India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket

[Muloghonto]

You may not consider soccer to be cricket but that is missing the forest for the trees.

Point is, when you change the fundamental rules of the sport then you risk diverging it from the sport altogether. Where do you draw the line? For me, if you can't bat out a draw then it ceases to really be cricket; it's a fundamental aspect of the game, much like "hitting a ball with a flat bat". You may not consider it such but I do, and in the end what you consider fundamental is entirely irrelevant to your argument. Your argument is that market forces should determine how the rules of the game change.. and market forces would dictate to adopting the rules of association football for cricket worldwide. Much as you say that playing limited overs is more marketable than playing five days with no guaranteed results, kicking a ball towards a goal is more marketable than hitting a ball with a flat bat; neither is really more or less intrinsically cricket than the other. If you take your ideology to the nth degree like you're trying to then you'll end up with absolute absurdities like I'm pointing out. In the end you have to draw the line somewhere and you draw it in a different place to me; that's fine as it's opinion-based but this cannot be tackled but pure ideology as you're attempting to. There's no inherent correct answer to where cricket ends and something else begins.

reductio ad absurdum. Can be applied to any argument but does nothng whatsoever to further the argument.

 

[DriveClub]

Respect for Mumbojumbo for holding fort midst a massive barrage of attack from all corners

I think it's a reality that Test cricket isn't a viable business model in that perspective since most networks will be only looking at profit/air time ratio and it doesn't favour Test cricket. Other factor is Test cricket is massively unpopular in subcontinent and that's where the majority of the cricket market is prevalent currently. But not sure how it will pan out in the future

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Do your own research, i am not privy to printing or citing the renumeration details of networks on this website. To do so, i am pretty sure, would be to invite a lot of lawsuits in my direction.
If you are geuinely challenging the fact that 90% of test series are loss making ventures for the networks, i can safely say that you know very little about the actual economics of cricket and use your limited intuitive experience as the only candle in this discussion.

Economics is bunkum.

If you can't prove your statements, then don't represent them as fact, represent them as your view. I'm astounded that you think Sky NZ would decide to take on SL vs. Pakistan as a social endeavour to the small SL and Pakistani expat communities in NZ. But despite this contradicting your "evidence", I'm the one who doesn't understand the economics of cricket.

You're more than entitled to your opinion, but the way you're trying to pass it off as the view of the masses is obtuse in the extreme.

 

[Muloghonto]

Economics is bunkum.

Okay, if you also wish to believe the world is flat, that too is your perogative.

If you can't prove your statements, then don't represent them as fact, represent them as your view. I'm astounded that you think Sky NZ would decide to take on SL vs. Pakistan as a social endeavour to the small SL and Pakistani expat communities in NZ. But despite this contradicting your "evidence", I'm the one who doesn't understand the economics of cricket.

You are being disingeneous. You have said so yourself that SL-PAK series was pitched at a cheaper rate to SkyNZ than a 20/20 tournament involving 4-5 teams.
You are leaving the realms of a decent conversation and going into a fallacious set of argument, where you are going to challenge every assessment of a scenario demanding the level of evidence required by the Hague Criminal court for War Crimes cases, knowing fully well that it derails the entire conversation either due to the time required to satisfy every query of yours or traps me into publishing something that gets me and this website into a lot of trouble. All so that you can throw some facts you dont like out of the window and say a few standard cliches like 'if you cant provide proof, dont claim it as fact'.

Rather pathetic that in 14 pages your argument has descended from debate to making outlandish statements like the basis of our social contract is bunkum, everything including the existence of the sun needs to be evidenced, etc.
I guess your contribution towards my position has run its course of usefulness. G'day.

You're more than entitled to your opinion, but the way you're trying to pass it off as the view of the masses is obtuse in the extreme.[/QUOTE]

 

[Flem274*]

fact.


investment in stock market trends overwhelmingly confirms that humanity has a far bigger proclivity towards investing in volume towards a stable market product over a new one.



Again, stock market trend. We do not buy stocks in a new company nearly as quickly or in volume as we do in an established one.



I think several players do make a trend. If you want the majority to follow the principle, then it is not a trend, it is a law.



I did not say we all share the same values. But the value of professionalism and chasing the big bucks over historical protectionism has majority following in virtually all human endavour.

m8, economics is not a science. you haven't seen the study where they got the skateboarders to do tricks with no one watching then got them to do tricks with hot chix watching did you?

 

[Muloghonto]

m8, economics is not a science. you haven't seen the study where they got the skateboarders to do tricks with no one watching then got them to do tricks with hot chix watching did you?

I know economics is not a science. I know it better than most- my job for the last 5 years has been more to do with the 'economics of a mining project' rather than the engineering of a mining project, the latter of which is, techincally, my field of expertese. However, many things in economics work in largely scientific trends, especially when the concepts talked about are at a macroscopic scale (as has been the position in this thread). Only when it break it down to microscopic detail, do we have a 'breakdown' in the theory of economics- but then again, you'd be surprised how true that is for 'pure' sciences too. On the same benchmark, gravity is not 'science' either.
It suffers from the same problem economics does- behaves like a science at macroscopic levels, is competely senseless at the microscopic level.

 

[Spark]

I've seen quite a bit of economics. And I know a fair bit about science.

They are not even close to each other, methodology-wise. Not even remotely. Please do not claim that economics employs remotely the same amount of methodological rigour as the physical sciences, it's not even on the same planet.

 

[Flem274*]

im going to take that as a no you haven't seen the study with the skateboarders and the chix.

 

[Muloghonto]

I've seen quite a bit of economics. And I know a fair bit about science.

They are not even close to each other, methodology-wise. Not even remotely.

Agreed but as an engineering man, i am driving towards the implications,not the procedures. It is what it is. And at the macroscopic level that pertains to this thread, the effect of the economic theories relevant mostly behave remarkably like scientific laws- not the same level of accuracy ofcourse, since implementation of economic theory ultimately has to factor in the human psyche (ie, moods & convictions of each and every individual) that good old laws of pure sciences do not suffer from.

 

[NasserFan207]

Holy **** Muloghonto your posts are truly soul destroying to read, no offense.

Why do you care so much about whether cricket makes more money than other sports anyway. Aren't you a fan? Shouldn't you care about being entertained? I'd slightly understand if you worked for the ICC or something.

 

[Spark]

Agreed but as an engineering man, i am driving towards the implications,not the procedures. It is what it is. And at the macroscopic level that pertains to this thread, the effect of the economic theories relevant mostly behave remarkably like scientific laws- not the same level of accuracy ofcourse, since implementation of economic theory ultimately has to factor in the human psyche (ie, moods & convictions of each and every individual) that good old laws of pure sciences do not suffer from.

No, they really don't, and that you would claim makes me seriously question how much you know about how hard science actually works.

 

[Muloghonto]

im going to take that as a no you haven't seen the study with the skateboarders and the chix.

I failed 3rd year calculus because some twit on a noisy skateboard wouldnt stop skateboarding in the middle of a beautiful canadian summer night, right outside my window. To make matters worse, i chose to yell at him at the precise moment a cop car drove by, earning me a fine for disrupting public peace. I've had a remarkable aversion to skateboards and all things pertaining to skateboards since then.

So...no! no skateboarding twit references or citations, please!

 

[Muloghonto]

No, they really don't, and that you would claim makes me seriously question how much you know about how hard science actually works.

Enough to keep your posterior attached to your body if you wish to descend into a half a mile deep hole in the ground to work at a cite my team designs.
I am not going to argue theoretical semantics, as i said, i am more concerned about the implications & applications of laws-scientific or economic,than the theoretical nitty gritty behind it.

 

[Agent Nationaux]

Err no, test cricket is not the best form of cricket. The best form of cricket is the one that has the greatest consumption amongst the masses. Test cricket is the model T of cricket. Old, venerated but completely broken and outdated.



The halo effect is created by the stunning sales of the flagship model. Very few flagship models are retained once they fail to make money. The old beetle is no longer the flagship model- it once was because it sold the most. By and large the general rule of business is that the flagship model gets that status by being a consistent top seller.
That is why Honda's flagship is the Civic, Toyota's is the Camry and Pepsi's is Pepsi Cola. Pandering towards the few exceptions to the rule does not help your case.

There is a difference between most selling and best. Avatar made a **** load of money but was it better than other great films that did not make as much.....No it most certainly wasn't. Likewise Test cricket is the greatest despite not being as popular. There is a reason why Michael Bevan isn't considered an ATG or that cricket fans only crlebrated Tendulkar's 50 centuries and not 100. Without Test cricket the quality of cricket itself will go down. We have already seen that players like Ghambir are not as good anymore due to LOI cricket ruining their technique. Pujara for example is brilliant because he knows when to leave the ball unlike so many of his colleagues who are hacks. So if you are happy to sacrifice quality for cash then go ahead but not everyone else feels the same way.

 

[fredfertang]

Okay, if you also wish to believe the world is flat, that too is your prerogative.

[/QUOTE]

It never ceases to amaze me that so many folk have this ludicrous and illogical idea that the world is a sphere

 

[Spark]

Enough to keep your posterior attached to your body if you wish to descend into a half a mile deep hole in the ground to work at a cite my team designs.
I am not going to argue theoretical semantics, as i said, i am more concerned about the implications & applications of laws-scientific or economic,than the theoretical nitty gritty behind it.

Theoretical semantics ie. actual science? Don't pretend that engineering and science are the same thing now too, **** me. Just because you have a hammer does not make everything a nail, and being able to apply a few mathematical equations does not make you capable of extending those so-called laws into unusual contexts (for example, economics to the definition of a sport) without a working knowledge of the actual logical and theoretical underpinnings of that law ie. the "theroetical semantics". You say you're only interested in applications, fine. But then don't pretend you know how to extend these concepts and claim absolute authority on the matter.

Or do you think scientists just throw letters and numbers and blackboards and see what sticks?

 

[Flem274*]

Or do you think scientists just throw letters and numbers and blackboards and see what sticks?

You mean I've been doing it wrong?

 

[Muloghonto]

There is a difference between most selling and best. Avatar made a **** load of money but was it better than other great films that did not make as much.....No it most certainly wasn't. Likewise Test cricket is the greatest despite not being as popular. There is a reason why Michael Bevan isn't considered an ATG or that cricket fans only crlebrated Tendulkar's 50 centuries and not 100. Without Test cricket the quality of cricket itself will go down. We have already seen that players like Ghambir are not as good anymore due to LOI cricket ruining their technique. Pujara for example is brilliant because he knows when to leave the ball unlike so many of his colleagues who are hacks. So if you are happy to sacrifice quality for cash then go ahead but not everyone else feels the same way.

The quality of test cricket, as you well noted, should exist to serve as the highest avenue for persuit of technical and temperamental versatility and perfection in the game of cricket, for its application to the form of cricket that matters. Which is limited overs cricket.

It does not matter which form is the most complicated or is the most fun to play. Cricket is entertainment and what matters in entertainment is which product sells the best.
You choose to see 'money grabbing twit' out of the above line but to me, a product that sells the best implies fundamentally that it is also the most popular one. To any entertainment, that is the first and foremost objective- to produce a product that is the most entertaining for its audience.
stage acting is the most challenging form of acting but it doesnt get to supplant recorded acting (television/movies) as the one that matters the most.
The quality of test cricket exists for that purpose. To give it the most playtime, is to the detriment of the mandate of cricket- to entertain and deliver a product that is the most in demand.

 

[Spark]

Anyway, Jarrod Kimber was on ABC Grandstand during the Boxing Day Test. He said that of all the TV executives he'd interviewed, zero had even remotely suggested that they'd turn down buying Test cricket rights. Five days of sport to fill their channels? Why would they?

 

[Spark]

You mean I've been doing it wrong?

Good scientists