January 06, 2004


Can Australia score 433 runs at 4.81 per over to defeat India in the Fourth Test? Well, yes, in the same sense that Wesley Clark can become President or Dennis Kucinich can produce offspring with a humanoid mate. Not likely, but possible. It’ll require freakish batting and the intervention of almightly powers, but who knows?

Working in favour of an Australian win: a rapid outfield, lame Indian bowlers (besides the genius Anil Kumble) and Steve Waugh.

Working against: mathematics, history, possible rain ... and Kumble. My prediction: an early run chase stalled by a middle-order collapse, leading to a draw. Australia 7/320.

UPDATE. The figures above refer to the runs required today. The overall target is 443 off 94 overs -- a rate of 4.71.

After 16 overs, Australia is 0/75. Rate: 4.68. Early days, but the chase is on.

UPDATE II. Both openers out. 2/92 after 20 overs -- rate 4.6.

UPDATE III. The rate has slowed to 3.79, but will likely increase with Waugh now in (for his final Test innings). 3/182.

UPDATE IV. We’re into the last 90 minutes or so of Steve Waugh’s career. Australia (4/231) can no longer win; we’re fighting for a draw, with the major interest now Waugh’s eventual total. He’s 32 at present.

Posted by Tim Blair at January 6, 2004 09:56 AM

I'll second the collapse, but I don't think they'll make it to the draw. Unfortunately. What's highest-ever fourth innings total posted to win at SCG? 270-something?

Oz to go down, although hoping otherwise.

Posted by: Clog at January 6, 2004 at 10:04 AM

You're not fooling anyone, Blair.

We all know that Cricket doesn't exist, and all those words and stats you used have no meaning.

Posted by: Sigivald at January 6, 2004 at 10:21 AM

Speaking of sport, why do racehorses run anticlockwise in Melbourne but clockwise in Sydney?

Posted by: ilibcc at January 6, 2004 at 10:48 AM

7/320? Man, in American Football, that would be running up the score and the team that won by 313 points would be rightly reviled.

Posted by: Brian Jones at January 6, 2004 at 10:58 AM

UnAustralian!!!! (Bugger the logic)

Posted by: Razor at January 6, 2004 at 11:00 AM

Ozzies to draw......it will be close.

Posted by: Timothy Blair at January 6, 2004 at 11:09 AM

2 for 92, but still a lot of overs to go. Ponting digging in. No chance for the win now, I think.

Let's face it, if you concede 7 for 705, you deserve to lose. :(

Posted by: Scott Wickstein at January 6, 2004 at 11:40 AM

Cricket news that's even more disturbing: Last drinks for beer wenches.

Posted by: Jethro at January 6, 2004 at 12:07 PM

I know what a run is, but what's an ``over''?

Posted by: Annalucia at January 6, 2004 at 12:32 PM

Dammit! I was hoping those wenches would be there when I finally make it to the SCG to see Australia vs. India on Jan. 22nd!

Now I'll have to be the beer wench.

Posted by: Marty at January 6, 2004 at 01:10 PM

Why the hell doesn't the MCG have Beer Wenches?

Best idea I've heard all year!

Posted by: Jake D at January 6, 2004 at 01:55 PM

It's fitting for Australia to lose, after I discovered their prejudices against waterfowl and their method of reproduction in the LAST post about cricket (http://timblair.spleenville.com/archives/005575.php).

Not to mention making fun of crippled Indians in THIS post. "...lame Indian bowlers..." indeed!!!


Posted by: Wonderduck at January 6, 2004 at 02:14 PM

Earlier wench report here.

Posted by: tim at January 6, 2004 at 02:15 PM

Bless their wenchy hearts!

Posted by: Jake D at January 6, 2004 at 03:54 PM


Help for the perplexed on cricket words:

Don't expect it all to make sense though. The way I learned to understand cricket long ago was to watch a whole match with a friend who knew the game answering my numerous questions. I don't know how you'd learn to make sense of cricket from documents, because that's not how I learned.

Annalucia, each bowler bowls six balls, then hands over to another bowler. The six balls are one over - in effect "over to you now".

Bowler, ------> = run-up to bowl, Batsman 2 = whichever batsman happens to be at that end at the time, I===============I = the cricket pitch, equivalent to the space from the pitcher's plate to home base in baseball, Batsman 1 = whichever batsman happens to be at that end at the time.

Bowler 1 ------> Batsman 2 I===============I Batsman 1
Bowler 1 bowls past Batsman 2 to Batsman 1 six times, then his turn bowling is over.

Batsman 2 I===============I Batsman 1 Bowler 2 bowls past Batsman 1 to Batsman 2 six times, then his turn bowling is over.

And so on.

Does that help?

And Wonderduck, though it may be fitting that we should lose, the point is we didn't, so there. :P

Posted by: David Blue at January 6, 2004 at 09:58 PM

nns:( for our American friends):

You have two sides, one out in the field, the other 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 both sides have been in and out, including the not outs, THAT'S the end of the game.

Eat your heart out, Rummy!

Posted by: Pedro the Ignorant at January 6, 2004 at 10:47 PM