Gryllidae Cricket

In the 1992 Western Unforgiven , Gene Hackman pleads  “I don't deserve to die like this” to which Clint Eastwood's  William Money  replies “deserve's got nothing to do with it”. In cricket the best players and teams don't always win, sometimes luck has a lot to say; this unpredictability makes the game so compelling. Deserving players don't always win, and deserving has nothing to do with it when it comes to selection. Bouncing in, blond hair glistening, knees pumping high, calm, determined expression, and everyone knows something will happen: the classic Broad devastating bowling spell. Latterly, the same devastation has been seen in Broad's public reactions following an omission from England's Test team, be it the infamous 'Big Brother' socially-distanced Sky Sports interview in 2020 or today's Daily Mail article. Broad's latest piece has added more fuel to the fire over his controversial omission, alongside James Anderson, from England men

A disgraceful performance from a captain who got his sums wrong. It should never be permitted to happen again. One of the worst things I have ever seen done on a cricket field. Richie Benaud on the infamous underarm ball incident. Cricket is not real life; it probably can’t tell us anything about real life, but it can be a nice distraction from reality. In the real world, a fair, universal way to live to follow is by applying the Golden Rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. Applying this rule to cricket simply does not work, especially as a common captaincy maxim is to do what the opposition would like you to do least. In real life, someone constantly doing what you would like least would not be nice in the slightest. There are no absolute morals in cricket as it is just a sport where players should do what they can to win within the Laws.  If the majority of the cricket fraternity finds an aspect of play unpalatable, such as an underarm delivery, then it falls on the L

Collective average of men's Test batters born on each day date ave 1 August 27 55.34 2 October 16 47.5 3 June 02 47.13 4 November 29 45.75 5 October 27 45.64 6 April 24 45.45 7 July 27 44.82 8 March 03 43.66 9 January 17 43.65 10 June 19 42.67 11 November 05 42.46 12 December 30 42.27 13 January 11 42 14 July 28 41.83 15 February 26 41.7 16 December 19 41.6 17 September 22 41.41 18 November 12 41.19 19 May 27 40.61 20 July 10 40.43 21 March 31 40.21 22 June 21 40.09 23 January 18 40.03 24 May 15 39.88 25 April 05 39.86 26 August 16 39.66 27 March 07 39.65 28 May 02 39.6 29 July 23 39.33 30 June 16 39.31 31 November 14 39.26 32 April 02 39.15 33 February 19 39.03 34 April 11 38.7 35 August 01 38.23 36 March 04 38.15 37 February 27 38.12 38 October 21 37.85 39 October 29 37.83 40 March 09 37.73 41 February 11 37.68 42 November 17 37.68 43 December 26 37.54 44 November 01 37.53 45 November 24 37.52 46 May 23 37.46 47 February 17 37.42 48 December 17 37.4 49 May 05 37.35 50 September 0

Cricket's ultimate failure is a duck; the most common score in cricket is also a duck.  For batters in men's Test cricket, a tenth of all innings finish without a run, so failure is the most frequent outcome for a batter, yet this is not truly reflected in batting averages. The high rate of failure and low rate of success makes the median, not the average, a better measure of a batter's effectiveness.  Collective innings for all batters in men's Tests who have scored 2000+ runs. All men's Tests innings of batters with 2000+ runs Successes are over-represented in batting averages. The collective average of all men's Test batters who've made 2000+ runs is an impressive 41.89, with a range of individual averages bookended by two greats of the game, ranging from 17.32 (Shane Warne) to Donald Bradman (99.94)*. Batting innings are more likely to fail than succeed, as shown by the familiar exponential fall-off in scores in Test innings from zero up. 50% of innings

Kane Williamson's eight Test dismissals in England indicate a trend of dismissals by mistakes, not a deficient technique, and as errors are by nature avoidable, he could well excel in the upcoming England series and against India in the World Test Championship final. A rare thing: a modern sports superstar who inspires little animus. From the outside, Kane Williamson is everything a non-Kiwi fan wants a New Zealand cricketer to be with his batting is based on class, watching the ball to the last second, playing with soft hands, and building runs via touch, not brute force. As a personality, he is as an understated, softly-spoken megastar who is deserving of a place among the modern greats as you're likely to see based on his 7114 Test runs, averaging over 54, with 24 centuries; these impressive figures have grown since he slipped effortlessly into being a calm (what else?) and tactically-astute captain. Williamson averages 62 as New Zealand captain which is the best figure for

Cricket, and only cricket, could spend the best part of a century agonising over something as straightforward as a legal run out. Seventy years after Vinoo Mankad dismissed the backing-up Bill Brown in Sydney, the Mankad’s continuing controversial reputation is symptomatic of game’s unhelpful fixation with the ‘spirit of cricket’. Vinoo Mankad’s name had become a synonymous with unfair play, but he should be remembered as an innovator not a villain. Somehow the act of running a batter out with the Mankad has become seen to be disreputable and something that is certainly not cricket . After all, a batter is just wandering a little way towards to safety of the striker’s popping crease  17.68 metres away , which is hardly a crime against cricket, is it? Yet with the Mankad and the whole notion of 'spirit', the devil is in the detail.  Where do we mark the ‘line’ of encroachment acceptability for non-strikers trying to gain an advantage? Five centimetres is probably fine; one metre