Cricket for Dummies
It's a lot like baseball. Except that it's profoundly different.
- By Matthew Engel
- Smithsonian magazine, October 2006, Subscribe
When I lived in Washington a few years back, my favorite spot in America was Section 336, high above home plate at the Baltimore Orioles' stadium, Camden Yards. My special delight was to take along our English visitors—all baseball virgins, all keen on cricket—and explain the American game by analogy with the English one. I never had a failure. They all grasped baseball, and they all relished it.
Notoriously, this process does not work in reverse. Thousands of Americans have gone to Lord's, cricket's London headquarters, and retreated in bewilderment. The most eloquent was Groucho Marx, who reputedly watched for an hour, and said: "This is great. When does it start?"
For sure, cricket seems inaccessible. But the superficial differences mask the essential truth: both cricket and baseball operate on the same principles. Someone hurling the ball—the pitcher in baseball, the bowler in cricket—is attempting to defeat an opponent wielding a bat to defend a target—the invisible strike zone or the visible wicket—and score runs.
The pitcher/bowler (using speed, swerve, spin or guile) is assisted by fielders while the batter's teammates await their turns. These fielders can remove the batter either by catching the ball or returning it to the batter's destination before he can get there. The batter's jackpot is hitting the ball in the air out of the field: a homer to you, a six to us. And the team that scores the most runs wins. Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?
Grasp the similarities, and you can start to understand the differences. In cricket, two bowlers and two batsmen operate in tandem. One bowler has six throws from one set of wickets; another has six goes at the other. The bowlers' primary objective is to hit the wickets, in which case the batsman is out. When the onfield captain (not a manager) is fed up with the bowlers, they remain in the game as fielders and may try again later. The batsmen, for their part, are not obligated to run when one of them hits the ball, but they score runs when they run from wicket to wicket without being put out. And they stay at bat until they are out.
This can sometimes mean all day, or even longer: a batsman's aim is to score a hundred or more runs. But cricket is elastic. Games comprise either one or two innings, and can last five full days or be as short as a few hours. And yes, the players normally stop for lunch and tea. But that means the fans also get to eat during the breaks, instead of missing the best bits while lining up for hot dogs and pizza.
Cricket has other virtues. Because the cricket bat is wider and the ball can be successfully hit through 360 degrees, there is an infinite variety of shots, ranging from the bludgeoning to the elegant. And because the ball is meant to bounce en route to the batter, each game takes its character from the turf underfoot: wet or dry, fast or slow, flat or bumpy.
Of course, hardly anyone watches for five days solid, except the umpires. But the game must have something going for it. For the five-day Test between England and Australia scheduled for Melbourne on December 26, all 95,000 tickets were sold out for each of the first three days more than six months in advance.
Matthew Engel is editor of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, which has recorded every important game since 1864.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Comments (5)
I've been playing the great game since I was 6 but I never read such a clear and witty article on cricket before!
Posted by Patrick de Leede on December 9,2010 | 05:20 PM
Wow...I understand now. It actually makes sense. Why can't we yanks grasp it without a cheat manual?
Anyway, awesome article.
Posted by Dan Mclaney on May 13,2010 | 05:14 PM
Siddharth, whether or not he is the "best ever" is a matter of opinion - but he has certainly been officially cleared of the "throwing" allegation, and has gone on to become the highest wicket taker in Test cricket history. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with the ICC. What is truly "sad" is that this whole debate rages on endlessly because of certain commentators etc in the media, some of whom are no doubt aghast that Murali is permitted to overtake their hero Warne in the records book. But Warne himself has said that Murali does not "chuck", and so too many commentators/ former players, most notably including Ian Chappell, who was a great Australian captain and has absolutely no vested interest in exonerating Murali, besides demonstrating the courage and decency to speak the plain truth.
Posted by NuXta on March 13,2010 | 12:12 AM
John Daley, is this rule even applied? Muralidharan is revered for being the "best ever". Sad.
Posted by Siddharth on February 27,2010 | 02:36 PM
> One bowler has six throws from one set of wickets....
Throws? THROWS?????
Sir, I respectfully refer you to Law 24:2 -
"For a delivery to be fair in respect of the arm the ball must not be thrown."
May I also refer you to law 24:2: a - c for the severe penalties that a bowler incurs for throwing.
Throwing is one of the worst crimes in delivering the ball to the batsman.
Cheers!
Posted by John Daley on December 31,2009 | 10:31 PM