Ironically, Jimmy was one of the few who continued to show ticker throughout the series. He didn't take as many wickets as he is used to (and this is obviously why), but he never shirked the workload and, we'll assume that Cook knew of this injury, he showed remarkable courage as a nightwatchman.

There were some positives for England from the tour - Anderson might not have been a positive, but he certainly wasn't a negative, Stokes was the biggest plus, Carberry could be seen to score freely against lesser attacks, Root is still a work in progress, although he needs to leave the referrals alone, Bell wasn't disgraced, Pietersen wasn't disgraced (at least until the selectors caught up with him), Borthwick showed promise (but the fact he bowls leggies condemns him to obscurity with English selectors!). After the result of the 1st Aust - SA Test, perhaps England might realise that they aren't that bad after all!

Brendon McCullum just reach 302 before he got out making New Zealand history of the first New Zealander to reach 300 & James Neesham just reached his century

New Zealand vs India 2nd Test:Day 5


New Zealand 8/680dec after 210 overs (Brendon McCullum 302,James Neesham 137no,BJ Watling 124)

James Neesham scored a century on debut

Now if I am understanding this correctly, India would need 435 to win, or a draw happens if time runs out...?

Since this is day 5, this is the last day to play for this match?

That's right, Dave, and since NZ won the first Test of this two-game series, a draw will give them victory in the series.

India has 2 sessions to bat it's lunch right now

Now what happens if India does get the required 435? That would even the series at 1-1, but who would win (if either side would at all)?

India are 2/11 after 6 overs needing another 424

Match called with India scoring 166/3. I found a website I can sort of follow along with!

You looking at something like this?

It was an ESPN site...but I haven't the foggiest what that technical stuff means.

The 50.6 or 50.5 (over # and ball bowled in that over), names, and runs part is easy to figure out...it's what's after the number of runs that I am clueless.

I also had no clue the bowlers ran!!

Bit by bit-

'Wagner to Kohli'- Wagner is the bowler and Kohli is the batsman.
'no run'- Kohli did not run
'covers the off pole'- Kohli had his bat in front of the right hand stump (as seen from the batsman's end)
'lunges forward and leaves the fuller length delivery alone'- The bowler bounced the ball only a few feet short of the batsman- 'full' as opposed to 'short'-, and the batsman leaned forward, but did not attempt to hit it.

Can the ball hit the ground before getting hit? Watching what little I did, I'd say yes. It would be like a ball hitting the dirt, but in baseball, it isn't playable.

New Zealand vs India 2nd Test;Match Drawn


New Zealand 192(Kane Williamson 47,Ishant Sharma 6/51)

India 438(Rahane 118,Dhawan 98,MS Dhoni 68,Southee 3/93)

New Zealand 8/680dec (McCullum 302,Neesham 137no,Watling 124,Zaheer Khan 5/170)

India 3/166 (Kohli 105no,Sharma 31no,Southee 2/50)


Meanwhile in the under 19 Cricket World Cup Afghanistan beat Australia by 37 runs

Dave, at the risk of being (correctly) accused of blatant self promotion, have a go at my quiz on cricket for baseball fans. The answer is pretty much always what you might guess if the game was baseball!

http://www.funtrivia.com/trivia-quiz/Spo...too-345168.html

Blimey!

The ball will almost invariably reach the batsman on the half-volley, not full pitch as in baseball. With his 4¼-inch wide bat blade, the batsman will usually be able to smash a full-pitched ball (a "full-toss") to the boundary. But once it has hit the ground, the ball is likely to spin. The batsman may well be deceived by a ball that spins or swings more than he expects it to, and so he will mistime his stroke and snick up a catch.

And just to get the game even further removed from baseball, any ball that reaches the batsman above waist-high on the full (in other words, in the batter's hitting zone) is to be called no-ball and the bowler given a first and final warning!

Mike, I had already recommended your quiz to Dave.

I played it, and scored better than I thought I would! Didn't know a batsman could let any ball go by without penalty though.

For all you cricket aficionados, at least I'm trying to figure the game out, right?

I admire the attempt, Dave. My understanding of most American Sport is abysmal.

What do you not understand? I can probably explain what needs to be for you to at least understand the games logistically. If y'all can help me with cricket, I can work with the American sports...I'm only asking for help in one sport, but offering for four lol!

Basketball is probably the simplest, in that you shoot the ball into the net. Baseball is similarly played to cricket, in that a batter hits a ball from the pitcher. Hockey is about like basketball, where a player shoots a puck into a net. Gridiron football may be a little more difficult to explain, though.

Now that I know a website where I can watch a game in progress, it might be easier for me to understand the game...for the technical jargon, that is a story for another day!

When I was interviewed in the "FunTrivia Interviews" thread back in 2009, I was asked to try to explain cricket to a baseball fan. I don't know how intelligible my explanation was, but Dave seems to have assimilated the basics in any case.

Thanks, Tom...much appreciated.

Dave, I can assure you, Basketball is NOT the simplest. You can get a penalty for running into someone, for God's sake!