Cricket: Art or Science?

[luckyeddie]

That's the sort of pointless comment I'd expect from Richard, those are nothing like snooker. As for chess... horrible and useless game, much prefer Scrabble as at least you can learn words like oogonium that can come in handy sometimes...

Unfair.

There have been, believe it or not, repeated calls for both chess and ballroom dancing to be included in the Olympic Games. THAT's the only reason I mentioned them.

If it had been Richard, there would have been 14 consecutive comments on the subject, quoting items from a defunct and refuted periodical published in 1928 suggesting that the 'Pas-de-Deux' is unfair and the 'Discovered Check' is the work of the devil, as well as owing everything to luck.

Syzygy rules in Scrabble.

 

[JASON]

Cricket can be an Art or Science depending on who is diplaying or performing.
Obviously it was a great work of Art when Viv Richards or Don Bradman batted or Malcolm Marshall, Sir Richard Hadlee or Dennis Lillee bowled.

But in the hands of people like John Buchanan and Bob Woolmer it becomes a science involving Data collection and Data analysis (and Laptops and earpiece microphones ) .

It can be an Art when the best Artist is displaying it ala Viv or Sir Don and all those watching it know and appreciate the beauty and elegance of the strokes and its effortless nature. One only has to see pictures to see how beautiful their batting was, when they were in full flow.

 

[marc71178]

I'd say abouy 80% Art, 20% science?

 

[luckyeddie]

Regarding cricket being a science, here's a prediction for tomorrow...

A statistician is watching the game. Steve Wayward-Harmison comes tearing in and bowls the first ball of the match to Churchy - a wide, a yard wide of the leg stump. Next ball, the big Durham fast bowler makes the necessary adjustments to his line - and fires it a yard wide of the off stump.

"Got him" shouts the statistician.

 

[Jono]

I think its a bit of both. There's definitely an art to the game, no doubt but I feel science is involved. Stats are used in most sports, but its very dominant in cricket, and I think it shows when you get so many figures and facts after watching just one game of cricket. You can even look at the arguments/debates on this board, and there are so many stats used to justify people's opinions, so cricket definitely has a 'hint' of science.

 

[Deja moo]

Chess?
Ballroom Dancing?

Chess is a very valid game IMO. It involves much more mind games than Lawn Darts .
But seriously speaking , just because golfers walk (atleast on the rare occaisions the golf cart breaks down) doesnt make it more of a sport than Chess . What about simultaneous chess ? I've seen Players play upto a hundred games simultaneously , and they walk from board to board .

As for Ball room dancing , I guess that if it doesnt have an objective system of scoring which doesnt depend on the whims of the referees (?), it isnt a sport .

 

[BoyBrumby]

As for Ball room dancing , I guess that if it doesnt have an objective system of scoring which doesnt depend on the whims of the referees (?), it isnt a sport .

To play Devil's Advocate, couldn't one make the same argument about the LBW law? Some decisions v subjective!

 

[a massive zebra]

If it had been Richard, there would have been 14 consecutive comments on the subject, quoting items from a defunct and refuted periodical published in 1928 suggesting that the 'Pas-de-Deux' is unfair and the 'Discovered Check' is the work of the devil, as well as owing everything to luck.

 

[V Reddy]

This reminds of the questions i used to face in school i.e., Is Accounts, Economics an art or science

My answer is Art

 

[SJS]

Not a science really. Its a craft. But when displayed by some masters it is as beautiful as a piece of art.

By the way, with due respects to Aussie friends, Bradman was a master craftsman, the greatest of all time, a genius for his complete mastery of his craft, but an artist...well... highly debatable.

 

[Swervy]

so...the use of averages to decide who is the better player etc...does it miss the point all together about what makes a good player a good player???

 

[anzac]

IMO b4 any player can become an 'artist' or even a 'journeyman', he must at first be an 'artisan' and learn his 'craft' b4 he can mature into the aforementioned..............and this takes a dedication to technique & practise - which is the 'craft' / 'science' of the game IMO.............

I must admit I didn't even think to apply the 'science' idea to stats & laptops & gameplans - just to the individual skills & performance...............

 

[marc71178]

As for Ball room dancing , I guess that if it doesnt have an objective system of scoring which doesnt depend on the whims of the referees (?), it isnt a sport .

Gymnastics?

Diving?

 

[Son Of Coco]

Gymnastics?

Diving?

speaking of diving, they should have 4 or 5 people sitting down by the fence at each soccer match with signs to score each dive. It'd be quite entertaining.

 

[SJS]

so...the use of averages to decide who is the better player etc...does it miss the point all together about what makes a good player a good player???

Stats may tell you who did what and even , mostly, who is good and who is not, but art is not measurable in numbers.

Vishwanath the artist vs Gavaskar the master craftsman, Gower vs Gooch, Bedi vs Underwood, Mark Waugh vs Steve Waugh, these are not comparisons that can be made based on statistics. If anything, the artist is likely to suffer in comparison to the master craftsman due the very nature of his instincts.

 

[Deja moo]

To play Devil's Advocate, couldn't one make the same argument about the LBW law? Some decisions v subjective!

Okay , you got me there .

Still , Ball room dancing , diving etc dont "feel" like sports to me .

 

[Richard]

so...the use of averages to decide who is the better player etc...does it miss the point all together about what makes a good player a good player???

What makes a player a better player than another is earning more runs than another (ie scoring them through your own good play, not being dropped 5 times and getting 183 to your name).
What makes a good player a good player is how he is rated by the majority!
What makes a player attractive to watch is a wholly different matter! I don't think anyone would say Nasser Hussain is a better player than Darren Lehmann but I know who I'd prefer watch and who I'd prefer have in my side!

 

[Richard]

WRT sports etc.:
I greatly enjoy watching and playing snooker. I would not, however, class it as a sport.
I would class cricket, both codes of rugby, football (soccer), golf, tennis, all as sports. Plus plenty besides. Don't know if there's an official definition.

 

[Richard]

WRT cricket: art or science:
I enjoy both parts of the game - the more science, the better from my POV, but without the art of attractive batting (IMO the only part of the game that can really be called art) it would be equally dull.
I don't class Matthew Hayden or Adam Gilchrist as artists, they're ugly, bat-swinging mumphs. Much as they're flair and spontaneity players.

 

[Swervy]

WRT cricket: art or science:
I enjoy both parts of the game - the more science, the better from my POV, but without the art of attractive batting (IMO the only part of the game that can really be called art) it would be equally dull.
I don't class Matthew Hayden or Adam Gilchrist as artists, they're ugly, bat-swinging mumphs. Much as they're flair and spontaneity players.

so would you not class something like leg spin an art??? There is something mysterious about it which for me makes it as much art as a classically played cover drive or whatever