Entertainment desk
< July 26	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 28 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 27

cattleNhay (aka eggman)

There is a youtuber called cattleNhay (aka eggman). Please can someone tell me what part of the world he is in. It looks green and how i imagine germany but he sounds american. Please. Thank you

The Youtube about page for some channel with that name [1] says location: Switzerland and

Switzerland is an amazing country...this channel will hopefully give you some impressions as time goes on and I can bring you some videos of what its like.

and has at least two videos shot on the Alps at least one of which explicitly calls it the Swiss Alps. Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final Destination 6

Hi!, any article that tells me when FD6 will be released or do you have information on its release? --181.27.144.251 (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the highest team score from a Test where ≤5 days had play time and they had 40 outs?

I found out there was a Test where a team got 1121 runs but they didn't finish the game. There must've been tons of Timeless Tests where they racked up many runs cause they didn't have to declare right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was March 1939 in Durban. South Africa scored 1011 but the match was drawn because the England side had to catch a train. See also List of Test cricket records. 2A00:23C4:7916:5100:BCA8:3981:9551:8F54 (talk) 09:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But they played like 10 days and only had 36 or 38 outs, not 5 days or less and 40. And there was a Test in Jamaica where a score of 1,121 was reached by they didn't finish that game either. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These "outs" you refer to ... I presume you're referring to wickets taken. "Outs" is more a baseball term. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah here is the kind of list I was looking for, I don't know why Test is so single innings-obsessed when it comes to teams, Cricinfo doesn't even have the record (1121) and it has tons of best this lists. There's only two 6+ day Tests heading the list (a lot less than I guessed) and #3 is Australia scoring 1028 and getting England all out twice for 466 in only ~3 2/3rds days. All 40 wickets got taken too save for a good English bowler absent hurt once and a good English batsman who got 33 retired hurt then absent hurt. Thus Australia has proven that it's possible to score at least 1028 runs and still finish the game in 5 days without more luck than a good opposing batsman and bowler getting injured, that's not extreme luck right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

_{So you never say bottom of the second inning, 9 outs, no balls, two strikes, no men on, trailing by 6? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)}[reply]

_{No. That would be "This will be the final ball of the Test. England's perennial bunny needs to clear the fence to tie the match." Note that a tie is very different from a draw. HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)}[reply]

Unlike cricket, in baseball the game isn't considered finished if it's what cricket calls a tie and if you can only play half the innings before having to catch the plane home you have to resume the game another time you meet that year. It's possible to win with only 5/9ths the normal amount of outs though and they probably wouldn't even do that if they didn't play so much (162 games in 6 months). In a tie they would just keep adding 1 inning per side till it ends, thus top league in the world games have lasted up to 8.1 hours which is over twice what is long for baseball and ended at 3:18am. That's impossible in Twenty20 right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In a game that lasts up to five days, injuries are inevitable. Losing a batsman "retired hurt" can be a combination of luck and fitness. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just imagine if they played nine innings instead of two. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That might cause batsmen to die back in the day actually. The ground would get so fucked up from that that one could bounce to his head from a range with very little reaction time and break his skull. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And innings in the cricket sense is both singular and plural. Never "inning". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, in some early baseball reports I've seen, the writer used the term "innings" in the same way as the cricket term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's luck plus injury-proness/resilience in baseball too. Why don't they just let substitutes take over for the injured player though? American sports only last 2-4 hours instead of ~20-40 but they still don't make you play with less fielders just because one of them can't play cause of an injury after the selection deadline. What if a wicketkeeper couldn't play and the other team is full-strength? They have to play with eight fielders? That seems unfair. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In most forms of cricket, substitute fieldsmen are allowed, but they cannot bat or bowl. In the case of the wicket keeper being injured, someone else from the original eleven players would take over that role, and a substitute would take that player's place in the field. Many players would have done a bit of wicket keeping by the time they reach the highest level, and would delight in the opportunity to show off their talents in that role. HiLo48 (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't injured batsmen and bowlers be replaced though? "Wicketkeeper" is the second hardest defensive position in baseball, I doubt many fielders could do it well. Even the "bowlers" are too specialized to do anything else, baseball has had exactly one all-rounder in a century and 1910s guy is to this day the closest thing we ever had to Bradman. Why aren't all good bowlers shitty batsmen like in baseball (except the one Japanese dude)? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the core reason batsmen and bowlers aren't replaced is that, unlike the impression I have of baseball in the US, the vast majority of cricket games are played by tens of thousands of adults every week for no reasons other than social and recreational. Teams simply are a bunch of blokes who come together for a game, not for money. They don't have large numbers of spare players sitting on the bench. In fact, those substitute fielders are often players from the other side. It simply wouldn't appropriate for them to bat or bowl. Similar rules apply at all levels. HiLo48 (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the early days of baseball, there were few substitutions allowed. The typical squad was about 12 players total. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: Wicket-keepers can now be replaced with the permission of the umpires.[2] Hack (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HiLo's impression is incorrect. There are many impromptu "pick-up" games of baseball played all over the U.S. in public parks, back yards, and streets. Stickball is one famous variant. When I was a kid growing up at the end of a cul de sac, we had spraypainted a ballfield on the street and used to play games all the time. Besides impromptu games, there are thousands of baseball and softball leagues of people who just get together on weekends and summer evenings to play for the fun of it. 15ish million Americans play organized baseball in a given year, and 40 million Americans will play at least one softball game in a year. --Jayron 32 11:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info. In those many "fun" games of baseball/softball, what's the situation with substitutes? Not too many, I'd imagine. HiLo48 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None at all. Everyone who shows up takes a spot, and they all just kinda work it out. If there are an even number of players, they all just distribute around the field evenly; if there are an odd number sometimes one player just acts as an "automatic pitcher", staying on the field to pitch for both teams. For formal recreational leagues, there are often substitution rules; for example a typical rec league softball team may have 12-13 roster spots, with 10 fielders in the line up, a long with a few substitutes. Children's instructional leagues also may mandate that every player on the roster should get equal playing time (as measured over, say, the course of several games) since the purpose of those leagues is to give new players access to learning the game (it's hard to learn riding the pine every day). --Jayron 32 14:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even when playing on a normal field, if we had too few turn out to play, we would improvise by having a "right field automatic out" rule. We also used to play something akin to Old cat when we were seriously short of players. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In our neighborhood games, we had "zones" marked on the street, so balls that were hit out of the infield were either a "single", "double", "triple", or "homerun" depending on where they landed. --Jayron 32 12:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are called electric fielders in cricket, as if they sold robot fielders at Sports Authority for games that are short of people. If the ball falls within x feet of a point on the field it's an automatic out. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do occasionally have local rules like that even in formal cricket. Some grounds have rules for the runs allowance for balls hitting trees inside or overhanging the field of play.[3][4] There are also agreements that a batsman will be out if they hit the ball over a particular boundary.[5] Hack (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 11 Undisputed Rules of Backyard Cricket (Unless Your Mother Disagrees) may help here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:11, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The answer can probably be found by looking through this list of Tests with the highest aggregate scores. The fourth test on that list, Australia v England in Adelaide in 1921, has the largest aggregate total in those tests in which 40 wickets fell - Australia scored an aggregate of 936 runs, beating England by 119 runs. See English cricket team in Australia in 1920–21#Third Test.Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a curious thing that cricket concentrates much more on performances in single innings than match aggregates. The main exception being the bowlers' recognition for taking 10 wickets in a match. The closest thing in batting is a hundred in each innings. I can't explain it - perhaps it's that the feat is more entertaining done in one go. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]