BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Games & Gameplay >

Cricket - general discussion thread

  
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
Loomis
12:39 / 05.08.05
I thought we could do with a thread to discuss the appeal of cricket and current issues in the game. Do you play it? Do you watch it? Why? What is its place in the world of modern sport? What do you think of current developments like Twenty20 and the free to air vs pay tv issue?

I love cricket, but it was not always so. Growing up in Australia, you can’t fail to be aware of cricket, as it is always on the tv (but only until pay tv buys up the rights – grrr!), and pervades Australian culture. It is often joked (though with an element of seriousness) that the captain of the Australian cricket team is more respected that the Prime Minister (mind you, that wouldn’t be hard considering the twat we currently have for PM). I wasn’t particularly into it, partly because of my European parents who thought it was boring (“Look!” my dad would shout when the tv showed images of mid-week state games. “The seats are empty!”), but even though I didn’t follow the results I was still vaguely a cricket fan. I remember at one point having a poster of Greg Chappell on my wall.

It wasn’t until I was 21 and lying hungover on the couch one hot summer day that cricket finally made complete sense to me. I remember just lying there listening to the commentary and watching the captain change the field placings and instruct the bowlers on what type of ball to bowl to particular batsmen that the beauty of the strategy became clear to me, and that initial appreciation has grown year on year and now I actively follow matches even when I can’t watch them, via the ball-by-ball commentary on the internet and sometimes the radio.

I love the strategy, as I mentioned, but I also love the skill involved which in my opinion is greater than many sports, primarily because a batsman gets few chances. No matter how good a player is, if they take their eye off the ball for a split second then they’re out and that may be the end of their contribution to the game. By comparison a good footballer can make a few errors and still have an excellent game. The phenomenal level of concentration required by top level cricketers is something that impresses me no end, especially when they’re out there for 6 hours a day, five days running, sometimes in intense heat.

I’ve never been a particularly sporty person and though I am always happy to watch a bit of sport if someone wants to watch it, I’ve never been one to follow the fortunes of a team in any sport until I discovered cricket. I can and do watch it for hours on end.

So how about you - what do you like about cricket?

What do you think about Twenty20?

What do you think about the recent changes to one day internationals (supersub and power plays)?

What do you think about pay tv buying up the rights to cricket matches?
 
 
nedrichards is confused
13:08 / 05.08.05
Twenty20 is super-awesome, although I understand that our Aussie cousins are a bit less enamoured of it than they should be. You know the intensity of Test matches, why they're so good? Well imagine that for county players in a handy post work format so loads of people can turn up. Unlike the dubious pleasures of the one day game it's all action all the way where every ball counts. I could go on about the techniques, how the game has developed over the last few years and how you shouldn't see international players who've never played it before as the state of the art but I'll keep my poweder dry as the second test is getting to boiling point here.

Anecdotal evidence: my mum last played or watched cricket when she was in primary school, my sister has a well known distate for all sport. We took them all down to the Oval for the quarter finals this year and they loved it, can't wait to come back next year. Also there are *loads* of kids there which can only be a good thing.
 
 
Axolotl
14:47 / 05.08.05
Twenty20 is good fun, but nothing compares with the majesty that is a test match. I am also very against the growth of “pyjama cricket” - there’s nothing wrong with white dammit!
I first got into cricket in my teens where I worked in a greengrocers that was stuck in the 1950’s – “Open All Hours” gives you an idea of the shop. Whenever there was a test match the radio would be tuned to TMS and we would sit discussing the match and inform our occasional customer how the batting collapse was going (this was in the mid to late 90s). This was how I learnt to appreciate the both the pace and the skill involved in cricket.
What does worry me is the ECB’s short term thinking in flogging the tests to Sky just when cricket seemed to be gaining in popularity (with no small thanks due to Channel 4’s excellent coverage)
 
 
astrojax69
18:12 / 05.08.05
we're getting ch 4 over in australia on our ethnic broadcaster, sbs, bless 'em! he coverage is quite good, but is a pale imitation of what we are used to here...

broadcasts aside, there is something majestic about the test match that can't be replicated. almost so much so that i am tempted to call them [test / odi] different games, like futsal and football. or wet vs digital photography. or vinyl and cd.

test cricket is like slow food, a simmering casserole that takes vast chunks of time to transform from one thing to another. imagine even now, at close day 2 second test, that england collapse like the all hours shop sides of the 90s and hayden comes out and makes a sharp ton to take australia to a ten wicket win. unlikely, but even that would take a day or so to play out. even more likely is that england get a lot of runs, slowly, australia bats and gets some runs but not enough and england wins a bit.

one day cricket you start off knowing there will be a result. that much is assured. so you start watching it with different expectations. that is the beauty of test cricket. it becomes all about strategies. it becomes more a mind game.

i like the skill and athleticism of cricket, don't get me wrong, but if i were to choose a sport purely on that basis, i'd watch aussie rules or football.
 
 
William Sack
11:45 / 08.08.05
I love cricket as well. I began playing at the age of 11 at school, and then played county youth cricket, club cricket (pretty competitive league stuff), and was lucky enough to play for my university which played first class cricket against the counties. Sorry to blow my own trumpet there, but I have observed great players close up and it really does make me admire them and their skills and abilities, and love the game, all the more.

As Loomis says, it is a game of immense skill. Ok, so we're talking about one of the greats here, but Shane Warne's variety of deliveries, variations of pace, and accuracy requires the most amazing level of skill (which he has backed up with practice). Also, when a batsman is facing a 90mph ball on a quick wicket the reaction speed necessary means that it really is the case that he is playing at the edge of human ability.

Another thing I love about the game is its variety. You have fast bowlers, medium pace bowlers (those who swing it and those who cut it off the pitch), spin bowlers (off-spin, leg-spin, etc. etc.) No 2 bowlers are alike and pitch and weather conditions mean that facing the same bowler on different days is a completely different experience - cannon fodder the one day, unplayable the next. Similarly different conditions favour different batting styles. Then there is field placing; you can position a fielder such that you are not expecting them to take a catch or save runs but merely to make the batsman play differently.

Another thing is courage. Not just in facing the 90mph lump of rock hard leather, but in taking risks or adjusting ones own natural intincts, running up to bowl the 4th ball of the over when the previous 3 have been hit out of the ground. I have played various sports but have never come across the level of aggression I have seen on a cricket pitch. People think of it as polite men in whites and the gentle sound of leather on willow and polite ripples of applause, but cricket at club league standard and above verges on the brutal. And it's great.

I haven't played for a few years now but I really miss it. But I love watching it. Test cricket is my favourite. I haven't seen any 20/20 stuff, but I reckon it's a good thing - as I said, part of the appeal of cricket for me is its variety and seeing the game played at breakneck speed is I'm sure a good thing.

Sorry for the mind-splatter - will come back to the thread to make a more thoughtful contribution.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
11:02 / 02.09.05
I went to a 'Floodlight game' on Tuesday, Kent versus Yorkshire. It was the first time I've been to Canterbury in several years so things were quite different since the last time I went, which was probably a few years back when 20-20 was just coming in. But it was odd, it seemed to be both a 'footballizing' and 'Americanising' of the game at once. I knew that Kent CCC is now 'The Kent Spitfires', and always liked the colourful strips if for no other reason than it made identifying players easier, but now we have a huge screen at the ground that shows almost instant video replay of the last ball bowled, and we have music! Every time a new batsman came out then their team anthem got played, for Yorkshire it was the chorus to 'Every Day I Love You Less and Less' by The Kaiser Chiefs. Every boundary and wicket also got a snatch of music, from EMF to Nirvana to Elton John.

I don't know if this is a floodlight or a one-day game thing, I don't mind everyone waving their fours or the video screen, but the music did seem rather OTT and unnecessary, I suppose I'm just a conservative when it comes to my cricket.

The place was packed out, I don't know whether Kent have had an upsurge in their supporter numbers or whether the late afternoon start time is more convenient for people to attend, but if it was the latter then it's obviously helping with an upswing in public interest in cricket.
 
 
astrojax69
22:37 / 04.09.05
one can only hope that this upswing in interest in cricket - laudable as it is - doesn't ever translate into a sexing up of the test game. music and pomp to keep the crowds pumped for the pyjama game may be ok (well, not really, but that is only my opinion...) but lord (and trafford and 'g) help us if the masses' will ever turns tests into a circus.

the current ashes series shows they have quite enough inherent drama as they are; which would be lost, not added to, were a circus to ensue.

thoughts?
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
09:48 / 05.09.05
Cricket's at an interesting point in the UK. The current Ashes series has fired the public imagination like nothign else in decades. I guess I'm interested in how that new enthusiasm is harnessed/manifests. There's an interesting take on this by Mike Brierly here

Are lots more kids playing cricket in the streets? I agree with astrojax that it's the quality of Test cricket which has captured the imagination, as Brierly notes in that article, the unfolding of high drama over time, but this has been an exceptionally exciting test, especially for those watching with little knowledge.

Incredibly close matches, attacking batting, some fearsome bowling, the mythos of the Ashes series.

As with the excitement generated by football World Cups, it's about seeing the game at its absolute best. It's a challenge to maintain this interest in the face of bland Surrey-Hampshire draws.

Which is where, in the UK at least, things look a little grim given that Sky has the rights for test matches until 2009. There might be a review of that situation, according to Tessa Jowell, but it'll be a bit late by then. Typical cock-up.

Oh, and my personal cricket thing is an odd one. Only in the last few years have I become really enthused by cricket, although I've grown up around it/in my family there was no option but to *know* how cricket works.

My dad was a very fine cricketer, good enough to turn pro, but not allowed to by parents, so I suspect bringing us up with it had something defiant about it.

I did the classic floating supporter thing, being wildly enthused by the classic West Indies teams of the 80s, and vaguely supporting India, but lost interest for a few years until, I think, the last world cup but one, working in a officed where between us, we covered most of the World Cup nations.

The attraction of being allowed to watch telly all day by our cricket-mad boss is obvious, but the friendly rivalry brought it to life in a way I'd forgotten about. It was then that I realised that I'd pretty much osmosed cricketing understanding/knowledge!
 
 
William Sack
12:13 / 05.09.05
I went to my first pyjama game this year, an ODI at the Oval. I had assumed that I would be quite conservative about cricket, but rather surprisingly I rather enjoyed the blasts of music. I really don't think that this approach will be applied to tests though. I don't think that anyone could cope with 5 days of razzmatazz; it starts to get a little wearing after 1.

Are lots more kids playing cricket in the streets?

Just got back from a week's holiday in Devon and I reckon that there were more games on the beach than there used to be. Also spoke to someone from my old club a couple of weeks ago and he told me that it had 220 junior members (compared to about about 50 10 years ago) though that's not simply down to the Ashes '05 effect.

I did the classic floating supporter thing, being wildly enthused by the classic West Indies teams of the 80s

Those teams filled me with dread. You see off Holding and Roberts and then Marshall and Garner come on. Or Ambrose, or Walsh, or Patterson, or Bishop. Terrifying.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
14:19 / 05.09.05
Ha.

Being brought up with a 'anyone against England'/cricket='we show our old colonial masters a thing or two', those games had a slightly different flavour to me.

I have vivid memories as a kid of watching Viv Richards, oh-so-casually smack the ball all over the park. There are some lovely reminiscences by his victims, in this article. the quote here is by John Emburey:

"There was one shot that stands out. I did him in the air when he was trying to hit over long-off or long-on and I thought to myself that I had him. One-handed, he just swung across the line over the midwicket boundary and towards the prison.

"Both was hit for one six that shattered a glass of rum. The ball came back with a piece of glass in it. Looking back, the best thing I could have done was to cut my hand on it and get back into the dressing-room."

For years, every time he walked onto the pitch the atmosphere was electric.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
14:31 / 05.09.05
That WI team of the early 80s was probably the most dominant of recent times. I'd say, even more than the current Aussie one. I have no memory for stats, but here's a nice one from here:

In 27 Test matches between 1982 and 1985, they remained unbeaten; they won 11 Tests in a row during that sequence.

That's ludicroous. And as you say, CJ, their sheer depth of talent was astonishing. I always think that Gorden Greenidge's talent and contribution tend to be massively underestimated, mainly because he emerged around the same time as Viv Richards, but they really were the complete team.

Walking out to face that team must have felt like an execercise in futility!
 
 
Loomis
14:53 / 05.09.05
... *cough* 16 in a row *cough* ...
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
14:54 / 05.09.05
Cripes. Really? I stand corrected.

Interesting. Perhaps I have far more vivid memories/felt invested in that WI run in a way I don't about the Aussie one.

Well done, though.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
14:58 / 05.09.05
(just to note I've asked to moderate last post as I'm not sure what I meant with my question. Think the other stat is in my mind)
 
 
William Sack
11:34 / 06.09.05
GGM - I used to support Somerset CCC as a youngster, partly beccause I was born in Bristol which is not too far away, but mainly because Viv Richards, Ian Botham and Joel Garner played for them. If I could only watch one batsman bat it would be Richards (bowling would be a toss up between Warne and Holding) the most destructive batsman I have ever seen.

Loomis, funnily enough I also automatically think of the WI sides of the 80s rather than the Aussie sides of the 90s and 00s as the most formidable teams of the modern era. It must have been all those 5-0 thrashings they gave us. I forgot to mention Colin Croft above, possibly the most hostile of the lot.
 
 
Loomis
11:58 / 06.09.05
Maybe it's because the Windies bowlers were so intimidating and there was a real chance of serious injury, which tends to focus the mind. Or because of how old you were when they were at the top.
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
13:05 / 06.09.05
The age thing definitely plays a part. I'd also say(and this is quite possibly selective) memory, that there was something immensely dramatic about that team. I'll try and have a think about why.

The intersection of cricket and politics fascinates me. There are the Packer tour/Rebel tour issues, the way the S.African sporting ban was and continues to be extremely important in South Africa. The Zimbabwean tour, and the way that was used as a protest to a world-wide audience. The status of cricket as a colonial import still affects it today.
 
 
Loomis
13:23 / 06.09.05
What do you think about putting test cricket back on the restricted list?

While I'm very much against the deal with Sky for all the obvious reasons, I'm not quite decided on the concept of the govt deciding on which cultural events must be on tv. Even though it should be obvious that test cricket is the single greatest cultural achievement of the human race, the notion of a restircted list seems outdated and quaint in some ways. Although I suppose if it gets cricket back on free to air tv then I'm all for it.

Maybe I just don't like the idea of attempting to fix what's British and what isn't.
 
 
astrojax69
22:26 / 06.09.05
the restricted list should include the ashes - it is australia's culture, like the melbourne cup, like it or not (the latter, for instance, i don't share the aussie passion - how un-australian is that!) - and it should also include the football world cup...

and on a personal note, all of crystal palace's games and probably the premier league (i need both because the likelihood of the two being covered by one is rather remote, sigh)


cricket gets a good outing in australian streets. i don't think i have really noticed a decline in the playing of park/street/beach/backyard etc cricket over the years... i played a bit as a kid, even though i was never much good (still aren't!) and have the excuse that i played golf first and never could get a cricket grip when i wanted to use the vardon grip of golf. but picnic grounds, beachfronts and back gardens all seem to throb to cricket games in the summer - probably more than to park footy games in winter.

i should start a golf thread...
 
 
William Sack
11:25 / 07.09.05
The listing issue is a tough one and a case can be made for all sorts of events (however, I say this not knowing the criteria adopted for listing). A home test series would differ from all the other ones in that it's 25 or 30 days of sport rather than a 90 minute cup final or a Wimbledon finals weekend.

As I understand it, test cricket was de-listed at the behest of the ECB so that they could pursue more lucrative TV deals. The decision to go with Sky might be short-sighted in that just as cricket is encountering a surge in popularity it gets broadcast to fewer people, but the ECB has decided to go with the money. On a personal note I feel pissed off about it in that the only way I can watch test cricket in my home next season is if I choose to put a couple of hundred quid Murdoch's way.

Other cricketing news: Ritchie Benaud retires at the end of this series. I think he has been the best at what he does for a while - authoritative, impartial, nice to listen to, and knowing when to speak and when not to - and he will be missed.
 
 
Loomis
13:23 / 07.09.05
Yeah will be sad to see Richie go, though he will continue to work for channel 9 in Australia. Did you see how diplomatic he was being by not saying anything about the Sky deal?

I personally would never have got into cricket if it wasn't on terrestrial tv, and I'm sure there are millions of others in the same boat. At least I can now afford to pay for cricket, but it's such a bad idea.

One tip though for anyone considering getting sky. We got telewest put in last year which gives us broadband, phone and basic cable for less than what we were paying for just broadband and phone with BT. And once you have telewest you can sign up for a sky sports package for £20 a month. And the beauty is that you can put it on and off, so there's no need to pay for it year round.

Also, a mate of mine who lives in Europe just found a place (linked through cricinfo I think) through which you can subscribe and get test series through broadband. Could be worth a shot.
 
 
William Sack
13:38 / 07.09.05
Did you see how diplomatic he was being by not saying anything about the Sky deal?

I was feeding my sons breakfast when he was being interviewed on the Today programme and they chose that moment to start a Weetabix fight so I didn't hear very much of it. Heard something vaguely diplomatic about it being for the government and the ECB, and not him, to decide whether the Sky bid was the right thing.

I live in an uncabled part of London so I believe Telewest is a non-starter. I would be very interested in finding out about the broadband option though if you could put up the link Loomis. One thing I heard about was that cricket clubs would have to pay the commercial rate for Sky sports subscriptions which is about £2500.
 
 
Loomis
14:06 / 07.09.05
Here you go.
 
 
Loomis
08:54 / 19.10.05
So what do people think about the increasing use of technology that was trialled recently in the super series?

I'm somewhat divided by the use of technology in cricket. On one hand I'd rather leave it to the umpire and take the good with the bad, but I can see why it's becoming increasingly important as there are careers on the line and plenty of money involved. The main problem is that the tv audience has all the technology so they can see every incorrect decision, whereas in the past you wouldn't know.

What really annoyed me in the recent matches was how long it all takes. Every other ball a decision was referred and then you have a time-out session when the entire fielding team stands around, the drinks come out, and the game stops. This gets pretty tedious after a while, and I can imagine how it affects the concentration of the batsmen.

I'm concerned also that, just as umpires used to be criticised for incorrect decisions, now they are being criticised for not refering a difficult one, and also for referring supposedly easy ones. It's easy to see that if they continue in this vein then soon all decisions will be referred as a matter of policy. And then the game will slow to a halt.
 
 
astrojax69
01:25 / 20.10.05
i watched much of the one day series and almost all of the test (the latter as i was strick with a 'norsty' [thanks tony] flu)

at the odi level, the tech intervention is ok as this is still a pyjama game and not 'real crikkut' so i don't overly care.

as for the test, i think the umps having the stump mikes in their earpiece is briliant, but the rest should pretty much be at the human discretion of the man in the middle. mebbe a run-out or stumping, where the cameras can be pretty well assured of getting the salient features of the decision in frame, but the whole lbw, caught, etc is time wasting and still doesn't always seem very clear.

unless the technology can be used at all/many levels of crikkut, at least 1st class matches, then i don't really see it having a place in the serious test arena. let mankind make mistakes - we're really good at that!


tech aside, i thought the concept of a super series was ok, but mebbe played at a time and venue not necessarily the champion team's home ground. play it in bangladesh, bring top class crikkut to the poorer masses. give it a purpose.
 
 
Loomis
07:19 / 20.10.05
That's a good idea. If the only purpose of it is an an exhibition then it might as well be play somewhere where they will appreciate it. The stands were half empty in Oz. Then again, they're not going to be able to charge Bangladeshis the type of ticket prices they did in Australia.
 
 
astrojax69
22:25 / 20.10.05
but if it is a game to promote the game, the icc should give away half/all the tickets to kids and local club players, mebbe even have a twenty/20 game the afternoon before the test with the rotw vs bangladesh, get the locals piqued?
 
 
Loomis
07:11 / 21.10.05
That's a very big "if" my friend. "If" the ICC gave a shit about promoting the game then they would not have sold the future tv rights to Sky.
 
 
William Sack
12:07 / 21.10.05
That was the ECB not the ICC Loomis, but I get your drift. On the sell off point, I believe that there is going to be some sort of parliamentary scrutiny of the decision. What that means I don't know; presumably some toothless committee will investigate and be empowered to conclude that "it's a bit of a shame."

On technology - good point about wanting the game at the top to be as close as possible to the game at all levels, Astrojax. It was something I was thinking when the issue of Super Subs came up. From what I read of the tech trial in the ICC super series most people feel that it was not a success. Obviously it is desirable that umpires get decisions right; at the top level they do get a hefty majority of them right (some say their error margins are substantially better than the players').

As it stands there doesn't seem to be an easy way of incorporating tech into the umpiring process. Referring to the 3rd umpire is time consuming and disrupts the flow of the game, as Loomis has said. It also adds a new layer to decision-making, and, as we have seen with run-outs, there will be a tendency to over-refer, meaning more stoppages.

My view, keep it as it is but keep an open mind.

Upthread there was mention of whether the Ashes made more people want to play cricket. Well, I have not played for a few years and I have decided to join a club for next season. This summer's excitement played a major part in that decision.
 
 
Loomis
13:21 / 21.10.05
Oops, I knew it was the ECB, honest ...

But same goes for both really. They both constantly remind me that they don't have the best interest of the game at heart.

As for playing cricket, even I was inspired to possibly play next season, and that's pretty good going for someone who played one season at the age of ten, sucked extremely hard and never tried again. Anyone know if your average club is used to adult beginners or is that a rarity?

One thing to remember though, if you're playing cricket on the weekend then you can't also be watching it.
 
 
William Sack
13:52 / 21.10.05
Ah, but if you're in a Skyless household and your club has paid its £2500 commercial rate Sky subscription then watching in the pavilion while your team is batting is your best chance of seeing any test cricket. Of course, I plan on spending as much time as possible at the crease, so I might not see much.

I think any club would welcome anyone to join it. Go for it!
 
 
William Sack
14:08 / 21.10.05
'Spending time at the crease' - there's not a sport to touch cricket for intriguing terminology. cf. silly point, googly, long leg etc etc.
 
 
Loomis
14:29 / 21.10.05
Very good points.

Shit. I was about to make a remark about any team being happy to have an Australian aboard in the assumption that we all have innate cricketing ability. But then I realised that I can't really make those comments anymore. *sniff* I want our ashes back.

Yeah, the terminology is ace. Who wants "half-time" when you can break for lunch and tea instead?

Hey, did you read about Nathan Bracken mentioning that some English bowlers aid reverse swing by putting sugary saliva on the ball after sucking on sweets? I wish he could have shared that information with our bowlers a few months ago. They could have done with a bit of help moving the ball!
 
 
William Sack
14:34 / 21.10.05
Cricketers are terrible with their assumptions and stereotypes. In one of the sides I used to play for we had a West Indian born opening bowler. He wasn't desperately quick but people just assumed "West indian, must bowl at 90 mph." We used to play up to it in the slips by standing back about 25 yards before he bowled the first ball of the match.

Yeah I heard about the sugary saliva. Nothing to stop the Aussies eating polos though.
 
 
astrojax69
22:53 / 23.10.05
only the taste, cash, only the taste!
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply