Cricket going the hockey way??????

[pasag]

Whilst I can be as romantic and nostalgic when it comes to appreciating the sublteties of sport, what it comes down to is that the best tactics to win (so long as they are within the rules and 'spirit' of the game) should be employed. If a cricketer who is more athletic yet less 'skilled' in terms of batting (for the eg. of cricket), breeds better results than the skilled batsman, that is the way the game will go whether people like it or not.

The only way to prevent this from happening is to change/modify the rules to accomodate for the changing nature of the sport (whichever it may be) to ensure the game stays the same. Now if stronger and fitter cricketers are proving to be superior to those with less stamina yet more skill, then maybe a change in boundary ropes, or bat size, or pitch conditions (these aren't solutions, just examples of possible changes) will be made if it is deemed necessary. The public will demand it however.

Fact is, if the sport gets 'less attractive and entertaining' due to a changing nature of the game, it will show in audience and viewing numbers. Honest's example of tennis I disagree with. The whole complaint about power overriding finesse is incredibly exaggerated in my view. As much as I love the serve-and-volley game of Rafter or Henman, I will still take a Safin vs. Roddick match over them. Why? I just find those two slugging it out more entertaining, and if power tennis breeds better results than a serve-and-volley (for example), then the game will naturally adapt that way. If the fans as a whole don't like it, it will eventually change, either through limiting raquet technology, or slowing court surfaces etc.

I just get tired of hearing every time I tune in to a sport, whichever it may be, that the game is not as good as the old days. FFS, I get extremely nostalgic about the cricket and worry about the way the game is heading towards batsman, but even I find these calls that the game is heading to hell a bunch of hyperbole.

Nothing beats footy in the 90's though

 

[Jono]

Nothing beats footy in the 90's though

Its probably the greatest thing ever.

Mind you, I do think that the game will naturally evolve away from the possession/uncontested style again, whether due to fans just being peed off and losing interest, or by the possession style of football not being the best way to win games anymore. The Bulldogs could seriously be the team that changes football IMO, or rather just pushes it further away from the possession style, but continues the 'fast paced' way of the game which increased last year.

 

[pasag]

Agreed and agreed. And the irony of it is Eade, the man who arguably screwed everything up introducing flooding at Sydney is the same one who is leading the change at WB.

 

[open365]

Bottom line is, cricket is a skill game, no level of physicality is going to change that.

I think the point about mechanical bowlers and batsman isn't very valid.

Everybody plays differently no matter how hard you coach someone, and those with the so called unconventional techniques often weren't very good for that very reason.

 

[Hamilton B]

Whilst I can be as romantic and nostalgic when it comes to appreciating the sublteties of sport, what it comes down to is that the best tactics to win (so long as they are within the rules and 'spirit' of the game) should be employed. If a cricketer who is more athletic yet less 'skilled' in terms of batting (for the eg. of cricket), breeds better results than the skilled batsman, that is the way the game will go whether people like it or not.

The only way to prevent this from happening is to change/modify the rules to accomodate for the changing nature of the sport (whichever it may be) to ensure the game stays the same. Now if stronger and fitter cricketers are proving to be superior to those with less stamina yet more skill, then maybe a change in boundary ropes, or bat size, or pitch conditions (these aren't solutions, just examples of possible changes) will be made if it is deemed necessary. The public will demand it however.

Fact is, if the sport gets 'less attractive and entertaining' due to a changing nature of the game, it will show in audience and viewing numbers. Honest's example of tennis I disagree with. The whole complaint about power overriding finesse is incredibly exaggerated in my view. As much as I love the serve-and-volley game of Rafter or Henman, I will still take a Safin vs. Roddick match over them. Why? I just find those two slugging it out more entertaining, and if power tennis breeds better results than a serve-and-volley (for example), then the game will naturally adapt that way. If the fans as a whole don't like it, it will eventually change, either through limiting raquet technology, or slowing court surfaces etc.

I just get tired of hearing every time I tune in to a sport, whichever it may be, that the game is not as good as the old days. FFS, I get extremely nostalgic about the cricket and worry about the way the game is heading towards batsman, but even I find these calls that the game is heading to hell a bunch of hyperbole.

What you're essentially doing here is stating a case of the game changing following the evolution of players. This is true of cricket. However my post related primarily to field hockey, which was a case of a dramatic change in the game forcing the players to evolve. It was a case of the game itself striving to reduce the skill quotient, for whatever reasons, sinister or otherwise, one may wish to read into it. This is a very important difference between the way field hockey and cricket have progressed. What you say is correct re: cricket, but not field hockey.

 

[Jono]

I see. I'm not going to pretend for one second to know anything about hockey, but hockey was used as a comparison to cricket in this case so I just figured they were being used as examples of what could happen.

What exactly is the issue with hockey (I haven't read the whole thread admittedly) that is being put down to India's fall from grace?

 

[BoyBrumby]

I see. I'm not going to pretend for one second to know anything about hockey, but hockey was used as a comparison to cricket in this case so I just figured they were being used as examples of what could happen.

What exactly is the issue with hockey (I haven't read the whole thread admittedly) that is being put down to India's fall from grace?

I think someone said something about it now being played on astroturf (which is of uniform consistency) rather than grass. I know squat about the sport either; taking an interest in it would mean making a statement about my ***uality I'm just not comfortable with.

 

[Richard]

Geezus...C_C part 2.

No, weight training does help strengthen and condition the muscles. For example, Agility is a trait of athleticism. Agility is not something you either have-or-don't-have. You can be more agile by increasing your speed.

You can't possibly increase speed much. Otherwise everyone who wanted to would be an olympic sprinter. And there are many other athletic traits (spring in the knees\elbows\wrists\ankles, for example) that are in the same boat.

And weight training does help fitness. By weight training you build up lean muscles which increase your body's metabolic rate thus reducing the body's fat storage and also burning up fat you may have stored unnecessarily. By doing this, it is one way you may become a fitter person.

Haha, tell that to me. I do ****loads of weight shifting and I'm incredibly unfit.

Will take you a couple of days to reply to this, obviously.

 

[Richard]

That said, there's a difference between only being able to succeed if you are outstandingly fit, and making an effort to optimise every level of your performance. General fitness DOES impact on your ability to produce sustained good performances, and in these days of fully-blown professionalism, there's no reason why all teams shouldn't be doing all they can to get that aspect of their game up to scratch. If they can't be bothered putting in the hard work, they probably don't deserve to succeed. But to be clear, I think its still the case, and would never want it to change, that skilled cricketers can improve by working on their fitness - you can't replace those skills purely with outstanding atheletic ability.

Exactly. Matt79 does it again.

 

[Richard]

I think Tarrick can now be our resisdent drunk.

Worried if he has a drinking problem already

pfft once a week! i'm just stupid enough to sit behind the computer!

Haha, yeah. I vowed ages ago never come near CW again when inebriated.

 

[Richard]

India or Pakistan have never been the best team in world cricket

India certainly have if only briefly and the only thing that stopped Pakistan from being was Winston Benjamin's bat.

By the LOve of Dickinson and PIckup, I am sure it will !!!!!!!

 

[Richard]

If people are to be believed, every single sport isn't as good as it used to be. Cricket, AFL, tennis, soccer, boxing... hear it all the time.

It isn't a question of a sport being better or worse. Your viewpoint will depend on what you want from the sport.

Yeah, exactly.

Games change - sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.

And that better or worse depends entirely on viewpoint.

 

[Richard]

Ha! Great Britain has won a gold more recently than India or Pakistan and hockey is perceived very much as a lasses sport over here.

Deep ingrained ***ism from DB here...

 

[Richard]

Haha, Dickinson does it again - that's 7 in a row.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Deep ingrained ***ism from DB here...

Hardly. I was merely saying I'm not in your pink army.

 

[Richard]

And I was hardly being serious. Sorry if I didn't make that clear - I hoped it was obvious, given that I've never seen any genuine ground to accuse you of ***ism...

 

[open365]

And I was hardly being serious. Sorry if I didn't make that clear - I hoped it was obvious, given that I've never seen any genuine ground to accuse you of ***ism...

Didn't stop you with me...

 

[Anil]

What exactly is the issue with hockey (I haven't read the whole thread admittedly) that is being put down to India's fall from grace?

field hockey changed to astroturf in the early 80s from grass...changed the game drastically...it became all about speed and long passes and athleticism and stamina and power and penalty corner conversions and....the subcontinental giants of the sport till then(india and pakistan) relied mainly on dribbling skills, ball control on the grass, short passes etc....they virtually didn't have any astroturf to practice on at home initially and were exposed to the surface only at tournaments...their respective hockey boards were really late bringing astroturf into the countries, main reasons being increased cost and the ever-present bureaucracy....all this while, their european, aussie and even south american competition made giant strides in the game and more or less left them behind....pakistan who are naturally the stronger, more aggressive of the two countries didn't lag behind that much and competed better for a much longer period without sacrificing all that much of their natural game, india never adapted well and continues to slide further into ignominy with each passing tournament....

 

[Salamuddin]

field hockey changed to astroturf in the early 80s from grass...changed the game drastically...it became all about speed and long passes and athleticism and stamina and power and penalty corner conversions and....the subcontinental giants of the sport till then(india and pakistan) relied mainly on dribbling skills, ball control on the grass, short passes etc....they virtually didn't have any astroturf to practice on at home initially and were exposed to the surface only at tournaments...their respective hockey boards were really late bringing astroturf into the countries, main reasons being increased cost and the ever-present bureaucracy....all this while, their european, aussie and even south american competition made giant strides in the game and more or less left them behind....pakistan who are naturally the stronger, more aggressive of the two countries didn't lag behind that much and competed better for a much longer period without sacrificing all that much of their natural game, india never adapted well and continues to slide further into ignominy with each passing tournament....

India's problem is their administration/coaching setup.
They still have very good players in terms of technical ability (even Maurit Hendriks the Master Dutch coach has admitted this) , but they are lacking bigtime in fitness and strategy. Indian coaches are very poor compared to the likes of Charlesworth, Lissek, Dancer, Hendriks, Oeltmans etc.
Pakistan is not much better tbh....our coaches are
also poor, our last World Title came in 1994.
What both countries need is an administration willing to learn the good points from other countries and modify our hockey accordingly.......look at Korea and Australia they adopted elements of subcontinental hockey and now Australia is the best team in the world and Korea is also right up there (certainly the best in Asia).

Pakistan and India can be the best again....even on astroturf ( i honetsly believe that), but first they need to drop the attitude and look to
addrss their shortcomings.

 

[Beleg]

I think the comparison is faulty and the premise is erronous.

The reason Pakistan fell behind on field hockey has less to do with athleticism/astroturf training and more to do with the fact that the younger generation (that grew up in the 90's/00's) stopped caring for it, the talent pool became smaller, coaching techniques were either abyssmal or met with communication problems and the administration went from being borderline incompetent to an out-right disgrace.

The problem with Pakistani hockey administration (basically the olympians of the bygone days who played on grass) is that they cling on and refuse to let go of the glories and techniques of the past - the game today is widely different from the way it was played back then and unless you evolve your style accordingly you are naturally going to fall behind.

Pakistan was lucky they had Sohail Abbas, otherwise we'd have started to loose to the likes of NZ and England much earlier.

The problem with the current Pakistani team is a lack of fitness and talent. Oh, and attitude.