Now there's an innings any Yank would love

Top Contributors
T

timmyj51

Guest
Now there's an innings any Yank would love

I mean Pakis a.o. for 89. Steady fall of wickets...
terrific spell with the ball...only 25 overs. Even the
most dedicated Yank baseball fan would have got into
that innings...get the hint, ICC?
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

What that the game should be played on a land mine and have no quailty what so ever?

Stick with your own game.
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

there's no great reason to convert the 'yank' fan to cricket. cricket will never be on the scale of soccer/football on the world level, and on the same level as baseball in the states.... and there's nothing worng with that.

with all the trouble USA cricket has had, it will take baby steps to progress there, even the tiniest of steps. start with that stadium opening florida to host some proper ODI matches.
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

We should not even think about trying to get the yanks into the game, they will only try and change it to suit there market.

Its a commenwealth game and lets keep it that way
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

"Its a commenwealth game and lets keep it that way"



Yeah, you could. Course, if the Yanks got invoved:

1) top class players wouldn't be playing for minimum wage which is what
they now are compared to soccer, baseball, tennis, golf, etc.

2) huge infusion of $$$ for develpment of game all around the world,
even in every crappy little bilibong club...

3) would catapult the games status and make it a truly international sport, not an obscure, insular, pastime only suitable for pommies and their
ex-plantation workers which it is now...
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

cricket doesn't need to be in the u.s they would only ruin the game.
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

The USA just have to be involved in every god damn sport. I am not disagreeing with the introduction of USA into the international scene (even though they have played before) because the countries dominance due to elite sportsmen, but due to the fact that the U.S have to enter any sport, and then take-over. Soon the ICC main HQ will be located in New York if we aren't careful.
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

" Soon the ICC main HQ will be located in New York if we aren't careful."



And where's it now? In the middle of the frickin' desert where Speedo
has to dodge camel crap and sneak around the back alleys to find some
bootleg booze.
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

Ban usa for mine, we dont need them coming in changing our game.

Could you imagine them sitting down for a 5 day game, these piss ants cant even last a 50 over game.

Cricket is a noble game, the top liners get there 400k a year and thats more the enough to bloody live on.
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

timmyj51 said:
And where's it now? In the middle of the frickin' desert where Speedo has to dodge camel crap and sneak around the back alleys to find some bootleg booze.
Click to expand...

It's actually in Dubai.

bogan4life said:
Ban usa for mine, we dont need them coming in changing our game.

Could you imagine them sitting down for a 5 day game, these piss ants cant even last a 50 over game.

Cricket is a noble game, the top liners get there 400k a year and thats more the enough to bloody live on.
Click to expand...

I find that offensive and discriminatory. Earth to bogan4life: the days of the Imperial Cricket Council are over.

Americans have no interest in changing cricket because most Americans don't care, or even know, about cricket. (Most American cricket fans are either West Indian or South Asian.) If cricket ever catches on in America I am convinced it will be Twenty20 that does the trick, at least initially; I don't know whether Test or ODI cricket will ever catch on. Twenty20 is already fast, exciting, and quite popular in the Test nations, so why would Americans need to change it?

Test cricket really isn't doing all that well. The Ashes and a few other big series are the exception, and first-class cricket is doing even worse. So when you say the top-liners are doing all right, you're talking about what? Twenty players in an entire country?

Just to let you know where I'm coming from, I'm an American who decided to learn what cricket was all about because I already liked baseball but had no opportunities to play it. Cricket, including Tests, I might add, became my new favorite sport. I am pretty frustrated with my current situation because I am at a large American university whose cricket club never has any meetings. The last time I played in a real, 11 v. 11 game was over a year ago, and that was on an astroturf lacrosse field with side boundaries that were too short.
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

20 20 was brought in for the usa type market, it is a joke of a game and should be banned.
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

bogan4life;110215 said:
20 20 was brought in for the usa type market, it is a joke of a game and should be banned.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Twenty20 was brought in to revitalize English county cricket.

I recognize that Tests and Twenty20 are completely different, and I appreciate each for different reasons, but I regard Twenty20 primarily as just a better version of 50-over cricket.

In Twenty20 every ball matters. In 50-over matches there are a lot of deliveries that don't make much difference to the outcome.

50-over matches get kind of boring when the outcome is obvious with 30 overs left in the second innings, which happens fairly often. Twenty20 matches tend to be closer, and even when they are blow-outs, the matches don't drag on long enough to get too boring.

Twenty20 is more appealing for families, people who actually have to work for a living, casual fans, and people who watch their cricket primarily over the Internet.

Contrary to the naysayers who believe that Twenty20 is not real cricket, I believe:
- that quality spin bowling is effective in Twenty20s
- that orthodox attacking shots are effective in Twenty20s
- that trying to hit every ball for 4 or 6 is ineffective; you actually have to have some semblance of strategy when you bat
- that a reasonable number of wickets falls in the average Twenty20 match
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

bogan4life;109873 said:
Its a commenwealth game and lets keep it that way
Click to expand...

Cricket isn't a Commonwealth game......it is a game for everybody
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

"That's not true. Twenty20 was brought in to revitalize English county cricket."



You're wasting your breath trying to talk sense into these commonwealth
rubes, Stamishav, as I'm sure you've found in your dealings with your university cricket club (all of whom, I'm sure, are commonwealthies). For the church ladies, mamas boys, and 40-year old
virgins who watch test cricket the 20/20 game is as scandalous as
showing ankles were 200 years ago. They hated and opposed 60
over cricket. They hated and opposed 50 over cricket. They hated and
opposed 40 over cricket. And now they can't stand 20 over cricket.
All of which goes to
prove: only Americans will every be able to get other Americans interested
in cricket. The church ladies and company will never do anything else except chomp their cucumber
sandwiches and polish their orthopedic shoes during tea break.
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

I am all for more cricket teams getting involved in the great game and America would be an added assest. They have a huge market to tap into, massive population and will bring much money to the game. It is all positives.

This crap about they "would take over" is just plain crap. There would be no way that it would happen as they just wouldnt be powerful enough in cricket to get that move happening.
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

Dave;110226 said:
Cricket isn't a Commonwealth game......it is a game for everybody
Click to expand...

Bullsh1t, just like the world series of baseball is really for the whole world to play in (and yes i know it was first named world series after a newspaper)
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

bogan4life;112618 said:
Bullsh1t, just like the world series of baseball is really for the whole world to play in (and yes i know it was first named world series after a newspaper)
Click to expand...

You're full of crap. The fact that it's called the World Series has nothing to do with anything. That's just the name of the championship for our biggest professional baseball league, which does include one Canadian team.

Baseball is big in Japan, Korea, and much of Latin America. Possibly Taiwan as well.

First of all, banning America from playing cricket would be nothing but nationalist bigotry. Secondly, it would be entirely pointless because most Americans wouldn't even care.
 
Re: Now there's an innings any Yank would love

Read the previous posts, don't know why bogan4life why is getting his knickers in a twist whether the USA should play cricket or not. As far as i'm concerned no one has any exclusive right over any game, whether it's cricket, basketball, football, soccer, basketball etc. If you're going to tell the USA they can't play cricket, you may as well tell japan, south america, china, the european nations that they can't play baseball and basketball.

I agree with Stamislav, most A merican people would not even care.
And to those who object to 20/20 cricket, too bad, it is here to stay.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top