Cricket going the hockey way??????

[Richard]

(He is drunk again, BTW)

 

[Ikki]

Pretty simple really. Athleticism is a skill, one that is more a have-or-don't than a can-be-acquired-through-gymwork.

Fitness and athleticism is not the same thing.

Weight training won't make one iota of difference to either fitness or athleticism. Cardio work will improve fitness but won't make a non-athlete into an athlete. Otherwise the best at Athletics Championships would be those with the best work-ethics alone.

Example - AB de Villiers and Herschelle Gibbs are natural athletes. Robert Key is not. Yet Key (in more recent times) and ABdeV are all fanatical trainers. Gibbs is not. But it doesn't change their athletitcism.

Geezus...C_C part 2.

No, weight training does help strengthen and condition the muscles. For example, Agility is a trait of athleticism. Agility is not something you either have-or-don't-have. You can be more agile by increasing your speed.

To be athletic means to exhibit athletic qualities. To be physically strong is another such aspect. How can you become physically strong? As said, weight training is one method.

And weight training does help fitness. By weight training you build up lean muscles which increase your body's metabolic rate thus reducing the body's fat storage and also burning up fat you may have stored unnecessarily. By doing this, it is one way you may become a fitter person.

 

[Matt79]

Similar thing is happening in Australian rules football. Players who previously got a game based on their outstanding skills, or commitment to getting the football, get exposed these days if they're fitness isn't the equivalent of a professional tri-athelete. The result is the that more and more the same basic body shape is dominating AFL and kids are selected based on their aerobic capacity and body-shape rather than skill. And the inevitable result is that the game has changed from one of position and specialization to one of continuous ball-movement and increasingly poor skills in general. And a poorer spectacle.

In cricket, there are enough things BESIDES the ability to run 18kms in a day's play that players who have skills but not necessary high levels of fitness will be able to make a go of it. The supreme examples of the continuing importance of skill are Murali, Inzi, and Warne. None of them, particularly Shane-o, are going to win any shuttle-sprint runs, but both still succeed because of their skill. Obviously the situation is a bit different for the quicks, and with the volume of cricket played today, you need to have a good level of basic fitness to last.

That said, there's a difference between only being able to succeed if you are outstandingly fit, and making an effort to optimise every level of your performance. General fitness DOES impact on your ability to produce sustained good performances, and in these days of fully-blown professionalism, there's no reason why all teams shouldn't be doing all they can to get that aspect of their game up to scratch. If they can't be bothered putting in the hard work, they probably don't deserve to succeed. But to be clear, I think its still the case, and would never want it to change, that skilled cricketers can improve by working on their fitness - you can't replace those skills purely with outstanding atheletic ability.

 

[Hamilton B]

Geezus...C_C part 2.

No, weight training does help strengthen and condition the muscles. For example, Agility is a trait of athleticism. Agility is not something you either have-or-don't-have. You can be more agile by increasing your speed.

To be athletic means to exhibit athletic qualities. To be physically strong is another such aspect. How can you become physically strong? As said, weight training is one method.

And weight training does help fitness. By weight training you build up lean muscles which increase your body's metabolic rate thus reducing the body's fat storage and also burning up fat you may have stored unnecessarily. By doing this, it is one way you may become a fitter person.

You're missing the point. training does help increase athleticism, but only to an extent. A person who is naturally very athletic will always remain more athletic than another who is slow to begin with, but trains like hell. Some people are just naturally more athletic than others. A person who trains hard will definitely become fitter, but he'll be fitter than he previously was, not necessarily fitter than another more gifted person.

 

[Ikki]

You're missing the point. training does help increase athleticism, but only to an extent. A person who is naturally very athletic will always remain more athletic than another who is slow to begin with, but trains like hell. Some people are just naturally more athletic than others. A person who trains hard will definitely become fitter, but he'll be fitter than he previously was, not necessarily fitter than another more gifted person.

Yes but that wasn't my point. Some players will have been endowed with a naturally fit body, and will have a physique not everyone can build upto - that's just a physical limitation. But there is a standard of athleticism everyone can achieve in their own right, and by doing so that will help - as Matt mentions - to attain better and more consistent performances.

What you mention in the bolded part is exactly what I am - or was trying - to say. If anybody who is amazingly skillful (like test cricketers) can train enough to raise their fitness than what it was before, that will automatically raise their game. Maybe a situation to take into account is comparing two people who are similar in build, yet one is a bit more skillfull than the other. The one who is inferior in skill embarks on increasing their athleticism - or fitness, what have you - and raise their game enough to compare against the other guy with more skill. Not sure if I'm clear, but I mean you can gain some ground by doing this training.

 

[Fiery]

Haven't the Dutch, the Germans, the Aussies and the Spanish been better than India or Pakistan for ages anyway?

 

[Matt79]

Yes but that wasn't my point. Some players will have been endowed with a naturally fit body, and will have a physique not everyone can build upto - that's just a physical limitation. But there is a standard of athleticism everyone can achieve in their own right, and by doing so that will help - as Matt mentions - to attain better and more consistent performances.

What you mention in the bolded part is exactly what I am - or was trying - to say. If anybody who is amazingly skillful (like test cricketers) can train enough to raise their fitness than what it was before, that will automatically raise their game. Maybe a situation to take into account is comparing two people who are similar in build, yet one is a bit more skillfull than the other. The one who is inferior in skill embarks on increasing their athleticism - or fitness, what have you - and raise their game enough to compare against the other guy with more skill. Not sure if I'm clear, but I mean you can gain some ground by doing this training.

It will improve their performance, so long as they don't stop doing their skills practice to concentrate on their fitness.

 

[Kweek]

Haven't the Dutch, the Germans, the Aussies and the Spanish been better than India or Pakistan for ages anyway?

(might aswell say something decent in this thread while i'm sober)


Yes, the Dutch, germans, aussies spanish and South-Koreans have been far better then the Pakistan and India teams.
While the game grows massive in the Netherlands(it's now our 2nd sport with more then a milion people playing it) someting tells me it's in decline in India and Pakistan, the lack of structure in there domestic competitions might aswell be a good reason for that.

 

[Craig]

(He is drunk again, BTW)

I think Tarrick can now be our resisdent drunk.

Worried if he has a drinking problem already

 

[Kweek]

pfft once a week! i'm just stupid enough to sit behind the computer!

 

[Salamuddin]

All I wish to say is that India and Pakistan are both better in hockey than they are in cricket and should do their utmost to lift their standards in hockey.

India or Pakistan have never been the best team in world cricket but between then they have 11 Olympic Hockey Gold Medals and 5 hockey world CUps.

I long for the days when Hockey will once again rule the roost on teh subcontinent.

By the LOve of Dickinson and PIckup, I am sure it will !!!!!!!

 

[Kweek]

I think Botham and Atherton were discussing this yesterday in the Ireland game? that so many bowlers are trained in the same way, and they all bowl the same way, same speed and all the goofy actions are kicked out...thats why like Botham and Athers and myself included love to see Malinga with his weird action! because of all the training put into players they all turn into certain robots, and who says a textbook technique is wrong ? I seem to remember that C_C had a go at Hayden for having a crap technique...does it matter? he still scores a bucket full of runs! and yes mayve his backfoot technique isn't up to skrech with the textbook exampels said....doesn't make him a bad player does it ?
same with Bowlers, to many bowlers look a like, and we just need some individualism in the game, with goofy batting techniques and weird bowling actions...!

 

[Hamilton B]

Haven't the Dutch, the Germans, the Aussies and the Spanish been better than India or Pakistan for ages anyway?

Yes, the Dutch, germans, aussies spanish and South-Koreans have been far better then the Pakistan and India teams.

11 Olympic gold medals says no.


The advent of astroturf changed things completely. Not only did it take a lot of skill out of the game ( you needed to factor in the grass which influenced the movement of the ball earlier. Astroturf took that out of the equation.)

Besides, astroturf costs a lt to install, and India and Pakistan were left behind on that count too, you can't produce world class players if they have not had the opportunity to practise on astroturf domestically.

The replacement of grass with the artificial stuff is equivalent to cricket deciding to standardise pitches around the world, making all of them behave exactly the same (factory produced drop in pitches?), which would take one whole facet out of the game, and make power play a dominant factor.

 

[Kweek]

11 Olympic gold medals says no.

have a look at in which year the last one was won? and read my post again.

 

[Hamilton B]

have a look at in which year the last one was won? and read my post again.

Have a look at the context in which Fiery's question was phrased. The discussion centers around the fate of the subcontinental hockey teams when focus shifted from skills to sheer fitness and powerplay. So when Fiery suggests that the Dutch, the Germans, the Aussies and the Spanish have been better than Ind/Pak for "ages anyway", it obviously encompasses the pre-astroturf era too, necessitating a different and more correct reply than yours.

 

[Jono]

If people are to be believed, every single sport isn't as good as it used to be. Cricket, AFL, tennis, soccer, boxing... hear it all the time.

 

[Hamilton B]

If people are to be believed, every single sport isn't as good as it used to be. Cricket, AFL, tennis, soccer, boxing... hear it all the time.

It isn't a question of a sport being better or worse. Your viewpoint will depend on what you want from the sport. Just considering Field Hockey, if you're the type that believes it is a game primarily of stamina and speed, you would be of the view that the sport has improved over the years. If however, you're the type that places emphasis on the beauty of the sport lying in the dribbling skills, the skill that resides in knowing exactly how to power the ball so that you've compensated for the unpredictability factor that comes from playing on natural grass, then you'll feel the sport has lost its way over the years.

I'd liken it to the difference between shooting a target with a perfect gun in a closed shooting range, and with a gun that has a crooked sight, in open air.

Sure, you'd still find better shooters and lesser shooters in the former case under those 'sterile' conditions, so to speak. But wouldn't you be more thrilled if you've shot the target compensating for the crooked sight and the wind ?

 

[Jono]

It isn't a question of a sport being better or worse. Your viewpoint will depend on what you want from the sport. Just considering Field Hockey, if you're the type that believes it is a game primarily of stamina and speed, you would be of the view that the sport has improved over the years. If however, you're the type that places emphasis on the beauty of the sport lying in the dribbling skills, the skill that resides in knowing exactly how to power the ball so that you've compensated for the unpredictability factor that comes from playing on natural grass, then you'll feel the sport has lost its way over the years.

I'd liken it to the difference between shooting a target with a perfect gun in a closed shooting range, and with a gun that has a crooked sight, in open air.

Sure, you'd still find better shooters and lesser shooters in the former case under those 'sterile' conditions, so to speak. But wouldn't you be more thrilled if you've shot the target compensating for the crooked sight and the wind ?

Whilst I can be as romantic and nostalgic when it comes to appreciating the sublteties of sport, what it comes down to is that the best tactics to win (so long as they are within the rules and 'spirit' of the game) should be employed. If a cricketer who is more athletic yet less 'skilled' in terms of batting (for the eg. of cricket), breeds better results than the skilled batsman, that is the way the game will go whether people like it or not.

The only way to prevent this from happening is to change/modify the rules to accomodate for the changing nature of the sport (whichever it may be) to ensure the game stays the same. Now if stronger and fitter cricketers are proving to be superior to those with less stamina yet more skill, then maybe a change in boundary ropes, or bat size, or pitch conditions (these aren't solutions, just examples of possible changes) will be made if it is deemed necessary. The public will demand it however.

Fact is, if the sport gets 'less attractive and entertaining' due to a changing nature of the game, it will show in audience and viewing numbers. Honest's example of tennis I disagree with. The whole complaint about power overriding finesse is incredibly exaggerated in my view. As much as I love the serve-and-volley game of Rafter or Henman, I will still take a Safin vs. Roddick match over them. Why? I just find those two slugging it out more entertaining, and if power tennis breeds better results than a serve-and-volley (for example), then the game will naturally adapt that way. If the fans as a whole don't like it, it will eventually change, either through limiting raquet technology, or slowing court surfaces etc.

I just get tired of hearing every time I tune in to a sport, whichever it may be, that the game is not as good as the old days. FFS, I get extremely nostalgic about the cricket and worry about the way the game is heading towards batsman, but even I find these calls that the game is heading to hell a bunch of hyperbole.

 

[BoyBrumby]

11 Olympic gold medals says no.

have a look at in which year the last one was won? and read my post again.

Ha! Great Britain has won a gold more recently than India or Pakistan and hockey is perceived very much as a lasses sport over here.

 

[silentstriker]

Well if it gets too far in one direction, a change is definitely possible. Look at ice hockey, it was basically the bigger the better, but they realized it was clogging up the game and they made a bunch of changes in the rules to emphasize speed. Of course, my team (Flyers) decided to go for size after the re-organization and had a squad that would have strolled to the championship....but with the new rules that emphasize speed and skill, we're getting owned.

So if it gets too far, a change is always possible .