Is Cricket Your Favourite Sport?

[Prince EWS]

See just how much Prince EWS has learned - not just about cricket, but about life in general...

Haha, I'm going to get rid of that one day. So, so evil.

 

[GIMH]

Yeah, football's uniquely high premium on scoring isn't necessarily better or worse than basketball's extremely low one, it's just what one is used to.

If one were so minded there's a case to be made that with scoring so relatively easy and free flowing in basketball there's less chance of fluke results and the "better" (measured in terms of possession or territory or chances created or whatever) team usually wins. Becuase of the very high value scoring in football has (0-0 and 1-0 are very common scorelines) it lends itself to upsets where a keeper makes two dozen saves and his team scores from their only chance. Lots of people (self included) like that about football, but I could see it being perplexing to those not steeped in a footballing culture.

Aye, and you can say the same about Tests-ODIs-T20 in a way

 

[Goughy]

The problem with low scoring is that a **** offside decision or a sending off can massively impact the game. Far too many factors apart from what the players do with the ball heavily impacts the result. Far more so than, lets say, cricket where a bad decision makes a difference but it is still only 10% of the wickets. A bad offside in a 1-0 ruins the game. A bogus penalty, a missed handball etc.

I took a step back and looked at the game that I adored and found it wanting in so many areas. I really dont like the way the game is played and I find the rules ridiculous. For example we now just take for granted and as part of the game that two relatively minor infactions can lead to a red card. I believe that far too often the penalty of a sending off is far greater than the crimes commited and impacts far too many games.

There are other reasons why I find it unwatchable now but one benefit is that I dont have to speak to a certain type of fan that I often run into at a party or in a pub that knows nothing about the game but has nothing else to talk about.

 

[jeevan]

Cricket. If there's another sport which can also claim to be one of the world's best tools for averting nuclear war - there might be some choosing involved. Until such time, this is it.

One other thing, this other hypothetical sport also has to have different aspects that in turn favor tall skinny people with long arms, short people with quick reflexes, people with abnormalities in their arms or wrists, and even people who resemble starchy vegetables with only an excess supply of neurons to their eyes and hands. To my unathletic self, there is something gratifying about a short person or a high-BMI person or a person with crooked arms and bulging eyes make a complete fool of a fine athletic specimen just 22 yards away and playing the exact same sport.

I just can't relate to rows of 300 lbs men butting heads very hard or groups of people that are 6'6" +/- 3" who take turns running up and down a court, or 15 year old girls impersonating rubber dolls with or without the aid of various apparatii (these are some of the alternatives around here). Not that I'd be able to do any of what Inzamam does either - but I can at least look at the guy and find some similarities (around the waist, mostly).

 

[Jarquis]

HUla dancing tbhj

 

[nightprowler10]

Haha, it's hilarious because I know several white people who will freely admit they don't watch the NBA for that reason and the word 'thug' makes a frequent mention, and yet the sport that most people are crazy about (NFL) is at least 70% black. It makes no sense whatsoever.

For me, it's not the NBA, it's basketball. That sport is terrible to watch, I can't even watch it in the Olympics where I could generally watch any random sport that the US is in and I don't even know the rules to.

Baseball is a fantastic game, it's been slowly climbing in my estimation. I don't think it'll overtake cricket, but it's just better organized, played at a higher athletic level, and it's just a better product for the consumer. And it's a much purer game in many ways than cricket (no Coca Cola Double Plays and names of airlines in 62 point font on uniforms). But the reason it'll never come close is purely because I grew up with cricket, and it's part of who I am. If I grew up in an environment where NFL, MLB and Cricket were an equal part of life, cricket would be a distant third. The product sucks, it could be so much better if they gave Tests more structure, introduced day/night tests, had a real championship, etc. They finally introduced referrals, so maybe that's a positive sign of things to come.

Yeah called Jungleball around here in some circles.

I'm the opposite with Baseball tbh. I was big into it around 2003 and the sport peaked for me in '05 when the White Sox won. After that it just fell away for me for whatever reason and now I find it painful to watch. Its just so...dull. At least with basketball you have so much athletic ability at display that it makes up for any one-sided or boring contests. Hell I'd take soccer over it any day. I think the number of games per team doesn't help. Not sure I agree with you about the sport's purity vs cricket. MLB (other countries baseball leagues in general are incredibly commercialized) may not have huge logos on their uniforms but how many ballparks can you name that aren't owned by a corporation? Every aspect of baseball seems to be driven by commercialism from where I sit. I believe there was even talk of putting Coca-Cola logos on bases when I was still paying attention. Baseball paints a purer picture of itself but I don't agree its any purer. Of course I do agree that Baseball is better packaged when compared to Cricket but that doesn't make it a purer sport.

 

[Matt79]

See just how much Prince EWS has learned - not just about cricket, but about life in general...

Best thread ever. It's like watching little PEWS grow up in front of your eyes, as people keep bumping it. There's semi-literate kid PEWS, later-teenage years self-mortification PEWS, PEWS as a newly minted wetback Moderater. Should never be deleted...

EDIT:
Prompted me to go dig my first post on CW - reasonably happy with it. Especially in retrospect (knowing the poster's work) with this response.

EDIT 2: Reckon time proved me right re: Akhtar.

EDIT 3: And my 19th post - directed at Richard (not Goughy, he and I were agreeing) at my first encounter with the concepts behind the FCA

 

[BoyBrumby]

The problem with low scoring is that a **** offside decision or a sending off can massively impact the game. Far too many factors apart from what the players do with the ball heavily impacts the result. Far more so than, lets say, cricket where a bad decision makes a difference but it is still only 10% of the wickets. A bad offside in a 1-0 ruins the game. A bogus penalty, a missed handball etc.

I took a step back and looked at the game that I adored and found it wanting in so many areas. I really dont like the way the game is played and I find the rules ridiculous. For example we now just take for granted and as part of the game that two relatively minor infactions can lead to a red card. I believe that far too often the penalty of a sending off is far greater than the crimes commited and impacts far too many games.

There are other reasons why I find it unwatchable now but one benefit is that I dont have to speak to a certain type of fan that I often run into at a party or in a pub that knows nothing about the game but has nothing else to talk about.

TBF that's more an issue of poo officiating rather than the low scoring nature of football. FIFA/Wafer's steadfast refusal to use video replays beggars belief, tbh. There's so much wrong with the sport it probably warrants a thread on its own, but I don't think football being a low scoring game is necessarily a problem itself.

 

[silentstriker]

may not have huge logos on their uniforms but how many ballparks can you name that aren't owned by a corporation? .

Exactly - in cricket, the sport itself is comemrcialized, while baseball, the stuff around it is. I know which I'd rather have. Come on - DLF maximum hits instead of a six?

Stadium is not part of the game itself, it's a side product used to bring the game to the masses, like television production (which is also much better than any cricket TV broadcast, with the exception of the excellent Sky) - and those stadiums offer about a million times better fan experience than cricket stadiums.

 

[GIMH]

What's better about the 'fan experience' at baseball?

 

[BoyBrumby]

What's better about the 'fan experience' at baseball?

The chance to drink warm, watery beer & struggle to consume inedible hot dogs...no, actually we've got that at cricket too. Must be the opportunity to sit next to sit next to fat Americans, tbh.

 

[GIMH]

The food at the cricket is pretty good as well. Pricey like, but good. And there's usually a rum stand or two knocking about, I wub rum

This is at internationals mind, don't get to much domestic cricket, something on my list to try and do this year actually

 

[Goughy]

What's better about the 'fan experience' at baseball?

Two points. SS seems to be comparing Indian stadia with American stadia. With that, I assume, there is no comparison in terms of the experience. Id argue that the difference is less big in other countries.

In terms of interactive experience and food and drink concessions, the baseball stadia I have been to are usually better than the cricket ones I have been to. There is usually something to distract you away from the sport. However, they are generaly far less joyous occasions and quite sterile.

 

[silentstriker]

New stadiums like the ones we have in Philly or the new cowboys stadium in Dallas are mind bogglingly great.

 

[GIMH]

What cricket stadia are you judging them against though?

 

[silentstriker]

What cricket stadia are you judging them against though?

I think it's a fair enough point that I haven't been to any in the west except Lords, so that's my only point of comparison. If others are miles better, I wouldn't know about it. It's hard to imagine any beating the new Dallas stadium though - just the 160 by 72 HD screen that hangs in the middle of the field is ridiculous to look at. You can literally see the sweat dripping from players. Plus the amenities, concessions and activities are second to none - restaurants, bars, etc.

 

[GIMH]

Lord's is the best stadium in the world you drongo!

 

[Goughy]

I think it's a fair enough point that I haven't been to any in the west except Lords, so that's my only point of comparison. If others are miles better, I wouldn't know about it. It's hard to imagine any beating the new Dallas stadium though - just the 160 by 72 HD screen that hangs in the middle of the field is ridiculous to look at. You can literally see the sweat dripping from players. Plus the amenities, concessions and activities are second to none - restaurants, bars, etc.

That would be the massive HD screen that punts can hit, right? It is ridiculous that so much can be spent on a state of the art facility that doesnt even perform its primary goal every well ie enable the players to play the game without interference.

Another point is that Lords, for example, is completely financed privately. The tax payers of Arlington contributed over $300 million in bonds towards Cowboys Stadium. Arlington also increased the city's sales tax by 0.5 percent, the hotel occupancy tax by 2 percent, and car rental tax by 5 percent to give further funding. Madness IMO.

 

[silentstriker]

Lord's is the best stadium in the world you drongo!

Yes, due to the history, and because of my love of cricket, it'd be the best in the world. However, speaking purely from the view of spectators and facilities, it shows its age.

That would be the massive HD screen that punts can hit, right?

Haha yea, though I don't think that's been a problem in the regular season (one hit it in the preseason).

Another point is that Lords, for example, is completely financed privately. The tax payers of Arlington contributed over $300 million in bonds towards Cowboys Stadium. Arlington also increased the city's sales tax by 0.5 percent, the hotel occupancy tax by 2 percent, and car rental tax by 5 percent to give further funding. Madness IMO.

I think that's a fair point, and while I don't think taxpayers should pay for stadiums, it doesn't change the fact that the end product is better for the fans.

 

[silentstriker]

YouTube - Dallas Cowboys Show Off Giant Stadium TV