**Official** New Zealand in England

[Richard]

So how many hours until today's hitabout start?

Huh? Which one?

 

[Richard]

Arguing with Richard can be like nailing jelly to a wall

Haha, that's a similie worth keeping in mind.

 

[NZTailender]

FFS, it's "personal fact", if you will. It's not something which is changeable (such as one's view on a player), it's something which is ingrained and will stay the way it is. Even if others think differently.

Same way the colour of the sky (or, indeed, the name of most any object) depends on what language you speak.

The colour of the sky doesn't depend on the language you speak. The colour of the sky stays the same, it's the language that's different. Blue, blu, bleu, blå, blau and azul are all fundamentally the same thing.

Either way, sorry if I annoyed you. You do have such a strange spectrum of stuff that annoys you and stuff you'll happily let go.

This kind of thing annoys me, just like when people say certain genres of music isn't music, or certain styles or types of art isn't art.

 

[Richard]

The colour of the sky doesn't depend on the language you speak. The colour of the sky stays the same, it's the language that's different. Blue, blu, bleu, blå, blau and azul are all fundamentally the same thing.

If you don't understand the language, it means nothing to you. Different descriptions are used for the same thing. Something is what it's described as. I describe cricket as what I describe it as; others might describe it as something different.

This kind of thing annoys me, just like when people say certain genres of music isn't music, or certain styles or types of art isn't art.

I can see that. What surprises me is that you let go stuff - heck, revel in it - which is IMO far, far more poor form than this.

 

[Swervy]

Nope, not at all. Something doesn't have to be cricket to be enjoyable. I love a good hit-about with mates, but I don't enjoy it because I'm saying "this is cricket", I enjoy it because I enjoy it. I also like the one-day game at international and county level, but I don't like it as much as I do the four- and five-day game at said levels.

I've made my stance clear. At the levels of the game where multi-day, two-innings cricket is possible, the limited-overs one-day game (and certainly the Twenty20 one-evening game) isn't cricket. At lower levels where multi-day cricket isn't possible, then there's a case for being more ambiguous. Anything without 11 players per side, 2 Umpires and 2 scorers is not and never will be cricket, just a hitabout. Simple as that. I don't expect everyone to take this view, but it is the view I take and I won't be changing it.

so if you go to the park with a cricket bat, a ball, and say 5 or 6 mates and have a 'knock about' that cannot be classed as cricket.

Interesting that you even consider a game in an organised league, between 22 players in whites playing 40 over stuff on a saturday afternoon not to be cricket if there is only one scorer, (like we had the other week), or even more commonly, only one umpire. Looks like I am just wasting my time on a sat afternoon then, because I obviously am not playing cricket.

Is football (soccer) football if you are down the park with your mates and using jumper for goal posts?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Haha, that's a similie worth keeping in mind.

Richard, with all due respect, that is a load of utter crap.

Another phrase worth keeping in mind.

 

[NZTailender]

I can see that. What surprises me is that you let go stuff - heck, revel in it - which is IMO far, far more poor form than this.

Example? Am genuinely interested.

 

[NUFAN]

Huh? Which one?

Hitabout practice in the nets.

 

[pasag]

A steak is not cricket. A Toyota Camry is not cricket. A pot plant isn't cricket. Playing cricket with your mates is cricket.

Test cricket is cricket at its purest and highest level, but that doesn't mean other forms aren't cricket.

 

[NZTailender]

A steak is not cricket.

Sigworthy imo.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Lolling at NZT vs DickDick

Your putting up a good fight, NZT

Arguing with Richard can be like nailing jelly to a wall, its hardly worth the effort. He understands now that the vast majority of CW sees his view as elitist, yet this will hardly change his opinion on the matter.

As for myself, I probably like ODI's a bit more than Tests, but my teams never been particularly good at Tests so it isn't that surprising. I like both forms and don't mind T20 (though internationals are becoming increasingly pointless, one match!?! No warm up?!? The game ends on the back of a single players performance and is just getting boring IMO.)

Agree.
To me, ODI > Test
Mainly because ODI cricket is much more accessable to me than Test cricket.
I also find T20 internationals pointless. A total bore in which the players themselves don't even seem to care about the outcome. Although I noticed the Stanford effect on England, they were the only team who seemed to care.

Bring on the ODI series, then I can watch something that means something to me.

 

[silentstriker]

See the chicken is cricket, the gravy is T20, the bones you spit out are ODI.

 

[Natman20]

The twenty20 result has no bearing on the ODI series. Its just a bit of a muckabout in terms of international cricket before getting serious (obviously money is involved in leagues etc. and performances really count for something). I therefore still predict New Zealand will win this ODI series.

 

[steds]

See the chicken is cricket, the gravy is T20, the bones you spit out are ODI.

AWTA

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

See the chicken is cricket, the gravy is T20, the bones you spit out are ODI.

So what is Test Cricket? you didn't mention it.

 

[stumpski]

I daresay the question has been asked before, but if one of the forthcoming ODIs is reduced, through weather interuption, to 20 overs a side or thereabouts, will Richard be boycotting it? What about 30 overs, or 35?

Just wondering how many overs have to be lopped off before he considers it no longer worthy of his attention.

 

[leepayne]

David Lloyd has the right idea, he doesn't take Twenty20 as cricket, he takes it as pure entertainment, which is precisely what it is. I prefer Test cricket, but I enjoy Twenty20 too. People who think it is bad for cricket are wrong, it is revolutionising Test and ODI cricket, bringing new fans in and bringing money in.

 

[KiWiNiNjA]

Haha, England going into the 1st ODI as favourites. Strange indeed.
Sounds like the ODI series in NZ all over again. Judging ODI form on a one-off T20.

 

[GGG]

With Ryder and Oram out, Styris out of form, playing at home and us down on confidence I would have them as favourites to.

 

[Richard]

David Lloyd has the right idea, he doesn't take Twenty20 as cricket, he takes it as pure entertainment, which is precisely what it is. I prefer Test cricket, but I enjoy Twenty20 too. People who think it is bad for cricket are wrong, it is revolutionising Test and ODI cricket, bringing new fans in and bringing money in.

Highly optimistic. Most fans who like Twenty20 who are not already Test fans will never like Tests. Twenty20 is overwhelmingly a game for people who don't like cricket.

Whether it's genuinely bad for cricket we'll only wait and see.