Submitted by IntoThePeople t3_11dvn23 in sports
Comments
5m1tm t1_jab5dr0 wrote
And plus, it's just the 4th ever instance of a team winning a Test match after being asked to follow-on.
I fucking love Test cricket!!!!!
leeeeerrroy_Jenkinks t1_jacqjx8 wrote
dont bring follow-on in this sub. Entire Cricketing world don't have enough braincells to explain Follow-on to Yanks.
tyrannomachy t1_jabfore wrote
I realize this isn't what happened here, but wouldn't a team that bats second and trails to start their second innings normally win by one? Assuming they won, I mean.
BLAGTIER t1_jabhdcg wrote
The bowling team in the fourth innings wins by runs and the batting team winnings by wickets. So if England had score 2 more runs they would have won by 1 wicket. Basically whatever you are defending runs or wickets is what you win by.
ArthurFunkyMiller t1_jacts0v wrote
If the team that's batting second successfully chases down the total, they win by the amount of wickets they had in hand instead. In this case, if England won in that last over, getting to say 9/258, they would still have one wicket in hand, and that would be the margin.
[deleted] t1_jabgfxz wrote
[removed]
TheNextBattalion t1_jadsy5t wrote
Great question but cricket logic says no: they win by wickets (left)
5m1tm t1_jab4pto wrote
One of the best Test matches in the history of the sport!!!!!
Just the 4th ever instance in the history of the sport, that a team has a won after being asked to follow-on. And they've done so by a margin of 1 run. Literally the barest of margins for victory in a Test match. It's the joint-closest margin of victory in a Test match ever. And that too in a match that went well into Day 5. This is historic stuff!!!!!
I. Fucking. Love. Test. Cricket.
Anyone who mocks this format without understanding it, is a fucking fool
budgreenbud t1_jadc36k wrote
*Anyone who mocks anything they don't understand is a tool.
5m1tm t1_jadc66p wrote
Haha true
budgreenbud t1_jadcljq wrote
This all I know about cricket.
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 been 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
5m1tm t1_jadcwvv wrote
Haha I know this joke lol. Good reference lmao
7FOOT7 t1_jae5f7u wrote
Women play too
Sounds like Baseball? Except that has 10 umpires. And you need to repeat 9 times (sometimes).
budgreenbud t1_jaeh5g7 wrote
You apparently aren't aware of the joke. I don't even follow cricket and I know the joke. But yeah I'm sure women love to play cricket as is the case with any sport. Humans like to play them. Next time I will edit it so that it clears the the PC bar of acceptance. Apparently even old ass jokes have to be all inclusive now. Moron.
tommypopz t1_jab3v1z wrote
I cannot believe that match. What a fucking game. I’m not even sad England lost!
Really proud of how England’s mindset has changed. We’re now truly a force to be reckoned with in all 3 formats. What a brilliant comeback by New Zealand though.
Cricket, man. Nothing like it.
Oomeegoolies t1_jabqqfr wrote
I think this is what makes cricket a bit special.
We obviously like winning. But by god, if we lose in the right manner I genuinely couldn't give a shit if we lose.
This was one of those losses. We could have taken the loss out of the equation by doing the normal thing and not enforcing the follow on, batting for a day, putting 500+ on the board to chase and trying to skittle NZ over 4-5 sessions. Which would likely have meant a draw.
We didn't do that. Because we want results.
NZ to their credit came back in and played it superbly too.
Absolutely love Cricket me.
5m1tm t1_jab50da wrote
I've already said this in reply to a couple of comments about this match (and about Test cricket) on r/cricket, but I'll say it again here coz idgaf, it fucking deserves it:
Word.
mun_man93 t1_jabtszj wrote
losing after a follow on for the 4th time ever is indicative of how England's mindset has changed? how fucking sad.
BLAGTIER t1_jab4x7s wrote
5 days. New Zealand given no chance for 4 of those days. And then won it on the last.
[deleted] t1_jac4ss0 wrote
[removed]
TheNextBattalion t1_jadt9b0 wrote
They almost had a glimmer of a chance in their second innings until Bracewell's boo boo
gobletslayer t1_jabeq4v wrote
By the barest of margins.
jasecaddy t1_jabhlb8 wrote
I think when New Zealand lost the World Cup in 2019 was the barest of margins
BLAGTIER t1_jablmic wrote
That was more a stupid rule. Longest fingernails is as fair as a boundary count.
Bob_tuwillager t1_jabq34c wrote
Let’s not go there….. pleeeaaase
RufflesTGP t1_jac4ed5 wrote
I've watched a LOT of cricket (used to be an analyst) so it really means something when I say this is one of the greatest matches of all time. What an absolute joy it is to have a sport like this in my life. Bliss!
bigdaddi_renjit t1_jab5u5i wrote
Here's the final wicket on Twitter
https://twitter.com/mufaddal_vohra/status/1630405224321130499?t=OuoRb6_J0NDEfqeuIpQNAg&s=19
njd19634 t1_jac1vh2 wrote
I’m new to the sport so I don’t understand some of the more nuanced strategies, but when Foakes started turning down singles to protect Leach, I had a feeling something like this would happen.
mhac009 t1_jac85nk wrote
This is finally payback for years of Chris Martin at 11.
predsfan77 t1_jac9c4z wrote
He was Yellow too
whoareyouguys t1_jacottp wrote
Yeah why was he doing that? They had an easy single in the last few minutes of the match and they didn't run. At the time I thought it was because they were so confident they were going to win, but now I don't know what was happening.
5m1tm t1_jacud83 wrote
Foakes was trying to protect the tailender at the other end because tailenders obviously can't bat nearly as well and England couldn't afford to lose easy wickets. That's why he was taking singles only towards the end of the over, to minimise the balls that the tailenders faced so as to minimise their exposure to the NZ bowling.
It made total sense what Foakes was doing. In fact, it would've been stupid to not do that.
whoareyouguys t1_jacvkr6 wrote
Oh that makes sense. I didn't think about not wanting to give the other guy turns at the wicket. Thanks! I'm new to cricket
5m1tm t1_jacw7jw wrote
No problem! :D
Yeah so the thing is, ideally, you would want to "keep rotating the strike" (i.e., giving the strike to the other batter. It's a common cricketing phrase), because it "keeps the scoreboard ticking" as they say in cricket parlance. And when you're chasing, it's obviously helpful since 1 run regularly would keep getting deducted from your target. But it's only advisable to do this if the person at the other end is a specialist batter or an all-rounder (cricketers who can both bat and bowl), or atleast a tailender who can bat a bit decently. Anyone who comes after the 8th wicket falls is usually not any of those things, and you would obviously not want to lose 10 wickets in a chase coz that means losing the match. So you "farm the strike" (another common cricket phrase) in order to protect the tailenders at the other end.
Cricket is a game of permanent cost-benefit analysis for both teams on the field, in all aspects of the game.
[deleted] t1_jacvom9 wrote
[removed]
5m1tm t1_jacunqp wrote
I replied to another comment on this comment thread and the same answer applies here so I'm just pasting that comment of mine here:
Foakes was trying to protect the tailender at the other end because tailenders obviously can't bat nearly as well and England couldn't afford to lose easy wickets. That's why he was taking singles only towards the end of the over, to minimise the balls that the tailenders faced so as to minimise their exposure to the NZ bowling.
It made total sense what Foakes was doing. In fact, it would've been stupid to not do that.
Itrlpr t1_jad5xih wrote
I mostly agree. They were definitely right not to take quick singles early in the over.
I think Foakes could have been more aggressive throughout the whole over though. He was pretty consistently getting a single on the 4th ball, and giving NZ two balls at Leach. An extra boundary or two from batting normally would have been worth the risk of not getting the late over single IMHO.
5m1tm t1_jad6jmw wrote
Yeah he could've hit more boundaries early on in those overs, but to be fair, he was trying to do exactly that. Many of the balls he hit went deep into the field near the boundary, but were cut-off by the fielders or ended up reaching right near them. Also, he did start hitting more boundaries later on in his innings. I wouldn't blame Foakes here.
Itrlpr t1_jad77rj wrote
Yeah, he handled it nearly perfectly. I just don't think Leach dead-batting an entire over would have been the end of the world if it meant getting a boundary off ball 5 or 6 of the previous over.
5m1tm t1_jad7ng7 wrote
Yeah I get what you're saying. But ultimately these are just "what-ifs" and if go into those, this will become a never-ending conversation lmao
njd19634 t1_jacxt9y wrote
Yeah I understand the part of protecting the tailenders. Hindsight is always 20/20 so who knows if Leach would have caught an edge or something to produce a wicket if Foakes hadn’t of stepped up and protected him. I felt like he (Leach) was battling well though even dropping his hands and taking one off of his chest there at the end too. Helluva test though. I’m becoming a huge fan of the game.
5m1tm t1_jacy37p wrote
Haha yeah these "what-ifs" always remain in cricket (and in sport in general). So usually it's better to side with common sense tactics. And here, the common sense was that it's better shield the guy who can't bat much haha.
I'm glad that you're getting into this beautiful game, especially Test cricket! Welcome the community! :D
lachjeff t1_jabsi0k wrote
Wonderful game. Absolute thriller. You could just tell we were in for something special when the day began. Possibly the greatest test of all time
TheBaxtertron t1_jaboymc wrote
As an Englishman (Brit) when I saw Leach on sky sports news yesterday morning saying things like “yeah we’re all pretty excited and know what we need to do to execute” etc I thought, I know you need to be confident to be a professional sports player, you have to back yourself but for gods sake man do it in the changing room not in front of the worlds media. You’re riling me up, god knows what that’s doing to the kiwis. Well played NZ.
linkszx t1_jabyiv9 wrote
GG ez
Skwisgaars t1_jab47g3 wrote
Half wish that last Wagner head high one was a wide (probably was above Andersons head) so we could have gotten a tie...
Buckeye_8621 t1_jab5ngc wrote
crazy game
AzLibDem t1_jadnp16 wrote
As an American who loves the sport, it's awesome that ESPN+ carries New Zealand Cricket; it was an excellent match.
moondog548 t1_jab5zon wrote
What's a "test match" exactly? Why not just "test" or "match"?
IntoThePeople OP t1_jab78sk wrote
You could just call it a Test as well. There are multiple shorter formats of cricket and they can be played very differently so it’s important to make the distinction between them.
For example in a 20 over match which usually takes about 3 hours, a small margin of victory like this would happen more frequently so it isn’t usually as noteworthy unless it’s a big game or tournament.
moondog548 t1_jab7dp0 wrote
Ok so "test" is the type of scoring (win condition)? Cool cool.
Nizzleson t1_jabbgrx wrote
A test match is the longest, oldest, and most demanding format of Cricket.
In more modern versions of the game, teams bat through their batting order only once each, and there is a limit to how many legal balls can be bowled at the batters. So it's a very linear game. Team A bats, then team B bats and tries to beat their score. Pretty simple.
But in Test Cricket, there is no limit on how many balls the batters can face and each team bats through their order twice. Batters can play very defensively, scoring slowly, without taking risks.
Bowlers and fielders have to constantly up their strategy game to counter this defensive batting.
But here's the thing: To win a test, you have to:
A) Score more runs than the other team, and...
B) Get the other team completely out, TWICE. If any batter is still batting at the end of the 5th day, it's a draw, no matter how many runs ahead they are.
The ball is kept in play for a long time, and as it deteriorates, strategy changes. The surface the ball bounces off of deteriorates too, influencing the strategy. Players are physically and mentally fucked after 5 days, so this effects everything too.
It's a densely layered game, and in this particular case, those 5 days boiled down to one measly run amongst hundreds scored in the match.
As close as it can possibly get.
All this after NZ was basically out for the count in the first two days.
Really fucking cool sport. The original form of the game, and days like today prove it's still the best sport in the world for nail-biting drama.
Rant over. Peace.
Bob_tuwillager t1_jabq0h5 wrote
It’s the only game I know where a team with no wickets left on the last day trailing by hundreds of runs blocking everything and batting through is exciting. When a draw is a psychological win. It’s a magic thing.
Nizzleson t1_jabrlab wrote
Two tailenders digging in until stumps, riding their luck and their grit and their nerve.
Increasingly desperate bowling. Five slips and a gully, leg slip, silly point, silly mid on.
That ratchet of tension. The seeds of legend being sown.
Hero partnership closes out the game with 7 (62) and 1 (26).
Absolutely. Epic.
kfadffal t1_jabv4ei wrote
Add in things like umpires pulling out a light meter after every over so you don't even know which over will be the last.
It's a very silly game at times and I absolutely love it to death.
Bob_tuwillager t1_jabsa0a wrote
Or one “batter” who has somehow held his nerve for two days, and the #11. Bowlers trying to rotate the strike early in the over desperate to get the lackie on strike. The Batter going for a single at the end of the over. The fielding team knowing this and tempting an open boundary. Belligerence and stubbornness. The pressure slowly mounting on both teams as the third spell begins. Dare they dream to hold the wicket. Every bowl could be the last. The crowd sense the blood. It’s almost as if everyone is willing the “losing” side on. Every dot ball is cheered. No one cares for a boundary.
It’s a weird sport at times.
Nizzleson t1_jabshqm wrote
Felt my pulse rise just reading that.
Are you a great talent, or is a tense draw merely a great muse?
We may never know.
moondog548 t1_jabd0hi wrote
So cool.
How long do they play per day?
Ajaxcricket t1_jabd70t wrote
Usually 6 to 6 and a half hours of playing time, with a 40 and a 20 minute break after 2 and 4 hours respectively
pie-en-argent t1_jabdcxc wrote
Six hours, weather permitting. With breaks of 40 and 20 minutes dividing it into three two-hour sessions.
lezbillion t1_jacp3nh wrote
Honestly, best succinct explanation of a Test match I've seen in a while
5m1tm t1_jabeaco wrote
International cricket has 3 formats of matches: T20Is/IT20s (T20 Internationals/International T20s; last ~3-4 hrs), ODIs (One-Day Internationals; last a day), and Test cricket (last a maximum of 5 days). The former two have a sort of a "pitch limit" per innings. Test matches don't have that.
And an innings in cricket ("innings" is both singular and plural in cricket) is if all the players of a team are out and/or the pitch limit is reached or if the batting captain feels that their team has scored enough runs, and so declares the end of their batting innings (this is called a "declaration", and only happens in Test cricket). So the concept of a "half-Inning" doesn't exist in cricket.
Test cricket has 2 batting innings (and hence two bowling innings) per side, while the other two formats have one each and thus last for a shorter period of time (which is also because of the pitch limit which is built-in as part of those formats).
atoothlessfairy t1_jacgdcg wrote
Anybody got a highlights link for those who dont want to watch 5 day
whoareyouguys t1_jacp5a6 wrote
Bracewell had to be so nervous after his lazy run-out in NZ's second innings.
[deleted] t1_jadwuju wrote
[removed]
DaveyR_91 t1_jac201y wrote
Ridiculous from Jimmy Anderson to not just swing his bat on the last ball.
NobodyLikesthePens t1_jac783g wrote
How come games last so long?
BLAGTIER t1_jach4s4 wrote
So a test match is 2 innings. Each innings a team bats and bowls. The goal of the bowling team is to get 10 batter's wickets(or outs).
So team A bats then team B bats for the first innings. Then that happens again in the second innings. Both scores each team makes in each innings is added to see who wins.
The length is because their is no limit to the amount of balls a team can face. A team can bat all day and then come back the next day and keep batting as long as they didn't lose 10 wickets. Wickets are rare in cricket so it takes days to go through each team's batters. There is a 5 day limit on test matches and if a team hasn't won when the time runs out it is a draw.
There is limited overs cricket. They have a maximum number of balls a team can face and just one innings(one turn a bat per team). These games are resolved within a day.
NobodyLikesthePens t1_jacioup wrote
Wild!
5m1tm t1_jacv44z wrote
Yeah it is wild haha. But that's the beauty of it. Because of its duration, it challenges both teams to do well over a sustained period. It's truly a very challenging format. The winner is almost always be the better team of the two over 5 days, because you simply remove the possibility of a team winning "because it was their day" haha. Plus, for quick entertainment you got the two limited-overs formats, especially T20Is (the shortest format of international cricket).
Cricket is like a buffet that way. You can pick and choose what you like, and watch that. But I've never ever seen a hardcore cricket fan not love Test cricket (the 5-day format), because the more you get into cricket, the more you understand why Test cricket is so revered.
[deleted] t1_jacop5l wrote
[removed]
y2k2r2d2 t1_jacjdu3 wrote
It was a Test and they passed .
IntoThePeople OP t1_jab2zy0 wrote
Only the 2nd time in 150 years of Test cricket a team has won by 1 run.
How can you watch a sport that goes for 5 days? Pretty damn easily if it’s as good as this!