FFS, let's just call it baseball and be done with it

Zat wrote:And PCS, one picture was fine, but please take your ADHD somewhere else, there's a good lad...

The implied point was that "baseball" (meaning: instant gratification by force of blows, and laughably ugly slogging) is already very well established in one form of the game, and so Trev was a bit behind the times and off the point.

ONE such picture might have suggested I was just having a go at one ugly slogging player, or some rare anomaly in the presently constituted game. The selection of four heinous shots was meant to indicate it is more widespread. Perhaps a better word would be "characteristic".

This point seems to have sailed over your choleric, supposedly "non-ADHD" head, and right into the frankfurter stands ...

Find fault all you like, Herr Kommandant. We can all do that.

Ah...

Well, if only there was some way you could perhaps have communicated that concept at the time of posting. Maybe we need to develop some sort of squiggly lines and standardised shapes that can accompany pictures on the internet...

Wot Nath said...

Brass Monkey wrote:Aye, on reflection it's a f'awesome idea. I reckon there should be an organ playing throughout, maybe some bullsh!t tune that sounds like a kid is slapping the keys. The (20-stone average) crowd could all wear caps and have hotdogs thrown to them. Then the crowd can all go home and f*ck pigs and/or their sister-wives.

Back in your box Cletus, your gun fetish is showing...

excellent ... readers' 5ives ...

Zat wrote:I read the article in the SMH this morning and thought it has more merit than t20 cricket has to claim being like cricket.

It's still 50 overs a side, but it removes the discrepancies between batting first and batting second. And given that at many (most?) venues with lights, whether you bat first or not is a major determining factor in the result, that's a good thing.

It seems fairer than the 2xt20 format.

And it gets rid of the Duckworth-Lewis method. Which is also a good thing.

On the downside is the name. 5ives Cricket. Really? And I'd question the need for 'bonus points' through the game, although that might be useful in tournaments as a tiebreaker.

Do the positives outweigh the negatives? To my mind, yes.

And what of the enjoyment of watching a batsman get his eye in, build an innings, and then explode at the end? That will be gone if they only have 10 overs before the other side starts batting. Ruins the rhythm of things.

It would add a whole new challenge, as the batsman resumes his innings ten overs later. I mean, it's hardly lie cricket doesn't have plenty of other breaks where a player has to resume an innings after a break.

We've got the snack cricket, it's the form you don't like. Why have two snacky forms? My mummy said I can only eat one snack before dinner.

Zat wrote:It would add a whole new challenge, as the batsman resumes his innings ten overs later. I mean, it's hardly lie cricket doesn't have plenty of other breaks where a player has to resume an innings after a break.

A whole new challenge? Yes it would be. Just like it would be a whole new challenge for a batsman if the bowler got to throw the ball, he has to run if he hits it, and the bat is a rounded shape.

You do understand that the proposal is all about the inings beiung broken up, not starting afresh every ten overs, don't you?

Yes I understand that. I just like to see batsmen working themselves into good innings, and bowlers working their way into good spells. I like a continuing contest between a certain bowler and a certain batsman that isn't suddenly interrupted by a 'change over'.

Essentially, one extended innings from one team followed by another extended innings from another team is what makes cricket cricket, no? I've never been watching an ODI and thinking "I'm bored of watching this team bat, I wanna see the other team in there now for 10 overs".

I get bored of ODIs if the crowd is poor, the teams are unevenly matched or if it's the seventh game of a series that ultimately means nothing apart from air time for sponsors and local politicians.

If none of those things are occurring, ODIs aren't too bad.

Aye, I'm totally with you Trev.

So do we get rid of day/night matches, because in some places batting under lights is a massive disadvantage and makes the game an unfair contest.

I don't think so. Not every D/N match holds an advantage and teams seem to be able to overcome any disadvantage more and more. Even those English spastics did in the last home match of the Inditwat tour. Leave it as is, I don't know why the ODI seems to be suffering this malaise. Everyone turns up still, there's some decentish cricket played - heck, it may have even have a bit of new found support for being 'purer' than T20s....

Yes exactly. Especially the point about the crowds. They're still strong in England and India. ODI crowds in Aus have suffered a dip but I think that's partly down to scheduling.