Any actual Englishfolk here?  Or in lieu thereof, anglophiles?

Sri Lanka is playing England in the cricket world cup tomorrow, and I am seeking a friendly wager.  Or at least some taunting.

Gatyr wrote: I know a few pedophiles. Does that count?

Arguably, they are the same.

Nope.  I have adopted Sri Lanka for the occasion.  Fun team to watch, like the West Indies teams of yore.  Australia has been destroying everybody, though, and will probably win the whole thing.

Expect more bandwidth-wasting cricket updates tomorrow.

Good enough.  Care for a small informal wager?

Suggested wagers:

- Winner (SL is favored to win, though)

- Over/under on runs scored by either team

- Wickets taken by Murali (as bowler only, not fielder), the world's best bowler

- Most runs scored by an individual batsman for X team

As to what to bet - titles and signatures come to mind.  Other ideas?

Ok - winner of SL vs. England.  (I take SL, Kristofer takes England)

Loser has to use title and sig selected by winner for a month.

Good?

Cool.  I'll post regular game updates tomorrow.  The game should be finished by 1pm Central or so.

:)

All right - game on.

Quick cricket refresher for World Cup rules:

Each team bats once, and bats until they are all out (10 outs, or "wickets"), or until 50 overs have passed (1 over = 6 balls/pitches).  Going all out is fairly rair.

England won the toss, and elected to bowl (pitch), so Sri Lanka is batting first; after they are done, England will have to beat SL's total to win.

For a 50-over match, 250+ is a "good" score, and less than 200 is a "bad" score.  Australia routinely scores 300+, which is why they are killing everybody these days. 

England is pretty much an all-round team, with one of the all-time greats (Andrew Flintoff, all-rounder - he is a bowler who also bats well), and one of the leading bowlers (Monty Panesar).  They tend to score middle-high, and keep their opponents middle-low.  Obviously the original cricket dynasty, but their current coach has not had great success.

Sri Lanka is a low-scoring bowling team, with the best bowler in the world (Muttiah Muralitharan, named cricketer of the year for 2006), and several other greats, including veteran Sanith Jayasuriya, who played on the 1996 world championship team.  Because of their focus on bowling, their games tend to be low-scoring affairs.  They usually score in the low 200s, and frequently keep their opponents well below 200.

I am getting my updates at this site, complete with snarky British commentary:  http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/overbyover/story/0,,2049759,00.html - http://sport.guardian.co.uk/cricket/overbyover/story/0,,2049 759,00.html

I will update periodically with scores, whether you like it or not.

Ok - after 12 overs, Sri Lanka has scored 48 runs, putting them dead on for 200 runs total.  It isn't unusual to bat slowly the first few overs, however.

One wicket has fallen - Jayasuriya, in a blow to Sri Lanka.  And Andrew Flintoff has just stepped up to bowl.

This could be a real game.

After 24 overs, Sri Lanka has 99 runs for 2 wickets, maintaining their pace for 200 runs.

If England can keep a lid on the Sri Lankan batting the way they have been, I'll have a funny title before you know it.

Dazed wrote: How long does a game of cricket usually last?

There are two kinds of cricket - test matches, and One-Day Internationals (ODI).

The World Cup is played with ODIs.  Each match is basically all day - 6 hours or so, not counting lunch and tea interval.  Test matches are five days.

Well, the Lankans have picked up the pace.  156 runs now, with 34 overs down.  That's a rate of 4.6 runs/over, which would put them close to 250.

Still only 2 wickets down, which means that the meat of the Sri Lankan batting order is still on the field or waiting their turn.  If the English don't manage to take another few wickets to get to the soft middle, it could get ugly.

Cricket pointer - you keep batting until you are out.  That means that a really good batsman can torture you for hours, even days.  His turn never "ends", unless you actually get him out.  The two men batting now have been going for a long time, and are showing no signs of tiring.

EDIT - and just as I typed that, Flintoff takes out Tharanga.  That opens up opportunities for England.

And there's the end of the Sri Lankan innings.

After the first 3 tough wickets, the English bowlers did a good job chewing up the middle of the order, and forced the entire Lankan side to bat - somewhat unusual for Sri Lanka.  And lord knows Murali hates to sully his hands with a bat.

Final score - 235 runs, Sri Lanka all out in the 50th over.  Not a horrible score for Sri Lanka, but the English announcer clearly thinks this favors England, so they are probably celebrating in London right about now.

The English step up to bat in 30 minutes.

The English are batting.  And immediately run into the crushing Sri Lankan bowling.

After two overs, the score is only one run (and that was a penalty, not an actual English batsman scoring), and one wicket!  Brutal start for the English, but we are just getting going.

Ah, during my absence, the Lankans have taken charge of the match.

148 runs in 37 overs, with 6 wickets.  England needs 89 runs from the remaining 78 balls to win.  Tall order indeed, with all their best batsmen out already.

I smell victory for Sri Lanka, and victory for me, and humilitation for England and Kristofer.

Now I just have to think of the appropriate result...   Hmm....

GAH!!!

It's down to the very last ball.  After the massive lead in the middle of the English innings, the Sri Lankans gave it all up - the English need three runs on the last ball to win (you can score up to 6 runs on a single ball).

...

And Sri Lanka holds on to win.  Barely.  By the skin of their teeth.

Whew.  Not the ending I was hoping for, but still.  That was the prevent defense in action, right there.  Sri Lanka wins 235-233.

What a game.  Holy cow.