Cricket: Art or Science?

[luckyeddie]

so would you not class something like leg spin an art??? There is something mysterious about it which for me makes it as much art as a classically played cover drive or whatever

Witchcraft

 

[Swervy]

Witchcraft

it felt like it sometimes when Qadir was doing his stuff

 

[Son Of Coco]

WRT cricket: art or science:
I enjoy both parts of the game - the more science, the better from my POV, but without the art of attractive batting (IMO the only part of the game that can really be called art) it would be equally dull.
I don't class Matthew Hayden or Adam Gilchrist as artists, they're ugly, bat-swinging mumphs. Much as they're flair and spontaneity players.

haha, ahhh yes - cricket is a game for technical purists. Wanna swap Hayden and Gilchrist for anyone?

 

[Son Of Coco]

What makes a player a better player than another is earning more runs than another (ie scoring them through your own good play, not being dropped 5 times and getting 183 to your name).
What makes a good player a good player is how he is rated by the majority!
What makes a player attractive to watch is a wholly different matter! I don't think anyone would say Nasser Hussain is a better player than Darren Lehmann but I know who I'd prefer watch and who I'd prefer have in my side!

I think I know who you're referring to here! haha

How many times has that player been dropped 5 times on the way to a big score by the way? I seem to remember him scoring a relatively chanceless 150-odd against you boys in the last Ashes in England - not still bitter I hope.

 

[Swervy]

I don't class Matthew Hayden or Adam Gilchrist as artists, they're ugly, bat-swinging mumphs..

But great to watch though isnt it

Having said that...Gilchrist is top form with those cuts and drives is a sight everyone on this planet should see as an example of good hard clean hitting

 

[Swervy]

What makes a good player a good player is how he is rated by the majority!

and what a shame that a lot of people rate players only on their average!!!!

 

[luckyeddie]

and what a shame that a lot of people rate players only on their average!!!!

*coughRampers*cough*

<quack> You idiot, LE

 

[Swervy]

*coughRampers*cough*

<quack> You idiot, LE

he had a great average when batting between 3.15pm and 4.15pm on Saturdays when the sun was out and no more than 12 seagulls flew past the ground...in those situations he was brilliant...SO WHY DID ENGLAND USE HIM AS AN OPENER!!!!!! (is that right Richard????)

 

[Son Of Coco]

What makes a player a better player than another is earning more runs than another (ie scoring them through your own good play, not being dropped 5 times and getting 183 to your name).
What makes a good player a good player is how he is rated by the majority!
What makes a player attractive to watch is a wholly different matter! I don't think anyone would say Nasser Hussain is a better player than Darren Lehmann but I know who I'd prefer watch and who I'd prefer have in my side!

So using that line of thinking (what makes a good player a good player is how they are rated by the majority - I agree whole-heartedly by the way) McGrath and Gilchrist etc are good players, not lucky ones!?

 

[Langeveldt]

In my opinion, cricket is definitely an art form.. The whole point to my experience is seeing the wizardry of shane warne, a fluid run up and action like Allan Donald or Michael Holding, or elegant brilliance like Mark Waugh.. Nothing can replace that for me..

 

[Anil]

art and science are not as different as is made out to be. abstract or modern art maybe has less to do with science...but the vast majority of what is defined as art is based on sound fundamentals explained by scientific principles...both use the mind, both work on inspiration, both involve hard work, dedication, focus....from that perspective, cricket is both....

 

[luckyeddie]

abstract or modern art maybe has less to do with science....

...still less to do with art

 

[marc71178]

What makes a player a better player than another is earning more runs than another (ie scoring them through your own good play, not being dropped 5 times and getting 183 to your name).

Not in the sense of the team - the better player gets more runs in the book.

 

[Craig]

speaking of diving, they should have 4 or 5 people sitting down by the fence at each soccer match with signs to score each dive. It'd be quite entertaining.

If they involved players like Christophe Dugarry (sp), Deco, Vitor Biaia, Claude Makelele, then yes.

Back to the question, I would say 50% Art, 50% Science.

 

[FRAZ]

There is an old saying "cricket by chance " .
It mixes luck along with the science and art too .

 

[luckyeddie]

There is an old saying "cricket by chance " .
It mixes luck along with the science and art too .

Named after the great Sri Lankan exponent of 'random bowling' - Chukkitan Chansit.

 

[Richard]

so would you not class something like leg spin an art??? There is something mysterious about it which for me makes it as much art as a classically played cover drive or whatever

Well, yes, I suppose so.
I'd call Warne an artist, or Murali, or Mushtaq. Kaneria could become one.
But I'd not call MacGill, Lawson or Schofield artists.
You have to bowl legspin well to be an artist, and not many have ever managed to do that.

 

[Richard]

I think I know who you're referring to here! haha

How many times has that player been dropped 5 times on the way to a big score by the way? I seem to remember him scoring a relatively chanceless 150-odd against you boys in the last Ashes in England - not still bitter I hope.

Relatively chanceless, hmm, yes, except for that relatively straightforwad drop by White at gully on 30-odd, and the drop in the deep on 80-odd, and the caught-and-bowled on 103.
Followed by the 90 where he was dropped on 13, 36, 47 and 60-something.

 

[Richard]

and what a shame that a lot of people rate players only on their average!!!!

That would be because no player without a good scorebook-average has ever been that good.
But equally, a good scorebook-average should always
a) be examined and
b) taken in context

 

[Richard]

So using that line of thinking (what makes a good player a good player is how they are rated by the majority - I agree whole-heartedly by the way) McGrath and Gilchrist etc are good players, not lucky ones!?

Yes, they are - I just don't rate them as highly as others. But not by any streatch of the imagination do I not rate them at all.
But I've never claimed I'm able to influence what they'll be remembered as. Doesn't mean I won't bother trying.