Cricket World Cup Thread
Posted 22 June 2003 - 12:28 AM
Pleqase don't be discouraged. If you would take the time to read through the 1000+ posts you might learn some thing, but I doubt it. Please allow me to describe cricket from an american enthusiasts' view to an American incognisants view.
Baseball was derived from cricket to allow all menbers participating to have a'go'. Perhaps if you read somewhere around page 65 of this thread you might find it?
I have a tea towel in front of me right now and I will Quote
"CRICKET as explained to a foreign visitor"
You have two sides: one out in the field and on e in.
Each man's that in the sie that's in goes out and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out.
When they are all all out, the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in out.
Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When both sides have been in and out twice (including the not outs) The game's over.
Posted 22 June 2003 - 04:45 AM
This is an article that explains cricket from an American viewpoint.
The article is written by a Yank for the benefit of other Yanks.
Cricket explained - An American Viewpoint
If you can understand it you can also understand why it brings curry munchers, Poms, and convicts together in a spirit of amiable togetherness.
Matches might be held in Orlando, FL, apart from other centres all over the Caribbean and Guyana in South America for the 2007 World Cup.
Posted 22 June 2003 - 05:12 AM
These are just some of the views expressed:
Should US host World Cup games?
Cricket is far too complicated for the Americans' short attention span and won't fit well in with the TV scheduling.
David Ellis, Ipswich, UK
A great idea. Cricket is a game played by few, in few countries around the world so that would certainly widen the appeal.We might then really have a World Cup!
Colin, Manchester, England
I don't have a problem with the US hosting a game or two. There are enough expats from cricket playing countries in the US to give any game a great atmosphere.
But keep it serious; no Disney, no cheerleaders and no alchohol bans. And if this is designed to impress Americans with the excitement that a one-day match can generate, then for God's sake dump the Super Six notion and make sure the tournament lasts only a fortnight.
How could the idea even come up. US of all the places, they will make the sport a mockery like any other thing they go into.
I think that the next World Cup should be in Kenya. What better team to host than the team that has proved that its made up of men and not chicken!
No, of course not, they keep them for themselves (fortunately). Let's not take any attention away from the West Indies.
They have been loyal supporters of world cricket & deserve sole rights to & benefits from the World Cup. This competition would mean so much to the Caribbean people, but would be just another quirky little sport to the Americans.
Actually why not? The can have a commercial break between each over and when they realise they are losing the game, rush and fight it out on the field (like what's that game... base something??) with the added bonus of being able to use weapons (6 stumps, 2 bats and a ball). I am surprised this game hasn't caught on yet.
S Ghose, UK
I believe only the West Indies and Canada should host World Cup games. Canadians deserve to host World Cup games. They gave a good performance in this World Cup beating Bangladesh and giving the West Indies, South Africa and New Zealand a scare. I liked the guy John Davison who smashed the fastest century.
I think this is a brilliant idea. The cricket World Cup should be about romance adventure and dreams coming true
Canada should be given automatic qualification and ODI status, not USA. USA doesn't deserve longer cricket. They should be happy with baseball.
Not in a million years! The USA are interested in three major sports: baseball, basketball, and more lately (since the advent of Tiger Woods) golf. Cricket has never been and will never be their cup of tea.
They have no historical links with the game (like the West Indies, which is where the competition really ought to be held)and have never before now displayed the slightest interest in its development.
To allow them to host games there (at Disneyland of all places) would be to pander to their money-making capabilities and to sacrifice the soul of the sport.
Have the competition in a country that at least cares about the game. Have pride in the game.
Kerwyn Garcia, Trinidad and Tobago
Complete nonsense. America has already rejected cricket to the extent that they completely bastardised it and invented baseball. Doesn't that make it clear that they have no interest in the game? What they do have an interest in, however, is making some quick cash by involving themselves in a highly profitable sporting event. All the more reason for not involving them.
Evan Kearney, South Africa
I think this is a brilliant idea. The cricket World Cup should be about romance adventure and dreams coming true. Disneyland, aspires to these ideals doesn't it? Or have I been fooled by the TV ads?
You can forget about cricket in USA. They only follow their own sports and soccer struggles to get publicity over there. Try Cuba or Brazil.
Mark Hili, Australia
I suggest the ICC forget about the idea, a complete non-starter. You would never be able to explain the rules of the game to the American public in a million years.
Anything more complicated than rounders is beyond their attention span - not a Mickey Mouse competition, more a Donald Duck!
Cricket is too long a game to excite the American people, who prefer sports which are of a much shorter duration.
Siddharth Kanjilal, Mumbai, India
I think that this is a shocking decision and devalues the game. If the US does not want to get involved in a sport (I am thinking of the football World Cup here as well), there is no need to show them the way. They are more than happy with their "world" series in their sports so let them be.
Do the Americans deserve cricket? I don't think so
Nitin Chopra, Canada
Considering that the England and NZ teams boycotted matches because of safety concerns in this World Cup, and the likelihood the supporters of Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka will probably struggle to get visas into the US, (oh, and people with beards). The US should be the last place in the world to hold the Cricket World Cup...
N Akram, UK
Definitely, NO! Holding the tournament in the West Indies is debatable, but thinking of holding matches in the USA is absurd! The current World Cup being held in three countries was a shambles, surely the 'organisers' have seen this!
Mind you, the current tournament is such a joke, I'm sure the 'organisers' will include the USA, it wouldn't surprise me if Mexico, Canada and Greenland were used too!
Steve Murphy, Middlesex, England
Do the Americans deserve cricket? I don't think so, if you need to reward a North American country with a few World Cup games, it should be us Canadians. We make a genuine effort to understand the game, we had a decent showing in this World Cup.
Yes, we do watch ice hockey and basketball but we also watch curling. Forget the Americans. I am also a big fan of basketball and hockey, but cricket has a special place in my heart for its grace and uniqueness. "Globalize the sport but don't Americanize it."
Nitin Chopra, Canada
Totally opposed, I think it is a ridiculous idea. Never agreed with the USA hosting the World Cup soccer.
Angela McKay, Australia
When I moved to America, I sold all my cricket stuff because I didn't think I would need it in America, because I thought there would be no cricket. But I made a mistake, for I play cricket nearly every weekend.
Just try to get the rule book down to 200 pages first, so we can understand
John Burgeson, USA
Most of the cricket here is played by immigrants like me, and not so much by the real born Americans, and so it would be a joy to see a game in America. I have a cricket club at my school and have much interest in the game.
All that is needed is a big event like the World Cup to really get America looking at cricket. I'm sure it would not beat baseball or American football, but it doesn't need to. I think, just like soccer, that cricket will really be a world sport.
I read someone say "do outsiders understand the USA"; the only problem, I think, is that America does not know the rest of the world. They act as if no one else is important. Americans must open their eyes to the rest of the world, not the rest of the world to them.
Sure, we'd love to host the Cup here in the colonies. Just try to get the rule book down to 200 pages first, so we can understand the game. As you can see by the man in the White House, we Yanks are a little weak under the rafters.
John Burgeson, USA
Why Florida? There are more cricketers in California than any other state in the USA aren't there? At least 'it never rains in California'...
For more views of people from all over the world read this.
Posted 22 June 2003 - 11:04 AM
Personally I think the US can handle it. Baseball people sit through double headers, don't they? Same duration as a ODI. Plus they would get to see some better batting than the would in a normal Baseball game. AND there are enough expats over here who would love to see a game or two, even if it's a ODI.
Mission: The crucial difference between baseball and cricket (even the one day game) is that the Bowler (pitcher) is the attacker and the batsman (batter) is the defender. Just the opposite in baseball. To appreciate the game you must literally change your mindset to accept this tenet, otherwise you will never get into it. Once you have done it, the game's a snap and quite fascinating.
Posted 23 June 2003 - 02:24 AM
Thanks England for the Paki-bashing, but I admit it looked like a bit of heavy weather after 20 overs. A good birthday present for Prince Williiam on his 21st, methinks. Any royal who likes Indian food deserves a cricket match where Pakis are routed, for dessert. And I got my money.
This site gives details of
Women's Cricket News. You'll be surprised at the number of women now playing cricket. And as usual, the convicts seem to be the best in the ladies' version of the game.
"Henry VIII called it "the sport of kings," but for many cricket is shrouded in enigma. This needn't be the case. At heart, once removed of jargon, it remains a simple game of immense depth and beauty, combining strategy, cunning, raw hand-to-hand fist fighting to the death, teamwork and even the occasional tear of sorrow. What follows is a simplified summary of the rules, as first set down by WG Grace, Lord of Wisden, in 1851. "
Take a look at
for an idea of the basic rules, simplified further.
Posted 23 June 2003 - 11:35 PM
As Ag says you're progressing nicely in the jargon and nuance of the game! Keep studying, if you have questions about anything ask Ag or z or me and if that don't work refer to Wisden.
Well as a yank, your moniker would be a Seppo (rhyming slang derived from yank>yank tank>septic tank>septic>seppo. Aussie terms from 2nd world war).
Actually I'm a seppo too, but all my heart and soul is in OZ.
OK Ag how many fosters did you have after the Poms won?
Posted 25 June 2003 - 12:36 AM
Slightly close (controversial) 20 over match between Derbyshire and Leicestershire it seems. 1 run, but there seems to be confusion over whether Hodge had his foot over the boundary line when he caught Selwood. :eek:
1st 20 over match Ton goes to Harvey.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users