35 overs is still just about entertaining enough, but once it gets below that I don't often take much notice.I daresay the question has been asked before, but if one of the forthcoming ODIs is reduced, through weather interuption, to 20 overs a side or thereabouts, will Richard be boycotting it? What about 30 overs, or 35?
Just wondering how many overs have to be lopped off before he considers it no longer worthy of his attention.
Nah, hitting a ball with a bat with your mates isn't playing cricket. And I'll never consider it so. It's just having a bit of a knockaround.
It'd be for MSN, not the forums. If our paths cross any time soon, then we'll talk.Example? Am genuinely interested.
Nope. It's a knockabout. Simple as.
You need two Umpires for a game of cricket, and I'm truly amazed that you'd play a league game without a square-leg Umpire. One scorer you can just about get away with, but it's highly un-recommendable, obviously, as there's so much more potential for error.
Who said anything that isn't playing cricket is wasting time? I certainly didn't. I'm not playing cricket while I'm making this post, nor was I this morning. Nor was I last Monday night when I was out. I didn't consider I was wasting my time. There's much worthwhile worth doing apart from playing cricket.
It's not really something I'd think about much, as I'm not really that much of a football fan these days. But no, I suppose not. Football being an infinitely simpler game than cricket, though, it'd resemble it far more.
There's no logic nor precedence to it though. You're basically rewriting the language and its vernacular as you please. It's one thing if you say it's not cricket at its purest form, but not calling a sport a sport just because it's not played at its highest level is idiotic; sorry to be blunt here but there's just no other way to put it.
I did nothing of the sort. I said it's not a sport if there's nothing organised about it. Hitting a cricket ball about with your mates isn't playing cricket. If I'm rewriting the language and its vernacular then, well, so be it. I don't have to accept stuff just because most people do. It really doesn't matter to me what others consider cricket, nor to others what I do. It's completely unimportant and TBH it's rather surprising what a fuss has been made of it by some.
Bracewell is beyond a joke now, unless McCullum is injured he is saying Hopkins is a better batsman than Fulton. Fulton is a number 3 FFS, not a number 5,6 or where ever he decides to play him. When did Bracewell say he is leaving the job again?
Magic.
Hopkins in for Fulton.
Southee in for Gillespie.
I think Mills must rate extremely highly in the squad judging by his poor form with the ball.
I'll be extremely surprised if Wright doesn't open in the opening game. Could very possibly be with either Bell or Cook, and if the latter I'd expect the former to bat three.
The fuss is being made because it's absurd. If you want to make your own language up then that's up to you, but don't expect people to be happy about it.
Actually, the Ancient Greeks didn't have a word for blue. They called the sky what translates as bronze.
Yeah, but, that's sorta the thing, language only works if everyone who speaks it thinks it means the same thing...
Nah, there's no right and wrong to be had.
The French? Like they could invade!
Again -
I did nothing of the sort. It really doesn't matter to anyone what someone hitting a ball about at the park is termed as. That sort of stuff isn't discussed on CW, because it's only ever relevant to those doing it.
I'm hardly making-up languages. 99.99% of the time, if not more, it really doesn't matter what I consider various terms along the genre of "cricket". I've thought the way I think for a good number of years now, much longer than the time I've been a member of these forums, and it's come-up in discussion a whole 2 times.
Ask Martin Crowe... man great interview.