Re: What is the current level of forummers cricket interest?

by Brass Monkey Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:42 pm

Poider, you're lacking substance. You're like a f*cking ricecake.....

by PeterCS Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:47 pm

The marmite ones aren't bad.

Or the yoghurt coated ones. Now you're talking turkey.

by Brass Monkey Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:48 pm

Disagree. About the yoghurt ones anywho. Chocolate ones are actually good. Still, all in all they are as filling as 3 words, or a number, metaphorically speaking.

by JKLever Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:49 pm

Brass Monkey wrote:I think I lied... I reckon I've seen highlights from about 80% of the CL matches. Saying that, they're condensed into such a small package that even kids with ADHD who've just eaten a box of red smarties and caned two cans of coke could put up with it.

It's still all a bit meh isn't it?

my interest was piqued because the club v club format was a little different but at the end of the day it's still T20

by PeterCS Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:51 pm

Brass Monkey wrote:Disagree. About the yoghurt ones anywho. Chocolate ones are actually good. Still, all in all they are as filling as 3 words, or a number, metaphorically speaking.

Magic.

Simple solution, consume cartons of them constantly.

Not the cartons. Some can't taste the difference though. That's class.

by Brass Monkey Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:52 pm

PeterCS wrote:
Magic.

Simple solution, consume cartons of them constantly.

Not the cartons. Some can't taste the difference though. That's class.

That's it, that's the metaphor for a topbottom (even a secret topbottom as you are doing).

by Brass Monkey Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:53 pm

JKLever wrote:
It's still all a bit meh isn't it?

my interest was piqued because the club v club format was a little different but at the end of the day it's still T20

Oh yeah, definitely, but as I say it doesn't take long to watch the highlights and see the inferior skill sets shown by 70% of the players.

by horace Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:56 am

Brass Monkey wrote:
JKLever wrote:
It's still all a bit meh isn't it?

my interest was piqued because the club v club format was a little different but at the end of the day it's still T20

Oh yeah, definitely, but as I say it doesn't take long to watch the highlights and see the inferior skill sets shown by 70% of the players.

the Banindians and the English???

the standard of play has been exemplified by the success of the Goat (dirty dirk nannes) who played for the delhi deadheads (instead of Victoria)...the Goat has been clearly the best bowler of the tournament...and he can only get an international game with Holland

by JKLever Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:05 am

Damn you're so good you Australians.

ICCCCCCT winners, domestic teams soooooo good, Ashes winners etc.

by G.Wood Wed Oct 21, 2009 10:08 am

and I thought Qlders had massive chips

by Hass Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:00 pm

Red wrote:

I endorse the comments about it being fluky and not real cricket etc. but I would contest the notion that it's merely a batsmen's game. Average scores are increasingly heading south as bowlers work out what deliveries to bowl at the death, how to minimise scoring and so on. And if, as is becoming more of a trend, curators prepare pitches which are hard to score on,or which are conducive to good seam bowling, the bowlers are actually favoured as the batsmen have no time to worry about survival or play themselves in.

This is where the charges that Twenty20 makes cricket more like baseball ring true.

I contend that the biggest difference between cricket and baseball is the fact that baseball forces a batter to score/run even if they don't want to (and that cricket allows a batsman to continue batting until he is out).

The pitcher has an in-built advantage.

I don't want to see bowlers getting batsmen out simply because a batsman is forced to play unnaturally risky cricket. I want to see the bowler get a batsman out because he is better than him... if only for one ball/over/innings.

Can someone tell me why when we limit the number of overs in cricket we don't also limit the number of wickets? Surely a 3-hour match where both sides only have a total of five or six wickets would be more faithful to the game's roots? Or is giving each team 10 wickets no matter how much time is available sacrosanct?

by taipan Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:10 pm

Hass wrote:
Can someone tell me why when we limit the number of overs in cricket we don't also limit the number of wickets? Surely a 3-hour match where both sides only have a total of five or six wickets would be more faithful to the game's roots? Or is giving each team 10 wickets no matter how much time is available sacrosanct?

It's called 6 a side cricket.

by simkat Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:42 pm

taipan wrote:Here's an idea. Why don't we have day/night test matches with a pink ball?

What is the current level of forummers cricket interest? - Page 3 Doof

by taipan Wed Oct 21, 2009 5:51 pm

Sorry SK, whatever that is, it's not loading.

by simkat Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:11 pm

You're not missing much - I'm blocking my ears and saying "la la la" geek

by taipan Wed Oct 21, 2009 6:13 pm

Hey don't blame the messenger.

by Hass Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:30 pm

taipan wrote:
Hass wrote:
Can someone tell me why when we limit the number of overs in cricket we don't also limit the number of wickets? Surely a 3-hour match where both sides only have a total of five or six wickets would be more faithful to the game's roots? Or is giving each team 10 wickets no matter how much time is available sacrosanct?

It's called 6 a side cricket.

I was thinking of something more along the lines of 11 players taking part but only 6 or 7 getting to bat. 6-a-side cricket just makes it easy to score runs at will, which is the opposite of what I'm trying to achieve.

There's room for a game of cricket which can be finished in 3-4 hours, but I'm starting to think that Twenty20 is less like cricket with every passing day.

by taipan Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:32 pm

Maybe that's the problem.

We should stop stop looking at it as cricket

by WideWally Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:36 pm

I'm trying to organise a competition that involves a cross between Women's Twenty20 cricket & Ultimate Surrender.

Any thoughts?

by taipan Wed Oct 21, 2009 9:42 pm

Does it include mud wrestling?

by Gen Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:29 pm

Waaahaaaa

by tac Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:39 pm

Hass wrote:
Red wrote:

I endorse the comments about it being fluky and not real cricket etc. but I would contest the notion that it's merely a batsmen's game. Average scores are increasingly heading south as bowlers work out what deliveries to bowl at the death, how to minimise scoring and so on. And if, as is becoming more of a trend, curators prepare pitches which are hard to score on,or which are conducive to good seam bowling, the bowlers are actually favoured as the batsmen have no time to worry about survival or play themselves in.

This is where the charges that Twenty20 makes cricket more like baseball ring true.

I contend that the biggest difference between cricket and baseball is the fact that baseball forces a batter to score/run even if they don't want to (and that cricket allows a batsman to continue batting until he is out).

The pitcher has an in-built advantage.

I don't want to see bowlers getting batsmen out simply because a batsman is forced to play unnaturally risky cricket. I want to see the bowler get a batsman out because he is better than him... if only for one ball/over/innings.

Can someone tell me why when we limit the number of overs in cricket we don't also limit the number of wickets? Surely a 3-hour match where both sides only have a total of five or six wickets would be more faithful to the game's roots? Or is giving each team 10 wickets no matter how much time is available sacrosanct?

Hass, I've been feeling for a while that there should be something like a wickets in hand bonus in T20 . . .

by JGK Thu Oct 22, 2009 8:58 pm

WideWally wrote:I'm trying to organise a competition that involves a cross between Women's Twenty20 cricket & Ultimate Surrender.

Any thoughts?

We could just stick to Ultimate Surrender.

by Brass Monkey Thu Oct 22, 2009 9:17 pm

WideWally wrote:I'm trying to organise a competition that involves a cross between Women's Twenty20 cricket & Ultimate Surrender.

Any thoughts?

Quality. I just saw this. I'd subscribe.

by Sponsored content