Anti-Americanism in cricket?

[PY]

Try to come out of the shell and try reading newspapers from around the world, there are many sports writers/reporters better than Agnew.

What's makes you say that I don't read news articles from around the world? Because I do.

And I didn't say he's the best at what he does because IMO he isn't and I didn't say that he's an infallible writer either....because he isn't. But I reckon he's one of the top 5-10 cricket writers around and he certainly deserves a little more respect.

 

[archie mac]

Just because he has been reporting for years doesn't make him a genius. There are numerous reporters who are better than him. Try to come out of the shell and try reading newspapers from around the world, there are many sports writers/reporters better than Agnew.

And yes, Not only his article, but this thread was opened on an Insulting note.

Thats the way insult some one who does not agree with you, how do yoy know he does not read articles/writers from around the world? I find Agnew a fine writer, especially about Cricket, which the subject was written on.

I think it a credit to the USA that they have largely developed there own sports, but I agree with Aggers; that I want ODIs to resemble the game I call Cricket.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Anyone who endorses Twenty20 especially when most players coaches hate it must be a fool. These changes aren't even tried, let ICC try it and see how it works. I am not saying these changes are going to be good, but I am not going to dismiss without even trying it.

Just because he has been reporting for years doesn't make him a genius. There are numerous reporters who are better than him. Try to come out of the shell and try reading newspapers from around the world, there are many sports writers/reporters better than Agnew.

And yes, Not only his article, but this thread was opened on an Insulting note.

Congratulations on the worst post in this thread, utterly biassed, opinionated and throws out guesswork as facts like "especially when most players coaches hate it" - you should be a journalist.

 

[honestbharani]

I think by the term "Americanisation" he may have meant that it adds a bit more of entertainment and curtails a bit more of the skill level of a player, although, as it was pointed out, the best example of the substitutes rule is soccer.. I still think that the American audience simply have a different idea of how sports should be and the major sports over there reflect their style of thinking, while the other sports like cricket reflect our style of thinking. I don't think it is fair to be saying one is better than the other.

 

[luckyeddie]

I think by the term "Americanisation" he may have meant that it adds a bit more of entertainment and curtails a bit more of the skill level of a player, although, as it was pointed out, the best example of the substitutes rule is soccer.. I still think that the American audience simply have a different idea of how sports should be and the major sports over there reflect their style of thinking, while the other sports like cricket reflect our style of thinking. I don't think it is fair to be saying one is better than the other.

I spent a pleasurable few hours in the pub last Thursday evening, watching the conclusion to the Australia v England game. Sitting at the bar with me was an American man and his wife, and although they didn't exactly understand one iota of what was going on, they asked intelligent, searching questions about cricket (I was even able to crack jokes about American cricketers playing the game for the first time, hitting the ball and charging off in the direction of the square-leg umpire).

At the end of the evening, we had both learned something - them about cricket and me about my capacity for Guinness.

 

[Sanz]

The simple fact is that American sport and culture in general is associated with short attention-spans and cheap gimmicks. This is obviously a generalisation, but not entirely without reason; clearly Mr. Agnew feels that cricket is heading down this path with the recent proposed changes.

Oh so now we are attacking American sport and Culture as well ??

Enlighten us please how American culture is associated with Cheap Gimmicks ?

Not to forget, isn't Twenty20(which Agnew and rest of the English support so much) a cheap gimmick and a slap to real cricket ?

 

[Sanz]

Congratulations on the worst post in this thread, utterly biassed, opinionated and throws out guesswork as facts like "especially when most players coaches hate it" - you should be a journalist.

**Look who is Talking**

Yes, Most players and coaches(except those are in England) hate Twenty20 whereas some of these new ideas(which agnew calls as americanisation) for ODIs were floated by current/ex players themselves.

 

[Sanz]

that I want ODIs to resemble the game I call Cricket.

The double standards of Agnew so is apparent here. He supports the cheapest form of cricket called twenty20 and wants an International tournament (by scrapping the ICC KO trophy, calling it as 'useless) but when ICC introduces some changes for ODIs, he starts ranting about how he doesn't want cricket to be americanised.

Did he even speak to players, coaches or seeked their opinions before dismissing these changes ? Cricket has to evolve, many people feel that ODIs were boring between 20-40 overs and something was needed to make it more interesting. Even many players feel that way. So why not try these changes and not insult an entire country and culture just because Mr. Agnew doesn't like these changes ?

 

[Sanz]

What's makes you say that I don't read news articles from around the world? Because I do.

And I didn't say he's the best at what he does because IMO he isn't and I didn't say that he's an infallible writer either....because he isn't. But I reckon he's one of the top 5-10 cricket writers around and he certainly deserves a little more respect.

Well, if you think Agnew is top 5-10 cricketer writers today, then good for you. I dont find him that good.

 

[archie mac]

The double standards of Agnew so is apparent here. He supports the cheapest form of cricket called twenty20 and wants an International tournament (by scrapping the ICC KO trophy, calling it as 'useless) but when ICC introduces some changes for ODIs, he starts ranting about how he doesn't want cricket to be americanised.

Did he even speak to players, coaches or seeked their opinions before dismissing these changes ? Cricket has to evolve, many people feel that ODIs were boring between 20-40 overs and something was needed to make it more interesting. Even many players feel that way. So why not try these changes and not insult an entire country and culture just because Mr. Agnew doesn't like these changes ?

In the 1960s Test Cricket was very defensive and there were all sorts of suggestions to fix the problem, from a smaller ball to scraping the Ashes. In the end all it took was a change it attitude from the players. I think Test Cricket at the moment as good as ever.
I just feel they have jumped it to quickly with these changes, the game of Cricket has managed to 'right it self' many times before.


I am sorry you were offended, I am not sure that was Aggers intention.

 

[Top_Cat]

Yes, Most players and coaches(except those are in England) hate Twenty20 whereas some of these new ideas(which agnew calls as americanisation) for ODIs were floated by current/ex players themselves.

I think what he's saying is that you can't be sure of how many coaches hate the game and he's right; how on Earth would you know?

 

[JeffStar]

PS Welcome JeffStar, haven't seen you kicking about in a fair while! Good to see you might have returned for the near future.

take a look at my latest lame attempt at a column on this thread and enjoy!
http://forum.cricketweb.net/showthread.php?p=509869

 

[nts]

sub rule is just a misguided attempt to remove the craziness of pitch/toss/conditons deciding a match. not americanisation.

the new fielding restrictions are more american as they are sacrificing competition for spectacle and making the game more erratic. (anyone remember "zone football"?)

 

[nts]

Nothing to see here, move along.

An (on the face of it) unfortunate choice of words but one where a moment's thought allows the clarity of the intention to shine through.

I'm sure that the 'Americanisation' (the use of a 'zed' in that word would be an Americanisation in itself), especially with the reference to specific 'teams' purely and simply refers not to Baseball or Basketball or other sports our transatlantic cousins find so palatable, but to the fifteen thousand a side nonsense that is 'Gridiron', known the world over as 'American Football'.

It's not anti-Americanism - it's anti-American-Footballism, and for that, my friends, Aggers ought to be given a medal.

<quack> A great big one made out of burgers fastened on to a ribbon of hot-dogs, then another one five minutes later, then one made out of popcorn, then......

Balance redressed, all better.

American Football - to me - is the only one of their sports worth seeing as you actually have some tactics and competition. Basketball, baseball and ice hockey are a big joke. games of pure chance with all spectators entering a delusion that they are seeing a sport. please save cricket from this.

 

[luckyeddie]

sub rule is just a misguided attempt to remove the craziness of pitch/toss/conditons deciding a match. not americanisation.

the new fielding restrictions are more american as they are sacrificing competition for spectacle and making the game more erratic. (anyone remember "zone football"?)

Sorry, that one's sailed straight over my head. The only way you could remove the 'toss' or the pitch from being a deciding factor is to divide the game up into more and more innings - like in baseball, and then we really would be screwing with the ethics of the game.

 

[nts]

As I said "mis-guided attempt".

if making cricket fairer is americanisation then lets go for it. splitting it up is the best idea for years! they could play matches in 2 game ties (a-la football) with both teams batting 50 overs in each game - biggest winning margin wins.