Fuck football, let's talk cricket (1 Viewer)

well I'm no expert but as far as I can see it requires almost no athletic ability. Theres definitely a bit of hand-eye coordination and a small bit of skill involved. So its up there with darts.
This is exactly why I find it theoretically approachable, I haven't attempted to approach it yet. I did watch it for about 4 hours in 2009.
 
yes. Does that seem unusual? By athletic ability I mean dexterity, speed, strength, stamina. That kind of thing.

It does a bit, yeah.
They all seem like part of the same package. Comes off a little odd to dismiss hand-eye coordination when it's the foundation of so many great sports. A Zlatan backheel, a Federer volley, a Shefflin lobbed goal.
I'd certainly rate it above strength. There's gyms all over the place full of strong people. You can teach strength and stamina to almost anyone, as long as they're willing to put the reps in.
Speed less so, but still.
I know you're a cycling guy so you might rate endurance over skill, but I just find a lot more to respect in a skillful act than a powerful one.
 
So being able to throw a ball at 150kmh for about 4 hours and then having to play defense afterward doesn't count in the speed, strength or stamina areas? Never mind being able to hit the ball flying at you at 150kmh over 100 meters?

Every sport in the world can be reduced to that kind of nonsense. Footballs just a few flicks of the feet, all the work in hurling is done by the stick etc etc. I'm not even a fan of the sport but to say it requires no athlethic ability is just silly.
 
I know you're a cycling guy so you might rate endurance over skill, but I just find a lot more to respect in a skillful act than a powerful one.

I don't think I said that. But reading back on what I wrote I definitely didn't make my point very well. I'm making the distinction between athletic ability and the more subtle finesse aspects of sport. My point being that cricket has some of the latter, not that much of the former.

But I wouldn't say one was more important than the other. However, you can be skillful as hell but if you haven't got the athleticism to back it up, you won't go too far.

Its an interesting one. My sport is actually hurling so I'm well versed in this. I played during a time where training consisted of 'not-very-scientific' means, and I coached in a time where every last detail of training and preparation was meticulously managed. As a coach my emphasis was actually moreso on skill than on fitness/strength, mainly because I was stronger in that area.

I will say this though. In my time involved in the sport I've seen a high number of lads of limited ability make it to a high level. That sort of player tends to overcompensate in the areas they can to make up for the deficiencies in those they can't. I've also seen a lot of players who were blessed with skill fade away to nothing because they didn't bother their holes putting in the hard slog when it was needed.

I think both are equally important but I think you're more likely to find someone who is a great athlete (with no great skill) playing at a high level than you are to find some really skillful lad who can't run 10 yards without getting out of breath.

I don't even know if cricket is all that skillful. Obviously theres some very subtle skills in bowling the ball, and the batsman has to be fairly alert to meet it coming at the speed it does. What about the rest of them though? Doesn't seem all that much to it to my uninformed eye.
 
So being able to throw a ball at 150kmh for about 4 hours.

4 hours? Like, 4 hours solid?

I thought there were several bowlers/batsmen. And they just stand around for ages between plays, then head off for a cup of tea. Theres nothing in cricket that suggests to me that you need to be running miles on the road, partaking in strength and conditioning programs, etc.

How long does a player actually be involved for in any game?

And if you want to compare cricket to hurling or soccer, go right ahead. You won't get me doing that.
 
I'm not comparing them at all, I'm saying you can easily reduce other sports to trite ideas. I've no idea about the training regieme of cricket players but you're implying you could turn up with a bit of skill but overweight and still be grand. While you can't really compare the two I am a big fan of baseball and I do know that all players there are. Yeah you have the odd lardarse like Bartolo Colon but hes only still around in his mid 40's because he's freakishly good at a single thing, when he has to do anything else he's hilariously useless.

Without sounding like a dickhead you said it yourself, it's your uninformed eye. It looks like a fairly simple thing to hurl a few balls at someone but like baseball it's a case of as soon as you start watching it it becomes immeasurably more complicatied.

4 hours? Like, 4 hours solid?

I thought there were several bowlers/batsmen. And they just stand around for ages between plays, then head off for a cup of tea. How long does a player actually be involved for in any game?

In this game format (One Day International) bowlers are limited to 10 overs (so 60 bowls) but if it's a longer test there's no limit. They could theoretically be bowling for three or five days. Batters stay in as long as they can until the get bowled out. Most players will play all types of defense as well as bowling/batting so even in this ODI format they're playing for maybe 8/9 hours in a day, hence the breaks.
 
4 hours? Like, 4 hours solid?

I thought there were several bowlers/batsmen. And they just stand around for ages between plays, then head off for a cup of tea. Theres nothing in cricket that suggests to me that you need to be running miles on the road, partaking in strength and conditioning programs, etc.

How long does a player actually be involved for in any game?

And if you want to compare cricket to hurling or soccer, go right ahead. You won't get me doing that.

A test match can last five days
 
someone explained to me why cricket is so interesting a couple of months ago and it sounded moderately convincing but i forget what the main points were...or any of the points
 
this guy looks pretty athletic

_66662710_compton.jpg
 
Without sounding like a dickhead you said it yourself, it's your uninformed eye. It looks like a fairly simple thing to hurl a few balls at someone but like baseball it's a case of as soon as you start watching it it becomes immeasurably more complicatied.

Agree completely. But no one has offered a compelling case for it yet.

I posted a video there. The commentator gets quite excited about 4 mins in. I have no idea why.
 
It's also really difficult to explain why any sport is compelling or athlectic in a few lines/paragraphs. Hence my bit about the trite ideas. I don't mind watching cricket when it's things like the WC but would much prefer to watch T20 as the ODI and Test formats are just headwrecking to watch.

I've spent more time today defending Irish cricket than I likely have actually watching cricket. I'm impulsively driven to defend it as the same criticisms are levelled against baseball which I've really started to love over the last three or four years.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Activity
So far there's no one here
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.

21 Day Calendar

Lau (Unplugged)
The Sugar Club
8 Leeson Street Lower, Saint Kevin's, Dublin 2, D02 ET97, Ireland

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...

Upgrade now

Latest threads

Latest Activity

Loading…
Back
Top