Does anyone think cricket is flawed ?

[Dan26]

Before I start on this, let me explain that I love the game. I've played "indoor" cricket (different game I know) for about 15 years, and I have played a bit of outdoor cricket from time to time as well. Pretty handy bowler if I do say so myself.

But, let me ask you all this :

If you were "designing" the game of cricket from scratch 150 years ago, would you allow a loophole which allows the game to go for 5 days and be a "draw"

Would you allow the game to go for 5 days, period ?

I mean the aim of the game should be to showcase the natural talents of the batter against the bowler, right ? Can't this be done in a time frame less than 5 days ?

One day cricket gives you a result in 6 hours, but even this is flawed. One team bats first, while the other team follows them and bats last. Stats show that the team who bats first, wins about 60% of matches.

Wouldn't it "fairer" (in principle), if the teams batted in stints of 25 overs each, so that they both have to bat under lights in the second session ?

Look at Baseball. To win a game, you have to get 27 "outs". But you don't have to get them all in a row. It's not like the New York Yankess bat first and they have to go "out" 27 times, then the opposition comes in and tries to beat their total. The teams take turns batting so there is no advantage. They swap over after 3 "outs"

There must be a better way to showcase the talents of the batters and bowlers, in a way that doesn't take 6 or 7 hours, and that is "fair" on both teams.

Obviously, because of the tradition of the game, it is probably unworkable, but I was asking if you were designing the game from scratch 150 years ago, what would be the best way ?

 

[teddy3]

Cricket is boring. Give me footy anyday!!!

 

[walshy1993]

dan why doesnt test cricket showcase the natural ability of a batman against a bowler
cricket is a game of skill, mind games and concentration, i love test cricket much more than one day cricket
all sports are different, and i dont see a flaw.
and when cricket was designed all those years ago there couldnt be a draw, games used to be played out until the finished, its only in the modern era that test matched have been restricted to five days
one day cricket is designed for the fans
test cricket is for the players, i love it just the way it is and i dont think i would want it changed

by the way, you dont play indoor cricket at tullamarine by any chance do u?

 

[Dan26]

Walshy,

Test cricket DOES showcase the natural abilities of the batter against the bowler. But why does it have to take 30 hours to do this ? Surely there must be some way to pit the skills of a batter against a bowler in a time frame less than 30 hours.

I'm a big baseball fan. Baseball is probably the best designed game in the world. I think it is close to flawless in it's design. I don't think people should criticize it because it's American, because it has a history just as rich as cricket.

If Austrlians were brought up playing baseball, and cricket was played in the USA, we'd all be saying how good baseball is and how crap cricket is. It all depends on what you are brought up with.

But I disagree with you walshy. I think there is a lot of things that could be done to improve cricket, the majority of which wouldn't be accepted due to traditions.

But my question wasn't about tradition. My question, was if you were designing cricket from scratch, what would we do to keep the "skills' of the game the same (identical), but make it so that a result can be acheived in a "normal" timeframe ?

Cricket has advantages over baseball, in that the batter can showcase his talents in a 360 degree ares. He also has to contend with the ball coming at him in various ways (i.e on the full, on the bounce, at his throat, yorker etc etc)

This, in essence is the basic skill of cricket. The batter, contending with various stlyes of bowling coming at him in various way, and being able to play shots in a 360 degree area.

So, how can we showcase this skill of cricket in a time frame similar to baseball, so that we don't take 30 hours to play a game which isn't even guaranteed a result.

 

[-TotalFooty2000-]

Test Cricket is also a game of endurance. If a player can perform at his best over a period of time ie 1st innings, or then back it up in the 2nd innings, then he is considered to have played very well. Players must be able to stand out in the field for, on average, 6 hours a day, and concentrate every ball, prepared in case the ball flies in hisher direction.

Top bowlers must be expected to bowl for up to 2 hours non-stop (well except for the break inbetween overs). Pace bowlers are expected to hit top pace once the second new ball is introduced.

Maybe one-day cricket is our alternative to baseball. Allan Border used to play baseball, and of course was deadly from midwicket on those short singles. I think the Chappells played as well, at least Ian did?

I went to the Boxing Day Ashes Test in 1998. The last day (1st day washed out, 4 day match) went for 8 hours. Talk about value for money. England set us a target, and we failed to get it. Steve Waugh played well, trying to hang in with the tailenders, and copped a lot of flak for his tactics. Still I thought it was a great Test Match, as good as any baseball match if you ask me.

Test Cricket has dot balls, baseball has balls and strikes. No real difference is there?

Test Cricket - the way Australia play it - is alive and well if you ask me.

------------------
Go to Total Footy

 

[Dan26]

All this stuff about endurance is a load of rubbish if you ask me. Yes, I understand what you are saying, but here me out.

The game of cricket itslef, was not designed to test endurance. It just happens, that it was designed in such a way that it took 30 damn hours to finish. It's actually played at quite a leisurely pace.

The game of cricket itself was designed to test the batters skill at hitting, or placing a ball devlivered at him by a bowler in various ways (on the full, yorker, at the throat etc etc)

A fielder standing in the sun for 6 hours really has got nothing to do with endurance. Some fielders at deep long-on might only field one ball for the whole day. Have a look at Merv Hughes's physique and it makes us laugh when we talk about an elite athlete.

Just because they are "playing the game" for 6 hours in the field, doesn't mean they are working hard. Even a fast bowler, who bowls 30 overs in a day, can have a break between overs. Sure, he has to run in and deliver 180 balls in a day, but an elite athlete should be able to do that. A great player like Michael Holding hadly ever had to break a sweat becasue his run up was so relaxed. It was all in the delivery stride.

There MUST be a way to showacse the TRUE skill of cricket in less than 6 hours. When I say the TRUE skill, I mean the skill of a batter facing a bowler and being able to place a ball, coming at him at a variety of paces, lines and lenghts at any point on a 360 degree field. That is what cricket was designed to do.

I mean, in ONE DAY cricket, why does one team bat for a full 50 overs then another team chases ? That's stupid. Stats have shown that the team batting first has an unfair advantage. Why can't teams bat for 25 overs, then the next teams bats ? Then the first team comes out again for 25 overs, then the last teams bats again.

The teams should be treated equally. It shouldn't come down to a coin toss.

And what about the circle that restricts fielders for 15 overs ? In baseball, you don't see any batters gettng preferential treatement. All the batters in baseball play under the same rules. Yet, in cricket, the opening batters have an unfair advantage that other batters don't get. The opening batters get the advantage of the field being up for the first 15 overs. You shouldn't be able to do that. You have to treat all the players equally.

Come on people, there MUST be a way to showcase a batters skill against a bowler in a time period that resembles a "normal" sport.

I mean, you could start by having an 8 ball over. That would reduce the amount of time players change ends (which takes up a ridiculous amount of time) A 40 over match with 6 ball overs (240 balls) would only need to be played over 30 overs, if 8-ball overs were used. It would still be 240 balls.

We could play with less players. Who says 11 is the right number ? Is 11 right ? If, so...says who ? Perhaps 9 would be better, with interchange available.

We are trying to test the batters ability to hit a ball delivered to him, aren't we ? So, what if the batter was given out if he went more than 3 balls without scoring. This would create a higher turnover of batters and quicken matches.

I'm just fantasising here. But remeber, I'm asking you to think back 150 years ago. The game hasn't been invented yet. How do we showcase the skills I talked about in a "normal" time frame ? How do we make the game as flawless as baseball ?

[This message has been edited by Dan24 (edited 21 October 2000).]

 

[Grendel]

Dan, crickets been played for a lot longer the 150 years, it can be traced to around 1760-80's peroid when it first really became popular.

As to the assumption that five days should produce a result. Well sometimes it does and sometimes it doesnt. Your more or less stating that a draw should never happen. What about delays in play due to rain? A bowler breaking down? A flat track with no assitance to a bowler? A batsman with an eye 'in' whos just having a great match and things are going his way. Dropped catches, missed run outs, lack of concentration at its most vital point. Thats where your arguement against endurance doesnt stand up.

Endurance is more the just the physical. Mental endurance to be ready when THAT ball comes your way after sitting at long off all day and not having any action come your way. You might be 10 minutes from stumps on the 2nd day after batting/bowling for five hours and all of a sudden a result could hinge on you being prepared to take THAT catch which could either win or lose you the match.

Thats why batsmen get so frustrated when a Mark Waugh comes on with those little bald offies and cleans up a Lara whos just seen off Mcgrath/Fleming/Gillespie and Warne. Concentration and endurance hand in hand.

I was a quick bowler (well medium quick for a short arse, could swing it though and had a great yorker) too. As a bowler you should HATE batsmen with a passion. But its really their show. If the weight of the game was swung to even up the contest between bat and ball then a result would probably occour everytime. However it would also reduce the watchabilty of the game as well.

Crickets evolved to the point where its now one of the puresest tests of sporting ability and mental endurance that people can play. I like it just fine as it is. Cheers.

ps no smilie beers as you dont drink

 

[The Ball]

Grendel said;

"Crickets evolved to the point where its now one of the puresest tests of sporting ability and mental endurance that people can play."

Not if the bookmakers have there way.

:

 

[The Ball]

The thing that is interesting about baseball is that it is one of the few sports in the world that has no set time limit as to how long the game must go for. Eg; in soccer 90 minites must be played etc.

There is only a minimum of nine innings that must be played. To complete those inniings could take 2 hours or five hours.

However, you could have up to 20 innings if needed as there cannot be a draw.

Anyway cannot wait for the "subway series" to start.

 

[WCE2000]

Originally posted by Dan24:
All this stuff about endurance is a load of rubbish if you ask me. Yes, I understand what you are saying, but here me out.

The game of cricket itslef, was not designed to test endurance. It just happens, that it was designed in such a way that it took 30 damn hours to finish. It's actually played at quite a leisurely pace.

Dan, although cricket is played at a leisurely pace, i can assure you that it is one of the most gruelling sports in the world, both mentally and physically.

Picture the scene:

You've gone to sleep at 3am, woken at at 7am, so you can get out to Penrith (a suburb way out West in Sydney) at 10.00.
You've a Splitting Headache from Friday Night.
The temperate at Penrith is 40 degrees, theres not a breath of wind and the captain gives you the ball to open the bowling.
You bowl your 10 overs in unbeliavable heat with a huge hangover, and you get belted for 50 runs without a wicket.
As the day continues, you've managed to get over your hangover more or less, however the exhuastion is setting in, and your ready to collapse. Your oppostion is 3/450. You've bowled 25 overs in the heat and been hit for over 100 runs without getting a wicket. The opening batsmen is still not out of 250 and you've been chasing the ball all over the park. Its 5:55pm and you've been fielding for nearly 6 hours and you're just about to die from exhuastion, you've got about 6 000 flies on your back.
Your fielding at deep fine leg on the boundary, and a member of the crowd is about 5 metres from you with a freezin, cold VB and your ready to die.

Although that is a very extreme case, that is something that i have had to put up with 2 or 3 times in my life.
However, even if you take out the hangover, the enourmous travelling time and lack of sleep. You've still been fielding for 6 hours in 40 degree heat and the opposition is belting you everywhere. I can garauntee you that cricket see situations similar to that alot, even in test cricket.

And it is very hard to deal with.

I played Aussie Rules, Rugby Union and Cricket at quite a resonably level in all of them, and the most gruelling of the lot was cricket by a long way, purely on the fact that sitautions similar to the above happen very regurly

------------------
Good luck at the Athens Olympics Mags, go for gold in Taekwondo.

For all your footballing needs be sure to visit my AFL web-site at http://www.geocities.com/eastsydney5/index.html

[This message has been edited by WCE2000 (edited 22 October 2000).]

[This message has been edited by WCE2000 (edited 22 October 2000).]

 

[dees01]

All I will say is that there is nothing better than test cricket. I can watch it all day. I can understand how non cricket people can not stand test cricket but for the purist, there is nothing better.

 

[Dan26]

I get the feeling people often say they like cricket, just for the tradition. Test cricket coiuld be improved so much. I've played so much outdoor cricket in my time and all the time I thought how it could be better.

First of all, the first innings of a team in test cricket should be reduced to 90 overs. No more. This will get rid of the excruciatingly boring spectacle of a team scoring 500 runs in the first innings. When this happens, the last three days of a test match take place knowing that only two results are possibe : a win to the team who scored 500 and a draw. Please don;t tell me "Oh, but it's pure". That crap. No one wants to see that spectacle.

If the first innings was redeuced to a maximum of 90 overs (still potentially scoring 400 runs) then we would virtually be guaranteed a result every time. There would be no restriction on the second innings.

Also, wouldn't it be so much better if a 5 test series like the upcoming one against the Windies) was won and lost on a points system

Here's what I mean: If you win a test, you get 6 points (like if you win a footy match you get 4 points). If the match is a draw, the team who won the first innings gets 2 points. This means, that even if there was a draw, at least it wouldn't be a complete waste. If you scored more than your opponent in the first innings you would still get 2 points.

So, if Australia won the test series 3-1, with one draw, and in that one draw the Windies won the first innings, Australia would win the test series 18-8. 18 points to 8

This would be much better than the current set-up. In fact, it would be very similar to the way the Sheffield Sheild is done.

Lat year, Australia wold have beaten both India and Pakistan 18-0, since they won all three tests against both teams.

There are heaps of little things we can do to improve cricket, but becasue of it's tradition, cricket seems to be the one sport which is reluctant to accept change.

I still can't believe in the year 2000 that we go off for bad light when there are 6 massive light towers outside the ground !!!

 

[Westy Boy]

Originally posted by Dan24:

*I get the feeling people often say they like cricket, just for the tradition.
*Test cricket coiuld be improved so much.
*This will get rid of the excruciatingly boring spectacle
*Please don;t tell me "Oh, but it's pure". *That crap. No one wants to see that spectacle.

Read your points above! You are telling supporters who love the game that they have the wrong feelings towards it!

Before I continue, I would just like to state that I don’t like watching test cricket myself, (I love one day cricket though), but in saying this, I fully understand the passion with which test cricket is played/followed and why supporters/administrators do not want to change it. I also understand why they love the "boring" spectacle (it's not boring to THEM Dan!). Why can’t you understand this Dan? If YOU don’t like something, it’s the wrong way to go and must be the wrong format etc.

Since I’m not in a position to be able to show you that the game is fine the way it is because I am not a true supporter..... the specific points from the others, should show you that THEY, the players and supporters who change will effect the most, DO NOT want it changed!

They have every reason to tell you that they love the game because it is pure and they (as spectators/players) just the way it is, and that it is not "excruciatingly boring"
Comments such as

• i can assure you that it is one of the most gruelling sports in the world, both mentally and physically.
• All I will say is that there is nothing better than test cricket. I can watch it all day
• Crickets evolved to the point where its now one of the puresest tests of sporting ability and mental endurance that people can play.
• Test cricket is a game of skill, mind games and concentration,
• i love test cricket much more than one day cricket
• all sports are different, and i dont see a flaw.
• I like it just fine as it is. Cheers.

...yet, you, a self confessed non true supporter of the game, tell them that they are wrong in having this sentiment towards the game.

Here are the people you have to convince otherwise.... the people that love the game and follow the game.... not people like me that are indifferent to it and who "may" (and no guarantees here) watch/follow it more if it was changed. You are trying to tell the most important facet of the game (the already passionate followers/players), that their game is flawed. Why would you risk alienating the fabric of the game? They don't look they want anything different/changed. They don't look like they would have done a thing if they were inventing the game all those years ago.

So.... how do we make the game as flawless as baseball ?
YOU DON’T- unless you want to make it baseball with ..... added stumps etc. etc.

You have to learn to let some things go by the way they are. But I agree about the lights thing though

And BTW WCE2000- that signature has me on the floor laughing mate!!!!

[This message has been edited by Westy Boy (edited 09 December 2000).]

 

[Dan26]

Westy Boy,

You are missing my point big time. I know how cricket is right now. I am simply asking people to come up with ideas to improve the faults of cricket.

I am simply hypothesising. In my original post I said, if you go back 150 years ago, (or whenever cricket became a regular sport), how would we design the game ? How would we design the game of cricket if we were starting the game from scratch. How would we get rid od the inconsistencies and imperfections ? How would we showcase a batters skill at hitting a ball in a 360 degree radius, in a format different than what it is now.

You can't tell me, Westy Boy, that if we were designing the game of cricket from scrtach (hypothetical of course) that it would be exactly the same as it is now. There is no way. I'm sure, if the game of cricket nevcer existed and we were asked to "invent" it, we would come up with a game that has the same basic skills, but is played in a more condensed format.

I'm not necessarily saying what's right or wrong. I'm just putting the "hypothetical" scenario out there.

Obviously, you had nothing to add. Given that you like One day cricket over tests, I would have thought you, of all people would have had some ideas of how to improve test cricket. Especially given that you don't like it as much as one-dayers. What does test cricket need for Westy Boy to enjoy it more ?

So, if you DO have any ideas about how to "re-invent" cricket in a hypothetical sceario, I would like to hear them. I'm just interested, because in my "opinion", the game has some basic flaws in it's structure.



[This message has been edited by Dan24 (edited 23 October 2000).]

 

[servo]

Dan you are missing your own point.

You are not asking people to give you ideas how the game can be improved. You are asking people to agree with your ideas to improve the game.

Don't let this topic become your minor premiership style thread of cricket.

I am not asking you to drop your ideas just because some people don't agree with them or don't want change. All I am trying to say is what Westy Boy was getting at.

Just because they don't agree with you doesn't make them wrong. They love the game just as it is. Any major changes like some that you propose could lose these people as supporters. The game cannot afford to lose probably half of its fans just for the sake of removing the possibility of a draw.

Also remember that the ICC make small changes to the game every year to try and eliminate what you would call boring play.

Just this year they have introduced extra no ball and wide rules. They have added rules to stop some gamesmanship type tactics such as deliberate short runs, they have even restricted the design of wicketkeeping gloves.

To suggest the 1st innings be limited to 90 overs would change the game so significantly that the game could no longer be called Test Cricket. The test of skill would be diminished.

I have over the years heard suggestions like penalising a batsman for facing a maiden over, having designated hitters, restricting the overs any one bowler can bowl in one day and allowing extra fielders after say 300 runs in an innings. The MCC even introduced a rule last year that in the event of a no ball the rebowled delivery was also a safe hit for the batsman meaning he could not get out. This was great for the spectators but does nothing to shorten the game as seems to be your major gripe with the game.

I know that a draw can be a reward for an inferior team for just preventing the better side from winning but both sides know at the outset that if they cannot get a result in 5 days then they cannot win.

"Test cricket is the greatest individual team sport the world has seen". I won't bother to define that quote as if anyone does not understand it then they are not a real fan of the game and this whole thread is probably lost on them.

 

[Grendel]

servo, well said.

Dan, i do like you and your passion for things, BUT at least respect others points of view. I dont like being told flat out im wrong, not without substantial proof to that fact. I happen to like test cricket as is. Yes i would like to see results more often, yes id like to see lights come into play.

However i dont have any problems with it as it is (aside from the corruption) as a game i think its great. Please at least give me the entitlement to my (and servo/westy etc) judgements.

Cheers

 

[TigerTank]

Test cricket is real cricket while the One-day game is little more than an entertaining aside. The players' attitudes to the two forms of the game speak for themselves ... the only one-day series that seems to matter at all to the players is the World Cup.

As for the game, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Test Cricket for anyone with a decent attention span. In fact, the five day format builds an epic quality that no other "stick and ball" sport can match. A close five-day game is the pinnacle of nail-biting finishes partially because it has taken five days of struggle to get to that point!

Test cricket showcases ALL the skills of the bowler and places demands on batsmen that the one-day game can't match. In Test cricket the bowler must actively seek to bowl the batsman out whereas in one-day cricket the bowler only really has to worry about containment. That means every ball in test cricket is a contest between the bowler trying to claim the batsman's wicket and the batsman's survival ... not always the case in one-day cricket.

In One day cricket the bowler is largely limited to bowling line-and-length just outside the off-stump. In test cricket a fast bowler has more width to play with, plus the 'wild card' factor of the bouncer.

Good teams can score runs quickly in test cricket because there are less restrictions on the batsmen. And, because the bowlers need to take risks in order to 'buy' wickets, there is more variety.

A great advertisement for Test Cricket is the likes of Waqar Younis or Shoab Aktar. Every ball is magic, moving all over the place but still very hitable. Wickets are plentiful as are fours. In one-day cricket their flair is sacrificed to the altar of 'consistency'. That's why One-day games all seem to have the same pattern about them.

Baseball has virtually NO epic quality at all. It's all about quick innings and quick changes. Great for people with very short attention spans. There appears to be no strategy, even if some tactics are important.

Damn24, Test cricket is an acquired taste but it is well worth the effort. I used to prefer to watch one-day cricket, but attending one good test match will convert you for life.

Or to put it a way that you may understand, wouldn't you rather watch 6 hours of Star Wars trilogy or one thirty minute episode of Battlestar Galactica?


TT

[This message has been edited by TigerTank (edited 24 October 2000).]

 

[Arch]

Dan- trust you come up with this topic.

Firstly, how you could consider baseball a flawless game is so beyond me.
Dont you think its boring watching batter after batter come out and play the same damn shot to the same "delivery" all game ??? Thats flawed. Wheres the precision and skill in that ??? Its just a pure power game of slogging, throwing hard and running fast.

If I was desgning test cricket 200 years ago, Id make it exactly as it is now.
The occurances of drawn tests arnt as frequent as they once were (although ive been following australia and teams rarely seem to get past the 4th day agnst us). Coming from somone who loves soccer, to complain about "no result" games is pretty rich i reckon.

One day cricket doesnt favour the batting team as much as you say. Statistics (your lifeblood) may back that up, but really there is no reason a team batting at night cant accumulate the runs required in most cases. To stop a teams innings 25 overs in, get the other team to bat 25, and then come out and bat your final 25 is pretty silly i think.
Part of the enjoyment of watching the 2nd innings is watching the pressure on batsmen to keep the score ticking, the rate required in hand, not lose wickets etc etc, and to complete the "mission" set. Id hate to have Mark Waugh having to walk off at 60 runs off 60 balls, so we could feild.

Cricket is a great game- I think im just more offended by your "baseball is flawless" comment.

anyway..........


A.

 

[Shinboners]

Sorry if someone else has already posted this (I just skimmed through what everyone posted), but in the last few years, hasn't the percentage of drawn Test matches been something like 1 out of every 5? And for Tests involving Australia, we've won our past 11 and regularly won 3 match series with a 2-0 or 2-1 result and 5 match series with 3-0 and 3-1 scorelines?

Last summer, there were a few articles in the paper suggesting that Test matches should be 4 day games instead of 5 because many games don't reach the 5th days play.

 

[Dan26]

People, I've been following cricket for years and I enjoy the game. I just believe that if the game had never been invented and we were asked to "invent" the game from scratch, we wouldn't have a contest the lasts for 5 days.

TigerTank,

Let me just say somethign about baseball. You say it has no epic quality. I beg to differ. It is a game of tension and precision. Try watching a 5 hour game that has gone 13 or 14 innings and you will see what an epic game is all about.

Arch, I know Baseball only has the ball coming at the batter in roughly the same area each time, but this is part of the game. A baseball pitcher has to have infinitely more control over the pitch than a bowler in cricket. The pitcher must execute a pitch in a small strikzone. If a bowler bowls a wide, big deal. It just means the batting team gets a run. Cricket bowlers are not required to have the same control.It's important, biut not "as" important as in baseball.

A baseball fielder has to be much more acomplished than a crickert fielder. Sure a fielder at mid-wicket in cricket has to be good, but if he stuffs up and gives away a run, bug deal ? It's just one run. If a baseball fielder gives away a run it is much more costly, since ONE run os often the only score in a match.

I was watching the World Series the other day and in game one, the score was tied 3-3. There was two outs and the bases were loaded. It was a full count. It was the 11th inning. The pressure to not make a mistake on the fielding team (and pitcher) is one of the qualities that make baseball great, in my opinion. On this particular occasion, if the pitcher threw a "ball" (out of the strike zone), the game would be over. It came down to a matter of centimetres.

And, tactics play an ENORMOUS role in baseball. Huge. I'm not going to go into them all now, but there are things such a bunts, sacrifce flys, stolen bases (when to steal, when not to), deliberate bases on ball, deiberate walks, knowing when to leave a pitch etc etc.

Baseballers also must be good fielders. Cricketers don't necessarily "have" to be good fielders. So what if you give away a run and a team makes 267 instead of 266 ? Sure, it "could" cost you the game, but the chances are very minimal. The precision baseballers show in throwing to first base a throwing out the runner is quite remarkable. It is a game where you just can't afford to make a mistake. In baseball, a mistake is more costly than in just about any other sport.

I can honestly say, that in my "opinion", baseball doesn't reqiuire any changes. How could you change it ?? It's a timeless game (in that it can go on infinitely, since there is no time limit) that is as flawless as you can get.

Cricket is great, but in a different way. Cricket tests the batters ability better. It tests his ability to hit a moving object anywhere in a 360 degree radius coming at him in many ways. Baseball doesn't do this. This doesn't mean that one game is better than the other. It just means they are different.

The manin difference is that baseball showcases it's skill in a format that can last anywhere between 3 and 5 hours. It guarantees a result and both teams play under the same circumstances. It's fair.

Cricekt, has both teams playing under different circumstances. One sets a target whilst the other chases. I think, in the interests of fairness, that that is fundamentally flawed in its make-up.

Look, you are all entitled to your own opinions, but all I was (am) doing is asking you to come up with ways to showcase crickets skills in a more concises format. Obviously, most people think the game is perfect. If you are happy with the game, then fine - Don't change it.

But I'm not aksint people to "change" the game really. I'm hypothesising that the game was never invented in the first place. It wouldn't affect peoples opinions of the game since the game would never have been invented. I just wanted to know how, it could be better. If you think it's the perfect game and there is no way it can get any beter than it is now, then that is your opinion.

Personally, I think the "structure" of the game could be improved.

 

[emma]

I only like one dayers, can't stand tests, they are soooo boring.
Footy kicks arse!!!

 

[servo]

Ok Dan, I agree that lights should be used whenever required in Test Cricket and I have no problem with being played at night either.

Other hypothetical improvements???

I like the 12 player concept in the Mercantile Cup and that may work in Tests. It would be like a one man interchange bench.

I think they could bring in a penalty of runs for slow over rates.

They should speed up the 3rd umpires decision somehow too.

------------------

 

[GoEagles]

servo - strange as it may seem, I love the mini pause in the game for the 3rd umpire to flash up the 'traffic light' decision. It gives the batsman the time to discuss if they thought they were safe or walking back to the pavilion, the fielding side to meet up and discuss where they are as far as what they need to do next to maintain the pressure and especially for the crowd - it builds the suspension not knowing what the verdict is!

 

[InTheBack!]

I love test cricket - the ebb & flow of the game, the tactics & mind games.

Give me a session with Warnie or a Slater batting display in a good tight test any day over a 1 dayer.

However I am frustrated that test cricket is not played during the afternoon/evenings to encourage better crowds on weekdays. I attended some evening sessions of the Sheffield Shield when they were experiementing with this & it was great.

Also a game drawn because of an early finish caused by bad light - they must play under lights to finish a match.

 

[Esperito]

Sorry....bit late I know....but...

Dan24...what is the point of the topic??
All sports are going to have their flaws...if we made every sport perfect then surely it would become boring and we wouldnt ever have anything to complain about. (Something you obviously wouldnt be too happy with)

You acknowledge that baseball and cricket are different sports..you accept this yet you wish to change cricket to make it more like every other sport.

Surely a sporting event which lasts 5 days is a unique one...so why should this be a bad thing? It's not the inventors of cricket's fault that you get fidgety after watching it for half an hour. If cricket didn't last for 5 days we wouldn't see Shane Warne weave his magic on a wearing, scuffed 5th day pitch.

Hell, if you want to change it so much why dont dress them up with jumpers and tight shorts, introduce a larger oval ball instead of a round one, basically double the amount of players on each team, get rid of the traditional cricketing equipment (pads, gloves, bats etc) and tell them to kick the ball through tall posts which would be erected on either side of the ground. You could shorten the 5 days to four 20 minute quarters and then perhaps this would be a better version of the game we know as cricket.

Esperito.