Cricket as an art form

[neville cardus]

And what happened to my "continuous" prattling on about aesthetics? Do you admit that you attempted a spot of dishonest equivocation there?

 

[Pratters]

Pasag... the demarcation is pretty clear for me. A cricketer's job is to make runs, take wickets, be useful for his team. An ugly player>an artistically superior player in this respect and I would always have the more useful player in my team.

However, that does not mean that I may or may not enjoy watching player x or y or z. For instance, I love watching FC cricket and a stroke from an unheard player can please me more than an ugly 40. In this respect, we all love cricket as an art form. However, when it comes to matches from a team's perspective, how artful some one is isn't a crucial aspect.

There is also the subjective issue of what really is art form. Is it looking beautiful or executing things effectively. To every one, what is and what isn't art would vary. For instance, there is some one like Prince EWS and in sharp contrast some one like Haroon on our boards who tend to enjoy different types of cricket more often than not. I am glad that cricket can be enjoyed at many levels. Both aspects of cricket - contests and art form - can be enjoyed by fans.

 

[viktor]

You see from time to time people saying that the only important thing in cricket is runs and wickets, that entertainment is of lesser importance and at the end of the day the result is all that matters. But do these people miss the beauty in the game, the fine subtleties that don't come across in the scoreboard and in the results? If cricket was only about the result would anyone really care? And how is it different from every other sport out there if it is?

I think it's a fine balance in the overall perspective of things and hold both in quite high value, but what do others think and what do you value first and foremost in cricket?

Cricket, as a whole cannot be an art form, simply because there is an objective way of evaluating performance in cricket. Art, in general, does not lend itself to such a quantification. However, individual pieces within the game can be treated as art.
Personally, while I can appreciate (some of) these individual pieces, it is the big picture that appeals, the ebb and flow of the game, the mental battles and finally the result.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

I don't think it's an art form. It's just a game.

Cricket writers in the past did their best to raise it to the level of art, but that itself is the art of writing. And writing, like most art forms, only occasionally rises to the level of art.

 

[archie mac]

The amount and quality of literature that cricket produces compared to any other sport, suggests that there is something more to this game than any other. Is it art? Or is it simply the fact that it lasts for five days and gives time for quiet comtemplation and copious time for antidotes

 

[Pratters]

The amount and quality of literature that cricket produces compared to any other sport, suggests that there is something more to this game than any other. Is it art? Or is it simply the fact that it lasts for five days and gives time for quiet comtemplation and copious time for antidotes

It is art for sure... How can a wristly Laxman shot be any thing else.

 

[archie mac]

It is art for sure... How can a wristly Laxman shot be any thing else.

Yes, I always wonder why the Sub.Cont. players seem to have a greater facility for using their wrists, I used to love watching Zee when he came to Aust

 

[Pratters]

Yes, I always wonder why the Sub.Cont. players seem to have a greater facility for using their wrists, I used to love watching Zee when he came to Aust

A lot of the wrist has to do with the wickets. Subcontinent produces turning, less bouncier wickets which means that players have to work the ball left and right and counter the spin. The less bounce also means we see subcontinent players playing across more often. Bouncier pitches means that playing straighter is the safer option more often than not. Players develop differently more often than not at different places thus.

 

[Richard]

Cricket, as a whole cannot be an art form, simply because there is an objective way of evaluating performance in cricket. Art, in general, does not lend itself to such a quantification. However, individual pieces within the game can be treated as art.

That's a very good way of looking at it, I guess.

 

[Richard]

there are battles within battles

Well... it depends how you look at it.

Really, cricket is only at ever a battle between two people at most given times. Bowler vs batsman - once certain things happen the 10 fielders come into play, and very occasionally the non-striking batsman does.

But cricket isn't a team sport the way football or rugby are. There's no point where a team-mate can aid another one - if the bowler isn't good enough to put the ball in the right place, his team-mates can do nothing. His team-mates can let him down, obviously, though, with poor fielding. This is different to, for instance, football and rugby where interaction between team-mates is what makes play.

The results of the single battle that is each ball of a game of cricket cumulate, to form the result of the game. Hence, for me, cricket is the cumulative result of however many individual battles it takes - in theory maximum and minimum respectively, 600 in a ODI and 2700 in a Test.

The description of cricket as "a team sport played by individuals" is the best I've ever heard.

Not quite relevant to the art within cricket I know, but an interesting tangent nonetheless IMO.

 

[archie mac]

A lot of the wrist has to do with the wickets. Subcontinent produces turning, less bouncier wickets which means that players have to work the ball left and right and counter the spin. The less bounce also means we see subcontinent players playing across more often. Bouncier pitches means that playing straighter is the safer option more often than not. Players develop differently more often than not at different places thus.

I think that is true. How do you explain someone like Ranji who learnt his cricket in England but was still very wristy

 

[Pratters]

I think that is true. How do you explain someone like Ranji who learnt his cricket in England but was still very wristy

I was thinking the same thing while posting this actually. I don't know too. Maybe it has some thing to do with who people's heroes are, how they are genetically. Also, SJS did a post a while back on how lot of similar kinds of players tended to come from the same regions and wondering why - like say wicket keepers from Baroda in India.

 

[pasag]

Huh? No one misses the subtleties. Why do people continuously confuse what it takes to win vs. what I like watching? I love watching a four fast bowler combo running through lineups, but I can concede that a spinner is sometimes required to win.

See the difference?

You seem to be making it as if it is a question that is personally directed at you*. And even weirder you answer it for everyone. Seem very highly wound up for mine. On top of that this has little to do with batsman x > batsman y arguments and I especially didn't want to bring that in here. It is a question on where your values lie and what means more to you.

*Same thing happened with the Lillee thing, because you were arguing something similar, whenever a member happened to attack the stance you felt personally offended and would answer 'no-one is saying this or that', when infact I think they were and it was just you and a few others that weren't.

 

[Richard]

I think that is true. How do you explain someone like Ranji who learnt his cricket in England but was still very wristy

There are batsmen who are wristy who aren't Asian y'know. And British-Asians who aren't remotely wristy.

 

[Athlai]

Anything can be an art form if you love it enough.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Anything can be an art form if you love it enough.

 

[archie mac]

There are batsmen who are wristy who aren't Asian y'know. And British-Asians who aren't remotely wristy.

Next you will be telling me the wickets are different in each country





























(just kidding )

 

[shortpitched713]

Yes, I always wonder why the Sub.Cont. players seem to have a greater facility for using their wrists,

Play lots of table tennis, I guess.

 

[Sanz]

I think that is true. How do you explain someone like Ranji who learnt his cricket in England but was still very wristy

Being a prince, I guess it had to with the fencing lessons he took.

 

[LongHopCassidy]

The element of art in cricket will always exist as long as the human element stands alongside it. The subjectivity of a batsman or bowler's quality, the enforced injustice of umpiring and the uncertainty of a result - impossible to predict by mathematical models or scientific hypothesis - are what, to my eye, give the game its beauty. Wouldn't cricket be bloody dull if we knew EXACTLY what was going to happen or had accurate predicitons every time? Or if we had an absolute, incontrovertible statistic for telling the all-round worth of a player?

Why do you know Australia will beat Bangladesh in a Test match 99 times out of 100?

Because you KNOW they're better, of course.

How do you know?

Well, they've got better batsmen, better bowlers, better facilities....

What do you mean by 'better'?

Better stats - higher batting, lower bowling, more money...

What makes their stats better?

They're just BETTER.

And so on.

We may rise from our couch in a rage after twenty replays proving that Steve Bucknor's an idiot, but each of us know deep down that in his position, we probably couldn't do any better.

Cricket's full of undefinables, unpredictables and relativities. It's art. Because the human error's there. And we appreciate it all the more because of the influx of science and statistics that's in the game today.