It's going to be a long time before I can talk about cricket and not sound like an idiot

Here's a paragraph I read here:

Such was the clarity of Strauss's strokeplay and the passivity of India's attack, at 280 for 2 in the 43rd over, England were cruising towards an extraordinary triumph. However a late intervention, sparked by a reverse-swinging Zaheer Khan, left them clawing for breath as a silenced Chinnaswamy stadium rediscovered its roar, and when the requirement shot up beyond two runs a ball, there seemed no way back into the contest. However, a ballsy volley of sixes from England's lower order hauled them back from the brink, and with two runs needed from the final delivery of the match, Graeme Swann drilled Munaf Patel to cover to salvage a share of the spoils.

Going in I thought that just knowing that cricket involved bats and wickets would be enough to follow the story. After reading this paragraph six times and still being confused (and wondering if perhaps the author was putting up nonsense that sounded like he was talking about a sport), I think I'm going to bone up on my cricket vocabulary (still, I like the writing overall--it's kind of colorful or whatever).