|
Cricket This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Blackface in crowd |
|
129 | 55.36% |
| References to Lord of the Rings |
|
104 | 44.64% |
| Total: | 233 votes | ||
|
Anderson is a massive oval office but he's nowhere near as bad as Warner and anyone who says otherwise is an apologist for racism and thuggery and probably has an anti-asylum seeker agenda. It's Australia's fault Anderson is a oval office anyway, he never said anything to anyone until Langer called him a "pussy".
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Byolante posted:Did it hurt your feelings to listen to cricket pundits who don't think england are going to win the world cup. I have heard 2 podcasts since the first ODI loss to Australia last week say that they are still going to win. Hardly, I am under no illusions about England getting thoroughly trounced at every turn during the world cup. In fact I welcome it as I think 50 over cricket is dead and should be binned. I've just not heard a decent Aussie pundit since Benaud (and he was awesome).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Lungboy posted:In fact I welcome it as I think 50 over cricket is dead and should be binned. as an englishman i think that all sports and derivatives of said sports become irrelevant when england start to suck at them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
50 over cricket is loving poo poo though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
i'd rather have odis than t20s tbh; in the former you actually have a bit of a chance when you're a bowler although cutting back on long, boring odi series and replacing them with something more interesting would be a good idea
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
T20 with thinner bats, with a batsman limited to no more than two a match so they learn to look after them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Burn Down Canberra posted:I don't think Warner is as much a racist as he is an oaf He's a white, wealthy Australian male. You're being far too kind to him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
goatface posted:T20 with thinner bats, with a batsman limited to no more than two a match so they learn to look after them. a broken bat costs you penalty runs unless you prove that you knocked it in
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
ODIs encapsulate the joys of test cricket much better than T20. Games often swing multiple ways, the last ODI between SL and NZ was a good example, SL run through top order, game swings to SL, lower order NZ rip SL to shreds, game swings to NZ, SL top order fight hard and game swings back towards SL, NZ rip through SL batting line up and NZ eventually win. You see this over and over with ODI cricket. T20 generally seems to be "team does well for a brief period of time, wins game". There are a few occasions with tense close finishes and impetus swings, but these are so contracted that a lot of the tension is lost. The tweaks made to the ODI game of late have really improved it. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy T20 cricket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
The best things about T20 is you can play (or watch) a game after work before the sun goes down, and that for those not interested in cricket, it's a great way to get people into the sport, where they would hopefully drift towards enjoying ODIs and then tests as they start to understand the game and the subtleties (the tactics, the rivalries, the struggling player, the little battles, which bring about the most enjoyment) that are lost on those who just aren't interested in the sport and don't understand them (and I don't mean that as a criticism of anyone who isn't into the sport).
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
A genuinely excellent test series can get people into the game by itself - look at the 2005 Ashes and the way that it seemed to get lots of younger people to actually care a bit about cricket. Although that series is most probably a once in a generation thing and normally T20s do have that sort of role. Getting some cricket back on terrestrial TV would help - its hard to get people to care about a game they can't really ever watch. I'm not actually sure whether there's even any free highlights of the World Cup this time - I can't remember there being any of the Ashes last year as well!
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
I think there was a highlights thing last year, though I want to say it was on Channel 5 and therefore poo poo. I might be confusing it with other poo poo England highlights on 5 though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
adamantium|wang posted:He's a white, wealthy Australian male. You're being far too kind to him. And of course the thing that makes Warner much worse than all the other racist Australian dickheads is that he is really, really genuinely stupidly thick to go along with it. He's the complete package really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
IceAgeComing posted:A genuinely excellent test series can get people into the game by itself - look at the 2005 Ashes and the way that it seemed to get lots of younger people to actually care a bit about cricket. Although that series is most probably a once in a generation thing and normally T20s do have that sort of role. i don't disagree with that at all, you could argue that the massive upswing in support for the nz cricket team here at home has had more to do with our progress as a test team than our rise back to where we used to sit in terms of T20 and ODI performances. you're right that a series of that quality could draw in non fans (i suppose in the same way that non-league fans get drawn into league through the state of origin), but the test team here in nz has drawn in more of the 'jaded old fans' than out right newbies to cricket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
County cricket in England still costs too much money to watch, and probably will forever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
I remember when they had Dollar Days at the WACA for Sheffield Shield matches, you could have a whole grandstand to yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
The worst thing to happen to cricket in the UK was matches not being on free to air tv. Just look at whats happened with Cycling in comparison. That sport is baffling to watch unless you're a hardcore nutjob, coverage is as long as a test match day and yet its popularity is soaring. Because its on free tv.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
IceAgeComing posted:Getting some cricket back on terrestrial TV would help - its hard to get people to care about a game they can't really ever watch. I'm not actually sure whether there's even any free highlights of the World Cup this time - I can't remember there being any of the Ashes last year as well! Certiain world cup highlights have to be shown on terrestrial as part of the "crown jewels" thing. Unless I've imagined it, last time I think the deal was that no one else could show the highlights show until Sky had shown theirs, hence they were on at about 1 in the morning. I dunno if it's the same this time but I wouldn't be surprised. Sky are a benefit for England and for viewers overall but no way should they have such a monopoly. At least one test, one ODI and one t20 should be shown on terrestrial every summer. I think the ECB are beginning to realise they shouldn't have shown their hand to Sky so early. There are lots of murmurings that the domestic t20 comp should be on terrestrial, probably brought about by the success of the Big Bash, which isn't a particularly good standard and is pretty much the definition of polishing a turd, but morons flock to it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
If a bunch of people are willing to pay to turn up for a few hours and not be allowed to take drink in, the counties aren't going to interfere with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Lionel Richie posted:Anderson is a massive oval office but he's nowhere near as bad as Warner and anyone who says otherwise is an apologist for racism and thuggery and probably has an anti-asylum seeker agenda. Warners yet to physically assault an Indian player so I'd say they are at least as bad as each other. Anderson's probably worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
James was found not guilty of that spurious charge. I won't forward your post onto the ECB legal team but in future please don't libel.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
Lionel Richie posted:Certiain world cup highlights have to be shown on terrestrial as part of the "crown jewels" thing. Unless I've imagined it, last time I think the deal was that no one else could show the highlights show until Sky had shown theirs, hence they were on at about 1 in the morning. I dunno if it's the same this time but I wouldn't be surprised. Sky are a benefit for England and for viewers overall but no way should they have such a monopoly. At least one test, one ODI and one t20 should be shown on terrestrial every summer. I'm pretty sure that Andrew "Freddie, Pride Of St George, Top Bloke Me, Pedalo King" Flintoff said pretty much this on 5Live earlier this week, saying yeah it's great that Sky give cricket all this money but hardly anyone can see it so no-one wants to play it. Solution: put the Lords and Oval tests on terrestial as well as Sky
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
One of each format per tour would be more than enough.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
the government shouldn't have taken home test matches off of the list of sporting events that have to be live on terrestrial tv imo. i'm sure home tests and i think the world cup final (?) are on the b list, where you have to have terrestrial highlights apparently the last labour government were considering putting home ashes tests back on the a list but they couldn't change it before the last election and the coalition haven't touched it
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Here in New Zealand it's almost a non-issue because Sky's monopoly is so huge that basically everyone has it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
IceAgeComing posted:apparently the last labour government were considering putting home ashes tests back on the a list but they couldn't change it before the last election and the coalition haven't touched it I never agreed with that tbh, it just feeds the perception that the home Ashes series is the only thing that matters. Of course the elephant in the room is that none of the terrestrial broadcasters actually want test cricket. They'd have it if they were given it, but they're not going to go out of their way to get it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Yeah, it's a cost they can't afford. I don't know if the BBC would even know what to do with it any more. Stick it on a red button somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
If live cricket was going to be shown anywhere on terrestrial it would probably be Channel 5. They actually do a really good job with the highlights shows considering they must have to have a box and commentators throughout the whole day for the sake of an hour of highlights, and then get it wrapped up half an hour beforehand, or on the fly if play goes past half 6. I reckon they only do it in the hope that they'll eventually get thrown some scraps in the form of a live game or two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
probably put it on bbc parliament and rename it "BBC Ashes" if they weren't sitting - I'm sure they've used it as a special channel during the summer recess a few times before, they definitely did for the olympics. e: the people who produce the channel 5 highlights are the same people who did the channel 4 cricket coverage - most of the commentators are still the same, you get a slightly more bearable Mark Nicholas, Boycott and Simon Hughes... They also seem to share commentators with TMS: which is probably cheaper since the people they want to use are already there IceAgeComing fucked around with this message at 02:24 on Jan 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 02:22
|
|
|
I always assumed they were just buying existing coverage and then gluing it together with their own hosts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
They use the host broadcaster feed, which is Sky in this case, but they've got actual commentators live throughout the day and do their own interviews and whatnot, so it must be a pretty major operation considering it's all for one hour of highlights, especially when play is still going on when the show actually starts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
aren't channel 9 showing the Ashes this year? If they decide to send their own crew rather than borrow the Sky coverage it wouldn't surprise me if they piggybacked on the Channel 5 stuff
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Burn Down Canberra posted:Just reading the guardian comment section on an article about sledging. You English really hate Warner lol. Its like you guys think he is some barbarian that Cricket Australia keeps in a little cage to be released on match day. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Lionel Richie posted:They use the host broadcaster feed, which is Sky in this case, but they've got actual commentators live throughout the day and do their own interviews and whatnot, so it must be a pretty major operation considering it's all for one hour of highlights, especially when play is still going on when the show actually starts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
I wish I could just subscribe to some kind of ICC Network through my Apple TV or something that lets me watch cricket no matter who is playing and where.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
IceAgeComing posted:
Broken Britain
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
Sixers. Not a bad start in hostile territory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 09:36
|
|
|
Seams posted:I wish I could just subscribe to some kind of ICC Network through my Apple TV or something that lets me watch cricket no matter who is playing and where. I would pay mad coin for this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
Who is going to any WCC games? I'm seeing Eng v NZ in the pool matches and the Wellington quarter-final. I loving hate limited over cricket, and the Wellington stadium is a real poo poo spectator experience. Hooray!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Thinking of going to India v Pakistan at Adelaide
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 09:56
|
|