The uglification of cricket

[RH156RH]

The uglification of cricket
Robert Henderson

I started watching English first class cricket in the mid-1950s. At the time limited overs games did not exist. There were three day matches for teams below Test level and five day matches for Tests. Players wore white (or cream) clothing with no numbers on their backs to identify them. For spectators unfamiliar with them, the players were identified from the scorecard number shown on the scoreboards for both batsmen and fielders when they fielded the ball. The combination of white-clad players and green cricket field gave a natural and elegant look to the game recalling its origins in country fields.

Batsmen wore a minimum of protective equipment. They had pads , rudimentary gloves, a box and possibly a single thigh pad for the leading leg, the last often consisting of no more than a towel thrust down the trousers. Despite this meagre protection players were rarely hit seriously because they were not so encumbered that their mobility was seriously restricted and the automatically developed skill in moving out of the way of balls which constituted a threat. They batted bareheaded or with a cap. Batsmen were recognisable human beings

Today batsmen come to the crease looking like Michelin men with their bumper bras, arm guards, massive thigh pads which go round each thigh plus helmets caging their faces with unsightly bars which are worn regardless of the threat a bowler carries. All this gear makes batsmen look ugly at best and ridiculous at worst. They are much less mobile and because of the supposed safety provided by helmets are frequently tempted to play hooks and pulls recklessly and inexpertly. This often ends up with them being hit on the head. I also suspect that helmets restrict a batsman's vision at worst and at best have a deleterious psychological effect. Generally, the considerable extra protective equipment worn today must make batsmen feel uncomfortable and be liable to be a distraction. The same objection applies to the growing fashion for wicket keepers to wear helmets when standing up.

50 or 60 years ago pitches were prepared as individual counties and other authorities such as Oxford and Cambridge clubs wanted. There were no pitch inspectors. If a county side went to play Derbyshire away they knew they would be playing on a pitch favourable to seam bowling; a visit to Gloucestershire would mean a spinning pitch. Batsmen had to master very varied and often demanding conditions. In addition to whatever human design went into an individual pitch, Nature was given her way by refusing to cover pitches and runups. This meant that anyone playing county cricket regularly could expect to encounter rain damaged pitches several times a season at least. This further improved the skills of serious batsmen. Bowlers also had to learn to bowl at their most effective in helpful conditions.

The consequence of demanding pitches meant that batsmen had to develop a seriously good technique to survive. This meant having an orthodox stance with the bat not waving about (bar perhaps a thump or two of the bat as the bowler ran in) and most importantly, keeping the head still. A good example of this stillness and neatness can be seen in this extended video of the 1963 Lords Test against the West Indies. There were few oddities like Jim Yardley of Worcestershire with awkward stances but they were very much the exception.
Demanding pitches also gave the bowler a much greater incentive to bowl straight and to bowl consistently, something bowlers of today routinely fail to do. It is a common mistake to imagine that having pitches doing something means a bowler has to do little more than pitch a ball up and let the pitch do the rest. In fact, bowlers need to learn how to bowl in helpful conditions top make the most of them. Taking 5-60 on a pitch where 5-20 could reasonably be expected is poor not good bowling.

Today batsmen are increasingly at sea whenever they encounter conditions which allow the bowlers to swing, seam or spin the ball. This is partly because of the covering of pitches, the existence of pitch inspectors who take fright at pitches which help the bowler resulting in points being deducted and the fact that much less first class cricket (where good technique is developed) is played today., But it is also because batsmen are increasingly adjusting their techniques to play T20 cricket where the real money is to be made.
Batsmen, almost universally amongst the young players, are adopting one a stance which has the bat raised , either locked in an awkward stillness or waving about with the head moving as well as the body. Some add to this ungainly position by leaning forward with their weight on the front foot and the bat slanted forward. This cannot be the optimum method of waiting for the bowler because the batsman will be concentrating on holding the bat up or moving about the crease. In the case of the bat slanted forward that virtually commits the batsman to a front foot shot and at best means the batsman has to waste precious microseconds if he has to play off the back foot.

The growing eminence of T20 is resulting in the taking into first class cricket these defective techniques together with the T20 mentality of needing to score quickly regardless of the conditions and situation of the game. To these batting sins must be added the toleration of switch hits such as the reverse sweep, shots which are the batsman's equivalent of a bowler being able to go over or round the wicket at will without advising the batsman in advance and consequently should be banned. They are also very ugly shots.

The emphasis on limited overs cricket generally and T20 in particular is also having a malign effect on bowlers who strive to contain rather than take wickets. Ironically this often results in bowlers being slogged unmercifully because their bowling ends up as both inconsistent and poorly executed as they strive for ever greater variation, with frequent and radical changes of pace which are generally poorly disguised, slow bouncers and attempted Yorkers which more often than not end up as low full tosses. This species of bowling is also encouraged by the lack of close catchers in limited overs cricket and the frequent reduction of wicket keepers to little more than glorified longstops.

In fact, T20 is a game barely recognisable as cricket. The present T20 world cup has batsmen displaying stances which must by their very nature leave a batsman unable to react in the most efficient fashion, batsmen dancing about the crease before the bowler bowls, batsmen playing strokes, many of which are wild slogs, which they could never play safely in a first class match. As for bowlers, they have largely served as helpless cannon fodder, something they have been complicit in by inconsistent bowling which has included an embarrassing number of full tosses , many of which have gone for six. Close catching has been rare if not non-existent. Add in the coloured clothing and numbers on a player's back and it might almost be baseball.

The danger for professional cricket is twofold: that the skills necessary to play first class cricket in general and Test cricket in particular will be lost and that T20 will prove to lack staying power because it has a decided one-dimensional quality, regardless of the many close finishes which occur. The problem is that exiting cricket does not equal good cricket and that is true with knobs on when a match only lasts 40 overs. Sooner or later boredom will set in and the lack of quality will matter.

T20 is terribly vulnerable to being a shortish term fad. Who honestly remembers the results of international T20 games or even ODIs as the results of Test matches and series are commonly remembered? In my experience few cricket followers could tell you the winners of ODI series or recall even the winners of T20 World Cups. The same applies to individual performances. Bowlers restricted to ten overs in ODIs or four in T20 cannot produce great feats. A batsman scoring 50 in a T20 match will have done well, but it is scarcely likely to be an innings which remains in the memory, not least because so much of the strokeplay is ugly to watch. Who can take pleasure in watching low full tosses hit for six with what are essentially baseball shots?

If T20 does lose its current popularity in, say, twenty years time there will be a generation of professional cricketers who will have developed their games to play T20 and in all probability will have little first class experience. It is even possible that first class cricket may have died completely. If first class cricket has been seriously diminished and T20 falls out of fashion it is all too possible that cricket itself will die or at the least cease to be a serious international sport. https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2016/04/03/the-uglification-of-cricket/

[Dave Cornwell]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without disagreeing with all of what you are saying the point you are
missing is that it is what it is. So if batsmen play baseball shots for
six it isn't to annoy you - it is because it has been proven to be the
best way to play it. In every form the team still plays to win so if it
is so wrong now why do they continue to do it. Even with Test cricket
you have to accept that the coaching manual of the fifties has to be
different now. Different rules, different bats and a financial approach
and progress dictate this. Should athletes still run on cinder tracks
with unpadded spiked shoes? Perhaps it was better in the days when maybe
they ran barefoot?
Things change.

[max.it]

On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 16:55:23 +0100, Dave Cornwell
<davemc...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Without disagreeing with all of what you are saying the point you are
>missing is that it is what it is. So if batsmen play baseball shots for
>six it isn't to annoy you - it is because it has been proven to be the
>best way to play it. In every form the team still plays to win so if it
>is so wrong now why do they continue to do it. Even with Test cricket
>you have to accept that the coaching manual of the fifties has to be
>different now. Different rules, different bats and a financial approach
>and progress dictate this. Should athletes still run on cinder tracks
>with unpadded spiked shoes? Perhaps it was better in the days when maybe
>they ran barefoot?
>Things change.
>

I went to a Sven Elkjaer presentation yesterday.
He showed a picture of Victor Mildrew and described how some people
cry and whine about things being better 'back in the day'. However he
was able to explain how clubs and organisations that take the 'back in
the day' or the 'over my dead body' approach usually fail miserably
because of the attitude of perhaps only one single officer of the club
who lives 'back in the day'.
If the limited overs form of the game isn't embraced and promoted then
the timed version of the game could be doomed.

If you ever get the chance go and listen to Sven.

max.it

[Andy Walker]

On 03/04/16 16:55, Dave Cornwell wrote:
> On 03/04/2016 16:36, RH156RH wrote:

>> [...] It is even possible that first class

>> cricket may have died completely.

F-c cricket played as your rose-coloured spectacles recall it
at the end of the '50s was dying already. When I started watching,
Trent Bridge was, given half-decent weather, jammed full to capacity
for the Surrey, Yorks and tourist matches, and decently full even for
the less interesting visitors. A decade later, and the typical county
match was played in front of the proverbial two men and a dog.

Cricket had to change or die. It's far from the only sport
whose current formats bear little resemblance to those of the 19thC,
or even mid-20thC.

>> If first class cricket has been
>> seriously diminished and T20 falls out of fashion it is all too
>> possible that cricket itself will die

If so, then it will be because the professional sport is not
financially viable and the amateur sport is not interesting enough
for ordinary people to take up and play of a Saturday afternoon.
You think, and I think, that would be a shame. But it's a problem
that cannot be solved by winding the clock back to a mythical era.

>> or at the least cease to be a
>> serious international sport.

It won't *become* a serious international sport until it is
played at the highest levels by more than a handful of Commonwealth
countries.

> Without disagreeing with all of what you are saying the point you are
> missing is that it is what it is.

Absolutely.

> So if batsmen play baseball shots
> for six it isn't to annoy you - it is because it has been proven to
> be the best way to play it.

"Proven" is an exaggeration. But it is current best practice.
Tactics and strategies for 20/40/50/60-over matches have been evolving
for half a century now, and there are still novelties and surprises.
It would be a novelty and a surprise if the next World Cups are played
the same way as the recent ones.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Andy Walker]

On 04/04/16 11:21, I wrote:
[RH:]

>>> If first class cricket has been
>>> seriously diminished and T20 falls out of fashion it is all too
>>> possible that cricket itself will die
> If so, then it will be because the professional sport is not
> financially viable and the amateur sport is not interesting enough
> for ordinary people to take up and play of a Saturday afternoon.

Serendipitously, see

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/35955646

"World Twenty20: T20 is keeping West Indies cricket alive". Cricket
in the rest of the world, inc the UK, would survive the demise of
WIndies cricket, but it would be a serious blow.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[David North]

"Andy Walker" <a...@cuboid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ndtg3l$12nk$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

"Bowler Ben Stokes had been part of a death squad ..."

Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but that's the first time I've seen
that term used in relation to cricket.
--
David North

[John Hall]

In message <dmf52p...@mid.individual.net>, David North
<dno...@abbeymanor.fsbusiness.co.uk> writes

It seems a very insensitive metaphor to use.
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones

[RH156RH]

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 11:21:33 AM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 03/04/16 16:55, Dave Cornwell wrote:
> > On 03/04/2016 16:36, RH156RH wrote:
> >> [...] It is even possible that first class
> >> cricket may have died completely.
>
> F-c cricket played as your rose-coloured spectacles recall it
> at the end of the '50s was dying already. When I started watching,
> Trent Bridge was, given half-decent weather, jammed full to capacity
> for the Surrey, Yorks and tourist matches, and decently full even for
> the less interesting visitors. A decade later, and the typical county
> match was played in front of the proverbial two men and a dog.

It was in such a terrible state that it managed to continue until the early years of this century with no huge TV deal and no T20. The worry by the administrators at the end of the fifties was a fear based on shadows not reality. All that changed in the 1960s was the Gillett Cup which was a handful of matches each year and the introduction of the John Player League in 1969. In terms of extra games or "brighter " cricket, Such TV coverage as there was remained on the BBC with no competitor braodcaster pushing up the tiny by present day standards that English cricket received from the broadcast rights. Ergo, here was very little difference between 1960 and 1968. Even after 1968 the limited overs games were not huge money spinners and broadcast rights remained meagre. It was only with the advent of Sky that real money came into the game in 2006.

RH

> Cricket had to change or die. It's far from the only sport
> whose current formats bear little resemblance to those of the 19thC,
> or even mid-20thC.

Nonsense on stilts. See above. RH

>
> >> If first class cricket has been
> >> seriously diminished and T20 falls out of fashion it is all too
> >> possible that cricket itself will die
>
> If so, then it will be because the professional sport is not
> financially viable and the amateur sport is not interesting enough
> for ordinary people to take up and play of a Saturday afternoon.
> You think, and I think, that would be a shame. But it's a problem
> that cannot be solved by winding the clock back to a mythical era.

You miss the point. T20 does not have to exist to make cricket financially viable. It is a misshapen monster swallowing its parents. RH

>
> >> or at the least cease to be a
> >> serious international sport.
>
> It won't *become* a serious international sport until it is
> played at the highest levels by more than a handful of Commonwealth
> countries.

God give me strength! It is a sport played seriously by countries with a combined population of not far short of 2 billion. RH

>
> > Without disagreeing with all of what you are saying the point you are
> > missing is that it is what it is.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> > So if batsmen play baseball shots
> > for six it isn't to annoy you - it is because it has been proven to
> > be the best way to play it.
>
> "Proven" is an exaggeration. But it is current best practice.
> Tactics and strategies for 20/40/50/60-over matches have been evolving
> for half a century now, and there are still novelties and surprises.
> It would be a novelty and a surprise if the next World Cups are played
> the same way as the recent ones.

If this transformation continues never again will you see batsmen with the elegance of Graveney and Gower or the grandeur of Dexter and Greg Chappell, never again will will you see a Tyson, Trueman, Lindwall or Miller bowling devastating spells of seven or eight overs to an attacking field; never again will you watch the likes of Warne and Underwood teasing out a batsman... RH

[RH156RH]

You are falling for the naming fallacy. You imagine that T20 is cricket because it is called cricket. It is a bastard progeny of cricket that is closer to baseball than cricket. RH

[Andy Walker]

On 06/04/16 15:20, RH156RH wrote:
>> Serendipitously, see
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/35955646
>> "World Twenty20: T20 is keeping West Indies cricket alive". Cricket
>> in the rest of the world, inc the UK, would survive the demise of
>> WIndies cricket, but it would be a serious blow.
> You are falling for the naming fallacy. You imagine that T20 is
> cricket because it is called cricket. It is a bastard progeny of
> cricket that is closer to baseball than cricket. RH

It wasn't my claim, but that of Tom Fordyce [BBC]; and it
doesn't matter whether it is T20, golf or tiddleywinks that is
keeping WIndies cricket alive; and, to complete the hat-trick,
T20 isn't called "cricket", it's called "T20".

Whether T20 *is* cricket is open to debate. Most of us
recognise it as such, and indeed it is closer to the sort of
cricket that most people here have played in afternoons and
evenings than is Test cricket. It is, of course, played with
much more skill when played by f-c and Test cricketers than
when played by club or village cricketers, and inevitably there
are some minor rule changes to speed the game up. But even you
can't pretend that the basic process of bowling the ball at the
batsman, with the possibilities of runs being scored or wickets
taken, isn't pretty much the same in all forms of the sport.

You can start complaining more seriously when T20
introduces "tip and run" or "six and out" or "catch one-handed
first bounce" rules, in conformity with what commonly happens
in playground cricket.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Andy Walker]

On 06/04/16 15:17, RH156RH wrote:
>> [...] A decade later, and the typical county

>> match was played in front of the proverbial two men and a dog.
> It was in such a terrible state that it managed to continue until the
> early years of this century with no huge TV deal and no T20. The
> worry by the administrators at the end of the fifties was a fear
> based on shadows not reality.

You really have no idea. Obviously you don't remember the
year after year of gloomy financial reports, huge overdrafts, cuts
in staffs, .... Most counties [perhaps bar Yorks, Lancs, Surrey
and Middx?] were effectively bankrupt. They survived by the annual
whip-round among the dying breed of wealthy supporters and by the
forbearance of their creditors.

> All that changed in the 1960s was the
> Gillett Cup which was a handful of matches each year and the
> introduction of the John Player League in 1969.

Your usual utter nonsense. That was also the decade when
there were experiments with Sunday play, advertising, sponsorship,
overseas players, the end of the pro-am divide, lotteries,
diversification into sports/health clubs, restaurants/hospitality,
property management, etc. County finances remained parlous, but
there was at least some light at the end of the tunnel.

From an article on Mike Turner:

" "You have to remember the context," Turner told Spin magazine
" in 2009. "The game was in the doldrums at the time. There had
" been a post-war boom but, by the 1960s, spectator numbers were
" falling. Membership numbers were falling. We were worried about
" the game's future. "
[Midlands KO trophy:]
" "[... T]his was the first limited-overs cricket. [...]But mid-
" week league cricket had been *played over 20-overs for years*
" and had always been very popular. " [My emphasis.]
[...]
" "It wasn't just the spectators that one-day cricket attracted,"
" Turner said. "It was the sponsorship. The Gillette Cup was the
" first major county sponsorship and was soon followed by the John
" Player League. As a game was televised every Sunday by the BBC,
" it meant we suddenly had advertising around county grounds. It
" was a great deal for the game. "
[...]
" "When I was appointed secretary of Leicestershire in 1960, I was
" told that the foreseeable life of the club was five years," he
" said. [...] "I decided we needed a figurehead senior pro to lead
" the side. I wrote to Tom Graveney in the early 60s and invited
" him to captain us. He wrote me a lovely letter. He said I had made
" him a very good offer, but that he couldn't face playing out of
" such a dilapidated pavilion and didn't want to be at a club where
" he got splinters every time he went for a shower. "
[http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/901499.html]

[RH:]

>>>> If first class cricket has been
>>>> seriously diminished and T20 falls out of fashion it is all too
>>>> possible that cricket itself will die
>> If so, then it will be because the professional sport is not
>> financially viable and the amateur sport is not interesting enough
>> for ordinary people to take up and play of a Saturday afternoon.
>> You think, and I think, that would be a shame. But it's a problem
>> that cannot be solved by winding the clock back to a mythical era.
> You miss the point. T20 does not have to exist to make cricket
> financially viable.

Pay attention. *If* cricket dies, it will *then* be because
it is not viable/interesting. Nothing to do with T20, except that
*while* T20 is successful, it helps to support other cricket. *If*
T20 stops being successful, it will stop; it cannot plausibly be
supported otherwise. Try using logic instead of launching into yet
another tirade about how much better the game used to be.

>>>> or at the least cease to be a
>>>> serious international sport.
>> It won't *become* a serious international sport until it is
>> played at the highest levels by more than a handful of Commonwealth
>> countries.
> God give me strength! It is a sport played seriously by countries
> with a combined population of not far short of 2 billion. RH

It is played "seriously" by four countries with a more general
sporting tradition and reputation and six other countries which barely
figure in sport otherwise, bar the occasional foray into hockey or
sprinting, and several of which are disaster areas for one reason or
another [corruption/poverty/warfare].

For comparison, the world's top 20 male tennis players come
from 14 different countries, top 20 female from 13, the current F1
drivers from 14, top 20 golfers from 7 despite the USA having 9 in
the list [another 6 countries in the next 20, despite the continuing
dominance of the USA], the top 20 male athletes from 14, females
from 13, .... Of course, you will complain that those are not team
sports. But football is played seriously in hundreds of countries,
with dozens, including almost all the major countries of Europe and
SAmerica having been at one time or another serious contenders for
the title. Or, among less widely distributed sports, 24 different
countries have qualified for the hockey world cup proper, with 11
reaching the semi-finals, 20 countries play in the rugger WC, and
so on. Three of the top ten rugger teams are not English speaking,
and have nothing to do with Commonwealth antecedents. That's what
it takes for a sport to be seriously international.

Luckily the ICC don't share your desire to turn the clock
back. But they give with one have and take with the other, by
opening up the various world cups to non-Test nations but then
clamping down on how many are allowed to play.

> If this transformation continues never again will you see batsmen
> with the elegance of Graveney and Gower or the grandeur of Dexter and
> Greg Chappell, never again will will you see a Tyson, Trueman,
> Lindwall or Miller bowling devastating spells of seven or eight
> overs to an attacking field; never again will you watch the likes of
> Warne and Underwood teasing out a batsman... RH

Players are who they are. We won't know Root's place in the
pantheon until he retires, but he has already done enough at all
forms of the game from Test level to T20 to show mastery comparable
with many of the great names of the past, certainly including those
you mention. As for "devastating spells", you must have been asleep
in recent years when Anderson and Broad ran through top opposition.
When did you previously see a batsman win a match against the odds
by hitting four sixes off successive balls? Did you not see some
of the stunning catches of the T20 event? Exciting things are still
happening in cricket, and since Test cricket is still alive and well,
things of the sort you mention are also still happening. No-one is
tying you to a chair and forcing you to watch T20. You don't even
have to watch one-day cricket. But you can't expect counties and
MCC to mount expensive f-c matches in the UK unless more people than
just you, or even just the contributors to this NG, are prepared to
pay to watch it.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[RH156RH]

On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:52:03 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 06/04/16 15:17, RH156RH wrote:
> >> [...] A decade later, and the typical county
> >> match was played in front of the proverbial two men and a dog.
> > It was in such a terrible state that it managed to continue until the
> > early years of this century with no huge TV deal and no T20. The
> > worry by the administrators at the end of the fifties was a fear
> > based on shadows not reality.
>
> You really have no idea. Obviously you don't remember the
> year after year of gloomy financial reports, huge overdrafts, cuts
> in staffs, .... Most counties [perhaps bar Yorks, Lancs, Surrey
> and Middx?] were effectively bankrupt. They survived by the annual
> whip-round among the dying breed of wealthy supporters and by the
> forbearance of their creditors.

The same tales of woe have always been around CC but always proved to be examples of crying wolf as no FC county has ever failed to exist since the establishment of the CC as a formal competition. RH

>
> > All that changed in the 1960s was the
> > Gillett Cup which was a handful of matches each year and the
> > introduction of the John Player League in 1969.
>
> Your usual utter nonsense. That was also the decade when
> there were experiments with Sunday play,

Give examples of FC counties playing on Sunday in anything other than benefit and charity matches before the JP League. RH

advertising, sponsorship,
> overseas players,

Not until 1969 when the 2 year qualification rule was scrapped.. RH

the end of the pro-am divide,

That increased costs for counties. RH

lotteries,
> diversification into sports/health clubs, restaurants/hospitality,

Catering had always produced revenue for counties. Moreover,expanding the catering had its risks.

Brian Johnson used to tell a story of the MCC catering committee. IN the mid-fifties the the catering was all put to contractors who paid the MCC a fixed fee. The MCC catering committee decided to take the catering in house. In their first year they made a loss of £10,000 (worth £200-300,000 at today's value). RH

> property management, etc.



County finances remained parlous, but
> there was at least some light at the end of the tunnel.

Translation: they were in no real danger. RH

>
> From an article on Mike Turner:
>
> " "You have to remember the context," Turner told Spin magazine
> " in 2009. "The game was in the doldrums at the time. There had
> " been a post-war boom but, by the 1960s, spectator numbers were
> " falling. Membership numbers were falling. We were worried about
> " the game's future. "

Just the usual tale of woe. RH

> [Midlands KO trophy:]
> " "[... T]his was the first limited-overs cricket. [...]But mid-
> " week league cricket had been *played over 20-overs for years*
> " and had always been very popular. " [My emphasis.]
> [...]
> " "It wasn't just the spectators that one-day cricket attracted,"
> " Turner said. "It was the sponsorship. The Gillette Cup was the
> " first major county sponsorship and was soon followed by the John
> " Player League. As a game was televised every Sunday by the BBC,
> " it meant we suddenly had advertising around county grounds. It
> " was a great deal for the game. "

But there was very little one-day cricket until 1969. RH

> [...]
> " "When I was appointed secretary of Leicestershire in 1960, I was
> " told that the foreseeable life of the club was five years," he
> " said. [...] "I decided we needed a figurehead senior pro to lead
> " the side. I wrote to Tom Graveney in the early 60s and invited
> " him to captain us. He wrote me a lovely letter. He said I had made
> " him a very good offer, but that he couldn't face playing out of
> " such a dilapidated pavilion and didn't want to be at a club where
> " he got splinters every time he went for a shower. "
> [http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/story/901499.html]
>
> [RH:]

Just the usual tale of woe. RH

> >>>> If first class cricket has been
> >>>> seriously diminished and T20 falls out of fashion it is all too
> >>>> possible that cricket itself will die
> >> If so, then it will be because the professional sport is not
> >> financially viable and the amateur sport is not interesting enough
> >> for ordinary people to take up and play of a Saturday afternoon.
> >> You think, and I think, that would be a shame. But it's a problem
> >> that cannot be solved by winding the clock back to a mythical era.
> > You miss the point. T20 does not have to exist to make cricket
> > financially viable.
>
> Pay attention. *If* cricket dies, it will *then* be because
> it is not viable/interesting.

No, it will be because true cricket lovers are driven away by the abortion that is T20 and the general ugliness of modern cricket until only T20 is left and the passing excitement of that has gone leaving nothing but an empty shell. RH

Nothing to do with T20,

If you believe that you know nothing of cricket... RH

except that
> *while* T20 is successful,

it helps to support other cricket. *If*
> T20 stops being successful, it will stop; it cannot plausibly be
> supported otherwise. Try using logic instead of launching into yet
> another tirade about how much better the game used to be.
>
> >>>> or at the least cease to be a
> >>>> serious international sport.
> >> It won't *become* a serious international sport until it is
> >> played at the highest levels by more than a handful of Commonwealth
> >> countries.
> > God give me strength! It is a sport played seriously by countries
> > with a combined population of not far short of 2 billion. RH
>
> It is played "seriously" by four countries with a more general
> sporting tradition and reputation and six other countries which barely
> figure in sport otherwise, bar the occasional foray into hockey or
> sprinting, and several of which are disaster areas for one reason or
> another [corruption/poverty/warfare].

The idea that numbers of enthusiasts do not count is blinkered even for you... RH

>
> For comparison, the world's top 20 male tennis players come
> from 14 different countries, top 20 female from 13, the current F1
> drivers from 14, top 20 golfers from 7 despite the USA having 9 in
> the list [another 6 countries in the next 20, despite the continuing
> dominance of the USA], the top 20 male athletes from 14, females
> from 13, .... Of course, you will complain that those are not team
> sports. But football is played seriously in hundreds of countries,
> with dozens, including almost all the major countries of Europe and
> SAmerica having been at one time or another serious contenders for
> the title. Or, among less widely distributed sports, 24 different
> countries have qualified for the hockey world cup proper, with 11
> reaching the semi-finals, 20 countries play in the rugger WC, and
> so on. Three of the top ten rugger teams are not English speaking,
> and have nothing to do with Commonwealth antecedents. That's what
> it takes for a sport to be seriously international.

Utterly irrelevant to the question of how many play and follow a game. . RH

Again, just a blinkered view. Of course, we know from your repeated refusal to say when you last went to a CC match that you have watched little if any FC cricket for a very long time. RH

[RH156RH]

On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:57:25 AM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 06/04/16 15:20, RH156RH wrote:
> >> Serendipitously, see
> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/35955646
> >> "World Twenty20: T20 is keeping West Indies cricket alive". Cricket
> >> in the rest of the world, inc the UK, would survive the demise of
> >> WIndies cricket, but it would be a serious blow.
> > You are falling for the naming fallacy. You imagine that T20 is
> > cricket because it is called cricket. It is a bastard progeny of
> > cricket that is closer to baseball than cricket. RH
>
> It wasn't my claim, but that of Tom Fordyce [BBC];

You quoted him in support of your position. RH

and it
> doesn't matter whether it is T20, golf or tiddleywinks that is
> keeping WIndies cricket alive; and, to complete the hat-trick,
> T20 isn't called "cricket", it's called "T20".

NO, it is called T20 cricket... RH

>
> Whether T20 *is* cricket is open to debate. Most of us
> recognise it as such, and indeed it is closer to the sort of
> cricket that most people here have played in afternoons and
> evenings than is Test cricket. It is, of course, played with
> much more skill when played by f-c and Test cricketers than
> when played by club or village cricketers, and inevitably there
> are some minor rule changes to speed the game up. But even you
> can't pretend that the basic process of bowling the ball at the
> batsman, with the possibilities of runs being scored or wickets
> taken, isn't pretty much the same in all forms of the sport.

How little you understand the game at any level. There is a world of difference between club cricket and that played by professionals. RH

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 11, 2016 at 6:30:27 PM UTC+10, RH156RH wrote:

> How little you understand the game at any level. There is a world of difference between club cricket and that played by professionals. RH

why at club level people can even pick who's bowling offspinners...

[Bob Dubery]

On Monday, 11 April 2016 10:28:13 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:52:03 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:

> > Pay attention. *If* cricket dies, it will *then* be because
> > it is not viable/interesting.
>
>
> No, it will be because true cricket lovers are driven away by the abortion that is T20 and the general ugliness of modern cricket until only T20 is left and the passing excitement of that has gone leaving nothing but an empty shell. RH

All they have to do is not watch it. I watch test matches, pay hardly any
attention to 20 over games.

[RH156RH]

You miss the point. T20 will drive out FC cricket... RH

[Andy Walker]

On 12/04/16 08:45, RH156RH wrote:
>>>> Pay attention. *If* cricket dies, it will *then* be because
>>>> it is not viable/interesting.
>>> No, it will be because true cricket lovers are driven away by the
>>> abortion that is T20 and the general ugliness of modern cricket
>>> until only T20 is left and the passing excitement of that has
>>> gone leaving nothing but an empty shell. RH

[Bob Dubery:]

>> All they have to do is not watch it. I watch test matches, pay hardly any
>> attention to 20 over games.
> You miss the point. T20 will drive out FC cricket... RH

*You* miss the point. Question: Is there enough support
among "true cricket lovers" to keep f-c cricket going? If the
answer is "yes", the f-c cricket will keep going. If the answer
is "no", then you cannot be surprised if it dies. I suspect that
the answer in fact is "no" [as it has been since the '50s], and
that f-c cricket is kept alive only by subsidies from other
activities -- other professional cricket, advertising/betting,
health clubs, hospitality and the like.

Second question: Your original point seemed to be about
cricket in general. So is there enough support from interested
people to keep cricket going? If the answer is "no", then cricket
will die. But here it's beyond reasonable doubt that the answer
is "yes", and that club/village cricket will keep going into the
indefinite future. Just as dozens of other sports are played up
and down the country with virtually no professional involvement.
If there is club/village cricket, then BRD there will [continue
to] be inter-county/inter-city cricket, even if at amateur or
semi-pro level, and overseas tourists, and exhibition matches
comparable with those of the 19thC.

Meanwhile, note that Tom Fordyce's article was not about
how T20 has "driven out f-c cricket" in the WIndies, but about
how it has kept it alive. Personally, I'm not bothered about
T20; but I have to concede that it's a pleasure to see TB full
of people of all ages enjoying themselves. I see no reason at
all why it should be a passing fad, any more than any other
professional sport or entertainment.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Andy Walker]

On 11/04/16 09:30, RH156RH wrote:
> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:57:25 AM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
>>> You are falling for the naming fallacy. You imagine that T20 is
>>> cricket because it is called cricket. It is a bastard progeny of
>>> cricket that is closer to baseball than cricket. RH
>> It wasn't my claim, but that of Tom Fordyce [BBC];
> You quoted him in support of your position. RH

Yes; after all, he is a respected writer who wrote a piece
pointing out that, far from your claim that T20 is a danger to the
future of cricket [in general, not just the professional sport],
it has kept WIndies cricket alive. Nothing to do with what T20
is called, nor even whether it "is" cricket.

>> and it
>> doesn't matter whether it is T20, golf or tiddleywinks that is
>> keeping WIndies cricket alive; and, to complete the hat-trick,
>> T20 isn't called "cricket", it's called "T20".
> NO, it is calledT20 cricket... RH

You need to decide whether you're using "T20" as an adjective
or as a noun. You were using it as a noun, whereas in "T20 cricket"
it's being used as an adjective. Your favourite authors, Dodgson and
Shakespeare, have interesting views on what things are called. But
they don't write recursive definitions with no way out.

>> [...] But even you

>> can't pretend that the basic process of bowling the ball at the
>> batsman, with the possibilities of runs being scored or wickets
>> taken, isn't pretty much the same in all forms of the sport.
> How little you understand the game at any level.

Note the obsessive abuse.

> There is a world of
> difference between club cricket and that played by professionals. RH

Of course there is, as there is in any sport. But, as with
football, golf, tennis, swimming, ..., the differences are not in the
basic processes of the sport, but with the skill levels, the degree
of regulation, and so on, with usually only very minor changes to the
rules to accommodate these. Andy Murray or Danny Willett could turn
up tomorrow to a local club and play a match against an amateur; the
result might be very one-sided, but they would have no difficulty in
serving/putting/whatever in exactly the same way as in top events.
Similarly, Cook/Root/Anderson/Broad/Ali could turn out in a village
match and bat/bowl/field exactly as in a Test match.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, April 13, 2016 at 8:38:18 PM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
> Similarly, Cook/Root/Anderson/Broad/Ali could turn out in a village
> match and bat/bowl/field exactly as in a Test match.

Jimmy would probably kill someone in the first over.

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

What I mean by this is it would be a very short game :)

[Andy Walker]

On 13/04/16 12:12, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
[ANW:]

>>> Similarly, Cook/Root/Anderson/Broad/Ali could turn out in a village
>>> match and bat/bowl/field exactly as in a Test match.

[JZF:]

>> Jimmy would probably kill someone in the first over.
> What I mean by this is it would be a very short game :)

I've told this story before. In my first year at university,
there was a student who was very keen on sports. We had a very small
college, so we were always on the look-out for talent, however meagre.
This youth: "I play football for Punjab"; so he had a run-out with
the college team, and was useless. "I play hockey for Punjab" -- ditto.
"I swim for Punjab", ..., through a range of sports. Finally, "I play
cricket for Punjab". By this time, we were wise to him, but gave him
a game for the second/Gentleman's XI [I forget which, but it was much
the same players anyway -- anyone who was prepared to play]. At the
end of the first over, the opponents [Ely Clergy, or some such] were
12-3 -- 12 byes, 3 clean bowled, each ball having gone to the boundary
untouched by bat, glove or hand. He couldn't understand why we took
him off, and put a slow bowler on instead.

More recently, I checked with CA. There is no f-c cricketer
of his [quite common] name, but there are several who played for
representative schools sides at about the right time. But there are
quite few scorecards, and these tend to give only initials, so I
don't know whether there was any truth at all in his claim. But at
least for one over, he was quite a demon fast bowler.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[max.it]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 18:48:38 +0100, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

An Indian player came to our club about 2001. He said he had played
for India u19. He didn't seem too good in the nets, in fact the older
gemtleman who introduced him had a bowl and he was very good.
Anyway Giresh got a game the following Saturday. He dropped two caught
and bowled in the same over, the batsman went on to score 140 odds
runs. However, it turned out that Giresh did play for India U19 -
at bloody volleyball! No wonder he couldn't catch.

max.it

[Andy Walker]

On 13/04/16 18:58, max.it wrote:
> [...] However, it turned out that Giresh did play for India U19 -

> at bloody volleyball! No wonder he couldn't catch.

But he should at least have been able to knock the ball up
for someone else to catch!

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On 2016/04/03 5:36 PM, RH156RH wrote:
[...]

> Today batsmen come to the crease looking like Michelin men with their bumper bras, arm guards, massive thigh pads which go round each thigh plus helmets caging their faces with unsightly bars which are worn regardless of the threat a bowler carries. All this gear makes batsmen look ugly at best and ridiculous at worst.

Harry East writes memorably of the aesthetics of protective toggery in one of his little Whitehorn books. You could quote it for colour.

> They are much less mobile and because of the supposed safety provided by helmets are frequently tempted to play hooks and pulls recklessly and inexpertly. This often ends up with them being hit on the head. I also suspect that helmets restrict a batsman's vision at worst and at best have a deleterious psychological effect.

They are understood to slacken reflexes. Sunil Gavaskar, for example, is quite decided on the point.

[...]

> Demanding pitches also gave the bowler a much greater incentive to bowl straight and to bowl consistently, something bowlers of today routinely fail to do. It is a common mistake to imagine that having pitches doing something means a bowler has to do little more than pitch a ball up and let the pitch do the rest. In fact, bowlers need to learn how to bowl in helpful conditions top make the most of them. Taking 5-60 on a pitch where 5-20 could reasonably be expected is poor not good bowling.

I've always admired Vernon Philander's philosophy. "I just tried to bowl as if it was a flat pitch," he explained in 2011, after mowing down Sri Lanka on an emerald one. "Sometimes you get on a greentop and you think you should bowl bouncer, bouncer, yorker and then bowl the middle stump out. But the assistance is there. Why try to bowl any differently?"

> Today batsmen are increasingly at sea whenever they encounter conditions which allow the bowlers to swing, seam or spin the ball. This is partly because of the covering of pitches, the existence of pitch inspectors who take fright at pitches which help the bowler resulting in points being deducted and the fact that much less first class cricket (where good technique is developed) is played today.

Half the trouble is in the terminology: "Good" wickets favour batsmen; "bad" ones prefer bowlers.

> But it is also because batsmen are increasingly adjusting their techniques to play T20 cricket where the real money is to be made.
> Batsmen, almost universally amongst the young players, are adopting one a stance which has the bat raised , either locked in an awkward stillness or waving about with the head moving as well as the body. Some add to this ungainly position by leaning forward with their weight on the front foot

Why *shouldn't* the weight be on the front foot? I've personally always found the Kallis trigger to be helpful; it's not at all difficult to transfer one's weight backward from that position (although the reverse does not hold).

> and the bat slanted forward. This cannot be the optimum method of waiting for the bowler because the batsman will be concentrating on holding the bat up or moving about the crease. In the case of the bat slanted forward that virtually commits the batsman to a front foot shot and at best means the batsman has to waste precious microseconds if he has to play off the back foot.
> The growing eminence of T20 is resulting in the taking into first class cricket these defective techniques together with the T20 mentality of needing to score quickly regardless of the conditions and situation of the game. To these batting sins must be added the toleration of switch hits such as the reverse sweep, shots which are the batsman's equivalent of a bowler being able to go over or round the wicket at will without advising the batsman in advance and consequently should be banned.

The switch-hit and the reverse sweep are very different things.

> They are also very ugly shots.
> The emphasis on limited overs cricket generally and T20 in particular is also having a malign effect on bowlers who strive to contain rather than take wickets.

Quite. I think I've argued before that T20 isn't nearly as aggressive and exciting as it makes itself out to be. What's claimed for it is true only of the batting (and even this is debatable on the "excitement" front). The bowling, as a rule, is as defensive as it gets.

> Ironically this often results in bowlers being slogged unmercifully because their bowling ends up as both inconsistent and poorly executed as they strive for ever greater variation, with frequent and radical changes of pace which are generally poorly disguised, slow bouncers and attempted Yorkers which more often than not end up as low full tosses. This species of bowling is also encouraged by the lack of close catchers in limited overs cricket and the frequent reduction of wicket keepers to little more than glorified longstops.
> In fact, T20 is a game barely recognisable as cricket. The present T20 world cup has batsmen displaying stances which must by their very nature leave a batsman unable to react in the most efficient fashion, batsmen dancing about the crease before the bowler bowls, batsmen playing strokes, many of which are wild slogs, which they could never play safely in a first class match. As for bowlers, they have largely served as helpless cannon fodder, something they have been complicit in by inconsistent bowling which has included an embarrassing number of full tosses , many of which have gone for six. Close catching has been rare if not non-existent.

Terrific point. Can anyone see the bat-pad and his skill-set surviving the hegemony of twenty-over cricket? James Taylor, just retired, may be among the last of the close-in specialists.

> Add in the coloured clothing and numbers on a player's back and it might almost be baseball.
> The danger for professional cricket is twofold: that the skills necessary to play first class cricket in general and Test cricket in particular will be lost and that T20 will prove to lack staying power because it has a decided one-dimensional quality, regardless of the many close finishes which occur. The problem is that exiting cricket does not equal good cricket

To some of us it does -- those of us, I mean to say, who loved cricket even before it was circumcised. "A novel idea, this," wrote Gideon Haigh in 2007, "to redesign a game to the specifications of those who don't like it. Rather like creating art for consumers who prefer pornography."

Rodney

[max.it]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:07:25 +0100, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk>
wrote:

If only.
They scored almost 300 from 50 overs. We didn't chase the target but
we did make over 200 for the first ever time and I got my highest ever
senior league score (24)

max.it

[Vidcapper]

On 13/04/2016 21:20, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 2016/04/03 5:36 PM, RH156RH wrote: [...]

>

>> They are much less mobile and because of the supposed safety
>> provided by helmets are frequently tempted to play hooks and
>> pulls recklessly and inexpertly. This often ends up with them
>> being hit on the head. I also suspect that helmets restrict a
>> batsman's vision at worst and at best have a deleterious
>> psychological effect.
>
> They are understood to slacken reflexes. Sunil Gavaskar, for example,
> is quite decided on the point.

I wonder if this has been tested scientifically?

>
>> They are also very ugly shots. The emphasis on limited overs
>> cricket generally and T20 in particular is also having a malign
>> effect on bowlers who strive to contain rather than take wickets.
>
> Quite. I think I've argued before that T20 isn't nearly as aggressive
> and exciting as it makes itself out to be. What's claimed for it is
> true only of the batting (and even this is debatable on the
> "excitement" front). The bowling, as a rule, is as defensive as it
> gets.

Of necessity, though,



--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

[David North]

On 13/04/2016 21:20, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 2016/04/03 5:36 PM, RH156RH wrote:

>> Today batsmen are increasingly at sea whenever they encounter conditions which allow the bowlers to swing, seam or spin the ball. This is partly because of the covering of pitches, the existence of pitch inspectors who take fright at pitches which help the bowler resulting in points being deducted and the fact that much less first class cricket (where good technique is developed) is played today.
>
> Half the trouble is in the terminology: "Good" wickets favour batsmen; "bad" ones prefer bowlers.

As you're on the subject of terminology, a good wicket should be hard
and brown, and break apart when the ball hits it. ;)

--
David North

[David North]

On 14/04/2016 07:13, Vidcapper wrote:
> On 13/04/2016 21:20, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> On 2016/04/03 5:36 PM, RH156RH wrote: [...]
>
>>
>>> They are much less mobile and because of the supposed safety
>>> provided by helmets are frequently tempted to play hooks and
>>> pulls recklessly and inexpertly. This often ends up with them
>>> being hit on the head. I also suspect that helmets restrict a
>>> batsman's vision at worst and at best have a deleterious
>>> psychological effect.
>>
>> They are understood to slacken reflexes. Sunil Gavaskar, for example,
>> is quite decided on the point.
>
> I wonder if this has been tested scientifically?

Firstly we need to clarify exactly what Rodney means by "slacken
reflexes". Clearly a batsman won't be able to move his head out of the
way as quickly (horizontally at least) when there's an extra mass
attached to it, due to inertia.


--
David North

[RH156RH]

That is true but it isn't just the physical which needs to be considered. It is a well established trait that where danger is ostensibly reduced human beings become more careless of their safety, for example, a driver wearing a seat belt will be more reckless than one without a seat belt.

I have tried on a light modern helmet complete with face grill. You are certainly aware of it when you wear it. That means at some level you are distracted from giving your full attention to the bowler. Of course the more you wear something like a helmet the more used you will get to it but you will get to the stage where you are unaware of it, not least because of the face grill. RH

[RH156RH]

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 11:37:36 AM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 12/04/16 08:45, RH156RH wrote:
> >>>> Pay attention. *If* cricket dies, it will *then* be because
> >>>> it is not viable/interesting.
> >>> No, it will be because true cricket lovers are driven away by the
> >>> abortion that is T20 and the general ugliness of modern cricket
> >>> until only T20 is left and the passing excitement of that has
> >>> gone leaving nothing but an empty shell. RH
> [Bob Dubery:]
> >> All they have to do is not watch it. I watch test matches, pay hardly any
> >> attention to 20 over games.
> > You miss the point. T20 will drive out FC cricket... RH
>
> *You* miss the point. Question: Is there enough support
> among "true cricket lovers" to keep f-c cricket going? If the
> answer is "yes", the f-c cricket will keep going. If the answer
> is "no", then you cannot be surprised if it dies. I suspect that
> the answer in fact is "no" [as it has been since the '50s], and
> that f-c cricket is kept alive only by subsidies from other
> activities -- other professional cricket, advertising/betting,
> health clubs, hospitality and the like.

As no county has lost FC status since 1890 the answer is yes, there is enough support to keep fc cricket going. Even without the T20 money, there is far more money in the English game than there was before 2006. RH

>
> Second question: Your original point seemed to be about
> cricket in general. So is there enough support from interested
> people to keep cricket going? If the answer is "no", then cricket
> will die. But here it's beyond reasonable doubt that the answer
> is "yes", and that club/village cricket will keep going into the
> indefinite future. Just as dozens of other sports are played up
> and down the country with virtually no professional involvement.
> If there is club/village cricket, then BRD there will [continue
> to] be inter-county/inter-city cricket, even if at amateur or
> semi-pro level, and overseas tourists, and exhibition matches
> comparable with those of the 19thC.

You miss the point again. If T20 is pushed before all other types of cricket the real game, the FC game, will die from want of opportunity. Already many schools have an unhealthy emphasis on T20. RH

>
> Meanwhile, note that Tom Fordyce's article was not about
> how T20 has "driven out f-c cricket" in the WIndies, but about
> how it has kept it alive. Personally, I'm not bothered about
> T20; but I have to concede that it's a pleasure to see TB full
> of people of all ages enjoying themselves. I see no reason at
> all why it should be a passing fad, any more than any other
> professional sport or entertainment.

There is no from the cricket lover's point of view having a game called cricket which is anything but cricket RH
>
> --
> Andy Walker,
> Nottingham.

[rodney...@gmail.com]

No doubt I'm revealing myself to be green and unworldly, but if that be a piece of salty innuendo, it's whooshed well over my innocent head.

My imagination, in the meantime, has taken me to some pretty dark places.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On 2016/04/14 8:13 AM, Vidcapper wrote:
> On 13/04/2016 21:20, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 2016/04/03 5:36 PM, RH156RH wrote: [...]

[...]

>>> They are also very ugly shots. The emphasis on limited overs
>>> cricket generally and T20 in particular is also having a malign
>>> effect on bowlers who strive to contain rather than take wickets.
>> Quite. I think I've argued before that T20 isn't nearly as aggressive
>> and exciting as it makes itself out to be. What's claimed for it is
>> true only of the batting (and even this is debatable on the
>> "excitement" front). The bowling, as a rule, is as defensive as it
>> gets.
> Of necessity, though

Well, yes. But that's hardly a plea in mitigation. If it *weren't* a matter of necessity -- if, that is to say, three slips and a gully were a feasible thing for twenty-over cricket -- I'd probably hold out some hope for it. But the problem is structural and ineluctable.

Rodney

[hamis...@gmail.com]

Look at law 7 and law 8

[Andy Walker]

On 11/04/16 09:28, RH156RH wrote:
>> [...] Most counties [perhaps bar Yorks, Lancs, Surrey

>> and Middx?] were effectively bankrupt. They survived by the annual
>> whip-round among the dying breed of wealthy supporters and by the
>> forbearance of their creditors.
> The same tales of woe have always been around CC but always proved to
> be examples of crying wolf as no FC county has ever failed to exist
> since the establishment of the CC as a formal competition. RH

Perhaps you have forgotten what happened in the case of the
boy who cried "Wolf!"? He did so when there was no danger, and was
therefore ignored when the danger was real. In the present case,
there was real danger, steps were taken as a consequence, and the
danger was, by the skin of the teeth, averted.

You can't quote the fact that no sheep were taken as proof
that the wolf was imaginary. Unless, that is, your claim is that
the counties did nothing to avert bankruptcy.

>>> All that changed in the 1960s was the
>>> Gillett Cup which was a handful of matches each year and the
>>> introduction of the John Player League in 1969.
>> Your usual utter nonsense. That was also the decade when
>> there were experiments with Sunday play,
> Give examples of FC counties playing on Sunday in anything other than
> benefit and charity matches before the JP League. RH

You seem to have forgotten that Sunday play in the CC was
introduced as an experiment in 1966 [when only a few matches were
played on Sundays and no entry fee was charged -- instead, they
asked for voluntary contributions], and that in 1967 and 1968 most
Saturday-start CC matches included Sunday play. [There may have
been earlier examples; I haven't checked.] Presumably voluntary contributions, and the extra bar takings, on Sunday far exceeded
the gate money on Tuesday. As a member, I didn't pay gate money
anyway, so I have no recollection of when they started to charge.

>> advertising, sponsorship,
>> overseas players,
> Not until 1969 when the 2 year qualification rule was scrapped.. RH

What part of "in the 1960s" is causing you trouble?

> the end of the pro-am divide,
> That increased costs for counties. RH

Perhaps, though not by much since there were relatively few
amateurs, some of whom were shamateurs, paid either by the club or
by wealthy supporters for other activities which happened to allow
time for cricket. The change also saved money by eliminating the
need for separate dressing rooms, and other archaic practices.
Meanwhile, the change opened up cricket to the many, esp graduates,
who were expected for social/class reasons to play as amateurs, but
couldn't afford it. So BRD it improved the overall quality of the
cricket.

>> lotteries,
>> diversification into sports/health clubs, restaurants/hospitality,
> Catering had always produced revenue for counties.

I'm not talking about it being possible to buy a sandwich or
a pork pie during the lunch interval, but the use of the catering
facilities to provide full restaurant services in the evenings and
over the winter. Conferences and corporate hospitality likewise.
It used to be common for companies to buy a few tickets for the
Tests or other important games, to dish out to favoured customers.
In the sixties, the clubs got wise to this, and started to offer
hospitality packages. Football did the same. It's big business.
Although some is directly related to the associated sport, most is
not, and just relies on the name recognition of Trent Bridge or
Old Trafford to attract companies or individuals. No doubt, as a
civil servant, you were never involved either in setting up or
receiving such favours.

[...]

>> County finances remained parlous, but
>> there was at least some light at the end of the tunnel.
> Translation: they were in no real danger. RH

No, not as long as the debts were secured against, for
example, the Trent Bridge ground. I suppose Notts could have
sold TB and used the proceeds to clear their debts and buy some
land in the countryside. But they would have lost Test status,
membership, and travel links. With money still haemorrhaging
away, they would have lost players as well, with loss of f-c
status soon to follow. That none of this happened -- to many
other counties as well as Notts -- is down to the improving
finances through the '60s and beyond, thanks to the actions
taken [in the teeth of opposition by your equivalents of the
period] to raise money in other ways.

>>> [...] T20 does not have to exist to make cricket

>>> financially viable.
>> Pay attention. *If* cricket dies, it will *then* be because
>> it is not viable/interesting.
> No, it will be because true cricket lovers are driven away by the
> abortion that is T20 and the general ugliness of modern cricket until
> only T20 is left and the passing excitement of that has gone leaving
> nothing but an empty shell. RH

So, your claim is that cricket other that T20 is so boring,
ugly, whatever, that no-one is interested in it once they've seen
T20? Or what? What is the mechanism by which a viable, vibrant
sport with lots of interest from "true cricket lovers" dies? Does
football, snooker or tiddleywinks drive people away from cricket?
Clearly, when events clash, people have to choose between cricket
and snooker; but you can't seriously claim that snooker is, or
even could be, "driving" people away from cricket. Other sports,
and indeed lifestyle activities -- holidays, garden centres, ...
-- may be *attracting* people away from cricket, but that's quite
a different matter. In the case of T20, there aren't even any
serious clashes; England don't play Tests on the same dates as
T20 internationals, and similarly for counties.

Your whole thesis is just an excuse for some purple prose
with no serious content.

>> Nothing to do with T20,
> If you believe that you know nothing of cricket... RH

NTOA.

[Cricket as an international sport:]

> The idea that numbers of enthusiasts do not count is blinkered even
> for you... RH

NTOA. No-one said that numbers don't count. But millions
of enthusiasts in India do not, *of themselves*, make cricket an
*international* sport. That comes from a sport being played in many
countries, of varied cultural heritage. It comes from countries like
France, Italy, Argentina, Japan, ... seeing a sport being played in
the UK or India or NZ, liking what they see, and, over a period,
becoming serious players, capable at least occasionally of beating
the established countries. It comes from the "minnows" being given
a fair crack of the whip at the World Championships, and so on. It
doesn't help when the ICC makes all the right noises but then cuts
down on places at the top table.

>> For comparison, the world's top 20 male tennis players come

>> from 14 different countries, [... etc ...].

>> Three of the top ten rugger teams are not English speaking,
>> and have nothing to do with Commonwealth antecedents. That's what
>> it takes for a sport to be seriously international.
> Utterly irrelevant to the question of how many play and follow a
> game. . RH

But that wasn't the question. The question was whether cricket
is a serious international sport. Well, it's part of the way there;
it is played seriously in several countries, which compete against
each other. It will catch up with rugger when at least three other
countries, such as [eg] the Netherlands, Denmark and Afghanistan,
take the sport up and achieve Test status. It will catch up with
tennis when the world's top twenty players [however measured] come
from at least a dozen different countries.

>> [...] But you can't expect counties and

>> MCC to mount expensive f-c matches in the UK unless more people than
>> just you, or even just the contributors to this NG, are prepared to
>> pay to watch it.
> Again, just a blinkered view.

NTOA. Are you claiming that cricket is financially viable
as a professional game if scarcely anyone is prepared to pay to
watch it? Which is the blinkered view?

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 10:39:42 AM UTC+10, Andy Walker wrote:
> What part of "in the 1960s" is causing you trouble?

The part without a 5?

[RH156RH]

On Friday, April 15, 2016 at 1:39:42 AM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 11/04/16 09:28, RH156RH wrote:
> >> [...] Most counties [perhaps bar Yorks, Lancs, Surrey
> >> and Middx?] were effectively bankrupt. They survived by the annual
> >> whip-round among the dying breed of wealthy supporters and by the
> >> forbearance of their creditors.
> > The same tales of woe have always been around CC but always proved to
> > be examples of crying wolf as no FC county has ever failed to exist
> > since the establishment of the CC as a formal competition. RH
>
> Perhaps you have forgotten what happened in the case of the
> boy who cried "Wolf!"? He did so when there was no danger, and was
> therefore ignored when the danger was real. In the present case,
> there was real danger, steps were taken as a consequence, and the
> danger was, by the skin of the teeth, averted.
>
> You can't quote the fact that no sheep were taken as proof
> that the wolf was imaginary. Unless, that is, your claim is that
> the counties did nothing to avert bankruptcy.

No sheep have been taken for 126 year. That rather suggests none were ever likely to be taken even if the Sky money had not arrived in 2006. RH

>
> >>> All that changed in the 1960s was the
> >>> Gillett Cup which was a handful of matches each year and the
> >>> introduction of the John Player League in 1969.
> >> Your usual utter nonsense. That was also the decade when
> >> there were experiments with Sunday play,
> > Give examples of FC counties playing on Sunday in anything other than
> > benefit and charity matches before the JP League. RH
>
> You seem to have forgotten that Sunday play in the CC was
> introduced as an experiment in 1966 [when only a few matches were
> played on Sundays and no entry fee was charged -- instead, they
> asked for voluntary contributions], and that in 1967 and 1968 most
> Saturday-start CC matches included Sunday play. [There may have
> been earlier examples; I haven't checked.] Presumably voluntary contributions, and the extra bar takings, on Sunday far exceeded
> the gate money on Tuesday. As a member, I didn't pay gate money
> anyway, so I have no recollection of when they started to charge.

So, precious little limited overs cricket before 1969 and only a few Sudnay matches played towards the end of the decade. RH

>
> >> advertising, sponsorship,
> >> overseas players,
> > Not until 1969 when the 2 year qualification rule was scrapped.. RH
>
> What part of "in the 1960s" is causing you trouble?

Now let me see, the decade is 1960-1969 and it was not until 1969 that the two year rule was scrapped so only one season out of ten was not subject to it. Soooooooooo... RH

>
> > the end of the pro-am divide,
> > That increased costs for counties. RH
>
> Perhaps, though not by much since there were relatively few
> amateurs, some of whom were shamateurs, paid either by the club or
> by wealthy supporters for other activities which happened to allow
> time for cricket. The change also saved money by eliminating the
> need for separate dressing rooms, and other archaic practices.
> Meanwhile, the change opened up cricket to the many, esp graduates,
> who were expected for social/class reasons to play as amateurs, but
> couldn't afford it. So BRD it improved the overall quality of the
> cricket.

The last year of the amateur was 1962. These amateurs played in the CC that year:

Donald Carr, George Richardson, Trevor Bailey, Roger Luckin, Ossie Wheatley, Tony Lewis, Charles Pugh, Ray White, Tony Windows, Colin Cowdrey,Peter Richardson, David Sayer, Colin I-McKenzie, Bob Barber, David Green, Bob Bennett, J Blackledge, David Kirby, Willie Watson (I am pretty sure he played as amateur for Leics) , Mike Brearley, Roger Pearman, Colin Drybrough, Ian Bedford, Mike Sturt, Roger Prideaux, Reg Simpson, Andy Corran, CRM Atkinson, I R Lomax, Roy Kerslake, Peter May, Richard Jefferson, Ted Dexter, David Sheppard, Mike Griffith, MJK Smith, Alan Smith, Richard Hutton. Total 38 A pretty strong XI could be made out of them:

Barber, Sheppard, May, Cowdrey, Dexter, MJK Smith, Carr, Bailey, A C Smith, Hutton, Sayer. RH


Of course the fact that the amateur status was being abolished would have dissuaded many from playing as an amateur that year. Moreover, the abolition of the amateur rule meant that all the players below the first XI had to be paid. RH .

>
> >> lotteries,
> >> diversification into sports/health clubs, restaurants/hospitality,
> > Catering had always produced revenue for counties.
>
> I'm not talking about it being possible to buy a sandwich or
> a pork pie during the lunch interval, but the use of the catering
> facilities to provide full restaurant services in the evenings and
> over the winter. Conferences and corporate hospitality likewise.
> It used to be common for companies to buy a few tickets for the
> Tests or other important games, to dish out to favoured customers.
> In the sixties, the clubs got wise to this, and started to offer
> hospitality packages. Football did the same. It's big business.
> Although some is directly related to the associated sport, most is
> not, and just relies on the name recognition of Trent Bridge or
> Old Trafford to attract companies or individuals. No doubt, as a
> civil servant, you were never involved either in setting up or
> receiving such favours.

The Test grounds had large scale catering way before the 1960s. RH

> >> County finances remained parlous, but
> >> there was at least some light at the end of the tunnel.
> > Translation: they were in no real danger. RH
>
> No, not as long as the debts were secured against, for
> example, the Trent Bridge ground. I suppose Notts could have
> sold TB and used the proceeds to clear their debts and buy some
> land in the countryside. But they would have lost Test status,
> membership, and travel links. With money still haemorrhaging
> away, they would have lost players as well, with loss of f-c
> status soon to follow. That none of this happened -- to many
> other counties as well as Notts -- is down to the improving
> finances through the '60s and beyond, thanks to the actions
> taken [in the teeth of opposition by your equivalents of the
> period] to raise money in other ways.

No, it was down to the fact that there was no real threat. I repeat, until 2006 there was comparatively little money in cricket. RH

>
> >>> [...] T20 does not have to exist to make cricket
> >>> financially viable.
> >> Pay attention. *If* cricket dies, it will *then* be because
> >> it is not viable/interesting.
> > No, it will be because true cricket lovers are driven away by the
> > abortion that is T20 and the general ugliness of modern cricket until
> > only T20 is left and the passing excitement of that has gone leaving
> > nothing but an empty shell. RH
>
> So, your claim is that cricket other that T20 is so boring,
> ugly, whatever, that no-one is interested in it once they've seen
> T20? Or what?

I am saying it's one dimensional shape will make a a passing fad.... RH

What is the mechanism by which a viable, vibrant
> sport with lots of interest from "true cricket lovers" dies? Does
> football, snooker or tiddleywinks drive people away from cricket?
> Clearly, when events clash, people have to choose between cricket
> and snooker; but you can't seriously claim that snooker is, or
> even could be, "driving" people away from cricket. Other sports,
> and indeed lifestyle activities -- holidays, garden centres, ...
> -- may be *attracting* people away from cricket, but that's quite
> a different matter. In the case of T20, there aren't even any
> serious clashes; England don't play Tests on the same dates as
> T20 internationals, and similarly for counties.

You simply are unable to come to terms with what T20 is doing to the game. RH

>
> Your whole thesis is just an excuse for some purple prose
> with no serious content.
>
> >> Nothing to do with T20,
> > If you believe that you know nothing of cricket... RH
>
> NTOA.
>
> [Cricket as an international sport:]
> > The idea that numbers of enthusiasts do not count is blinkered even
> > for you... RH
>
> NTOA. No-one said that numbers don't count. But millions
> of enthusiasts in India do not, *of themselves*, make cricket an
> *international* sport. That comes from a sport being played in many
> countries, of varied cultural heritage. It comes from countries like
> France, Italy, Argentina, Japan, ... seeing a sport being played in
> the UK or India or NZ, liking what they see, and, over a period,
> becoming serious players, capable at least occasionally of beating
> the established countries. It comes from the "minnows" being given
> a fair crack of the whip at the World Championships, and so on. It
> doesn't help when the ICC makes all the right noises but then cuts
> down on places at the top table.

Dear oh dear, so you imagine the subcontinent is a homogeneous place. It is more ethnically and racially diverse than Europe. RH

>
> >> For comparison, the world's top 20 male tennis players come
> >> from 14 different countries, [... etc ...].
> >> Three of the top ten rugger teams are not English speaking,
> >> and have nothing to do with Commonwealth antecedents. That's what
> >> it takes for a sport to be seriously international.
> > Utterly irrelevant to the question of how many play and follow a
> > game. . RH
>
> But that wasn't the question. The question was whether cricket
> is a serious international sport. Well, it's part of the way there;
> it is played seriously in several countries, which compete against
> each other. It will catch up with rugger when at least three other
> countries, such as [eg] the Netherlands, Denmark and Afghanistan,
> take the sport up and achieve Test status. It will catch up with
> tennis when the world's top twenty players [however measured] come
> from at least a dozen different countries.

Many countries may claim to participate in a sport but only a few are serious contenders on the woprld stage. Swimming and athletics are classic examples. Even football only has about two dozen really decent sides out of 200 odd registered with FIFA, with most of the side being in Europe and Latin America. RH

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On 2016/04/03 5:55 PM, Dave Cornwell wrote:
[...]
> Without disagreeing with all of what you are saying the point you are
> missing is that it is what it is.

How I despise this species of counterargument (if counterargument it is): Just repeat the argument you're countering in a resigned or blasé tone of voice, and -- voilà! -- you've repudiated it.

> So if batsmen play baseball shots for
> six it isn't to annoy you - it is because it has been proven to be the
> best way to play it.

Robert doesn't claim that T20 was created for the purpose of annoying him. Robert's claim is that T20, as it is, is annoying to him. There's a world of difference in those two sentences.

> Things change.

Pft.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On 2016/04/04 12:21 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 03/04/16 16:55, Dave Cornwell wrote:
>> On 03/04/2016 16:36, RH156RH wrote:
>>> [...] It is even possible that first class
>>> cricket may have died completely.
> F-c cricket played as your rose-coloured spectacles recall it
> at the end of the '50s was dying already. When I started watching,
> Trent Bridge was, given half-decent weather, jammed full to capacity
> for the Surrey, Yorks and tourist matches, and decently full even for
> the less interesting visitors. A decade later, and the typical county
> match was played in front of the proverbial two men and a dog.
> Cricket had to change or die. It's far from the only sport
> whose current formats bear little resemblance to those of the 19thC,
> or even mid-20thC.

Again, not an argument. Robert's position is that *specific* changes -- changes he has taken the time and effort to list and explain to you -- are not good for the game. You do not controvert him by saying that *general* change was necessary.

>>> If first class cricket has been
>>> seriously diminished and T20 falls out of fashion it is all too
>>> possible that cricket itself will die
> If so, then it will be because the professional sport is not
> financially viable and the amateur sport is not interesting enough
> for ordinary people to take up and play of a Saturday afternoon.

Or it could be for the reason Robert suggests: that if/when T20 comes to be seen as the empty gimmick it is, it will have so impoverished the more traditional forms that there will be nothing left to turn to. This could, in fact, be reconciled perfectly with what you have just written. Again, then, not much of a response.

> You think, and I think, that would be a shame. But it's a problem
> that cannot be solved by winding the clock back to a mythical era.

It's remarkable how often Robert's interlocutors reply rather to the kind of thing they *think* he'd say than the thing he has actually said.

>>> or at the least cease to be a
>>> serious international sport.
> It won't *become* a serious international sport until it is
> played at the highest levels by more than a handful of Commonwealth
> countries.

Volleyball and hockey, then, are more "serious" international sports than cricket? Your definition of "serious," if so, can't be taken seriously.

>> Without disagreeing with all of what you are saying the point you are
>> missing is that it is what it is.

> Absolutely.

Absolutely what? The point Robert is apparently missing, when he bemoans "the uglification of cricket," is that cricket is ugly (because, you know, "it is what it is"). Would someone care to tell me how this counts as a "point," and how Robert could have "missed" it, given that he was the first to make it?

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On 2016/04/04 12:36 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
[...]
> "World Twenty20: T20 is keeping West Indies T20 cricket alive".

Typo corrected.

One of the more infuriating things about T20 is that it's left most fans and commentators with dollar signs where their eyes used to be. They can't see the game for the money.

Ask yourself what I take to be a rhetorical question: Would the West Indies Test team be stronger or weaker if there weren't a massive roster of T20 leagues for the more mercenary-minded of its players?

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Nietzsche hadn't seen the IPL when he wrote his /Twilight of the Idols/.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, 9 April 2016 12:57:25 UTC+2, Andy Walker wrote:
[...]
> You can start complaining more seriously when T20
> introduces "tip and run" or "six and out" or "catch one-handed
> first bounce" rules, in conformity with what commonly happens
> in playground cricket.

Why would that be a more serious complaint? Your argument against the ostensibly unserious one leans heavily, if not exclusively, on this very conformity to playground cricket.

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On 2016/04/10 12:51 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
[...]
> Players are who they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjnZO5ZgWE8

Rodney

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

I'm assuming Andy's reply was to something along the lines of "T20 isn't cricket".

And Andy is right. There's not much difference, in rules, between Test cricket and T20.
Sure, the length is shortened. 450 overs down to 40. Meh.
Free Hits? Meh. There aren't many.
Stricter wides.
what else?
A limit on how many overs a bowler can bowl.
Fluffy fielding restrictions.

[Rodney Ulyate]

On 2016/04/12 4:47 AM, Bob Dubery wrote:
> On Monday, 11 April 2016 10:28:13 UTC+2, RH156RH wrote:

>> On Saturday, April 9, 2016 at 11:52:03 PM UTC+1, Andy Walker wrote:
>>> Pay attention. *If* cricket dies, it will *then* be because
>>> it is not viable/interesting.
>> No, it will be because true cricket lovers are driven away by the abortion that is T20 and the general ugliness of modern cricket until only T20 is left and the passing excitement of that has gone leaving nothing but an empty shell. RH

> All they have to do is not watch it.

Which means, for South Africans like you and me, watching very little
cricket at all. No doubt there is a reason for this, and that reason
almost certainly involves the proliferation of twenty-over cricket.

Rodney

[grabber]

On 4/17/2016 10:04 AM, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 2016/04/04 12:21 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
>> On 03/04/16 16:55, Dave Cornwell wrote:
>>> On 03/04/2016 16:36, RH156RH wrote:
>>>> [...] It is even possible that first class
>>>> cricket may have died completely.
>> F-c cricket played as your rose-coloured spectacles recall it
>> at the end of the '50s was dying already. When I started watching,
>> Trent Bridge was, given half-decent weather, jammed full to capacity
>> for the Surrey, Yorks and tourist matches, and decently full even for
>> the less interesting visitors. A decade later, and the typical county
>> match was played in front of the proverbial two men and a dog.
>> Cricket had to change or die. It's far from the only sport
>> whose current formats bear little resemblance to those of the 19thC,
>> or even mid-20thC.
>
> Again, not an argument. Robert's position is that *specific* changes -- changes he has taken the time and effort to list and explain to you -- are not good for the game. You do not controvert him by saying that *general* change was necessary.

Maybe so, but if you accept the point (which I daresay Robert does not)
that change was necessary, and that the changes that were made did allow
cricket to survive, then it is fair enough to oppose the changes, but
only if you can say what alternative changes would also have worked
without having the alleged negative side effects.

I never cease to be amazed that the CC survives given how few people
watch the games.

[Rodney Ulyate]

On 2016/04/17 1:07 PM, grabber wrote:
[...]

> I never cease to be amazed that the CC survives given how few people
> watch the games.

What's amazing, surely, is how *many* watch the games, given how lightly
promoted they are, and given that they're almost never given any
broadcast time. I'd *love* to watch them from my home in Roodepoort,
South Africa, but even the inexpensive idea of a one-camera YouTube
stream has fallen flat.

Rodney

[max.it]

BBC has radio comms for cc matches.

max.it

[Rodney Ulyate]

> BBC has radio comms for cc matches.

Yeah. I've been taking in Yorkshire v. Hampshire via the website. Jonny
Bairstow's knock sounds well worth watching.

Rodney

[RH156RH]

It is a mistake to imagine that CC matches are watched by one man and a dog. To begin with their are the members and at the bigger grounds hospitality boxes etc. The there are the customers paying on the day. The crowds are not massive by football standards but at Lords and the Oval it is not unusual to see a crowd including members and hospitality of thousands rather than hundreds. Take today. I went to Lords today. Despite the fact that it was freezing there was a crowd of I would guess 2-3,000 people. RH

[Rodney Ulyate]

On 2016/04/17 10:00 PM, RH156RH wrote:
[...]

> It is a mistake to imagine that CC matches are watched by one man and a dog. To begin with their are the members and at the bigger grounds hospitality boxes etc. The there are the customers paying on the day. The crowds are not massive by football standards but at Lords and the Oval it is not unusual to see a crowd including members and hospitality of thousands rather than hundreds. Take today. I went to Lords today. Despite the fact that it was freezing there was a crowd of I would guess 2-3,000 people. RH

I listened to the BBC's coverage of Yorkshire v. Hampshire today. Going
by ear, I'd say the crowd was substantial. And that's despite the chilly
weather.

Rodney

[Andrew B]

The average crowd at a county championship match is about 3500
(according to Wikipedia: Wisden 2012 gives similar figures). Note that
that's per game, not per day. At the county T20 matches, it's 5300. At
the IPL or Big Bash league, it's about 30,000.

[grabber]

There was a rugby match on. The ground at Headingley backs directly onto
the RL ground.

[grabber]

Andrew is quoting 3500 over 4 days as the average. This seems
desparately low to me, given that media revenues for CC must be pretty
much nil.

[Andy Walker]

On 17/04/16 10:12, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
>> You can start complaining more seriously when T20
>> introduces "tip and run" or "six and out" or "catch one-handed
>> first bounce" rules, in conformity with what commonly happens
>> in playground cricket.
> Why would that be a more serious complaint?

Because those are changes to the essence of how cricket is
played. They mean, in particular, that batsmen would be given out
in circumstances where in T20 or in Test cricket they would be not
out.

> Your argument against the
> ostensibly unserious one leans heavily, if not exclusively, on this
> very conformity to playground cricket.

As JZF points out, the differences between Tests and T20
are quite minor, esp in relation to the actual play [ie, when the
ball is live]. They are quite similar in quality and quantity to
the differences between T20 and evening league matches; and quite
different from the differences between T20 and playground cricket.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Andy Walker]

On 17/04/16 10:06, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 2016/04/04 12:36 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
>> "World Twenty20: T20 is keeping West Indies T20 cricket alive".
> Typo corrected.

Andy Walker did not write that. Nor did Tom Fordyce.
Your "correction" is unworthy of you.

> Ask yourself what I take to be a rhetorical question: Would the West
> Indies Test team be stronger or weaker if there weren't a massive
> roster of T20 leagues for the more mercenary-minded of its players?

TF's thesis is that "T20 isn't killing Caribbean cricket.
It's keeping it alive". He points out that half of their T20 side
-- the current world champions! -- have played no f-c cricket [a
fortiori, no Test cricket] for two years. It's no use blaming
T20 for that; the WIndies players have been at odds with their
board for many years. If you want youngsters in the WIndies to
take up cricket, they need to see successes, heroes, potential
careers, national pride. T20 is giving that; Test cricket used
to give it, but not since the days of the WIPQ.

As for "mercenary-minded" -- the players are professionals
in a quite poor part of the world. I don't see anything wrong in
trying to earn lifestyles similar to those of their counterparts
in first-world countries.

I'm not a fan of T20, and I don't entirely agree with TF;
but he does have a point, and it's a more solidly-based point than
RH's claim.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[RH156RH]

But does that include members and hospitality guests? RH

[Rodney Ulyate]

On 2016/04/18 12:36 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 17/04/16 10:06, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 2016/04/04 12:36 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>> "World Twenty20: T20 is keeping West Indies T20 cricket alive".
>> Typo corrected.
> Andy Walker did not write that. Nor did Tom Fordyce.
> Your "correction" is unworthy of you.

I beg your pardon? Do I take you to mean that a "correction" is only a
correction if it corrects something by Andy Walker or Tom Fordyce? I
very much hope I don't.

I'm at a loss also to divine what is "unworthy" about my conduct. I
didn't ascribe the remark either to Walker or to Fordyce, and I
shouldn't have thought I needed to clarify: It is punctuated, after all,
by quotation marks.

You've really been quite silly.

>> Ask yourself what I take to be a rhetorical question: Would the West
>> Indies Test team be stronger or weaker if there weren't a massive
>> roster of T20 leagues for the more mercenary-minded of its players?
> TF's thesis is that "T20 isn't killing Caribbean cricket.
> It's keeping it alive". He points out that half of their T20 side
> -- the current world champions! -- have played no f-c cricket [a
> fortiori, no Test cricket] for two years. It's no use blaming
> T20 for that; the WIndies players have been at odds with their
> board for many years.

And yet that seems to affect their participation only in first-class or
Test cricket. I don't think this fact is negligible or coincidental. Do you?

> If you want youngsters in the WIndies to
> take up cricket, they need to see successes, heroes, potential
> careers, national pride. T20 is giving that; Test cricket used
> to give it, but not since the days of the WIPQ.

I believe you've shifted the goalposts here, or rearranged the stumps,
or just found a nicer-sounding way of framing my argument: When you
contend that T20 has replaced Test cricket in the provision of
"successes, heroes, potential careers, national pride," etc., you're
pushing at a wide-open door. This is the very fact I've been bemoaning.

> As for "mercenary-minded" -- the players are professionals
> in a quite poor part of the world. I don't see anything wrong in
> trying to earn lifestyles similar to those of their counterparts
> in first-world countries.

I didn't say there was anything "wrong" with it. But I reserve the right
to sneer at them. I rank among the billions on this planet who find
little to admire in the mercenary motive.

Rodney

[Rodney Ulyate]

What a fool you must think me! I know the difference between a cricket
crowd and a rugby one. (I even knew, before you told me, that they were
in close proximity yesterday.) But this was hand-clapping, not shouting
or chanting or cheering, and it was immaculately timed to co-occur with
wickets and with boundaries. And it subsisted throughout the day, not
just after 15h00.

Rodney

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 7:59:34 PM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> I beg your pardon? Do I take you to mean that a "correction" is only a
> correction if it corrects something by Andy Walker or Tom Fordyce? I
> very much hope I don't.

Who's typo did you correct?

[RH156RH]

Almost certainly that does not include members (who have paid in advance) or the hospitality packages which will have been paid in advance in all probability, for example a company takes a box at Lords for the season. RH

[Rodney Ulyate]

I have no idea. I didn't check. Is this important?

Rodney

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

Clearly it is.

I can only speak for myself, but I inferred that when you said "typo corrected" (whilst quoting AW) that it was AW's typo that you corrected.

I might have inferred incorrectly, of course, which is why I asked.

If it's a simple misunderstanding, I'm sure we can all move on.

[David North]

<jzfre...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a2a0f260-f15d-4b5d...@googlegroups.com...

I thought it was fairly obvious from the quotation marks in the quotation
(which aren't normally there when replying to a newsgroup post), that Rodney
was quoting Andy quoting someone else (in this case a BBC headline writer).
--
David North

[David North]

"Rodney Ulyate" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nevq1j$u6s$1...@dont-email.me...

Does it? According to Cricket Archive, there have been 101 FC matches, 77
List A and 89 T20 in SA this season. That compares well with, say, 20 years
ago, when there were 74 FC matches and 68 List A.
--
David North

[grabber]

Fair enough. I hope they went again to see the fireworks today.

[rodney...@gmail.com]

I had in mind the international stuff.

Rodney

[Rodney Ulyate]

How prescient of me. He hadn't even fifty to his name when I wrote that.
Wish I could have seen it.

Rodney

[Rodney Ulyate]

On 2016/04/18 1:17 PM, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]

> If it's a simple misunderstanding, I'm sure we can all move on.

Yes, please. It seems so trifling after the day I've just had. I spent
it in a cyber-scrum of feminist vigilantes whose idea of justice is to
post online a list of alleged rapists, gather a mob, march on the
accused's places of residence, kidnap them, and then frog-march them
before an agitated throng.

I'm afraid I said that I thought this a bit ill-mannered. I may have
hinted, too, that kidnapping is illegal, and that accused persons are
supposed to enjoy due-process rights. I fear I also invoked Arthur
Miller (a rookie error: he's a Dead White Male). My ears are burning
still, and my Twitter account is for the moment untouchable.

How gentle all this seems in contrast. I don't suppose I'll ever whinge
about Usenet "civility" again.

Rodney

[Rodney Ulyate]

On 2016/04/19 12:13 AM, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> On 2016/04/18 1:17 PM, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]
>> If it's a simple misunderstanding, I'm sure we can all move on.
> Yes, please. It seems so trifling after the day I've just had. I spent
> it in a cyber-scrum of feminist vigilantes whose idea of justice is to
> post online a list of alleged rapists, gather a mob, march on the

> accuseds' places of residence

Pyto corrected.

Rodney

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 8:13:10 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> My ears are burning
> still, and my Twitter account is for the moment untouchable.

Sounds like an awesome day!

Oh please, give me the use of your twitter account for a few hours? Those SJWs won't be able to resist my charms :)

[Andy Walker]

On 18/04/16 10:59, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>> On 2016/04/04 12:36 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>> "World Twenty20: T20 is keeping West Indies T20 cricket alive".
>>> Typo corrected.
>> Andy Walker did not write that. Nor did Tom Fordyce.
>> Your "correction" is unworthy of you.
> I beg your pardon? Do I take you to mean that a "correction" is only
> a correction if it corrects something by Andy Walker or Tom Fordyce?

No. You may take me to mean that there was no typo in the
quoted headline, either in TF's [or his editor's] version, or in my
copy of it.

> I very much hope I don't.
> I'm at a loss also to divine what is "unworthy" about my conduct.

You are usually more civilised.

> I didn't ascribe the remark either to Walker or to Fordyce,

"Andy Walker wrote:"

> and I
> shouldn't have thought I needed to clarify: It is punctuated, after
> all, by quotation marks.

Which normally indicate either a quotation or a "scare".

> You've really been quite silly.

You are usually more civilised.

>> [... T]he WIndies players have been at odds with their

>> board for many years.
> And yet that seems to affect their participation only in first-class
> or Test cricket. I don't think this fact is negligible or
> coincidental. Do you?

No. And?

>> If you want youngsters in the WIndies to
>> take up cricket, they need to see successes, heroes, potential
>> careers, national pride. T20 is giving that; Test cricket used
>> to give it, but not since the days of the WIPQ.
> I believe you've shifted the goalposts here, or rearranged the
> stumps, or just found a nicer-sounding way of framing my argument:
> When you contend that T20 has replaced Test cricket in the provision
> of "successes, heroes, potential careers, national pride," etc.,
> you're pushing at a wide-open door. This is the very fact I've been
> bemoaning.

But why "bemoaning"? It could have been athletics, bob sleigh,
tiddlywinks or baseball that replaced Test cricket; instead, it is at
least a form of cricket. TF's headline claims, effectively, that in
the absence of T20, WIndies cricket would die; instead, it is very
much alive, despite the current poor performances and morale of the
Test side. There is no route back from other sports to Test cricket;
there is a route back from T20, with significant numbers of players
who star in both.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Rodney Ulyate]

Ooh! It's made the national news now:

http://www.iol.co.za/news/crime-courts/rureferencelist-shutdown-looms-over-rape-2011333

Rodney

[Rodney Ulyate]

On 2016/04/19 2:18 AM, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 18/04/16 10:59, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>>> On 2016/04/04 12:36 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>>>> "World Twenty20: T20 is keeping West Indies T20 cricket alive".
>>>> Typo corrected.
>>> Andy Walker did not write that. Nor did Tom Fordyce.
>>> Your "correction" is unworthy of you.
>> I beg your pardon? Do I take you to mean that a "correction" is only
>> a correction if it corrects something by Andy Walker or Tom Fordyce?
> No. You may take me to mean that there was no typo in the
> quoted headline, either in TF's [or his editor's] version, or in my
> copy of it.
>> I very much hope I don't.
>> I'm at a loss also to divine what is "unworthy" about my conduct.
> You are usually more civilised.
>> I didn't ascribe the remark either to Walker or to Fordyce,
> "Andy Walker wrote:"

And the thing you wrote had quotation marks, which I retained.

>> and I
>> shouldn't have thought I needed to clarify: It is punctuated, after
>> all, by quotation marks.
> Which normally indicate either a quotation

Exactly.

> or a "scare".
>> You've really been quite silly.
> You are usually more civilised.

My post was "uncivilised"? Heavens. Your behaviour is worse than silly
now; it's downright Hendersonian. Do stop it.

>>> [... T]he WIndies players have been at odds with their
>>> board for many years.
>> And yet that seems to affect their participation only in first-class
>> or Test cricket. I don't think this fact is negligible or
>> coincidental. Do you?
> No. And?

If being at odds with the board affects their participation only in one
form of the game, they're probably not so much at odds as all that;
their participation has to do as much with the format as with the board.
This seems a logical conclusion.

>>> If you want youngsters in the WIndies to
>>> take up cricket, they need to see successes, heroes, potential
>>> careers, national pride. T20 is giving that; Test cricket used
>>> to give it, but not since the days of the WIPQ.
>> I believe you've shifted the goalposts here, or rearranged the
>> stumps, or just found a nicer-sounding way of framing my argument:
>> When you contend that T20 has replaced Test cricket in the provision
>> of "successes, heroes, potential careers, national pride," etc.,
>> you're pushing at a wide-open door. This is the very fact I've been
>> bemoaning.
> But why "bemoaning"? It could have been athletics, bob sleigh,
> tiddlywinks or baseball that replaced Test cricket; instead, it is at
> least a form of cricket.

It's a bastardisation. It makes my toes curl and my sphincter tighten.
It is offensive to my eyes. It's pornography instead of art, beer in
place of wine, death metal for opera, or salt substituting for saffron.
I find I don't take any comfort from the fact that it's broadly of the
same genre or medium. Why *shouldn't* I bemoan it?

> TF's headline claims, effectively, that in
> the absence of T20, WIndies cricket would die; instead, it is very
> much alive, despite the current poor performances and morale of the
> Test side. There is no route back from other sports to Test cricket;
> there is a route back from T20, with significant numbers of players
> who star in both.

That's as true as to say that, when I ride off into the sunset with my
new love, leaving my old one standing broken at her front door, I could
conceivably do a U-turn one day and take the same road back. It's not
likely, though, is it?

Rodney

[Rodney Ulyate]

On 2016/04/15 5:39 PM, RH156RH wrote:
[...]
> Many countries may claim to participate in a sport but only a few are serious contenders on the woprld stage. Swimming and athletics are classic examples. Even football only has about two dozen really decent sides out of 200 odd registered with FIFA, with most of the side being in Europe and Latin America. RH

And *all* the major clubs are European.

Rodney

[David North]

"Rodney Ulyate" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:nf3m2l$7r4$8...@dont-email.me...

I think you were right the first time, as the plural of 'accused' is
'accused'.
--
David North

[rodney...@gmail.com]

Just feels wrong, though, doesn't it?

Rodney

[David North]

On 15/04/2016 01:39, Andy Walker wrote:

> But that wasn't the question. The question was whether cricket
> is a serious international sport. Well, it's part of the way there;
> it is played seriously in several countries, which compete against
> each other. It will catch up with rugger when at least three other
> countries, such as [eg] the Netherlands, Denmark and Afghanistan,
> take the sport up and achieve Test status. It will catch up with
> tennis when the world's top twenty players [however measured] come
> from at least a dozen different countries.

ICC T20 Batting Rankings

1 Kohli - India
2 Finch - Australia
3 Guptill - NZ
4 Root - England
5 Du Plessis - SA
8 Gayle - Jamaica
9 Masakadza - Zimbabwe
10 Mohammad Shahzad - Afghanistan
14 Dilshan - Sri Lanka
15 Sabbir Rahman - Bangladesh
17 Morgan - Ireland

22 Umar Akmal - Pakistan

Nearly there! ;)

--
David North

[David North]

What about their players?

--
David North

[Andy Walker]

On 19/04/16 12:36, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>> I didn't ascribe the remark either to Walker or to Fordyce,
>> "Andy Walker wrote:"
> And the thing you wrote had quotation marks, which I retained.

Yes, but the convention is to retain also what goes between
them, modulo the use of ellipses, and more specifically to retain
the meaning of the quoted material. To do otherwise is a serious
offence in some contexts [eg, science, law]. This NG is not so
serious, but there are still standards to be maintained.

[...]

>>> You've really been quite silly.
>> You are usually more civilised.
> My post was "uncivilised"?

No, the implication was "less civilised". However, ...

> Heavens. Your behaviour is worse than silly now; [...].

... I'm happy to withdraw the implication and accept that
your post was of your usual standard.

>>>> [... T]he WIndies players have been at odds with their
>>>> board for many years.
>>> And yet that seems to affect their participation only in first-class
>>> or Test cricket. I don't think this fact is negligible or
>>> coincidental. Do you?
>> No. And?
> If being at odds with the board affects their participation only in
> one form of the game, they're probably not so much at odds as all
> that; their participation has to do as much with the format as with
> the board. This seems a logical conclusion.

Just as logical is that they were able to agree to satisfactory
terms for this event and unable for other events. After all, the T20
WC was of relatively short duration, did not conflict with any other
cricket of interest, was no doubt well paid, may perhaps have been more
congenial/accessible to WAGs, may have permitted better publicity deals,
etc, factors not directly influenced by the format. It's not unusual
for sportsmen to be at odds with their governing bodies.

[...]

>>> When you contend that T20 has replaced Test cricket in the provision
>>> of "successes, heroes, potential careers, national pride," etc.,
>>> you're pushing at a wide-open door. This is the very fact I've been
>>> bemoaning.
>> But why "bemoaning"? It could have been athletics, bob sleigh,
>> tiddlywinks or baseball that replaced Test cricket; instead, it is at
>> least a form of cricket.
> It's a bastardisation. It makes my toes curl and my sphincter

> tighten. [...]

Well, yes, we can accept that you're not a fan. Nor am I.
But the problem with WIndies cricket for many years now has been
the lack of success of their Test side. For around half a century,
a bitterly divided group of small nations came together for cricket,
and were at or near the top. When that came to an end, it was
inevitable that there would be rifts and tensions, and equally that
youngsters would no longer take up the sport in such numbers. You
may reasonably bemoan that; but no, you choose instead to object
to the replacement for cricket being ... cricket. Perhaps not the
format you [and I] prefer, but surely better than not-cricket?

>> TF's headline claims, effectively, that in
>> the absence of T20, WIndies cricket would die; instead, it is very
>> much alive, despite the current poor performances and morale of the
>> Test side. There is no route back from other sports to Test cricket;
>> there is a route back from T20, with significant numbers of players
>> who star in both.
> That's as true as to say that, when I ride off into the sunset with
> my new love, leaving my old one standing broken at her front door, I
> could conceivably do a U-turn one day and take the same road back.
> It's not likely, though, is it?

You wouldn't be the first couple to kiss and make up. It's
more likely than if your "sunset" involved emigrating to a different
continent, where you take up with completely unrelated girls.

The fact remains that a successful T20 side could plausibly
be turned into a Test side -- perhaps not your first-choice Test
side, but nevertheless a group of cricketers of high ability. A
successful baseball/golf/tiddlywinks team does not consist, even
arguably, of cricketers of high ability, despite the correlations
between skills at some of these sports.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Rodney Ulyate]

European or Latin American, with a few Africans and even fewer Asians.

Rodney

[max.it]

Search BEEB for american college cricket. Good wee article with vids
about merkins playing cricket.

max.it

[Rodney Ulyate]

On 2016/04/19 1:40 AM, jzfre...@gmail.com wrote:

I'm glad, for your sake, that I silently rejected this offer. As if to
prove that satire is dead, one of these /soi disant/ anti-rape activists
tells me that I could benefit from being sexually assaulted myself:

https://twitter.com/rodneyulyate/status/722905250743525376

Where to begin? Perhaps, unnervingly, with the choice of words: Why the
definite "will" instead of the hypothetical "would"?

Rodney

[Rodney Ulyate]

Whereas, when we ask the same question of WhoScored, we find that
football only *just* makes the cut:

1. Lionel Messi (Argentina)
2. Neymar (Brazil)
3. Zlatan Ibrahimović (Sweden)
4. Gareth Bale (Wales)
5. Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal)
6. Luis Suárez (Uruguay)
7. Henrikh Mkhitaryan (Armenia)
8. Ángel Di María (Argentina)
9. Serge Aurier (Ivory Coast)
10. Riyad Mahrez (Algeria)
11. Mousa Dembélé (Belgium)
12. Paul Pogba (France)
13. Karim Benzema (France)
14. Raffael (Brazil)
15. Dimitri Payet (France)
16. Alexis Sánchez (Chile)
17. Ousmane Dembele (France)
18. Mesut Özil (Germany)
19. Gonzalo Higuaín (Argentina)
20. Paulo Dybala (Argentina)

Cricket, then, is but one nationality (or two places) behind what Andy
would probably describe as the world's most serious sport. And they'll
be united in unserious ignominy when N'Golo Kanté (France) finally gets
the recognition he deserves.

It's worth noting, too, that almost all of these footballers were
developed in Europe, and that *all* of them, without exception, are
currently based in Europe -- in only five countries, in fact: Spain,
France, England, Italy and Germany.

The world's most serious sport, on this analysis, isn't even half as
serious as cricket. Who knew?

Rodney

[Andy Walker]

On 15/04/16 16:39, RH156RH wrote:
>> You can't quote the fact that no sheep were taken as proof
>> that the wolf was imaginary. Unless, that is, your claim is that
>> the counties did nothing to avert bankruptcy.
> No sheep have been taken for 126 year. That rather suggests none were
> ever likely to be taken even if the Sky money had not arrived in
> 2006. RH

No, it suggests that the measures taken by counties in the
'60s and '70s to improve their financial situation were at least
sufficient to avert disaster. In similar vein, even you might
allow that the several centuries that have elapsed since England
was successfully invaded by a hostile enemy owes more to measures
taken to defend ourselves than to the absence of any threat.

> So, precious little limited overs cricket before 1969 and only a few
> Sudnay matches played towards the end of the decade. RH>

The question was not whether counties introduced a raft of
measures in 1960 but whether they did do during the decade.

>> What part of "in the 1960s" is causing you trouble?
> Now let me see, the decade is 1960-1969 and it was not until 1969
> that the two year rule was scrapped so only one season out of ten was
> not subject to it. Soooooooooo... RH

Soooooooooo ... ditto.

>>> Catering had always produced revenue for counties.
>> I'm not talking about it being possible to buy a sandwich or
>> a pork pie during the lunch interval, but the use of the catering
>> facilities to provide full restaurant services in the evenings and
>> over the winter. [...]
> The Test grounds had large scale catering way before the 1960s. RH

Yes, if you wanted a sandwich or a pork pie during a match.
These days, the grounds are used on a commercial basis throughout
the year. You wouldn't have wanted to hold a wedding or a Christmas
party at Trent Bridge in the '50s.

[...]
>> So, your claim is that cricket other that T20 is so boring,
>> ugly, whatever, that no-one is interested in it once they've seen
>> T20? Or what?
> I am saying it's one dimensional shape will make a a passing fad.... RH

Why? It's an afternoon/evening of entertainment fully
comparable in scale and excitement with a football match or an
ice-hockey match [both of which draw comparable crowds locally,
and have done so for many years]. If it's not here to stay,
then why should any popular sport be? You may not like it;
but there are clearly plenty who do.

>> What is the mechanism by which a viable, vibrant
>> sport with lots of interest from "true cricket lovers" dies? [...]
> You simply are unable to come to terms with what T20 is doing to the
> game.. RH

It's attracting many thousands of people to Trent Bridge who
previously thought cricket too boring to watch even for an afternoon,
let alone for five days. You, and apparently Rodney, see that as a
Bad Thing. I don't. I don't much care for T20 myself, but I can see
why others do.

>> [Cricket as an international sport:]
[...]
> Dear oh dear, so you imagine the subcontinent is a homogeneous place.

I imagine no such thing.

> It is more ethnically and racially diverse than Europe. RH

Nevertheless, a sport that is played only in the current
Test-playing countries -- already three or so more countries than
you want -- is not going to be taken seriously by the international
sporting community and bodies. That's why the ICC is keen to get
countries like Afghanistan to participate. Sadly, they're also
keen to reserve places at the top table for the current top teams.
I don't know of any other sport which has cricket's attitude to
"worthy" and "unworthy" international and other teams and players.
They want more minnows, when they should be encouraging minnows
to become sharks [faster than one every twelve years or so].

[...]
> Many countries may claim to participate in a sport but only a few are
> serious contenders on the woprld stage. Swimming and athletics are
> classic examples.

You have clearly already forgotten the figures I gave you.
In the case of swimming, 166 countries participated in the 2012
Olympics, and 19 countries won medals. In athletics, 201 countries
participated and 41 won medals; 23 won gold medals out of a total
of 47. That doesn't suggest sports dominated by "only a few"
countries, despite the USA.

> Even football only has about two dozen really
> decent sides out of 200 odd registered with FIFA, with most of the
> side being in Europe and Latin America. RH

How many "really decent" sides did you expect? And what
objective criteria are you using to judge "really decent"?

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[RH156RH]

There are over 200 countries affiliated to the Olympics... RH

and 19 countries won medals.

A tiny proportion....RH

In athletics, 201 countries
> participated and 41 won medals; 23 won gold medals out of a total
> of 47. That doesn't suggest sports dominated by "only a few"
> countries, despite the USA.

If only 166 countries participated 201 countries cannot have won athletics medals... RH

>
> > Even football only has about two dozen really
> > decent sides out of 200 odd registered with FIFA, with most of the
> > side being in Europe and Latin America. RH
>
> How many "really decent" sides did you expect? And what
> objective criteria are you using to judge "really decent"?

In 82 years of trying the only sides to win the world cup are England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Brasil, Argentina, Uruguay. That tells you all you need to know, namely, that 200 odd countries playing football have no chance of winning the premier trophy and that there is little if any chance of the world cup being won by a team outside of Europe or Latin America. RH

[jzfre...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 23, 2016 at 9:57:05 AM UTC+10, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> I'm glad, for your sake, that I silently rejected this offer. As if to
> prove that satire is dead, one of these /soi disant/ anti-rape activists
> tells me that I could benefit from being sexually assaulted myself:
>
> https://twitter.com/rodneyulyate/status/722905250743525376
>
> Where to begin? Perhaps, unnervingly, with the choice of words: Why the
> definite "will" instead of the hypothetical "would"?

You need to be more open minded :)

Please tell them that I said "9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape"

[Andrew B]

"On the 1st of October 2009, 571 players imported from Africa were
employed by 528 clubs of 36 top division leagues of UEFA member
countries (1.08 per club)."

I wouldn't call that "a few". Unless you would say "a few" people play
first-class cricket.

[Andy Walker]

On 23/04/16 08:16, RH156RH wrote:
>>> Many countries may claim to participate in a sport but only a few
>>> are serious contenders on the woprld stage. Swimming and
>>> athletics are classic examples.
>> You have clearly already forgotten the figures I gave you. In the
>> case of swimming, 166 countries participated in the 2012 Olympics,
> There are over 200 countries affiliated to the Olympics... RH

So you may deduce that over 34 didn't send any swimmers.
You may or may not be surprised to learn that several more sent
only one; eg Monaco, Lesotho, San Marino, St Vincent and the
Grenadines, Djibouti, Liechtenstein, ....

>> and 19 countries won medals.
> A tiny proportion....RH

Not out of 34 events, and especially when a handful of
highly talented individuals [Phelps, Franklin, Lochte, ...] win
several medals each. It suggests that the talent, despite the
domination of the USA, is spread around a significant number of
countries. Just as important is that a huge number of swimmers,
often from poor countries where swimming pools are unaffordable
luxuries, get a chance to compete with and learn from the best.

>> In athletics, 201 countries participated and 41 won medals; 23 won
>> gold medals out of a total of 47. That doesn't suggest sports
>> dominated by "only a few" countries, despite the USA.
> If only 166 countries participated 201 countries cannot have won
> athletics medals... RH

Try again; 201 participated, 41 won medals and 23 won gold
in 47 events. And again, thousands of athletes from all over the
world got a chance to compete with and learn from the best.

>>> Even football only has about two dozen really decent sides out of
>>> 200 odd registered with FIFA, with most of the side being in
>>> Europe and Latin America. RH
>> How many "really decent" sides did you expect? And what objective
>> criteria are you using to judge "really decent"?
> In 82 years of trying the only sides to win the world cup are
> England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Brasil, Argentina, Uruguay.
> That tells you all you need to know, namely, that 200 odd countries
> playing football have no chance of winning the premier trophy and
> that there is little if any chance of the world cup being won by a
> team outside of Europe or Latin America. RH

So is your implication that only countries that have won the
WC have ever had "really decent" sides? Hungary, Portugal, Russia,
the Netherlands, ... were never much cop? In around a score of
events, how many different sides do you expect to have won? Do you
expect countries such as Nigeria and China never to improve? FIFA,
despite its current problems, has a different attitude.

Meanwhile, 105 countries are members of ICC; even that is a
serious underestimate [eg, "West Indies" is one member representing
over 20 Caribbean countries]. In over 138 years of trying, only
ten countries have ever won even a single Test match, and only six
countries have ever won a WC [in either 50-over or 20-over format].
What chance does any country without Commonwealth antecedents have
of winning anything interesting? Is that healthy for the sport?

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Rodney Ulyate]

You wouldn't? Consider: For European competition, most clubs name squads
of around twenty players. Five per cent of these, according to your
unnamed source, would be African. How small does that number have to be
before you think the term is justified?

Rodney

[Rodney Ulyate]

On 2016/04/22 1:11 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 19/04/16 12:36, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>>> I didn't ascribe the remark either to Walker or to Fordyce,
>>> "Andy Walker wrote:"
>> And the thing you wrote had quotation marks, which I retained.
> Yes, but the convention is to retain also what goes between
> them, modulo the use of ellipses,

Everything between the quotation marks remained between the quotation
marks. But honestly, I shouldn't have to tell you that my "correction"
wasn't really a correction, and that I wasn't really highlighting a
"typo." All this was a contrivance -- rather an elegant one, I fancied,
although I now think it insufficiently transparent -- for furnishing my
own opinion on the matter.

> and more specifically to retain
> the meaning of the quoted material. To do otherwise is a serious
> offence in some contexts [eg, science, law]. This NG is not so
> serious, but there are still standards to be maintained.

You are being incredibly dull.

> [...]
>>>> You've really been quite silly.
>>> You are usually more civilised.
>> My post was "uncivilised"?
> No, the implication was "less civilised".

Oh, I'm only "less civilised"? Well, that's okay then.

>> Heavens. Your behaviour is worse than silly now; [...].
> ... I'm happy to withdraw the implication and accept that
> your post was of your usual standard.

Boo! Hiss!

By which I mean to say, withdrawal accepted.

>>>>> [... T]he WIndies players have been at odds with their
>>>>> board for many years.
>>>> And yet that seems to affect their participation only in first-class
>>>> or Test cricket. I don't think this fact is negligible or
>>>> coincidental. Do you?
>>> No. And?
>> If being at odds with the board affects their participation only in
>> one form of the game, they're probably not so much at odds as all
>> that; their participation has to do as much with the format as with
>> the board. This seems a logical conclusion.
> Just as logical is that they were able to agree to satisfactory
> terms for this event and unable for other events.

What a splendid coincidence. As coincidence doesn't follow logic,
however, I fail to see how your argument could be "just as logical" as mine.

> After all, the T20
> WC was of relatively short duration, did not conflict with any other
> cricket of interest, was no doubt well paid, may perhaps have been more
> congenial/accessible to WAGs, may have permitted better publicity deals,
> etc, factors not directly influenced by the format.

That would only make sense if these players were seldom or never
available for other T20Is. Here are the three with the highest T20 profiles:

http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/276298.html?class=3;template=results;type=allround;view=match
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/51439.html?class=3;template=results;type=allround;view=match
http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/player/51880.html?class=3;template=results;type=allround;view=match

> [...]
>>>> When you contend that T20 has replaced Test cricket in the provision
>>>> of "successes, heroes, potential careers, national pride," etc.,
>>>> you're pushing at a wide-open door. This is the very fact I've been
>>>> bemoaning.
>>> But why "bemoaning"? It could have been athletics, bob sleigh,
>>> tiddlywinks or baseball that replaced Test cricket; instead, it is at
>>> least a form of cricket.
>> It's a bastardisation. It makes my toes curl and my sphincter
>> tighten. [...]
> Well, yes, we can accept that you're not a fan.

You did ask...

> Nor am I.
> But the problem with WIndies cricket for many years now has been
> the lack of success of their Test side. For around half a century,
> a bitterly divided group of small nations came together for cricket,
> and were at or near the top. When that came to an end, it was
> inevitable that there would be rifts and tensions, and equally that
> youngsters would no longer take up the sport in such numbers. You
> may reasonably bemoan that; but no, you choose instead to object
> to the replacement for cricket being ... cricket.

Oh? I thought I was doing both, and observing the effect of the one on
the other.

> Perhaps not the
> format you [and I] prefer, but surely better than not-cricket?

I mustn't bemoan this thing, you say, because the alternative is even
worse? This sounds suspiciously like the lesser-evilism of Hillary
Clinton supporters.

Why I can't I be sad about both?

<snip>

Rodney

[grabber]

On 4/23/2016 12:56 PM, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
> On 2016/04/22 1:11 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
>> On 19/04/16 12:36, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>>>> I didn't ascribe the remark either to Walker or to Fordyce,
>>>> "Andy Walker wrote:"
>>> And the thing you wrote had quotation marks, which I retained.
>> Yes, but the convention is to retain also what goes between
>> them, modulo the use of ellipses,
>
> Everything between the quotation marks remained between the quotation
> marks. But honestly, I shouldn't have to tell you that my "correction"
> wasn't really a correction, and that I wasn't really highlighting a
> "typo." All this was a contrivance -- rather an elegant one, I fancied,
> although I now think it insufficiently transparent -- for furnishing my
> own opinion on the matter.

There is a fairly common practice where someone edits a quoted post so
that it says something that its author almost certainly didn't mean (but
which the responder thinks they should have meant), facetiously adding
"typo corrected" underneath. This certainly isn't an elegant or witty
device, but in a lighthearted exchange it is just about tolerable, if
not overdone (IMHO). It can get tiresome very easily, especially in any
context where one actually cares what the quoted poster really said.

I don't know whether Andy is unaware of this practice, or simply regards
it as uncivilised.

[David W Noon]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 23:28:56 GMT, in message
<571ab317...@news.aioe.org>, Max It (m...@tea.time) wrote:

[snip]

> Search BEEB for american college cricket. Good wee article with
> vids about merkins playing cricket.

Is the merkin an alternative to wearing a box?

<http://www.dictionary.com/browse/merkin?s=t>

- --
Regards,

Dave [RLU #314465]
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
dwn...@spamtrap.ntlworld.com (David W Noon)
Remove spam trap to reply by e-mail.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2

iEYEARECAAYFAlcbkVgACgkQ9MqaUJQw2MnxcgCfXvx4DEu8Sf+XxxWLXvFScKuZ
p74AniO5oJM4WesV77VRmPmrF/FJdQu2
=YYTX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Rodney Ulyate]

On 2016/04/23 2:14 PM, grabber wrote:
> On 4/23/2016 12:56 PM, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>> On 2016/04/22 1:11 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
>>> On 19/04/16 12:36, Rodney Ulyate wrote:
>>>>>> I didn't ascribe the remark either to Walker or to Fordyce,
>>>>> "Andy Walker wrote:"
>>>> And the thing you wrote had quotation marks, which I retained.
>>> Yes, but the convention is to retain also what goes between
>>> them, modulo the use of ellipses,
>> Everything between the quotation marks remained between the quotation
>> marks. But honestly, I shouldn't have to tell you that my "correction"
>> wasn't really a correction, and that I wasn't really highlighting a
>> "typo." All this was a contrivance -- rather an elegant one, I fancied,
>> although I now think it insufficiently transparent -- for furnishing my
>> own opinion on the matter.
> There is a fairly common practice where someone edits a quoted post so
> that it says something that its author almost certainly didn't mean (but
> which the responder thinks they should have meant), facetiously adding
> "typo corrected" underneath. This certainly isn't an elegant or witty
> device,

It is by my standards. I mean, have you *read* my stuff?

Rodney

[grabber]

Yes, and it's usually interesting, well-informed and provocative. I'm
not saying I agree with you that often, but no-one's perfect.

[Rodney Ulyate]

I don't often agree with me either; there's much, in fact, with which I
disagree. But that's probably because I'm so dashed ingenious that I
haven't a clue what I'm saying.

Rodney

[Andy Walker]

On 23/04/16 13:14, grabber wrote:
> There is a fairly common practice where someone edits a quoted post
> so that it says something that its author almost certainly didn't
> mean (but which the responder thinks they should have meant),
> facetiously adding "typo corrected" underneath. This certainly isn't
> an elegant or witty device, but in a lighthearted exchange it is just
> about tolerable, if not overdone (IMHO). It can get tiresome very
> easily, especially in any context where one actually cares what the
> quoted poster really said.

Personally, I find it always tiresome. It's particularly
bad in cases where the "corrected" version is plausible, so that
a reader who sees only that version is liable to be deceived, and
even to think that a genuine typo had been corrected.

> I don't know whether Andy is unaware of this practice, or simply
> regards it as uncivilised.

I see it frequently in politics groups, where at least the
transition from "X is the best politician since sliced bread" to
"X is a lying scumbag" ["There, fixed it for you."] is part of the
juvenile knockabout yah-boo of the group. I don't expect it from
any respectable poster even there. "Uncivilised" is a pretty mild
version of my view when it happens here.

That doesn't [IMHO] mean that we all have to be serious all
the time here. I'm in favour of wit and elegance, even from RH and
Rodney.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[Andy Walker]

On 17/04/16 10:04, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
>> Cricket had to change or die. It's far from the only sport
>> whose current formats bear little resemblance to those of the 19thC,
>> or even mid-20thC.
> Again, not an argument. Robert's position is that *specific* changes
> -- changes he has taken the time and effort to list and explain to
> you -- are not good for the game. You do not controvert him by saying
> that *general* change was necessary.

Robert's position seems to be that *all* specific changes are
not good. Further, he has claimed repeatedly that those who claimed
in the '50s and '60s that cricket's finances, esp in the CC, were
unviable were "crying wolf". It is not evidence for that thesis that
in fact no counties disappeared, since cricket took steps in the '60s
and '70s to improve their finances. When Robert either comes up with
evidence that the county balance sheets [esp outside the relative
prosperity of Middx/Surrey/Yorks/Lancs] were cooked, or else admits
that the situation was indeed dire but instead of changes A, B, C, D,
... the counties should have made changes P, Q, R, S, ..., his views
might become more plausible. At least, we might have P, Q, ... to
have a discussion about.

[Cricket:]
>> It won't *become* a serious international sport until it is
>> played at the highest levels by more than a handful of Commonwealth
>> countries.
> Volleyball and hockey, then, are more "serious" international sports
> than cricket? Your definition of "serious," if so, can't be taken
> seriously.

Really? Volleyball has been an Olympic sport since 1964
[continuously, before someone mentions 1900], the FIVB has 220
affiliated countries, and leading participants include China,
Russia, the USA, France, Brazil, .... In what sense is that not
a serious international sport?

Hockey seems to have a substantially longer history than
cricket, and has been an Olympic sport since 1908. The IHF has
more members than the ICC; every major cricket nation other than
WIndies and Sri Lanka [and Zimbabwe, if you insist] is also a
major hockey nation with much the same status, and it is also a
major sport in the Netherlands, Germany, SKorea, Malaysia, ....
In what sense is that not a serious international sport?

[I assume you meant field hockey rather than ice hockey;
but ice hockey has been at the Olympics since 1924, and the IIHF
has 75 members. There are obvious reasons why it is less common
in warmer climes. In Nottingham, it gets bigger crowds than any
sport other than football and T20. So, in what sense is that not
also a serious international sport?]

Cricket, of course, may perhaps get into the Olympics by
2024, presumably in either the 20-over or the 50-over format;
only 8 years later than golf and rugger.

Robert laid great store on the populations of countries
playing cricket, and esp on the size and diversity of the sub-
continent. It's hard to see how that same argument, if it has
any validity at all, would not apply in spades to volleyball and
[field] hockey.

[DaveC:]
>>> Without disagreeing with all of what you are saying the point you are
>>> missing is that it is what it is.
>> Absolutely.
> Absolutely what? [...]

Absolutely I agree with Dave. For further elucidation
you could do worse than refer back to what Dave and I said, and
you snipped.

--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 13:20:24 UTC+2, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 23/04/16 13:14, grabber wrote:

[...]

> > I don't know whether Andy is unaware of this practice, or simply
> > regards it as uncivilised.
> I see it frequently in politics groups, where at least the
> transition from "X is the best politician since sliced bread" to
> "X is a lying scumbag" ["There, fixed it for you."] is part of the
> juvenile knockabout yah-boo of the group. I don't expect it from
> any respectable poster even there. "Uncivilised" is a pretty mild
> version of my view when it happens here.

Let's trace the history of this charge. First it was the assertion that I had been "uncivilised." Then, when I pushed back, it became only "less civilised." Now, after a further exchange of views, not only is it "uncivilised" again, but actually it's rather worse than that: You're putting it "mildly."

I think I know the cause of this erratic little cycle. Yours is the behaviour of one who needs desperately to land a cheap insult, but who doesn't care for the sound of it once it's left his mouth. The latter part redounds to your credit; on the former I shall hold my tongue.

> That doesn't [IMHO] mean that we all have to be serious all
> the time here. I'm in favour of wit and elegance, even from RH and
> Rodney.

"Even" from? What is *that* supposed to mean?

Rodney

[rodney...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, 24 April 2016 14:10:50 UTC+2, Andy Walker wrote:
> On 17/04/16 10:04, rodney...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]
> >> Cricket had to change or die. It's far from the only sport
> >> whose current formats bear little resemblance to those of the 19thC,
> >> or even mid-20thC.
> > Again, not an argument. Robert's position is that *specific* changes
> > -- changes he has taken the time and effort to list and explain to
> > you -- are not good for the game. You do not controvert him by saying
> > that *general* change was necessary.
> Robert's position seems to be that *all* specific changes are
> not good.

Perhaps he'd care to clarify?

[...]

> >> It won't *become* a serious international sport until it is
> >> played at the highest levels by more than a handful of Commonwealth
> >> countries.
> > Volleyball and hockey, then, are more "serious" international sports
> > than cricket? Your definition of "serious," if so, can't be taken
> > seriously.
> Really? Volleyball has been an Olympic sport since 1964
> [continuously, before someone mentions 1900], the FIVB has 220
> affiliated countries, and leading participants include China,
> Russia, the USA, France, Brazil, .... In what sense is that not
> a serious international sport?

In no sense.

> Hockey seems to have a substantially longer history than
> cricket, and has been an Olympic sport since 1908. The IHF has
> more members than the ICC; every major cricket nation other than
> WIndies and Sri Lanka [and Zimbabwe, if you insist] is also a
> major hockey nation with much the same status, and it is also a
> major sport in the Netherlands, Germany, SKorea, Malaysia, ....
> In what sense is that not a serious international sport?

In no sense.

> [I assume you meant field hockey rather than ice hockey;
> but ice hockey has been at the Olympics since 1924, and the IIHF
> has 75 members. There are obvious reasons why it is less common
> in warmer climes. In Nottingham, it gets bigger crowds than any
> sport other than football and T20. So, in what sense is that not
> also a serious international sport?]

In no sense.

> Cricket, of course, may perhaps get into the Olympics by
> 2024, presumably in either the 20-over or the 50-over format;
> only 8 years later than golf and rugger.
> Robert laid great store on the populations of countries
> playing cricket, and esp on the size and diversity of the sub-
> continent. It's hard to see how that same argument, if it has
> any validity at all, would not apply in spades to volleyball and
> [field] hockey.

Indeed it is. You have confused my contention that these sports are not as serious as cricket with the contention, made by no-one, that they're not serious at all. I appreciate that my prose style can be chewy and stodgy, but this paragraph seems perfectly comestible:

"Volleyball and hockey, then, are more 'serious' international sports than cricket? Your definition of 'serious,' if so, can't be taken seriously."

> [DaveC:]
> >>> Without disagreeing with all of what you are saying the point you are
> >>> missing is that it is what it is.
> >> Absolutely.
> > Absolutely what? [...]
> Absolutely I agree with Dave. For further elucidation
> you could do worse than refer back to what Dave and I said, and
> you snipped.

You agree with Dave that "it is what it is"? I ask for clarification because I find I don't know what "it" is, or why such an apparently trite observation should merit your full-throated assent.

Water is wet. Wood is wooden. Gold is golden. Grass is grassy. Clouds are cloudy.

These things are what they are.

And this pointless observation is a pointless observation.

Rodney

[max.it]

On Sun, 24 Apr 2016 11:10:43 -0700 (PDT), rodney...@gmail.com
wrote:


>
>Water is wet. Wood is wooden. Gold is golden. Grass is grassy. Clouds are c=

>loudy.
>
>These things are what they are.
>
>And this pointless observation is a pointless observation.
>
>Rodney

Water is watery.

max.it

[David North]

"Rodney Ulyate" <rodney...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:nffnmj$13r$5...@dont-email.me...

Note that neither Russell nor Bravo has played a Test for over 5 years (and
Russell only ever played one), due (AIUI) mainly to not being selected
rather than not being available. Gayle is probably the only one of the three
who would have been in the Test team if he had been available.
--
David North