Some people just don’t “get it”. No reason why they should. I’m the lazy, pontificating type who loves the stats and intricate strategies and all the traditional trappings of our national summer game.
Where I depart from the likes of @EddieMonsoon (and edge menacingly towards Malone) is my fondness for the shorter forms of the game.
The fascinating subtleties of the dual between bowler and batsman exist in no other sport, perhaps only baseball to a lesser extent. I once watched all five days of a Test and saw Gooch score 333. I couldn't do that now, far too expensive.
Cricket Administers see T20 and 100 ball as the way to save the game. I have no time for those formats, wouldn't dream of going to one. Maybe this is an age thing but I take annual leave to watch games, sitting all day in, hopefully, good weather with like minded people, is one of life's pleasures.
Cricket is probably the one sport that manages to be both a team game and an individual contest both at the same time. You get it a little bit in games like football (Pierre vs Bayo for example) but nothing quite as exposed and gladiatorial.
Spreading this over an extended period, subject to the changes in equipment (the ball), the environment (the pitch and the weather) and the mentality and physicality of the players (the effects of pressure and fatigue) and it is at its peak compelling and occasionally gripping for an observer (or spectator/listener).
It is, Steve, although, sadly, I rarely find time nowadays to sit in the sun for hours, supping a foaming (if slightly tepid) pint or two of ale and observing all the skills and subtleties of the great game.
I remember once watching around 40 minutes of play without a run being scored. Yet it was one of the most tense, captivating and enthralling sporting battle of wills I've ever witnessed.
I gather we were all out for 155 after a horrible innings, but tore through Plymouth's line up to reduce them to 154-9, only for a superb ball by Kashket to hit the wicket without dislodging the bails, and having to settle for a frustrating draw, as Plymouth fans chanted "Same old Wycombe, always spilling Pims on their sweaters"?
The early wickets in the Kent innings were enough to win it for Lancs, but Kent did well to make as much of a game of it as they did. Parkinson looked very good indeed.
Afternoon @Slaphead. My “gone off it a bit I’d say” was in response to @peterparrotface’s comment about Old Maloney’s opinion of cricket. You probably realised but just wanted to be sure. As I said above, I thoroughly enjoyed it. You and @BlueBoy heading north tomorrow, no doubt. Enjoy the trip and see you soon. I was in Pershore last weekend.
@Malone
"ie rugby 7s, vaguely entertaining, as it's all super athletic pacy players running it with loads of space. Rather than massive oafs spending a lot of time wrestling, and purposely smashing the ball off the pitch."
Rugby 7's is like playing British bulldog in the Nevada Desert, all forms of rugby union
are both tedious and pointless in equal measures.
Interestingly, there's a lot of talk on Twitter this morning that the Saturday games are available live on iFollow in the UK, for the usual £10. So far Grimsby and Carlisle have confirmed theirs are available.
Lots of outrage about this on the Against League 3 Twitter page - I'm not sure showing Saturday 3pm games (albeit during an international break) was ever part of the initial plan from the EFL.
@Last_Quarter , that's amazing if when you say that you mean that's officials from those clubs saying that!
I suppose once the games are available online somewhere, then it's a pretty impossible mission to clamp down on people accessing them - just ask the Premier league.
However, if this is legitimately available for all Saturday games that's a worrying element indeed.
(Having said that, while watching online doesn't come close to being at the game, it's certainly much easier clicking a button than making 5-6hour round trips!
Hang on hang on....this explanation from Carlisle..
This game is available to watch in the UK in full HD via our iFollow service - it is being played during an international break therefore can be streamed live despite having a Saturday 3pm kick off time.
The only thing I can think I wonder if the rules state there are restrictions on broadcast during ‘official Uefa kick off times’ or something. And over the international break those times become 2pm and 7:45. As result with League 1/2 fixtures this weekend the EFL are treated as choosing to play fixtures (at 3pm Sat) outside of the ‘official’ window, thereby making the fixtures off the grid from a broadcast regulation perspective? It is the only explanation I can fathom but would surely be against the spirit of the way the ifollow system was presented at the start of the season.
Having said that, I don’t think the threat to FL attendances is that great. Would anyone choose to watch on their laptop for ten quid rather than watch in person for 15-20? Maybe away fans but even then I think you’re only likely to use it to watch a game that you would never have attended in the first place. The issues come if the EFL are unable to police people streaming it free for anyone to watch and/or if the price comes down to an extent that it starts to really undermine ticket sales. At the current price of £10 a game I can’t see it harming crowds at all. It will just be watched by a handful of people that couldn’t have made the game in person anyway.
Unlike Premier league games, which have incredible interest, and thousands steaming them to millions watching, I can't see most lower league games having enough interest for anyone to bother making them available.
A couple of guys did it on the FB page last season, but the quality was dreadful, and they quickly got clamped down on.
For example, when we played away at Luton the other season (the night of the Alfie Mawson wondergoal) I stayed at home and watched it on tv. Had I not been able to, I would have gone to the game
And yes, I would have done so even if I'd had to pay a tenner to watch it
Comments
You do need to lose the quaint notion however that the purpose of it is to entertain
Some people just don’t “get it”. No reason why they should. I’m the lazy, pontificating type who loves the stats and intricate strategies and all the traditional trappings of our national summer game.
Where I depart from the likes of @EddieMonsoon (and edge menacingly towards Malone) is my fondness for the shorter forms of the game.
Equal fondness, that is.
The fascinating subtleties of the dual between bowler and batsman exist in no other sport, perhaps only baseball to a lesser extent. I once watched all five days of a Test and saw Gooch score 333. I couldn't do that now, far too expensive.
Cricket Administers see T20 and 100 ball as the way to save the game. I have no time for those formats, wouldn't dream of going to one. Maybe this is an age thing but I take annual leave to watch games, sitting all day in, hopefully, good weather with like minded people, is one of life's pleasures.
Cricket is probably the one sport that manages to be both a team game and an individual contest both at the same time. You get it a little bit in games like football (Pierre vs Bayo for example) but nothing quite as exposed and gladiatorial.
Spreading this over an extended period, subject to the changes in equipment (the ball), the environment (the pitch and the weather) and the mentality and physicality of the players (the effects of pressure and fatigue) and it is at its peak compelling and occasionally gripping for an observer (or spectator/listener).
For me, people talking about their love of it is far more interesting than watching it...
It is, Steve, although, sadly, I rarely find time nowadays to sit in the sun for hours, supping a foaming (if slightly tepid) pint or two of ale and observing all the skills and subtleties of the great game.
Oh, it's raining, everyone inside for hours lads.
Do you remember when Aggers and Johnners did two hours on pigeons and Denis Compton's batting average during the rain storms of 197- something
The only time I was even vaguely into cricket was the time we had the likes of Thorpe who seemed to always score in the 70s each match.
Gooch, Robin Smith, Thorpe my favourite batsmen.
We had a number of tidy batsmen back then. The 3 I mention, Alec Stewart, Hussain, Atherton.
Graham Hick, the perennial nearly man...
Also had a soft spot for Peter Such, with his "a bit different" style of bowling, who I vaguely remember taking about 6 wickets possibly on his debut?
I remember once watching around 40 minutes of play without a run being scored. Yet it was one of the most tense, captivating and enthralling sporting battle of wills I've ever witnessed.
@LeedsBlue your post reminded me of this glorious occasion
Well, if all that hosiery doesn’t get you fired up I don’t know what will.
What was that all about?
I gather we were all out for 155 after a horrible innings, but tore through Plymouth's line up to reduce them to 154-9, only for a superb ball by Kashket to hit the wicket without dislodging the bails, and having to settle for a frustrating draw, as Plymouth fans chanted "Same old Wycombe, always spilling Pims on their sweaters"?
@micra following the Kent quarter final tonight?
Flippin’ ‘eck. Didn’t realise it was on. I’ll come back on that one in a minute.
Oh dear, ‘ow sad, never mind!
The early wickets in the Kent innings were enough to win it for Lancs, but Kent did well to make as much of a game of it as they did. Parkinson looked very good indeed.
Peter Such took six wickets in 1993 against Australia on debut after coming into the side for John Embury.
Sounds like you like cricket really.
Gone off it a bit, I’d say.
Excellent quality and coverage for me. No issues.
Excellent quality and coverage for me. No issues.
Afternoon @Slaphead. My “gone off it a bit I’d say” was in response to @peterparrotface’s comment about Old Maloney’s opinion of cricket. You probably realised but just wanted to be sure. As I said above, I thoroughly enjoyed it. You and @BlueBoy heading north tomorrow, no doubt. Enjoy the trip and see you soon. I was in Pershore last weekend.
@Malone
"ie rugby 7s, vaguely entertaining, as it's all super athletic pacy players running it with loads of space. Rather than massive oafs spending a lot of time wrestling, and purposely smashing the ball off the pitch."
Rugby 7's is like playing British bulldog in the Nevada Desert, all forms of rugby union
are both tedious and pointless in equal measures.
Interestingly, there's a lot of talk on Twitter this morning that the Saturday games are available live on iFollow in the UK, for the usual £10. So far Grimsby and Carlisle have confirmed theirs are available.
Lots of outrage about this on the Against League 3 Twitter page - I'm not sure showing Saturday 3pm games (albeit during an international break) was ever part of the initial plan from the EFL.
@Last_Quarter , that's amazing if when you say that you mean that's officials from those clubs saying that!
I suppose once the games are available online somewhere, then it's a pretty impossible mission to clamp down on people accessing them - just ask the Premier league.
However, if this is legitimately available for all Saturday games that's a worrying element indeed.
(Having said that, while watching online doesn't come close to being at the game, it's certainly much easier clicking a button than making 5-6hour round trips!
Hang on hang on....this explanation from Carlisle..
This game is available to watch in the UK in full HD via our iFollow service - it is being played during an international break therefore can be streamed live despite having a Saturday 3pm kick off time.
Did the irates on twitter mention that tiny fact?
Absolutely bizarre and seems to make no sense.
The only thing I can think I wonder if the rules state there are restrictions on broadcast during ‘official Uefa kick off times’ or something. And over the international break those times become 2pm and 7:45. As result with League 1/2 fixtures this weekend the EFL are treated as choosing to play fixtures (at 3pm Sat) outside of the ‘official’ window, thereby making the fixtures off the grid from a broadcast regulation perspective? It is the only explanation I can fathom but would surely be against the spirit of the way the ifollow system was presented at the start of the season.
Having said that, I don’t think the threat to FL attendances is that great. Would anyone choose to watch on their laptop for ten quid rather than watch in person for 15-20? Maybe away fans but even then I think you’re only likely to use it to watch a game that you would never have attended in the first place. The issues come if the EFL are unable to police people streaming it free for anyone to watch and/or if the price comes down to an extent that it starts to really undermine ticket sales. At the current price of £10 a game I can’t see it harming crowds at all. It will just be watched by a handful of people that couldn’t have made the game in person anyway.
Unlike Premier league games, which have incredible interest, and thousands steaming them to millions watching, I can't see most lower league games having enough interest for anyone to bother making them available.
A couple of guys did it on the FB page last season, but the quality was dreadful, and they quickly got clamped down on.
I definitely think it would affect attendances
For example, when we played away at Luton the other season (the night of the Alfie Mawson wondergoal) I stayed at home and watched it on tv. Had I not been able to, I would have gone to the game
And yes, I would have done so even if I'd had to pay a tenner to watch it