Can cricket buck the trend?

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Milo

Let's be honest FF...a 4 is a 4 is a 4 is a 4 as they say.

My point entirely.

[Occasional Fan]

But, Flanflinger, if you really believe that, you should be watching the test match on Cricinfo's text commentary. That is the only medium in which I think I can agree with you. Listen to the radio or watch the TV and I am sure - absolutely sure - that you would have to admit that some fours are better than others to watch.

[flanflinger]

OF,

Oh yeah I agree with you there. Some shots are better to watch then others. And I admit that I enjoy watching the glorious shots that batsmen like Vaughan, Tendulkar, Ponting, Laxman and Lara play.

However, there is always a place for the moo shot. And the fact is that it gets you the same amount of runs..

[Milo]

OF. The game of cricket is a sport. It is really about winning and losing - and not, I am afraid to say, entertaining the public. We can dress it up as much as we like, but the scorebook is the most important component of the game. There are no awards for who looked the prettiest, who should have won, who deserved to win. The world cup is won in the book and so are the Ashes.

One four is equally as important as the other. This is why Hayden (who let's face it, looks bloody awful) is as valuable to the team irrespective of what the armchiar fan might think, as a Dravid, Ponting, Lara or Tendulkar. If not, the best player in the world is Carl Hooper.

[Milo]

Originally Posted by flanflinger

OF,

Oh yeah I agree with you there. Some shots are better to watch then others. And I admit that I enjoy watching the glorious shots that batsmen like Vaughan, Tendulkar, Ponting, Laxman and Lara play.

FF, the most important two words in your post here are 'watch' and 'watching', pretty irrelevant ones in the big picture, don't you think. Cricket isn't Eastenders - it's not primarily a form of entertainment; it is a competition between two opposing teams. If people gain enjoyment through watching it then that is a bonus. I would much rather play the game, and I know you would too.

[Occasional Fan]

Originally Posted by Milo

OF. The game of cricket is a sport. It is really about winning and losing - and not, I am afraid to say, entertaining the public.

Well, let's assume the worst and that the public one day ceases to be entertained. So it stops turning up. And stops paying Sky TV 40 quid a month to watch the game. How long does the sport survive then at a professional level? Measurable in minutes, I'd say. The game must entertain the public or it dies - there is nothing else to keep it alive. The debate here is really about what entertains the public more - Rachael's game or Flanflinger's (with apologies to both for using their names as shorthand).

Originally Posted by Milo

There are no awards for who looked the prettiest, who should have won, who deserved to win.

Stop entertaining the public and there are no awards. Full stop.

Originally Posted by Milo

The world cup is won in the book and so are the Ashes.

That's true, and for that reason your statement that one four is equally important as another is also true - however, I don't think I suggested otherwise. I did suggest that some are better to watch than others (and we can argue about which are better and which are worse until the cows come home), and I do believe that at least some of them have to be great to watch to keep the public entertained. Cricket is not something that the world has to have to survive - at the most fundamental level it is only about entertainment.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Rachael

Interesting discussion on Talksport earlier. The main commentator couldn't quite bring himself to say that Key looked elegant when batting.. and Atherton chipped in immediately with "I know exactly what you mean": they agreed that Key, even when playing well, looked to "club", rather than (as the truly elegent players would do) "stroke" the ball.

Trouble is it is not in the main the elegent players that get the bulk of the runs, and I would not call Key an all out clubber.

With respect it is talkSPORT, not TALKsport.

[Milo]

Well OF ,we can go round in circles on this one, even though we probably agree on the essentials. The public are interested by the very nature of cricket being a sport, they will gain their excitement through supporting either team and seeing whether that team wins. Only the purist (a real minority) watches any sport when they have no vested interest in the result - and they aren't going to deterine whether a sport sinks or swims. I'd suggest 95% of the people paying at the turnstyles in England do so to see England win, not to analyse the day's play to the extent many do on this board. They will not be bothered by how the result is achieved but simply by who wins. I can safely say the sport is well and truly OK, even if the game isn't. This is why 20-20 has proved so popular - people like to see a sporting contest with winners and losers.

It's not about Rachael's vs Flanfinger's preference. Let's not confuse this board with the public at large.

[Richie Benauds Love Child]

From your comments on here Rachael I'm suprised that you didnt have cutouts of fred perry stood about on open days and hand out 30 year old wooden rackets to your new charges

Butr no, you want your students to win win win so its new rackets and shorts all round.

I digress. Cricket will always attract natural athletes, big fred like power men and dimutive tendulkars with great touch, they will always appear, as they obvioulsy have a God given talent and will win matches at any level you like.

Yes Rach, cricket will buck the trend.

[flanflinger]

Originally Posted by Milo

It's not about Rachael's vs Flanfinger's preference. .

Hey, I am not averse to "touch" play as Rachael calls it!! I like good batsmen, however I am not going to denegarte a player just cause he doesn't play only MCC Coaching Manual shots.

With Vaughan and Harmison today we saw two very entertaining innings, Harmisons smashing the ball for four and Vaughan playing with all the timing and grace that God gave him. Did I enjoy one more than the other, not really. I enjoyed both innigs equally. The same goes for Strauss and Key yesterday. I do not belive that you have to choose to like power and if you choose that you canont enjoy Grace.

If Rachael had her way anyone who happens to like one of Freddie's booming drives should be slowly encouraged to find another sport.

I don't think that you have to choose, you can enjoy both aspects equally.