Cricket Thread

[cricketsi]

But you're not smarter. I've just proven that.

Dear god, it's like talking to a brick wall.

What's better, scoring 30 off 20 balls or 20 off 146 balls?

It's a no brainer.

Just look at today's play. The whole talk is of Agars innings. 98 off 101 balls. No doubt you think that was an awful innings though cos by your logic, runs don't matter. Staying at the crease does :roll eyes:

Scoring 30 off 20 balls will usually better, except in some circumstances when you are playing for time to save a match, when time at the crease might be more important.

Here's one for you:

In the context of this afternoon's play for England, what is better, scoring 30 off 20 balls and getting out, or scoring 29 off 150 balls and still being in at the close of play? There's only one correct answer here by the way, and if you can't work it out you're beyond cricketing redemption.

[Syn]

Brainless discussion. And Cripps, if you don't want to be called a WUM you won't avoid Cricketsi's last point. If you're capable, answer it.

[Cripps_orig]

The last point where he said there's only one answer and acting all high and mighty?

[Syn]

The last point where he said there's only one answer

You're acting no different. And yes. It's not about scoring 'fast' or 'slow'. Anyone who has played cricket to a decent level knows the red ball does a lot more in the air and off the seam. It seems you're not capable of acknowledging the relative probabilities of surviving when pushing forward with the bat to score runs compared to playing with soft hands and defending. Do you seriously think batsmen enjoy hanging about doing 'fuck all' but surviving? You think Dravid enjoyed dropping his hands against 90mph bowling and taking bruises around the ribs in every Aussie tour? He does it to survive.

What would you call a football fan who keeps shouting about how every team shouldn't worry about defending and just throw everyone forward in every attack? Or a boxing fan who keeps saying a boxer shouldn't worry about guarding his face but only punching the opponent? Because that's equivalent to what you're saying. In any sport there is this balance between playing safe and attacking, and the top guys in their field are successful because they work out those changing odds according to the changing conditions. This is really basic stuff.

[Dennis Bendtner]

Cripps, you should gone with Kohli rather than pollute the thread with the usual bullshit. He got out for 2 so you'd have a point.

[Cripps_orig]

And when someone is playing defensively in football, you are amongst the first to criticise. Why is this so different?

I'm no hypocrite. I like to be entertained. I'm a fan and I want England to win this series. Not particularly fussed if they don't but as long as its entertaining, to fans that's the main thing.

Is this entertaining? No. It's to put it in a way you'd understand, Stokeing it up.

If a number 11 batsmen can come out and play like that, then accomplished batsmen have no excuse not to

[Cripps_orig]

Cripps, you should gone with Kohli rather than pollute the thread with the usual bullshit. He got out for 2 so you'd have a point.

Usual bullshit which no one has ever proven me wrong in.

[Cripps_orig]

Lets give you Testicles a question of your own. It is one I have asked before and hasn't been answered and I've just been reminded of it by the usual bs WUMming by Dennis Bendtner whoever he is.

Put a kid in front of a tv and make him watch Agars innings. Then put him in front of Cooks.

Which is more likely to get him in to the game of cricket?

Tests are not popular these days. That is something that can't be argued against. The crowds all over the world at Test matches are very low. Why is that?

Another question that is that's been avoided whenever it has been asked

[Syn]

And when someone is playing defensively in football, you are amongst the first to criticise. Why is this so different?

I'm no hypocrite. I like to be entertained. I'm a fan and I want England to win this series. Not particularly fussed if they don't but as long as its entertaining, to fans that's the main thing.

Is this entertaining? No. It's to put it in a way you'd understand, Stokeing it up.

If a number 11 batsmen can come out and play like that, then accomplished batsmen have no excuse not to

It doesn't matter if it's entertaining or not. The bottom line is - it's not a choice between scoring 80 off 70 balls and 80 off 210 balls. It's a choice between scoring 80 off 70 balls with probability x, and scoring 80 off 210 with probability y. You're too stupid to realise this.

[Syn]

Lets give you Testicles a question of your own. It is one I have asked before and hasn't been answered and I've just been reminded of it by the usual bs WUMming by Dennis Bendtner whoever he is.

Put a kid in front of a tv and make him watch Agars innings. Then put him in front of Cooks.

Which is more likely to get him in to the game of cricket?

Tests are not popular these days. That is something that can't be argued against. The crowds all over the world at Test matches are very low. Why is that?

Another question that is that's been avoided whenever it has been asked

Highest grossing films of all time:

1 Avatar
2 Titanic
3 The Avengers

Best selling doesn't mean most skillful. We're not talking about what is more popular so don't change the subject. You criticising batsmen for playing slow is suggesting they're not doing their jobs properly. You're saying they could score the same runs in less balls. That's the issue I'm taking up with you. The 'entertaining' argument is a nice cop out but we're not discussing it right now because we have done many times before.