Huck's on Cricket...

[ron obvious 1,517]

I think test cricket''s a bit like fishing; long periods of not much happening & then the vital bit that you get wrong at your peril. That ball moves fecking fast (& is bloody hard) & the reaction of batsman & fielders (particularly the slips) has to be lightning quick. Good fielding can be brilliantly entertaining - I used to love watching Derek Randall. If I''m in the mood it can be completely absorbing. The shift in balance of power between the two teams can be slow & subtle or sudden & brutal; one inspired spell of bowling or a dogged batting partnership can change a game. And it throws up so many characters. Does football do this? I don''t think so.Still love football though.

[PurpleCanary 5,592]

[quote user="Mahogany"]but doesn''t that apply to pretty much every sport & game? Especially those where you are competing directly against your opponent.[/quote]I think that may be true to an extent of, say,

tennis. Probably golf, as well. The bat hits ball bit is obvious, but

what is gong on inside the tennis players'' heads (all the tactical

stuff) is far from obvious and perhaps you do need to have played the

game to understand it. But it would still be enjoyable as a spectacle.

The point about cricket is that so much of the game - the most

significant bits - is played at a mental level (by the batsmen, the

bowlers and particularly the captains) that it''s very hard to appreciate

that (and so enjoy the game) unless you''ve played youself.

In addition, the technical side of cricket is very complex and

unnatural. The obvious way to play is to do what you do in baseball -

throw a ball and try to hit it with a piece of wood held horizontally.

In cricket you bowl a ball and try to hit it with a piece of wood held

vertically. And that''s without getting into all the subtleties of the

various kinds of bowling.

Football, by contrast, is comparitively simple. That is why it''s the

world game. Take a reasonably intelligent Martian to its first game of

football and by the end of 90 minutes it would have got a pretty fair

appreciation of the rules (unless Andy D''Urso was officiating...) and an

understanding of the game itself. It would be able to enjoy watching

the game not just as a spectacle, even if it couldn''t for a while grasp

some of the finer tactical points.PS. Ron Obvious''s point about the subtle shifts in the balance of power that take place in cricket is spot on. At its best it is like watching a great play, unfolding over three or four acts.

[Shyster 0]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mahogany"]but doesn''t that apply to pretty much every sport & game? Especially those where you are competing directly against your opponent.[/quote]I think that may be true to an extent of, say,

tennis. Probably golf, as well. The bat hits ball bit is obvious, but

what is gong on inside the tennis players'' heads (all the tactical

stuff) is far from obvious and perhaps you do need to have played the

game to understand it. But it would still be enjoyable as a spectacle.

The point about cricket is that so much of the game - the most

significant bits - is played at a mental level (by the batsmen, the

bowlers and particularly the captains) that it''s very hard to appreciate

that (and so enjoy the game) unless you''ve played youself.

In addition, the technical side of cricket is very complex and

unnatural. The obvious way to play is to do what you do in baseball -

throw a ball and try to hit it with a piece of wood held horizontally.

In cricket you bowl a ball and try to hit it with a piece of wood held

vertically. And that''s without getting into all the subtleties of the

various kinds of bowling.

Football, by contrast, is comparitively simple. That is why it''s the

world game. Take a reasonably intelligent Martian to its first game of

football and by the end of 90 minutes it would have got a pretty fair

appreciation of the rules (unless Andy D''Urso was officiating...) and an

understanding of the game itself. It would be able to enjoy watching

the game not just as a spectacle, even if it couldn''t for a while grasp

some of the finer tactical points.PS. Ron Obvious''s point about the subtle shifts in the balance of power that take place in cricket is spot on. At its best it is like watching a great play, unfolding over three or four acts.[/quote]

PC - ''though your argument for cricket being sent by the Gods is an admiral one, it''s wasted on those of us who find the game mind-numbingly boring - both to play and especially spectate.

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

I''d rather slit my own wrists than be forced to sit through a full 5 day test.....

[Arthur Whittle 0]

Good morning this is Pakistan Radio,and here are the Cricket results for Tomorrow!!

Sorry,couldn''t resist.

[PurpleCanary 5,592]

[quote user="Shyster"][quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Mahogany"]but doesn''t that apply to pretty much every sport & game? Especially those where you are competing directly against your opponent.[/quote]I think that may be true to an extent of, say,

tennis. Probably golf, as well. The bat hits ball bit is obvious, but

what is gong on inside the tennis players'' heads (all the tactical

stuff) is far from obvious and perhaps you do need to have played the

game to understand it. But it would still be enjoyable as a spectacle.

The point about cricket is that so much of the game - the most

significant bits - is played at a mental level (by the batsmen, the

bowlers and particularly the captains) that it''s very hard to appreciate

that (and so enjoy the game) unless you''ve played youself.

In addition, the technical side of cricket is very complex and

unnatural. The obvious way to play is to do what you do in baseball -

throw a ball and try to hit it with a piece of wood held horizontally.

In cricket you bowl a ball and try to hit it with a piece of wood held

vertically. And that''s without getting into all the subtleties of the

various kinds of bowling.

Football, by contrast, is comparitively simple. That is why it''s the

world game. Take a reasonably intelligent Martian to its first game of

football and by the end of 90 minutes it would have got a pretty fair

appreciation of the rules (unless Andy D''Urso was officiating...) and an

understanding of the game itself. It would be able to enjoy watching

the game not just as a spectacle, even if it couldn''t for a while grasp

some of the finer tactical points.PS. Ron Obvious''s point about the subtle shifts in the balance of power that take place in cricket is spot on. At its best it is like watching a great play, unfolding over three or four acts.[/quote]

PC - ''though your argument for cricket being sent by the Gods is an admiral one, it''s wasted on those of us who find the game mind-numbingly boring - both to play and especially spectate.[/quote]

Oh, hardly sent by anything like gods, Shyster.

Cricket, in all its complexity, is plainly an invention of man, in all

mankind''s complexity. If there were gods I suspect they wouild be

childishly simple creatures.[8-|] Having said that, if there was such a thing

as a heaven,[ip] then cricket would be the game played there.

I am, of course, devastated[:''(] beyond words that I have not persuaded you

of my case. My devastation[:''(] is only slightly diminished by my not

actually remotely having had you in mind.[;)][:D][;)]

[Davo 0]

To me Cricket is a funny sport for me. There are some bits of it I enjoy and otehr bits not so much.

I like 20-20 as it''s fast paced and let''s face it people like watching the ball being hit out of the ground for a 6.

I like the ebb and flow of test cricket. It''s not something I will sit there and watch but I''ll happily have it on the telly whilst doing somethign else.

I can''t stand 50 overs though as it''s kind of in the middle of the two. I don''t find it has the excitment or the tactics.

Davo

[AndyJR 0]

[quote user="AndyJR"]"Played cricket today, got to be one of the most boring sports I''ve ever

played, at 1 point I was just running round trying to stay awake."I''m saddened.  Running between the Wicket he might have got.  :O)[/quote]He might get a run out for Pakistan at the moment.  Dreadful.

[Excited Canary 19]

Is it me or do people who really love cricket prefer test cricket? I know T20 is all guns blazing and a bit of entertainment, but it really doesn''t have half as much skill as test cricket. Test cricket is the true game, with hard fighters and great players. Believe it or not, at some points Test Cricket can be as exciting as T20! I will be on my sofa, 4:00am on a school day during the Ashes watching some brill games [:)]

[King Klose 0]

[quote user="Excited Canary"]Is it me or do people who really love cricket prefer test cricket? I know T20 is all guns blazing and a bit of entertainment, but it really doesn''t have half as much skill as test cricket. Test cricket is the true game, with hard fighters and great players. Believe it or not, at some points Test Cricket can be as exciting as T20! I will be on my sofa, 4:00am on a school day during the Ashes watching some brill games [:)]
[/quote]

Yeah, I love cricket and test cricket for me is the proper and purest form of cricket. [:)]

[Robert N. LiM 4,573]

20-20 is entry-level cricket. Much more superficially exciting - something happens every ball. But much less room for the sort of ebb and flow and mental battle that PC has spoken so eloquently about.

Actually the often-quoted ''it lasts five days and ends in a draw'' is actually the best thing about Test cricket. The recent England-Pakistan Test is not a great example because of the possibility of match-fixing, but England were 101-7 in that game, eventually winning by a huge margin. In football, that''s the equivalent of a team being 15-0 down after five minutes, before coming back to win.

It''s an incredibly difficult thing to win a Test match, as Pakistan found out at Lord''s when they had England on the ropes, and as England found in that brilliant Ashes series in 2005. Even if you''re miles ahead, you have to deliver the final blow. Some of the best Tests I have seen have been when teams have been hanging on for a draw - England Australia at Cardiff last year, or Australia England at Old Trafford in 05.

When the draw is taken out, as it is in 20-20 and one-day games, it can often become more predictable. The result of the 20-20 yesterday had been decided in five overs.

Endless subtlety and the ultimate combination of skill, stamina, mental fortitude and physical courage. It''s the greatest game without a doubt.

The only thing that spoils it is the English weather. How cricket was invented here I''ll never know.

[King Klose 0]

[quote user="Robert N. LiM"]

20-20 is entry-level cricket. Much more superficially exciting - something happens every ball. But much less room for the sort of ebb and flow and mental battle that PC has spoken so eloquently about.

Actually the often-quoted ''it lasts five days and ends in a draw'' is actually the best thing about Test cricket. The recent England-Pakistan Test is not a great example because of the possibility of match-fixing, but England were 101-7 in that game, eventually winning by a huge margin. In football, that''s the equivalent of a team being 15-0 down after five minutes, before coming back to win.

It''s an incredibly difficult thing to win a Test match, as Pakistan found out at Lord''s when they had England on the ropes, and as England found in that brilliant Ashes series in 2005. Even if you''re miles ahead, you have to deliver the final blow. Some of the best Tests I have seen have been when teams have been hanging on for a draw - England Australia at Cardiff last year, or Australia England at Old Trafford in 05.

When the draw is taken out, as it is in 20-20 and one-day games, it can often become more predictable. The result of the 20-20 yesterday had been decided in five overs.

Endless subtlety and the ultimate combination of skill, stamina, mental fortitude and physical courage. It''s the greatest game without a doubt.

The only thing that spoils it is the English weather. How cricket was invented here I''ll never know.

[/quote]

The thing is hanging on for a draw is equivalent to a win. If England had lost the Cardiff test match in the last Ashes series we would have been 1-0 down but instead hung on for a draw meaning we went into the next game at 0-0.