Why be a good scientist when you can learn to lie and make stuff up so well your lecturers and supervisors believe you and think you're wonderful? Last year I found out creative writing does have a place in universities after all.Good scientists
If you really think that engineers lack the full theoretical understanding of the laws they apply everyday- in a capacity that incurs far more personal responsibility than your equations on the chalkboard, then i really don't have anything to say to you- except that i doubt you know much about science or engineering.
You know, people have been predicting this stuff about test cricket ever since Kerry Packer, even before. Yet for some reason, fans still like it. In some places more so than other formats. Contrary to what you say, it still exists because people want to watch it, not any other reason, and it will continue to do so in the future.
Under what definition of "matters" are you talking about?
This is so wrong it kind of boggles the mind. Not everything is defined by sales and money.
"Entertainment" is not something that can be quantified, and especially not by money.
And you get to pronounce stage acting as "less important" because...?
Who came up with this mandate?
Sales. Which has to do with popularity. The product that is more popular matters more.
not everything, but a marketed product, which cricket is, is most certainly defined by sales & money. The former implies popularity, which is the fundamental barometer of entertainment product.
It can be quantified by the numbers following. A match that is followed by 5 million people has entertained humanity more than a match followed by 50 people. We are taking into consideration social definitions of these words as it pertains to the big picture, not individualist definitions of it, which are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Because less of humanity is interested in following it. That makes it less important to humanity.
Nobody had to come up with this mandate. This is the mandate of any product thats fundamental purpose is to entertain. The product fits the purpose by simply existing, so long as it fits the definition of an entertainment product.
Because in an entertainment industry, barring very few occasional exceptions, the product that makes more money does so by being more popular. People pay fixed amounts for their cable bills, advertisements run at fixed rates per capita viewing (which is why ads in the 7pm to 9pm window are the most expensive ones in weekdays, they have the highest per capita viewing). So the direct implication of a tv product that is making more money, is that it is more popular.
Why the **** would that be your fundamental concern. You are a fan, not an ICC employee, Jesus.
Because in my 40 years, I've played cricket in virtually all the formats possible- 20/20, 3 day,5 day, 50 overs and I simply care about the sport as it pertains to the mechanics of playing the sport far more than an intrinsic adherence to a particular format it is played in.
I dislike the jingoistic nature of international competition, but unfortunately this is not just the bane of test cricket, but also T20 and ODI cricket as well. Which is why i stated, much much earlier, my primary wish is to see cricket move from a nationalistic format to a franchise format. I advocate marginalizing test cricket more and promoting 20/20 more, precisely for the abovementioned reason: that test cricket does not lend itself to franchising nearly as much as 20/20.
You know, franchise formats in other sports are no different in terms of attitude, the jingoism is just redirected towards the clubs. I don't think its any better, in fact it may be worse. Getting your head kicked in for walking into the wrong pub in parts of Glasgow or riots in Egypt or the dumb **** which happens in the US. Jingoism is the nature of sport, franchise systems don't solve it.
It doesn't solve it, it does significantly reduce it though. In my experience, franchise fans of the same sport are far less jingoistic than national fans of the same sport, simply because the franchise identity is a far weaker one than a national one. To give you an example, i've had far more success debating with fellow Vancouverites on whether the Vancouver Canucks suck or are awesome in a given season. Good luck talking to any Canadian on whether Team Canada Hockey team sucks or rocks on any Olympic year. Its 100% George W Bush style 'you are either with us or against us, traitor!' stuff.
Lol, using the Canadian model to judge that on may not be wise bro. I hear you fellas are quite chill.
