"The best. Of any sport. Anywhere."

May 20, 2016 6:13 AM

It's time to sit back for two hours of non-stop cricket action, collected here for the first time on video: Classic ('80s) Test Finishes, hosted by Richie Benaud.

Richie Benaud presents highlights of the 1974–75 Ashes:
1st Test: Australia v England at Brisbane, Nov 29-Dec 4, 1974. [Scorecard]
Richie Benaud presents highlights of the 1974–75 Ashes:
2nd Test: Australia v England at Perth, Dec 13-17, 1974. [Scorecard]
Richie Benaud presents highlights of the 1974–75 Ashes:
3rd Test: Australia v England at Melbourne, Dec 26-31, 1974. [Scorecard]
Richie Benaud presents highlights of the 1974–75 Ashes:
4th Test: Australia v England at Sydney, Jan 4-9, 1975. [Scorecard]
Richie Benaud presents highlights of the 1974–75 Ashes:
5th Test: Australia v England at Adelaide, Jan 25-30, 1975. [Scorecard]
Richie Benaud presents highlights of the 1974–75 Ashes:
6th Test: Australia v England at Melbourne, Feb 8-13, 1975. [Scorecard]

Richie Benaud presents the 1993 Ashes Cricket Special.
72 minutes 21 seconds of classic Richie Benaud 1980s cricket commentary. [Australia vs. West Indies]
Richie Benaud takes 47 wickets in 15 minutes and 47 seconds with his peerless leg spinners.
Richie Benaud and Mike Atherton and Greg Buckley present a lunchtime leg spin master class.
Look at Life with Richie Benaud.
Richie Benaud.
Richie Benaud: "A beautiful man in every way."

posted by Sonny Jim (21 comments total)

You are a bad person
posted by langtonsant at 6:27 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Yes, "bad" as in "bad ass." Thanks for this!
posted by NoMich at 6:28 AM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

"It's Botham to Border". God, I'm old.

Oh dear lord David Hookes.
posted by langtonsant at 6:34 AM on May 20, 2016

When I lived in England as a yoot, our ground-floor flat had a huge (drafty) picture window that looked directly out onto Fenner's (Cambridge University's cricket grounds). I saw so. much. cricket being played.

I still can't tell you what the rules are or what the point is.
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:35 AM on May 20, 2016

Kim Hughes and Kepler Wessles. My mother would be very happy if she weren't dead these many years.
posted by langtonsant at 6:36 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

I recall an impressionist doing Richie Benaud being auditioned by Sean Connery to be the new James Bond.

"Good morning everybody, my name is Bond ... James Bond".

"No!"

"My name is Bond, James Bond ......... Good morning everybody".

"No!
posted by Major Tom at 6:39 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Botham 1 for 72. It's kind of weird hearing that being uttered without scorn? It's like talking about Shane Warne's early tours of India going for 1 for 150 or something. NOT RIGHT
posted by langtonsant at 6:44 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

I never got to see the good Botham. When I was a young'un, he was already in his exhibition/benefit match "beefy" phase. His captain would introduce him to the bowling crease almost apologetically; he'd bowl absolute filth, and somehow pick up a wicket with the worst delivery you'd ever seen.

Then again, those matches were against early '90s New Zealand, so wicket taking wasn't exactly hard ...
posted by Sonny Jim at 6:52 AM on May 20, 2016

Huh. Graham Yallop was a real person. I owe my parents an apology. Which, as noted above, may be difficult for mum. This is the best post ever in the history of blogs.
posted by langtonsant at 6:54 AM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

I find cricket highlights very odd. Too much happens. With almost every ball bowled something exciting occurs. There's no shots of seagulls or fielders stretching or the little chats between bowlers and the wicket keeper. There's no bowlers getting fussy about where fielders stand or where the sightscreen should be. There's no shots of the crowd wearing idiotic wigs and facepaint. It's just all a bit too interesting.
posted by kjs4 at 7:03 AM on May 20, 2016 [3 favorites]

Sonny Jim: "I never got to see the good Botham."

Yeah I saw a little of him during the late 80s, but I was young and didn't really get a sense of what I was seeing. There were hints there of a once great bowler. Like watching the later days of Hadlee. Not terrifying in the Curtley Ambrose fashion or deliberately destructive like Glenn McGrath at his best, but you can kind of see it from there? Wished I could have seen the real thing. (Also... I wish I really understood cricket the way some of my friends do ... they talk a much better talk than I do. Plus I'm a shitty shitty medium pacer and I refuse to play cricket against the English half of the family any more)
posted by langtonsant at 7:04 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

argh. Carl Rackerman. I hate you so much
posted by langtonsant at 7:07 AM on May 20, 2016

You know, to this day the only person I fear more than Michael Holding is Joel Garner. Maybe Ambrose. Also it is like midnight in Oz right now and I cannot sleep thanks to the hypnotic allure of Richie Benaud's voice. I've spoken with the Prime Minister and this will be raised at the next meeting of CHOGM. You bastard.
posted by langtonsant at 7:15 AM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

Who the fuck is this Robert Holland guy? Am I too young or is my memory shit? Like he's bowling to Greenwich so it must have been about the right time, but I have no memory of him at all
posted by langtonsant at 7:23 AM on May 20, 2016

langtonsant: Who the fuck is this Robert Holland guy?

Weirdly, I remember all those early '80s names from Allan Border Cricket, which I had on the C64. So, he's just a blocky, pixellated guy who looks like all the other simulated cricketers to me.

kjs4: I find cricket highlights very odd. Too much happens.

I know what you mean. They doesn't convey the trance-like state that televised cricket coverage can induce. There's a surprising dearth of real, ball by ball, sublimely-dull-with-seagulls-and-sight-screen-adjustments coverage on YouTube, too. Too much of it is 3-second clips of an ecstatic Stuart Broad all edited together to a bad Bring Me the Horizon song, which ... doesn't quite capture it.

God. Just how much of my youth and how many perfect Kiwi summers did I totally waste lying on the living room floor watching early '90s Australian test match series on Sky TV?
posted by Sonny Jim at 7:38 AM on May 20, 2016 [2 favorites]

Ha ha ha. Peter Sleep. My childhood is bad and I should feel bad.
posted by langtonsant at 7:57 AM on May 20, 2016

So I recently stumbled on the "Willow" channel and I occasionally lose an hour watching cricket highlights.
I think I have the basics of game play down. Bowler guy tries to hit the wicket things. Batter protects them. If batter hits ball over the little barrier in the air it's six points, if he hits it to the barrier it's four points. Sometimes after hitting the ball the guy runs over to a different wicket thing and another batter (who was hanging out at the other wicket thingy runs to the original wicket thing. I assume points are also scored for this action, but I don;t know how many. Also, batter doesn't have to run after he hits the ball, which seems like a huge advantage for the batter to me. Batter is out if ball is caught in the air or if he runs and a fielder hits the wicket with the ball before he gets to it (not sure if he has to touch it or just be within some distance). Getting someone out is a big deal and the fielding team is very happy while the batting guy is distraught. After some number of outs(?), the teams switch.

But, what I don't get at all, and by which I am fascinated, are the statistics that run on the bottom of the screen. What's efficiency? What's a no-ball? What's an over? What's it mean when a team has 8 wickets? Is that good? I know I could probably google for this info, but somehow the impenetrability of the statistics enhances the mesmerizing effect of the game. (but I'll take a link if you know a good website that explains the stats)
posted by qldaddy at 10:55 AM on May 20, 2016

An over is 6 balls bowled. A no ball is a ball that isn't close enough to the wicket. 8 wickets mean 8 people have been bowled out. I don't even like cricket but being English I know these things almost innately.
posted by marienbad at 11:13 AM on May 20, 2016

Who the fuck is this Robert Holland guy?

Geez, Bob Holland was one of the great stories in '80s cricket. Old school leg spinner who played his first test at 38 and could barely find the crease as a batsman. Had some great returns at the SCG back when it was a spinner's dream.
posted by N-stoff at 11:48 AM on May 20, 2016 [4 favorites]

Always liked Bob Holland, he took 5 wickets for NSW (?) against Wellington in a one-day friendly and then sat under the Vance Stand chatting to my father after the game. Seemed like a nice guy.

qldaddy: not sure if he has to touch it or just be within some distance

Has to touch it.

The bowler has to bowl from a certain distance from the batsman (22 yards) - if he oversteps that mark, that's a no-ball. (Also if the ball bounces over a certain height when it passes the batsman, depending on the form of the game). A ball that isn't close enough to the wicket horizontally is a wide.

What's efficiency?

You might mean economy? That's runs conceded per over. Ten overs for 60 runs, say, would be quite poor. Unless you'd taken a couple of wickets as well, in which case the runs might be worth it. Eight wickets out is good, depending on how many runs the team has scored.

It's complex. But beautiful.
posted by Pink Frost at 1:48 PM on May 20, 2016 [1 favorite]

But, what I don't get at all, and by which I am fascinated, are the statistics that run on the bottom of the screen. What's efficiency? What's a no-ball? What's an over? What's it mean when a team has 8 wickets? Is that good? I know I could probably google for this info, but somehow the impenetrability of the statistics enhances the mesmerizing effect of the game.

Cricket is just math(s) by other means, except it's worked out with a bat and a ball rather than a pen and paper. Broadly speaking, the side that gets the most runs wins. Stats are worked out by dividing one thing by another. Economy is a measure of how hard a bowler is to score from. It's arrived at by dividing the number of runs given away by the number of overs bowled. An economy rate of around 3 runs per over is acceptable in test cricket. Substantially more than that (4 or 5 per over) and a bowler is "expensive."

Averages are worked out similarly. A batsman's average is arrived at by dividing the number of runs scored over a career by the number of completed innings. This is (roughly speaking) the score that s/he can be expected to make in any given time out to bat. An average of 30 is probably the very bottom of the acceptable range for a specialist batsman. A decent batsman will be averaging 40. A genius batsman will have an average above 50. Don Bradman averaged 99.96. Bowlers' averages are arrived at by dividing number of runs conceded by number of wickets taken. A bowler averaging 22 or 23 over a long career is world class. 28 or 29 is decent enough (see: Jimmy Anderson or Stuart Broad). 40 or above and you're about to get dropped. If you want to see stats in action, check out Cricinfo's coverage of the match in progress right now between England and Sri Lanka or click on any of the "scorecard" links in the FPP and hit the "stats" tabs.
posted by Sonny Jim at 2:05 PM on May 20, 2016