Cricket is Shit.

Let's just be honest, modern cricket is shit. There's no skill to it, it's boring, lots of crap players are averaging over 45, and Ian Bell. Modern cricket is shit.

And what of modem cricket?

Chivalry Augustus wrote:Let's just be honest, modern cricket is shit. There's no skill to it, it's boring, lots of crap players are averaging over 45, and Ian Bell. Modern cricket is shit.

And your remedy is?

Is this just the normal response to a Kallis century?

JKLever wrote:Is this just the normal response to a Kallis century?

His century today was pretty quick by normal FatJacques standards.

vilkrang wrote:

JKLever wrote:Is this just the normal response to a Kallis century?

His century today was pretty quick by normal FatJacques standards.

At least he knows how to get from ninety to a hundred.

And your remedy is?

Allow bowlers to again take an equal part in the game.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

And your remedy is?

Allow bowlers to again take an equal part in the game.

Aye, the homegising of the decks is removing a great deal of interest. The may as well be malfoid.

The WACA aint what it was, where's the SCG bunsens of the 80s. Even the MCG no longer rolls along the ground from day 3 onwards

G.Wood wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

And your remedy is?

Allow bowlers to again take an equal part in the game.

Aye, the homegising of the decks is removing a great deal of interest. The may as well be malfoid.

The WACA aint what it was, where's the SCG bunsens of the 80s. Even the MCG no longer rolls along the ground from day 3 onwards

History ain't what it used to be huh?

skully's "blancmange" (yes, that's mange) is right with respect to pitches generally around the world. With that said, I'm certain there are far less drawn games than in the post war past. There really was some tedious no shot offered crap that I've sat through.

I truly wouldn't mind seeing bowlers on top in say 2 of a 5 test series.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

G.Wood wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

And your remedy is?

Allow bowlers to again take an equal part in the game.

Aye, the homegising of the decks is removing a great deal of interest. The may as well be malfoid.

The WACA aint what it was, where's the SCG bunsens of the 80s. Even the MCG no longer rolls along the ground from day 3 onwards

History ain't what it used to be huh?

skully's "blancmange" (yes, that's mange) is right with respect to pitches generally around the world. With that said, I'm certain there are far less drawn games than in the post war past. There really was some tedious no shot offered crap that I've sat through.

I truly wouldn't mind seeing bowlers on top in say 2 of a 5 test series.

I think it was Athers who said that the most interesting tests are those where both sides score no more than 250 in their first innings.

This requires a monumental shift in thinking from the ICC and the various domestic boards with their insistence on bland pitches that last five days. It also requires the ICC to visibly support groundsmen who prepare sporting pitches which might not not necessarilly favour the home side.

This requires a monumental shift in thinking from the ICC and the various domestic boards with their insistence on bland pitches that last five days. It also requires the ICC to visibly support groundsmen who prepare sporting pitches which might not not necessarilly favour the home side.

It would take a nation such as RSA to lead the way Bas. If there is more happening, more drama, more uncertaintly then attendances lift and ratings increase. Other boards on the alert for the lucre may follow.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

This requires a monumental shift in thinking from the ICC and the various domestic boards with their insistence on bland pitches that last five days. It also requires the ICC to visibly support groundsmen who prepare sporting pitches which might not not necessarilly favour the home side.

It would take a nation such as RSA to lead the way Bas. If there is more happening, more drama, more uncertaintly then attendances lift and ratings increase. Other boards on the alert for the lucre may follow.

That's sensible but it might need the groundsmen to be centrally contracted to the ICC to make it work.

I think having a couple of great leggies and quick bowlers would also make the cricket more interesting.

JGK wrote:I think having a couple of great leggies and quick bowlers would also make the cricket more interesting.

No question, but you'd agree there has to be encouragement for them to emerge. Selectors and captains need to be provided with an environment where they can flourish, particularly in nations outside India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and here.

That's sensible but it might need the groundsmen to be centrally contracted to the ICC to make it work.

Nice idea Bas but I can't see that happening. Let's be honest, you blokes showed the way with T20 and the bandwagon is overflowing. We've gone down a path whereby bats are dominating which leads to unbalanced contests which is why we are talking on this thread.

We want arm wrestles over 4 or 4.5 days where all players in each team have their time in the match.

Cricket is shit, I still watch it.

what am I ?

buckSH wrote:

what am I ?

You are not the first person who has wondered about that.

HE IS NOT AN ANIMAL!

Jesus, maybe I should be a c*ck and start flagging up people's posting out of the blue for no reason. Maybe I should start joining the forum norm of being a general d!ckhead when life gets me down. Maybe I should take reality out on people who I feel won't or can't defend themselves on an internet forum. Maybe, maybe, maybe...


Maybe I should pick out specific people's posting style...oh the possibilities.

Do you need a hug , Smerky?

Did some welsh wench knock you back smerkle?

G.Wood wrote:Did some welsh wench knock you back smerkle?

He's just realised he's the only one in the village.

DJ_Smerk wrote:Jesus, maybe I should be a c*ck and start flagging up people's posting out of the blue for no reason. Maybe I should start joining the forum norm of being a general d!ckhead when life gets me down. Maybe I should take reality out on people who I feel won't or can't defend themselves on an internet forum. Maybe, maybe, maybe...


Maybe I should pick out specific people's posting style...oh the possibilities.

Whoa.... was this out of context, or have I missed something?