Can Cricket Overtake Football?

[weldone]

I was watching the ICL final the other day on youtube they had a bowl out to decide the winner of the 2 of 3 finals because it tied.

Afterwards I thought why dont they just have a ball out prior to the start of all matches.. this gives a chance for the umpire to judge the bounce of the ball + turn. (knowledge for the game).. furthermore if the game does tie your just refer back to the team that won the ball out.

Maybe it can be done in place of a toss (in t20 that is)...not too convinced though...

 

[weldone]

For that to happen, t20 has to feature in olympics first...

 

[slugger]

i agre it has however been penciled in to feature in the 2020 olympics .. abit of a coindence but i dont think theyre being funny the ic or the olympic commiitee..

 

[LA ICE-E]

Nothing to suggest if it were less elitist it'd have been in a better position.

that statement suggests that you are kind of an elitist person...nothing...i mean nothing elitist is a good, so there's everything that suggests that it would be in a better position...for once it wouldn't have been killed in the us.

 

[slugger]

ww1 killed cricket in the us.. prior to ww1 some states in america ie philidephia/boston had big cricket base.. however these groups people had close ties to england.. and when the mother land was under threat they all went back to fight of course many of them returned to england at the end of ww1 or lost their lives...

 

[slugger]

but i agree.. england treated it very elitist as they do with rugby..

 

[Richard]

that statement suggests that you are kind of an elitist person...nothing...i mean nothing elitist is a good, so there's everything that suggests that it would be in a better position...for once it wouldn't have been killed in the us.

Nonsense. Elitism can be hugely damaging, of course it can, but there is a time and a place for it, and cricket often is one of these.

 

[LA ICE-E]

Nonsense. Elitism can be hugely damaging, of course it can, but there is a time and a place for it, and cricket often is one of these.

um...im sorry but there really isn't...and there shouldn't be a place in cricket either...may be you have a different view since you are under a monarchy...

 

[slugger]

Nonsense. Elitism can be hugely damaging, of course it can, but there is a time and a place for it, and cricket often is one of these.

thats a very dangerous view to have... if that way of thinking continued progess would be very slow..
No Colous on the golf course... No Tiger Woods... thats the most obvious.. Im sure golf saw its self as an elitist sport at one time.. heck they didnt even allow woman..

 

[GIMH]

um...im sorry but there really isn't...and there shouldn't be a place in cricket either...may be you have a different view since you are under a monarchy...

What a ridiculous thing to say

 

[LA ICE-E]

What a ridiculous thing to say

i was talking about richard specifically not about all people from england 'cause i know there's a perliament there....but richard sounds really elitist...

 

[roseboy64]

Got to say Richie is wrong on elitism here.

 

[Richard]

So you think cricket would be better if, in essence, there was no such thing as Test status? If Albania vs Peru was classified the same as West Indies vs New Zealand?

I think not, personally. Elitism has always been a part of cricket and there's negligable amounts in the way of evidence to suggest it'd have been better had it not been.

 

[Richard]

thats a very dangerous view to have... if that way of thinking continued progess would be very slow..

Umm... why, precisely?

No Colous on the golf course... No Tiger Woods... thats the most obvious.. Im sure golf saw its self as an elitist sport at one time.. heck they didnt even allow woman..

Given Woods is one of if not the greatest golfer ever I fail to see how elitism would freeze him out.

And, well, look at things now - they don't "allow" women anyway. Men and women virtually never play golf together. That's not elitist - it's called "being realistic".

 

[Richard]

um...im sorry but there really isn't...and there shouldn't be a place in cricket either...may be you have a different view since you are under a monarchy...

Well, given the amount I know about the monarchy can roughly be translated as "negligable", and given the amount of influence the monarchy has on the way this country (and anyone in it) works can roughly be translated as the same thing, you'll forgive every single person on this site if they don't take that comment seriously.

I've said it before, but some Americans just don't have a clue how Britain works and think mostly in stereotypes. You are blatantly one of such people. And hence there's no point me bothering to discuss anything relating to these parts with you.

 

[slugger]

im not sure if we view the word elitism in the same way..

i think of the word as one group of people do not allow another group of people to experince certain things.. ie playing golf.. a majority of golf courses did not allow coloured players this obviusily affected more Woods father than woods himself.. this was the same for boxing.. and i think cricket has done the same thing not strictly on colour however the movie Wondrous Obilivion seems to disprove me on that aswell.

There is no room for elitism and differently not at a grass root level which cricket has shamelessly never pushed... the oldmen at the mcc around a big broad room table probably mention the word ununcouth a number of times plus many others a would dare not to type as there reason not to push the game beyound thheir comfort zone (elitism)..

 

[Athlai]

Umm... why, precisely?



Given Woods is one of if not the greatest golfer ever I fail to see how elitism would freeze him out.

And, well, look at things now - they don't "allow" women anyway. Men and women virtually never play golf together. That's not elitist - it's called "being realistic".

GOLF
Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden

No ****.

 

[Richard]

im not sure if we view the word elitism in the same way..

i think of the word as one group of people do not allow another group of people to experince certain things.. ie playing golf.. a majority of golf courses did not allow coloured players this obviusily affected more Woods father than woods himself.. this was the same for boxing.. and i think cricket has done the same thing not strictly on colour however the movie Wondrous Obilivion seems to disprove me on that aswell.

There is no room for elitism and differently not at a grass root level which cricket has shamelessly never pushed... the oldmen at the mcc around a big broad room table probably mention the word ununcouth a number of times plus many others a would dare not to type as there reason not to push the game beyound thheir comfort zone (elitism)..

Elitist and prejudiced are completely different things, though obviously prejudice is often a form of elitism.

And the tales about MCC are in all but a tiny majority of cases apocryphs and based purely and totally on stereotypes.

 

[slugger]

splitting hairs.. bro.. splitting hairs..

 

[speirz]

Nothing to suggest if it were less elitist it'd have been in a better position.

Strongly disagree with that. It is actually considered, along with a few other factors of course, as one of the reasons for the game failing in America in the late 1800's, and undoubtedly with the situation in the world today, a reasonable profile in America would do wonders for the global profile of the game.