I have just been watching the drama at Edgbaston and only cricket lovers could appreciate the fantastic drama created in what appeared to be a foregone conclusion. Thousands of people turned up to see what seemed to be a formality and ended up as one of the greatest finishes in Test history. There is no other sport that allows the sustained drama of cricket.
Congratulations England…what a game.
I watched the finish and it was certainly exciting. The crowd on the previous day were baying as Flintoff, Harmison + Giles attacked. By contrast, the crowd on both sides was rigid with tension today.
However cricket is undoubtedly one of the most boring sports. There is a significant delay between every ball of a fast bowler, plus a delay when they change ends after every over, plus a break for drinks, plus lunch, plus breaks for rain and bad light.
There are regular umpiring mistakes (Pietersen and Bell were wrongly given out in this Test) and for decades there was no refund to spectators when play was abandoned.
In every round of county matches, there will be a couple of games where there is no prospect of a result. Watching two batsman slog rubbish bowlers in an futile attempt to persuade one side to declare is not sport in my opinion.
I think 20-20 cricket is well worth watching, but I still remember paying good money and spending 9 hours (including travelling) to watch a touring international team play my local county. There was a full day’s play and the visitors scored 163-4. Fortunately I had brought a book to read. At one point, a batsman hit a boundary, and a spectator stood up and cheered (waking some of us). Immediately a stentorian voice bellowed “Siddown!” That summed the whole day up.
7-a-side rugby - that’s exciting sport! It lasts all day, you can’t look away for a swecond, there’s no draws and every player is stretched to the limit.
That was an excellent game from go to whoa and a very exciting finish. The rest of the series is going to be great.
There were a couple of questionable dismissals (or non dismissals) that went the other way too. I think the umpires should be able to go to the third umpire on LBWs and catches. Even so, I wouldn’t say there are any more incorrect decisions in cricket than in the various football codes.
I agree 20-20 games are good fun to watch, and I’m hoping they’ll eventually supplant the 50 over games as the premier limited overs format.
Sorry: old fart here. I detest one-day cricket. 50 overs is bad enough, but 20??? That’s why test matches these days rarely last distance. This one at Edgbaston, exciting though it was, barely scraped into the 4th day. Nobody has the concentration to keep going for all five.
It’s true that there certainly was some dodgy umpiring in this particular game but no more than usual. The cricket authorities appear to be more ready to embrace technology than those in other sports - football being the worst - so I would hope that they resolve to try everything they can to help the umpires when they are not sure. Channel 4’s snickometer is a tremendous machine.
Doubtedly, actually. Have you ever been to a live NFL game? The “action” doesn’t go for more than 1 or 2 minutes without a break of some sort. And those breaks include ad breaks, where the players actually stand around doing nothing while the TV coverage finishes showing ads! A “one hour” game takes more than 3 hours to actually complete. Now that is dull.
I quite like the game when watched on TV, but it has to be either on a station with no ads or you have to tape it and FF through the dull bits.
The difference is cricket is supposed to be a game of measured pace, that’s part of its charm. But football is supposed to be a game of constant action, and the continual breaks just destroy the whole atmosphere. Give me Australian Rules football anytime for continuous action.
Please explain something to me. Cricket lasts more than one day? Is it an eight-hour day? Do they take a lunch break?
Silly question. They take a tea break.
It’s a six hour day, divided into three two hour sessions. The first break is the lunch break, the second is the tea break.
The game that prompted this thread was a test match which last a maximum of five days. There are also commonly one day matches and four day matches. There was once a game that the teams, England and South Africa, decided they would not set a limit on the number of days they would play for. That game lasted for ten days, and was stopped before either team could win, because IIRC the English players had to fly home on time.
Close: their boat was leaving. It’s also probably worth noting that one day of that test was lost to rain, so there were “only” nine days of actual play.
I thought both tests were awesome. I was a little concerned after the first test when McGrath dismantled the England attack, 5 for 2 if I recall. Then he went and fell over a stray ball. Oz still kept us to 2 run win without him. Any news on whether he is returning for Thursday?
btw: hats off to Freddie.
Talk in the Aussie press is that MacGill will play in the next Test as well as all rounder Shane Watson. One of the quicks and Katich would go. No mention of McGrath though.
Yes, NFL is tailored for the massive US TV audience.
However I still maintain it’s more exciting than cricket:
I agree that Aussie rules is exciting, and I already mentioned Rugby Sevens as a classic spectator sprot.
McGrath hasn’t ruled himself out of the Third Test. I don’t know why anyone complains about Pietersen being given out, when he should have been given out off the first ball he faced anyway. Apart from that rant, I am with Soesamh. Dislike one day cricket. :o
The BBC are now saying that Lee has an infected knee and has been admitted to hospital.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/cricket/england/4133096.stm
Count me in as one of those who think 1 day cricket has spoiled a perfectly good game.
Bad news, Aussies. Brett Lee is in hospital with a knee infection (it says here) and is doubtful for Old Trafford. I wonder if they’ll draught in someone like Bichel to replace him?
But - good news: the English selectors have not dropped anyone, which means at least 4 cheap wickets for you (Bell + Vaughan x 2).
Now that’s my kind of spectator sport.
With the benefit of hindsight I’ll bet you wished there was an edit function 
(so far anyway)
I’d defy anyone to predict the outcome of this series.
The weather forecast is that play might be seriously affected tomorrow.
I’d like to know what other game allows you to do your best to terrorise your opponent with 90mph balls at his body yet allows one of the players to spend 2 days in bed while a substitute takes his place in the field.
I think Australia have hit a low spot regarding injuries, Lee seemed ok today but McGrath was not at his best (fortunately). Clarke was really struggling when he batted, although he had a runner his movements were obviously painful.
There is currently a T.V. commercial (for British Airways?) running in the U.S. in which an ignorant American commentator believes that a favorite British pastime is watching actual crickets (the insects) for up to five days. He refers to a cricket match going on behind him as baseball.
Arrgh, I completely forgot this thread was around and made a post in Cafe Society about today’s play. :smack: Anyway, excellent day today, my comments here, looking forward to seeing what tomorrow brings!
Australia will definitely not be asked to follow on. England won’t want to face Mr. Warne in the fourth innings, especially as we have the King of Spain playing for us.