Muloghonto
U19 12th Man
reductio ad absurdum. Can be applied to any argument but does nothng whatsoever to further the argument.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.
Last edited: