One Day Cricket- some comments/rant:

[bobbity]

I don't wish to offend any fans of the 'pyjama game', but...
It seems to me that the one day stuff attracts a totally different kind of audience to Test Cricket- people who don't really seem to appreciate the sport. You can pretty much bet that you're talking to someone who doesn't appreciate cricket when the conversation goes like this:

"so, do you like the cricket?"
"Yeah, the one day stuff's good, but Test Cricket's boring".

One-day cricket seems to attract "fans" with an extremely limited attention span who get very restless if there are lulls in play. They seem to be more attracted to the 'event' than really enjoying the game, getting together with their mates to try to outdo each other in the boorishness stakes. I had the misfortune to attend a one day game ten years ago, haven't been to one since- the fans were more interested in throwing things in the air, fights in the crowd etc than the game- they demonstrated their ignorance by booing opposition fieldsman who had the temerity to take a catch or cut off a ball before it reached the boundary.

One-day cricket is essentially defensive in nature- in fact, in one day cricket it's more helpful to your team for bowlers to be economical rather than take a few wickets but concede more runs!

To me, the one day game is kind of like chinese take-away. It's resonably entertaining (appetising) at the time, but you feel curiously unsatisfied not long after. And let's face it, how many one-dayers do you REALLY remember? They all pretty much merge one into the other... my hunch is that the Australian public have pretty much reached saturation point with it (not helped by all the loutish behaviour)

(Apologies to genuine, well behaved fans of the one day game. The above is just MY opinion).

 

[Nic]

Pretty much agree with you. I prefer test cricket but end up going to one-dayers more frequently as that's what all my mates want to see. The attention span thing isn't helped by the fact that a lot of the people going to one-dayers are around my age (18) and slightly older.

To me, the one day game is kind of like chinese take-away. It's resonably entertaining (appetising) at the time, but you feel curiously unsatisfied not long after. And let's face it, how many one-dayers do you REALLY remember? They all pretty much merge one into the other... my hunch is that the Australian public have pretty much reached saturation point with it (not helped by all the loutish behaviour)

Yep. I've reached the point where I don't particularly care about whether or not the Aussies win the one-dayers. My highlight of yesterday was seeing Gillespie back playing for Australia when I wasn't expecting it at all.

 

[SeinDude]

As a fan of the game of cricket, I enjoy both forms of the game. I can appreciate test matches & also the one-day form of the game & the different skills needed to succeed at both.

I agree that the one-day game seems to attract very ordinary behaviour from fans & one has to question why they pay their $20 or $30 to go to the game when some dont actually watch the game but rather get p*ssed and cause trouble.

However, that's not my problem and I try not to let it spoil anything for me. I find it rather comical actually, watching them and seeing just what keeps them occupied!!

SeinDude

 

[Pies rock]

I love Test match cricket. The one day game is simply a revenue raiser and hopefully attracts more fans to the longer version, but it isn't the real stuff. Test matches are what cricket is all about. Whether or not u have the stamina to face incredibly fast balls hour after hour with fieldsman breathing down ur neck. It's a battle of wills of who will crack first. One dayers are just a bit of fun. I'll watch them and go to them because I love cricket, but cricket is a game of patience, not of slogging...

 

[dogboy23]

Anyone who has played the game would prefer test cricket its a ball by ball battle.Look at the series in India that is the best cricket I have seen.Such a struggle every hour there was a turn in the match.Cricket is more a battle of the mind than any sport I have played and one day matches only take away from this part of the game although I certainly dont mind watching them.

 

[Spogs]

The best thing about the 1-dayers is you can go home from work on a Tuesday or Thursday night, put your feet up and watch the second half of the game over a few beers.

They could probably forget the first innings of each game in the ODI's. Just give the first side 250 if the wicket's good and 220 if there's a bit in it. The other side can then go out and just make it or just fall short. The games are very predictable.

Cricket is about a lot more that batsmen trying to slog 4's and 6's. There are aspects of the game that casual observers probably wouldn't understand. e.g. How do you explain that a delivery can be "well left". I've been to a couple of games but find it hard to stay interested. I could sit on the edge of my seat for 5 days though watching a test.

You can tell a one day follower when they use terms like "1 day test" or "the batsman went out" or the classic "who's winning".

 

[Bomber Spirit]

I like both forms of cricket, but Test cricket would be my preference. Even though the crowds are often similar size and drink just as much, you don't get the same problems with drunken misbehaviour at Tests.
And Test cricket can be more of a fascinating tactical battle. There's so much more scope for setting fields and bowling styles to work a player out rather than just putting as many people on the fence as you can get away with in the hope of containing them.
But if either of them's on telly, I'll be watching. Unless the footy's on another channel of course.

 

[Satay Mat]

I agree.

I posted this back over a year ago in response to some stupid suggestion by Dan (24 as he was known then) that Cricket is flawed and that a batsman should be out if he misses the ball. Thought I would just paste it here as it sums it up for me....

ptw said....

The beauty of test criket is not in the individual bat vs ball scenario as posted by Dan24.

Test cricket is like an onion.

A bowler runs in and bowls to the batsman who must score or not get out. This is a contest at the lowest level. aka Dan24's view.

An over is also a contest in its own right made up of a series of balls. A good bowler will not try to get a batsman out with every ball. You can decide who "won" and over at the end of each one.

From Tea to drinks is a contest made up of a series of overs. A side can win this or lose it.

A session is made up of two of these. This is also a contest....1 for 130 in a session the batting side has won...4 for 63 the bowling side has won.

A day is 3 sessions, and each day is a contest in itself. And a test is five days.

A test series against the west indies is 5 tests, each made up of hundreds of smaller contests at a variety of levels.

At the end of the series there is a winner. Always. Even if the series is drawn there is still a winner who keeps the trophy.

Test cricket is boring only if viewed as a simple series of balls...batsman vs bowler. He did not score...he did not get out...if you take that ball in isolation then it is boring, nothing happended. But if you extend your horizon to a session then that ball has different meaning. It means something even if that something is simply that it used up part of the alloted time for the game.

Because of this, Test Cricket is also a great spectator sport....not for watching ball by ball, but for being there, for having it on in the background. You don't need to witness ball by ball to appreciate it. Highlights packages of test cricket are boring because all of the time has been taken out of the game and it loses this dimension.

The comparison to baseball is interesting. Americans have a culture of winning or losing. Look at the election. They are in a fit because they could not know who won at the end of the first day. Europeans tend not to be so concerned...we bag them about their nil all draws in soccer...they find them interesting. I think you can trace this back to the war of independance and the resulting individualistic culture which ensued (sp?).

We feel less concerned about winning and losing day by day but take a longer term view of things, which is why I think test cricket is accepted here and Americans think it is looney (as I think a system where a guy gets 49.9999999% of the Florida vote and gets no representation in the electoral college is looney...but he lost).


If I could start again I would not change anything structural about the game at all. It is alone in the world in that it is a contest which does not run over 2 hours but actually 150 hours if you take a whole series. One Day cricket has to compete with all other T.V. sports whereas test cricket is without peer.

ptw


Satay Mat