Australians changing cricket traditions due to political correctness

[World's End Stella]

yup, can't imagine any AWIMBers getting outraged at this. :-)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2017/02/21/batter-not-batsman-cricket-terms-should-gender-neutral-argues/

[Luis Anaconda]

yup, can't imagine any AWIMBers getting outraged at this. :-)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2017/02/21/batter-not-batsman-cricket-terms-should-gender-neutral-argues/
What you meant to say was an Australian suggested changes and another agreed with her by saying something completely difference. There is an important line in the piece - "Words matter". There is no suggestion that this is actually going to happen

[Burney]

What you meant to say was an Australian suggested changes and another agreed with her by saying something completely difference. There is an important line in the piece - "Words matter". There is no suggestion that this is actually going to happen

Besides which, of course, here's an idea: use the traditional terms in the men's game and whatever ones you want in girl cricket. :shrug:

Not that I really care, of course. Cricket's buggered. :cry:

[World's End Stella]

Besides which, of course, here's an idea: use the traditional terms in the men's game and whatever ones you want in girl cricket. :shrug:

Not that I really care, of course. Cricket's buggered. :cry:

I'm guessing you haven't embraced T20, Burney, am I right?

[World's End Stella]

What you meant to say was an Australian suggested changes and another agreed with her by saying something completely difference. There is an important line in the piece - "Words matter". There is no suggestion that this is actually going to happen

Thanks. Your contribution to this process has been much appreciated. :rolleyes:

[Luis Anaconda]

Thanks. Your contribution to this process has been much appreciated. :rolleyes:

:shrug: Did you expect people to be outraged on the basis of your misleading thread topic?

[Burney]

I'm guessing you haven't embraced T20, Burney, am I right?

It's lowest common denominator crap. It takes all the intelligence, nuance, character, courage and subtlety out of cricket and boils it down to what is in effect a beer match. It turns bowlers into sacrificial lambs whose greatest achievement is not a wicket, but a dot ball, while batsmen are judged not on whether they can craft an innings in trying and adverse circumstances against everything a bowling attack can offer over the course of hours, even days, but whether and how far they can smash a ball over the course of an hour max.

It will inevitably destroy test cricket, because it doesn't require the attention span or amount of time to watch, works for advertisers, pays better and - ultimately - appeals to the base instincts of base people. The fact that it is to test cricket what Janet & John is to Anna Karenina or a child's daubs to a Vermeer won't matter in the end - moral high ground never won an argument yet.

Just another wonderful, beautiful and marvellous thing washed away by all that is banal, vulgar, ugly and stupid, that's all.

[World's End Stella]

It's lowest common denominator crap. It takes all the intelligence, nuance, character, courage and subtlety out of cricket and boils it down to what is in effect a beer match. It turns bowlers into sacrificial lambs whose greatest achievement is not a wicket, but a dot ball, while batsmen are judged not on whether they can craft an innings in trying and adverse circumstances against everything a bowling attack can offer over the course of hours, even days, but whether and how far they can smash a ball over the course of an hour max.

It will inevitably destroy test cricket, because it doesn't require the attention span or amount of time to watch, works for advertisers, pays better and - ultimately - appeals to the base instincts of base people. The fact that it is to test cricket what Janet & John is to Anna Karenina or a child's daubs to a Vermeer won't matter in the end - moral high ground never won an argument yet.

Just another wonderful, beautiful and marvellous thing washed away by all that is banal, vulgar, ugly and stupid, that's all.

I get the end of test cricket argument and, like you, I think it will be a real tragedy if and when it occurs.

But at the same time, the WC final between England and WI was quite exceptional sport and - crucially - entertainment. But I don't agree that the physical challenge to the cricketer is any harder or easier or better or worse, it is simply different.

I'm torn, as I enjoy both.

[Burney]

I get the end of test cricket argument and, like you, I think it will be a real tragedy if and when it occurs.

But at the same time, the WC final between England and WI was quite exceptional sport and - crucially - entertainment. But I don't agree that the physical challenge to the cricketer is any harder or easier or better or worse, it is simply different.

I'm torn, as I enjoy both.

The physical challenge is self-evidently easier, since bouncers aren't allowed in T20, no bowler can bowl more than four overs and each innings only lasts 20 overs. That's just a silly thing to say. It's a beer match. :shrug:

And, actually, I don't find it particularly exciting. Excitement comes from suspense sustained over a long period and from the possibility of multiple outcomes. T20 is manufactured specifically to achieve very formulaic outcomes and predictable types of tension. The other thing is that I can't find it entertaining if I simply don't care about the outcome.

[Pokster]

I get the end of test cricket argument and, like you, I think it will be a real tragedy if and when it occurs.

But at the same time, the WC final between England and WI was quite exceptional sport and - crucially - entertainment. But I don't agree that the physical challenge to the cricketer is any harder or easier or better or worse, it is simply different.

I'm torn, as I enjoy both.

T 20 has one big advantage over current test matches... the wicket being doctored seems to make less of an impact on the result.
Test matches are being ruined (imo) by home doctoring... if they are going to allow that then the away side should always get the choice of batting or bowling.

[World's End Stella]

The physical challenge is self-evidently easier, since bouncers aren't allowed in T20, no bowler can bowl more than four overs and each innings only lasts 20 overs. That's just a silly thing to say. It's a beer match. :shrug:

And, actually, I don't find it particularly exciting. Excitement comes from suspense sustained over a long period and from the possibility of multiple outcomes. T20 is manufactured specifically to achieve very formulaic outcomes and predictable types of tension. The other thing is that I can't find it entertaining if I simply don't care about the outcome.

So you have never found football exciting? One game, I mean, as opposed to the season as a whole.

[Luis Anaconda]

T 20 has one big advantage over current test matches... the wicket being doctored seems to make less of an impact on the result.
Test matches are being ruined (imo) by home doctoring... if they are going to allow that then the away side should always get the choice of batting or bowling.

Agree it may have gone too far in some cases but the homogenisation of pitches was an even bigger danger. You are playing the opposition and the environment

[Burney]

So you have never found football exciting? One game, I mean, as opposed to the season as a whole.

Football matches change from moment to moment, whereas the whole game of T20 exists to manufacture a denouement at the end of the second innings. Everything prior to that is just window dressing.