In the firing line...
Sandy B - you risk putting yourself in the crosshairs by daring to call cricket a minority sport...
Would you care to comment on this article?
Would you care to comment on this article?
posted by Akash at 8:14 AM
7 Comments:
Hey, it's played by around 30 people, whereas football is played by everyone bar those 30. Even in Australia, it falls behind both versions if rugby Aand aussie rules. We could look at county cricket, hardly a vibrant beacon of a thriving game, one where spectators could well be encouraged to catch up on lost sleep. Facts always make a good story....
Seriously, i like cricket, appreciate its manifold subteties, but accept its esoteric nature is both a strength and weakness compared to some other major sports..
Very pleasing blow up by Phil Mickeson last night, small and churlish comfort for Woods and his fans. ABC, always be closing......
Well, it may be that Cricket is only played by a few countries but in terms of people who watch it, it must be more than rugby or in fact any other sport other than, say, football (and that on the world cup stage only). And if you want to talk about world coverage, how about the participating countries being from every corner of the earth, apart from South America...
And, Sand, you never responded to the article? Is it you, or someone else?
Yes, but that's a lumpy stat, which changes dramatically if you adjust for India. Even the caribbean countries struggle to muster sufficient young interest in cricket.
Anyway, i was just being silly and playful, so sorry.
No that is not me, there are 2 of me who work for UBS, one important and one not so........
It's alright I was just kidding too. One of the good things about cricket is that it is so esoteric and not for everyone - that's I guess part of the English snobbery in me...
anyway, the football so far has not set the world alight - apart from the Argentina Serbia match which I watched part of. Argentina were undoubtedly excellent but how much of that was due to Serbia being crap?
England have been highly disppointing but at least are through. I think that they will be hard pushed to beat either Ecuador or Germany though.
Look at me sounding so knowledgeable about footy!!
match of the tournament - for sheer excitment was USA v Italy - 1 all, both scored by Italy, 3 men sent off - what else do you want?
Ghana are looking ominously good and Brazil out of sorts. France, i cannot believe they let the Koreans equalise - what a disaster..
Akash, clearly your last assertion is based on prejudice, and not shared by the majority of commenatators, who have welcomed the enterprising and attackiing play, evidenced by the amazing amount of long strikes, early and late goals.
Aside from this I have four points to make.
Firstly the crowds have been fantastic, and some of the mixing of fans in town squares has ben quite heart warming.
Secondly, the matches so far show the playing field is levelling, as we are reminded again, with Ghana and Ivory Coast getting good results against big nations. Its actually been the way Ghana beat the Czechs, who were superb in their first match, and the way that the Ivory Coast stretched Argentina that has been great to watch. The Africans bring a speed and athletcism that eurpoean nations are increasingly finding it hard to cope with.
Thridly its the underachieving or lesser big natiopns that are setting the standard. Argentina were not simply good against Serbia, they were close to mind blowing, improvisation and expression is perfect harmony. Serbia are a decent team, by no means the worst, and Holland needed some moments of insp[ration form Robben to beat them.
Spain have thus far been superb, fluid, modern, skilful and play off the cuff in the manner Argentina do. The Czechs, Holland and Italy have also started well.
Finally, re England, its hilarious and annoying to watch much of the football press squirm at how bad england have been Many of the english commentators are apologists, far too tied to the Premiership establishment, and utterly incabable of objestcive assessment.
They are unwilling to countenance the idea that while many of the England payers are very good, some of this is an illusion, made possible by the influence of foreign players and managers. Shorn of this influence the cultural deficeincy at the heart of english playing philosophy, i.e. the long ball game, is laid exrtremely bare. Look at the hopes placed on Rooney, great talent that he is, but he's no Ronaldinho.
As usual the search for a scapegoat (it wasnlt our fault, it was the referee, or the foreign manager) feels like it is beginning already.
My one great problem with football these days is that while we doubtelss have a decent product in the English Premiership, the game desperately needs to get to grips with refereeing controversies.
there aren;t many genuine refereeing issues, its jus that the rules of teh game are being tweaked, and (now) professional refs sometimes apply them without muich common sense.
Of all the major sports, its the only one where the audeince spends no time afterwards discussing the game, and all their time and energy gettign worked up over seeming judicial injustices.
It all renders the football rather secondary, as given the money and associated pressures, fans follow the example of their club managers, who rail furiously at this or that marghinal decision, amplifying their siginficance absurdly There is little role for sportsmanship, and its sad. Mourinho has been at the forefront of this, but even intelligent and soemtimes measured partcipants like Arsene Wneger and Thierry Henry were nothing short of disgraceful in (not) losing the Champiosn league to Barcelona.
Week after week, water cooler debates comprise entriely of 'well, we didnt really lose, that was definitelyh handball / offside' etc etc etc....it all gets rather boring.
Golf, tennis, cricket, rugby, american football, the list goes on...they are easy to enjoy for what they are, and while they are each subject to the occcasional disputed decision, there tend to be secondary at best.
Post a Comment
<< Home