ThePortForum.com

mpij wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Ah but Scotland are nowhere as good as Ireland - aka the England youth team...

A couple of strong armed swipers and servers up of 'the one that goes straight on'? Twenty-twenty is next door to baseball IMHO.

Oh I agree about T20, I wouldn't watch it. But Ireland will be a Test team before 2020 (no pun intended) and they'll be better than some others..

If you don't like T20 suspect you won't be happy with new format for ODIs, only 4 fielders alowed outside circle, recent series between India and Australia saw all sorts of records broken. Best tactics seem to be to keep wickets intact for 30 overs then it's T20 for the remainder.

I approve of some pointless and irritating rules. Duckworth-Lewis I find entrancing, probably just the name though.

LGTrotter wrote:

mpij wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Ah but Scotland are nowhere as good as Ireland - aka the England youth team...

A couple of strong armed swipers and servers up of 'the one that goes straight on'? Twenty-twenty is next door to baseball IMHO.

Oh I agree about T20, I wouldn't watch it. But Ireland will be a Test team before 2020 (no pun intended) and they'll be better than some others..

If you don't like T20 suspect you won't be happy with new format for ODIs, only 4 fielders alowed outside circle, recent series between India and Australia saw all sorts of records broken. Best tactics seem to be to keep wickets intact for 30 overs then it's T20 for the remainder.

I approve of some pointless and irritating rules. Duckworth-Lewis I find entrancing, probably just the name though.

Can't they leave the rules alone for a little while? All that nonsense about supersubs was ridiculous. What's wrong with 50-over cricket that it needs yet another load of fielding rules...?

djewesbury wrote:Can't they leave the rules alone for a little while? All that nonsense about supersubs was ridiculous. What's wrong with 50-over cricket that it needs yet another load of fielding rules...?

Quite.

djewesbury wrote:Can't they leave the rules alone for a little while? All that nonsense about supersubs was ridiculous. What's wrong with 50-over cricket that it needs yet another load of fielding rules...?

I think the problem is that they have spent many decades drifting away from the rules of rounders and are trying to find their way back. What cricket needs is some girls in navy blue shorts (think 1970s netball) flailing away missing the ball and then running with the palms of their hands facing the floor whilst trying to keep their knees together.

Cigars anyone?

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Can't they leave the rules alone for a little while? All that nonsense about supersubs was ridiculous. What's wrong with 50-over cricket that it needs yet another load of fielding rules...?

I think the problem is that they have spent many decades drifting away from the rules of rounders and are trying to find their way back. What cricket needs is some girls in navy blue shorts (think 1970s netball) flailing away missing the ball and then running with the palms of their hands facing the floor whilst trying to keep their knees together.

Cigars anyone?

Wise words from our lead for equality and diversity.

I too would stop fiddling about with cricket laws; the various new laws while touted as being an attempt to make cricket more exciting serve mainly to make it more inexplicable and increase the amount of 'tactics' from captains rather than ability on the field. *curmudeonly hrmph*

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:Cigars anyone?

Wise words from our lead for equality and diversity.

Very good. You spotted my intentional use of "anyone" rather than "gentlemen".

DRT wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:

DRT wrote:Cigars anyone?

Wise words from our lead for equality and diversity.

Very good. You spotted my intentional use of "anyone" rather than "gentlemen".

Glad you understand that you were overstepping the mark. Partagas for me.

OK - time to show my true colours.

I am Scottish. Cricket is as mysterious to me as is the reason why whales commit mass suicide.

I spent the first 45 years of my life believing that test match cricket was invented so the the BBC could avoid showing Wimbledon on both channels simultaneously. Five days of nothing much happening is five days of nothing much happening. I really would prefer to watch whales commit mass suicide.

In the first 45 years of my life I tried watching test matches. Not all of it, just the bit when England collapsed. But it was just too long and boring to keep my interest.

I then met AHB and benread. We have been to a few ODIs and T20s at Lords and The Oval and I have enjoyed every one of those matches. The experience of being at the venues was part of it, but the surety of a result on the day was what made it enjoyable.

So, how do we weave whale suicides into a T20 game?

DRT wrote:OK - time to show my true colours.

I am Scottish. Cricket is as mysterious to me as is the reason why whales commit mass suicide.

I spent the first 45 years of my life believing that test match cricket was invented so the the BBC could avoid showing Wimbledon on both channels simultaneously. Five days of nothing much happening is five days of nothing much happening. I really would prefer to watch whales commit mass suicide.

In the first 45 years of my life I tried watching test matches. Not all of it, just the bit when England collapsed. But it was just too long and boring to keep my interest.

I then met AHB and benread. We have been to a few ODIs and T20s at Lords and The Oval and I have enjoyed every one of those matches. The experience of being at the venues was part of it, but the surety of a result on the day was what made it enjoyable.

So, how do we weave whale suicides into a T20 game?

Derek, you don't understand, it's only a matter of time. Once you've bitten, you've bitten. You'll be watching the Test match soon. You can no more avoid it than you can stop the repackaging of W&K Colheitas.

djewesbury wrote:You can no more avoid it than you can stop the repackaging of W&K Colheitas.

You can take my rounders, but you'll never take my freedom!!!!

Ashes warm-up update:

England are 0/62 after 21.3 overs in an empty stadium. Yawn.

DRT wrote:Ashes warm-up update:

England are 0/62 after 21.3 overs in an empty stadium. Yawn.

Oh darling, you checked!

djewesbury wrote:

DRT wrote:Ashes warm-up update:

England are 0/62 after 21.3 overs in an empty stadium. Yawn.

Oh darling, you checked!

Hotel bar. It's all around me.

Urgent update: Cook had a small stumble causing 57 replays of nothing.

DRT wrote:Urgent update: Cook had a small stumble causing 57 replays of nothing.

In the same vein I saw the BBC headline on cricket today was an Australian (Warne) saying that England weren't that good at cricket with a response from Cook saying that they probably were. Edifying.

DRT wrote:I spent the first 45 years of my life believing that test match cricket was invented so the the BBC could avoid showing Wimbledon on both channels simultaneously. Five days of nothing much happening is five days of nothing much happening. I really would prefer to watch whales commit mass suicide.

You should consider EAB's approach to attending a test match. If she is there in person she takes the Sunday newspaper and her knitting. If she is at home she turns the TV off, turns the radio on and goes to work in her garden. The whole point of test match cricket for her (at least as far as I can tell) is that it is a chance for her to get on with other things.

Watching whales commit mass suicide does not present that same opportunity for indifferent activity. You would be socially obliged to make sympathetic noices for the plight of the whales. Where it is a test match, you can simply comment "At least they scored 2 runs more than their previous collapse, dear." and return to the Home supplement of the Sunday Times. (The "dear" not being obligatory for anyone commenting to me other than EAB.)

Cricket fails to be boring shock!
Cook 154*
Carberry 153*

DRT wrote:OK - time to show my true colours.

I am Scottish.

You live in England. You are not allowed to vote in Scotland. You drink more Port than most Englishmen, and about the same amount of whisky as many of us. Your accent is as much English as anything else.

In what sense are you really more Scottish than English? (Other than strongly disapproving of Alex Salmond.)

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:OK - time to show my true colours.

I am Scottish.

You live in England. You are not allowed to vote in Scotland. You drink more Port than most Englishmen, and about the same amount of whisky as many of us. Your accent is as much English as anything else.

In what sense are you really more Scottish than English? (Other than strongly disapproving of Alex Salmond.)

Perhaps it is a cultural identity thing, I still occasionally cheer for Ireland in the rugby even though I am only one half irish and have almost no connection to the place anymore.

DRT wrote:OK - time to show my true colours.

I am Scottish. Cricket is as mysterious to me as is the reason why whales commit mass suicide.

I spent the first 45 years of my life believing that test match cricket was invented so the the BBC could avoid showing Wimbledon on both channels simultaneously.

I thought it was invented for the sole purpose of facilitating the unique artform that is Test Match Special.

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:OK - time to show my true colours.

I am Scottish.

You live in England. You are not allowed to vote in Scotland. You drink more Port than most Englishmen, and about the same amount of whisky as many of us. Your accent is as much English as anything else.

In what sense are you really more Scottish than English? (Other than strongly disapproving of Alex Salmond.)

This raises a serious point. If Kim Jong Salmond gets his way do I need to become English to retain my status as a UK citizen?

DRT wrote:

jdaw1 wrote:

DRT wrote:OK - time to show my true colours.

I am Scottish.

You live in England. You are not allowed to vote in Scotland. You drink more Port than most Englishmen, and about the same amount of whisky as many of us. Your accent is as much English as anything else.

In what sense are you really more Scottish than English? (Other than strongly disapproving of Alex Salmond.)

This raises a serious point. If Kim Jong Salmond gets his way do I need to become English to retain my status as a UK citizen?

I think it would be almost inconceivable that you would need to do anything to retain British citizenship.

Whether a future grandchild born in an independent Scotland would be entitled to British citizenship is possibly more uncertain, but my money would be on "yes" if your son was born in the UK (and expecially if your son was not born in Scotland). Whether your great-grandchild would qualify for British citizenship if your grandchild was born in an independent Scotland....I think that may be where the line would get drawn. But it strikes me as being another rather contentious area if the vote is for independence.

jdaw1 wrote:In what sense are you really more Scottish than English? (Other than strongly disapproving of Alex Salmond.)

DRT wrote:This raises a serious point. If Kim Jong Salmond gets his way do I need to become English to retain my status as a UK citizen?

That you can even consider being English shows a deep failure to be properly Scottish.

DRT wrote:I then met AHB and benread. We have been to a few ODIs and T20s at Lords and The Oval and I have enjoyed every one of those matches. The experience of being at the venues was part of it, but the surety of a result on the day was what made it enjoyable.

You mention nothing of the more civilised licensing laws at cricket - "another drink sir? Of course. Would you like that in your seat whilst watching the game and when would you like the next one?"

I do recall a statement to the effect Lord's was like Celtic - they both had 'green' in the middle!

Should I also mention this offline? Wouldn't have happened at Celtic either!

benread wrote:I do recall a statement to the effect Lord's was like Celtic - they both had 'green' in the middle!

I recall the conversation, but I remember a different analogy. It had something to do with something running down the back of your leg at one venue but not the other

Don't get me wrong, I am not knocking cricket in general, I just can't get the five days thing.

But I have a confession to make. Tonight I went down to the hotel bar at 10pm and ordered a drink. I then, without thinking it through properly, asked the barman to change the TV channel from the football to the cricket. Perhaps JDAW has a point.