Who will be McGrath's 500th wicket?

[Richard]

No, it's casual, and it's certainly not the most pure form.
To play cricket all the laws must be observed - principally an independant Umpire and scorer.

 

[marc71178]

And the complete lack of anybody actually enjoying themselves...

 

[honestbharani]

Andrew Strauss.

 

[Mister Wright]

No, it's casual, and it's certainly not the most pure form.
To play cricket all the laws must be observed - principally an independant Umpire and scorer.

You have absolutely no idea. You do not need an independant umpire and scorer to have a cricket game. What you are detailing is professional cricket, not a criteria for a CRICKET game.

 

[Dasa]

No, it's casual, and it's certainly not the most pure form.
To play cricket all the laws must be observed - principally an independant Umpire and scorer.

From Merriam-Webster Online:
Main Entry: cricket
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French criquet goal stake in a bowling game
1 : a game played with a ball and bat by two sides of usually 11 players each on a large field centering upon two wickets each defended by a batsman





It's cricket.

 

[Richard]

And the complete lack of anybody actually enjoying themselves...

Nope, that's stipulated precisely nowhere.

 

[Richard]

You have absolutely no idea. You do not need an independant umpire and scorer to have a cricket game. What you are detailing is professional cricket, not a criteria for a CRICKET game.

No, all organised matches must have an independant Umpire and scorer.
And non-organised cricket, without the rules being observed, is nothing more than casual impersonation of the sport; that's no slight on it, and it's the case with every other game ever played casually.

 

[Richard]

From Merriam-Webster Online:
Main Entry: cricket
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French criquet goal stake in a bowling game
1 : a game played with a ball and bat by two sides of usually 11 players each on a large field centering upon two wickets each defended by a batsman





It's cricket.

Loose definitions can also define other things as what they're not.

 

[Mister Wright]

No, all organised matches must have an independant Umpire and scorer.
And non-organised cricket, without the rules being observed, is nothing more than casual impersonation of the sport; that's no slight on it, and it's the case with every other game ever played casually.

Casual impersonation or not, it is still a form or cricket whether you like it or not.

 

[Richard]

No, it's a casual impersonation of it.
There is nothing wrong with that it is a casual impersonation, but equally there's no need to make such a huge fuss over it.

 

[cameeel]

and at the level of non organised cricket, its not that important anyway

 

[Mister Wright]

No, it's a casual impersonation of it.
There is nothing wrong with that it is a casual impersonation, but equally there's no need to make such a huge fuss over it.

Yes there is because it is a form of cricket, and you are the only one who doesn't think it is.

 

[Richard]

Nope, anyone who actually thought about the matter instead of getting emotional over the wonders of putting fun-having above all else would think so to.

 

[Mister Wright]

Nope, anyone who actually thought about the matter instead of getting emotional over the wonders of putting fun-having above all else would think so to.

There is a bat a ball, bowling and batting, fielding a keeper (be it human or automatic). The game is usually called backyard cricket or park cricket, backyard funball or park muck-about.

 

[Top_Cat]

Oh for crying out loud, will you ALL leave it alone?!? 'What *is* cricket'? Give me a break! Aren't there far more important philosophical questions to be answered than whether just merely having a bat and ball is what makes a game of cricket?! I swear I've heard less futile arguments at church!

Anyway, this is no way bears any relation to the thread so is OT.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Oh for crying out loud, will you ALL leave it alone?!? 'What *is* cricket'? Give me a break! Aren't there far more important philosophical questions to be answered than whether just merely having a bat and ball is what makes a game of cricket?! I swear I've heard less futile arguments at church!

Anyway, this is no way bears any relation to the thread so is OT.

Yes, questions like 'If someone has a game of cricket in a forest, and no-one actually sees it...is it still a cricket game?'

Please discuss in no more than 500 words...

 

[Richard]

Anyway, this is no way bears any relation to the thread so is OT.

Bears relation to the forum, no? Cricket Chat? Discussion of cricket, or not?

 

[Richard]

There is a bat a ball, bowling and batting, fielding a keeper (be it human or automatic). The game is usually called backyard cricket or park cricket, backyard funball or park muck-about.

Funball and muck-about, exactly.
It doesn't matter what it's usually referred to as - there are all sorts of casually accepted definitions that are factually incorrect - Marlboro Lights, Mayfair Lights, you-name-it.

 

[Top_Cat]

Bears relation to the forum, no? Cricket Chat? Discussion of cricket, or not?

It *is* cricket chat but is OT for this thread. If you feel it's such an amazingly important discussion, start another thread.

 

[biased indian]

if he plays the first game

Kevin Pieterson bowled McGrath 0(1)

other wise Graham Thorpe