be very busy too, during 2005 someone calculated that Andrew Flintoff (the worlds best all rounder) had 40 off days in the whole year!

I love Cricket, plus the sportsmanship within it makes it alot better too. Like when Justin Langer got a guard of honour when playing in his last test innings for Australia last week.

Edit: That took so long to post I got logged out.