Cricket as an art form

[Perm]

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?

I've been one of the members who has been saying that runs and wickets are the only things that matter in cricket, but it doesn't mean I don't appreciate beautiful strokeplay, or sensational bowling.

When judging a player, how many runs they score or how many wickest they take are almost always the most important thing. That's what seperates batsmen like Matthew Hayden, who aren't attractive to watch but consistently churn out runs, and VVS Laxman, who looks an absolute treat when he scores runs, but doesn't do it as often as Hayden. That is why he is a lesser batsmen, in my eyes. I'd far rather watch Laxman bat, but Hayden is beyond almost all doubt the better batsmen because he does his job more effectively than Laxman.

The reason I watch cricket is because it is aesthetically pleasing. When watching the cricket I don't indulge myself in how many runs Ponting has scored against Muralitharan, or what Hussey's record is like at Bellerive Oval. I watch because it's a beautiful game. However, output is what counts when judging players, and I'll maintain my beleif in that. The primary responsibility for a batsmen is to make runs, and for a bowler it is to take wickets. They should be trying to do this in any way they can, and not trying to please the crowd by looking good. As a batsmen, if you can combine good looking strokeplay and heavy scoring, then that's just dandy.

 

[pasag]

Yeah, trying to keep away from the judging of players here and what makes x and better batsmen than y and output/stats debate mate. My fault, should have made it clearer in the OP.

 

[Perm]

Yeah, trying to keep away from the judging of players here and what makes x and better batsmen than y and output/stats debate mate. My fault, should have made it clearer in the OP.

(Y) Was just pointing out my reasoning for valuing statistics so highly.

 

[shortpitched713]

Goughy sums up my views about it. I don't think its an art form because it really doesn't take place in an environment in which self expression should really flourish. Cricket, like most sports is characterized by intense competition, and its this competitive spirit that I most like to see expressed by the players on the pitch.

 

[Goughy]

Goughy sums up my views about it. I don't think its an art form because it really doesn't take place in an environment in which self expression should really flourish. Cricket, like most sports is characterized by intense competition, and its this competitive spirit that I most like to see expressed by the players on the pitch.

Yeah. Cricket certainly inspires art but isnt art itself. Its a lot more real and basic than that.

When I wasnt bad at cricket, if someone would have said "You are an artist" my response would have been "no mate, Im a bowler".

Cricket and the battle between batsman and bowler is too serious a business to be assessed in flowery terms and viewed in a wooly 'artish' manner.

The very reason the game creates so much art in writings etc is that it isnt art itself. If it was then there would be no reason for the literary types to have to convert the action and history into words.

A poorly phrased post, but Im tired.

 

[Ikki]

Yeah. Cricket certainly inspires art but isnt art itself. Its a lot more real and basic than that.

When I wasnt bad at cricket, if someone would have said "You are an artist" my response would have been "no mate, Im a bowler".

Cricket and the battle between batsman and bowler is too serious a business to be assessed in flowery terms and viewed in a wooly 'artish' manner.

The very reason the game creates so much art in writings etc is that it isnt art itself. If it was then there would be no reason for the literary types to have to convert the action and history into words.

A poorly phrased post, but Im tired.

I think you tend to take the meaning of 'art' the wrong way. For even War is sometimes referred to as an art. Nothing flowery about War.

 

[Goughy]

I think you tend to take the meaning of 'art' the wrong way. For even War is sometimes referred to as an art. Nothing flowery about War.

It sure is. Have read the Art of War by SunTzu though forgotten most

If that is the interpretation of art then anything is. Its how you go about something. The art of making a pancake, the art of fastening buttons, the art of crossing the road etc

 

[ohtani's jacket]

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

A (great) writer can make any sport into something transcendental. Mailer made "The Rumble In The Jungle" into a story about Ali digging into his soul to confront his fear of Foreman (among other things.) There are other sports like tennis, basketball or football where players perform with a degree of self-expression, something which lends itself so well to this type of writing. Personally I like that type of writing. I was a screenwriting major and I can understand that the greater the pressure, the more one reveals about their true character. Cricket tends to be unique in the sense that it's not so much the dramatic moments that inspire this writing, but simple things like strokeplay. To me it's just a game, but to many football is the beautiful game & rugby the game they play in heaven. There's a passion to this sort of writing that's more important than whether it's an art or not.

 

[neville cardus]

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

You are obviously alluding to that celebrated cross-legged leg-glance. It is intriguing to consider the possibility that he might never have played it, nor been so wonderfully wristy, had he not been scared stiff as a youngster of the fast stuff, withdrawing to leg and, eventually, forcing his coach to bolt down the back foot.

 

[silentstriker]

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.

But I am saying no one feels the way you seem to imply. Or at least, I have never met or even heard of anyone who does. No one interested ceases to admire a great cover drive, or a great spell of bowling. And no, I didn't think you directed it at me . I was just replying because people do think that if you enjoy stats, you can't enjoy the game itself. Stats are there to discuss after the game, cover drives are there to be enjoyed during.

 

[Engle]

Stats are there to discuss after the game, cover drives are there to be enjoyed during.

There are some strokes that are forever etched in memory, so graceful and elegant in their ease of execution. A C.Lloyd caress for six, a Zaheer hi-backlift to bisect the field or even a Viv murderous max that sends shivers down the spine.

There is artistry in cricket, something that elevates the human senses. Here's a piece to be enjoyed by Ian McDonald :

In the play Amadeus there is a scene where the highly talented and very hard-working court composer, Salieri, is shown to have produced a piece of music after considerable labour. His young assistant, Mozart, comes into the room and Salieri plays the piece of music proudly for him. Mozart smiles and praises it but then wonders whether it might be improved by just a few modifications. Mozart goes to the piano, plays the piece, tries this and that, then says "What about this?" And he plays the piece changed forever by his genius. Salieri's hard-won composition has been transformed into one of the world's great melodies. Most Test batsmen, even the best, are Salieris. And then a Sobers, a Lara, comes along and says "What about this."

 

[silentstriker]

There are some strokes that are forever etched in memory, so graceful and elegant in their ease of execution. A C.Lloyd caress for six, a Zaheer hi-backlift to bisect the field or even a Viv murderous max that sends shivers down the spine.

There is artistry in cricket, something that elevates the human senses. Here's a piece to be enjoyed by Ian McDonald :

In the play Amadeus there is a scene where the highly talented and very hard-working court composer, Salieri, is shown to have produced a piece of music after considerable labour. His young assistant, Mozart, comes into the room and Salieri plays the piece of music proudly for him. Mozart smiles and praises it but then wonders whether it might be improved by just a few modifications. Mozart goes to the piano, plays the piece, tries this and that, then says "What about this?" And he plays the piece changed forever by his genius. Salieri's hard-won composition has been transformed into one of the world's great melodies. Most Test batsmen, even the best, are Salieris. And then a Sobers, a Lara, comes along and says "What about this."

Agreed. My point is that the two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[pasag]

There is artistry in cricket, something that elevates the human senses. Here's a piece to be enjoyed by Ian McDonald :

In the play Amadeus there is a scene where the highly talented and very hard-working court composer, Salieri, is shown to have produced a piece of music after considerable labour. His young assistant, Mozart, comes into the room and Salieri plays the piece of music proudly for him. Mozart smiles and praises it but then wonders whether it might be improved by just a few modifications. Mozart goes to the piano, plays the piece, tries this and that, then says "What about this?" And he plays the piece changed forever by his genius. Salieri's hard-won composition has been transformed into one of the world's great melodies. Most Test batsmen, even the best, are Salieris. And then a Sobers, a Lara, comes along and says "What about this."

 

[Sanz]

What a post.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Comparing Lara or Sobers to Mozart is just silly.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Not only that but it takes the play Amadeus completely out of context.

 

[Richard]

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.

A philosophical young man, is this Tim Whelan.

Alarming thing is, he was the same when he was a 14-year-old kid too.

Are you ever going to post a pic of yourself BTW? Would be fascinating to see whether you look like the philosopher you come accross as one minute, or the pun-sprouting "SOB" you metamorphasise into the next. Or neither.

Or Art Dogbert FTM.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Are you ever going to post a pic of yourself BTW?

is, I believe, the accepted response in times like these.

Think Rich's chromosomes have finally slotted into place as well. Fabulous!

 

[Richard]

is, I believe, the accepted response in times like these.

I mean, I'm sure Whelan's a good-looking kid, but must one take the obvious route every time?

Think Rich's chromosomes have finally slotted into place as well. Fabulous!

?

?

 

[Shaggy Alfresco]

Not only that but it takes the play Amadeus completely out of context.

And it's historically incorrect.