ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => General Discussion => Topic started by: Peter B on February 26, 2015, 06:28:04 AM
-
...it's the Cricket World Cup.
http://www.espncricinfo.com/icc-cricket-world-cup-2015/content/current/story/838807.html
Yes, for those of you who thought cricket was a game played only Commonwealth countries (except Canada), you might be surprised to know that it's also the most popular sport in Afghanistan, thanks to thousands of refugees picking the up the game while in Pakistan.
They qualified for the current Cricket World Cup, losing to Bangladesh in their first game (played here in Canberra at a packed venue) and to Sri Lanka in their second game. And now they've won their first World Cup game, beating fellow Associate country Scotland.
The countries taking part in the Football (Soccer) World Cup are usually all highly ranked countries. But in the case of the Cricket World Cup there are the ten top-ranked countries (West Indies, England, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Australia and New Zealand), plus four Associate (second tier) countries, in this case Scotland, Ireland, Afghanistan and the United Arab Emirates. And quite often the most entertaining games are those between the Associate countries, like this one.
-
Cricket? That's that sport like baseball, but lonnnnnggggger, right? ;)
-
Cricket? That's that sport like baseball, but lonnnnnggggger, right? ;)
...and better too ;)
-
The countries taking part in the Football (Soccer) World Cup are usually all highly ranked countries. But in the case of the Cricket World Cup there are the ten top-ranked countries (West Indies, England, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Australia and New Zealand), plus four Associate (second tier) countries, in this case Scotland, Ireland, Afghanistan and the United Arab Emirates. And quite often the most entertaining games are those between the Associate countries, like this one.
Absolutely, and while I am an England fan, I hope Afghanistan beat us in a funny kind of way. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest given the plight of that country.
-
Cricket? That's that sport like baseball, but lonnnnnggggger, right? ;)
Well, this is one-day cricket. For people whose concentration at watching a game extends to about 8 hours.
In any case, it sure is popular. The pool match between India and Pakistan was among the most watched sporting events in history: http://www.foxsports.com.au/cricket/icc-world-cup-2015/cricket-world-cup-2015-india-v-pakistan-to-join-the-most-watched-sporting-events-in-history/story-e6frf3ju-1227216796280
FORGET Ben Hur, Sunday’s World Cup clash between India and Pakistan is set to be 10 times bigger than the Super Bowl, putting it on the podium of the most-watched sporting events of all time.
My bold.
-
Cricket? That's that sport like baseball, but lonnnnnggggger, right? ;)
Baseball? That's that game like rounders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounders) that the girls used to play at school isn't it? :)
-
Cricket? That's that sport like baseball, but lonnnnnggggger, right? ;)
Baseball? That's that game like rounders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounders) that the girls used to play at school isn't it? :)
We have a new guy at work from Scotland that quickly pointed that out. I never heard the term before. I told him he should watch some videos of the home plate collisions that have happened and see if he's still of the opinion it's a girls sport.
-
We have a new guy at work from Scotland that quickly pointed that out. I never heard the term before. I told him he should watch some videos of the home plate collisions that have happened and see if he's still of the opinion it's a girls sport.
Well, according to Jane Austen, base-ball was certainly a game that was played by girls. Although, so was cricket!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3562873/Jane-Austen-wrote-about-baseball-40-years-before-it-was-invented.html
-
<troll mode on>
Cricket and baseball?
You want to try a real mans game like hurling
<troll mode off>
;) ;D ;D
-
For attention spans less than 8 hours you can try American Football.
For starters, the name "football" is something of a misnomer, because kicking the ball is not part of the general flow of the game and it played primarily with the hands not the feet. A full game lasts about 3¼ hours, although the game clock only runs for an 60 minutes, and on average the ball is only in play for about 10 minutes!
However, I don't let that stop me from enjoying it, because I understand what American Football really is; not a ball game between two teams. but a game of chess between two coaches.
-
However, I don't let that stop me from enjoying it, because I understand what American Football really is; not a ball game between two teams. but a game of chess between two coaches.
I prefer Cleese's interpretation
;)
-
Cricket? That's that sport like baseball, but lonnnnnggggger, right? ;)
Baseball? That's that game like rounders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounders) that the girls used to play at school isn't it? :)
Touche! :)
-
I also enjoy
hand-egg American football, even if it has been described as "combining the worst two aspects of American life: bouts of mindless violence, interspersed by committee meetings".
-
Ah, but the violence is not mindless. It is purposeful and directed. Isn't that better?
-
I also enjoy hand-egg American football, even if it has been described as "combining the worst two aspects of American life: bouts of mindless violence, interspersed by committee meetings".
The bold, now that was really funny.
-
<troll mode on>
Cricket and baseball?
You want to try a real mans game like hurling
[<troll mode off>
;) ;D ;D
<troll> Oh yeah? I have two words for ya'. Ice. Hockey. Sharpened metal skates. Hard rubber disks flying around at 100 mph.
Okay, so maybe that's actually 11 words, a number, and an abbreviation, close enough :P ;D </troll>
-
For attention spans less than 8 hours you can try American Football.
For starters, the name "football" is something of a misnomer, because kicking the ball is not part of the general flow of the game and it played primarily with the hands not the feet. A full game lasts about 3¼ hours, although the game clock only runs for an 60 minutes, and on average the ball is only in play for about 10 minutes!
Yeah, I watch it occasionally.
It's particularly amusing to watch it when a team attempts multiple lateral passes - the crowd and the commentators go bonkers. Yeah, they do that all the time in rugby league and rugby union. It's called catching a ball - something you don't actually need a baseball mitt for.
Back in the early 1990s the Australian ABC started a late night show of highlights from the previous weekend's games, with the show hosted by American ex-pat entertainer Don Lane. Lane did a good job of explaining the game and its rules and tactics without talking down to the audience, and (in those pre-Internet days) answering letters from viewers.
That, when they were perennial cellar-dwellers and seemed to have the ability to lose a game from any position, was when I started supporting the NE Patriots.
However, I don't let that stop me from enjoying it, because I understand what American Football really is; not a ball game between two teams. but a game of chess between two coaches.
Personally I prefer it as a card game: http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/71889/third-and-long-football-card-game
-
the name "football" is something of a misnomer, because kicking the ball is not part of the general flow of the game and it played primarily with the hands not the feet.
Theoretically, it is possible to have an entire game with the ball only touching a foot twice.
Technically, the same is true of Rugby Union, but it might be a little more difficult to achieve...
-
Technically, the same is true of Rugby Union, but it might be a little more difficult to achieve...
It might make for a great game if both sides agreed never to kick the ball apart from restarts and conversions, they could take tap penalties instead of kicking. Maybe it could be agreed to in a Barbarians game.
-
I also enjoy hand-egg American football, even if it has been described as "combining the worst two aspects of American life: bouts of mindless violence, interspersed by committee meetings".
Now that is funny. I'm going to have to use that on the American fellow at work. Probably during one of his committee meetings.
-
I also enjoy hand-egg American football, even if it has been described as "combining the worst two aspects of American life: bouts of mindless violence, interspersed by committee meetings".
Now that is funny. I'm going to have to use that on the American fellow at work. Probably during one of his committee meetings.
Just make sure your comment doesn't lead to the other of the "worst two aspects"...
-
I also enjoy hand-egg American football, even if it has been described as "combining the worst two aspects of American life: bouts of mindless violence, interspersed by committee meetings".
Now that is funny. I'm going to have to use that on the American fellow at work. Probably during one of his committee meetings.
Just make sure your comment doesn't lead to the other of the "worst two aspects"...
He's on the small side, but he is pretty athletic.
-
It would appear that Afghanistan are about to be tonked by New Zealand.
This is how cricket looks to most people from non-cricket playing countries.
-
This from the BBC live text feed (Afg v NZ):
It seems no matter what country you support, England are the number one team to beat. As Afghanistan moved past 123 - the score England were bowled out for by New Zealand in Wellington just over a couple of weeks ago - one Afghani fan turns to his friend and remarks 'at least we're better than England, I'm happy with that.'
I look forward to Eng v Afg even more now.
-
Shame, Afghanistan 186 a/o off 47.4 overs. I was hoping that they'd bat out their 50 overs for 200+. Not bad when they were 59/6 off 19.5 overs.
-
It would appear that Afghanistan are about to be tonked by New Zealand.
This is how cricket looks to most people from non-cricket playing countries.
For those to whom it doesn't look like this:
-
For those to whom it doesn't look like this:
That's funny. 139 not out, but dreadfully hurt.
-
Oh whoopsie!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-09/england-dumped-from-world-cup-as-bangladesh-wins-by-xx-runs/6292356
England has crashed out of the World Cup after falling to a 15-run loss against Bangladesh in a thrilling match at Adelaide Oval.
-
Oh whoopsie!
Indeed, and as an English supporter I can't say that I am too bothered. They were not playing well enough to progress beyond the QFs. There is no way on Earth they could get past SA and India before facing Australia or NZ in the final (I think that is how the draw works).
-
Oh whoopsie!
I've just looked at the fixture list and we've got Afghanistan next. :-\
-
Oh whoopsie!
I've just looked at the fixture list and we've got Afghanistan next. :-\
Be nice to go home with at least one win, but I wouldn't put money on it.
-
It would appear that Afghanistan are about to be tonked by New Zealand.
This is how cricket looks to most people from non-cricket playing countries.
Classic Python.
It is a confusing game, but I suppose baseball and the two North American football codes are equally confusing to those brought up with the two rugby codes (one day I might get the differences and remember which difference goes with which rules set) and cricket.
-
Be nice to go home with at least one win, but I wouldn't put money on it.
We beat Scotland, but that results seems quite hidden by the other 4 disasters. We should field a 2nd string team and give Afghanistan a game, or should that be the other way around.
-
I prefer Cleese's interpretation
Cleese is wrong when he says that American use of the word 'soccer' is inaccurate. English public schoolboys invented the word in the 19th century to differentiate between Rugby Football (rugger) and Association Football (soccer).
-
I prefer Cleese's interpretation
Cleese is wrong when he says that American use of the word 'soccer' is inaccurate. English public schoolboys invented the word in the 19th century to differentiate between Rugby Football (rugger) and Association Football (soccer).
Heh...don't you be coming in here bringing facts to stand in the way of a good story! ;D ;D ;) ;)
-
Be nice to go home with at least one win, but I wouldn't put money on it.
We beat Scotland, but that results seems quite hidden by the other 4 disasters. We should field a 2nd string team and give Afghanistan a game, or should that be the other way around.
I saw a brilliant placard waved by an Indian fan during the India-Ireland game this morning. It said "Best team in world v best team in Europe." Anyway, who cares about ODIs? I've got my Ashes tickets for the summer.
-
I saw a brilliant placard waved by an Indian fan during the India-Ireland game this morning. It said "Best team in world v best team in Europe."
;D
There are some in the game pushing for Ireland to have test status, I don't think it will damage the game. I'm all for it.
Anyway, who cares about ODIs? I've got my Ashes tickets for the summer.
I don't fancy England to win back the Ashes to be honest. We have the WIndies after the World Cup, and then New Zealand before the Ashes. A bit of time in the middle, and maybe there is a chance of turning over Australia.
-
I don't fancy England to win back the Ashes to be honest.
We need to prepare some pudding pitches and let Jimmy choose the type of ball he wants to bowl with. And then all we need is to get the ICC to bring back Steve Bucknor and Aleem Dar to do some 2005-style umpiring for us..............
-
I don't fancy England to win back the Ashes to be honest.
We need to prepare some pudding pitches and let Jimmy choose the type of ball he wants to bowl with. And then all we need is to get the ICC to bring back Steve Bucknor and Aleem Dar to do some 2005-style umpiring for us..............
Ah, I wouldn't be hanging out for the umpires to save you. Australia lost the 2005 series for a number of reasons, many of them with their origin in the Australian team. Yes, the English played out of their skins, and the combination was just enough to get England the series win.
For me, there were three problems for Australia in that series. Firstly was the injury to Glenn McGrath. He was fully fit for only one test, and that was the only one that Australia won. Secondly, many of the Australians played like millionaires - on paper they were a brilliant team and no less good than teams which had won the last few series - in that they failed to apply themselves when conditions and their opponents got on top of them. Thirdly, I think Ricky Ponting was a poor captain - he inherited a brilliant team and never really seemed to develop tactics to make the best use of his players' skills because he thought he could rely on the bowling brilliance of McGrath and Warne and the batting brilliance of Hayden, Langer, himself and Gilchrist. By contrast the team Clarke led in the 2013-14 series was far less talented, but Clarke is a cannier captain than Ponting, and the team as a whole played out of their skins in the way England did in 2005.
-
Ah, I wouldn't be hanging out for the umpires to save you. Australia lost the 2005 series for a number of reasons, many of them with their origin in the Australian team. Yes, the English played out of their skins, and the combination was just enough to get England the series win.
For me, there were three problems for Australia in that series. Firstly was the injury to Glenn McGrath. He was fully fit for only one test, and that was the only one that Australia won. Secondly, many of the Australians played like millionaires - on paper they were a brilliant team and no less good than teams which had won the last few series - in that they failed to apply themselves when conditions and their opponents got on top of them. Thirdly, I think Ricky Ponting was a poor captain - he inherited a brilliant team and never really seemed to develop tactics to make the best use of his players' skills because he thought he could rely on the bowling brilliance of McGrath and Warne and the batting brilliance of Hayden, Langer, himself and Gilchrist. By contrast the team Clarke led in the 2013-14 series was far less talented, but Clarke is a cannier captain than Ponting, and the team as a whole played out of their skins in the way England did in 2005.
I thought we were lucky in 2005. We got some very friendly umpiring decisions and we were within a whisker of going 2-0 down. Yep - we had a great bowling attack and some great individual contributions with the bat, but it was seat-of-the-pants stuff. McGrath's injury was the turning point. I was at Lords that first day when Hoggy boomed a big inswinger through Hayden early on and then Harmy hit Langer on the elbow (oof!) and tinned Ponting (hurrah!). It was all going great 'til we batted. I think we were 90-7 or something at the end of the day - we just couldn't cope with McGrath. We were lucky in 2013 too (that could easily have been 2-2 going to the last game after we scraped through at Trent Bridge and rain saved us at Old Trafford) and I thought the cracks in the side were obvious, tho' all my mates thought we were brilliant. I was at Trent Bridge when Agar scored his 98 - absolute misery. Only Bell's batting got us through that year. The only series where England were clearly superior were 2009 (I had two great days at Lords - the first day when Australia just went to pieces in the field and the last day when Freddie got his 5-fer - and a great day at the Oval when Trott got his ton) and 2010/11. Poor Ricky copped a lot of stick - is he the only Aussie skipper to lose three Ashes series? At least he didn't cry like Kim Hughes did.
-
Ah, I wouldn't be hanging out for the umpires to save you. Australia lost the 2005 series for a number of reasons, many of them with their origin in the Australian team. Yes, the English played out of their skins, and the combination was just enough to get England the series win.
For me, there were three problems for Australia in that series. Firstly was the injury to Glenn McGrath. He was fully fit for only one test, and that was the only one that Australia won. Secondly, many of the Australians played like millionaires - on paper they were a brilliant team and no less good than teams which had won the last few series - in that they failed to apply themselves when conditions and their opponents got on top of them. Thirdly, I think Ricky Ponting was a poor captain - he inherited a brilliant team and never really seemed to develop tactics to make the best use of his players' skills because he thought he could rely on the bowling brilliance of McGrath and Warne and the batting brilliance of Hayden, Langer, himself and Gilchrist. By contrast the team Clarke led in the 2013-14 series was far less talented, but Clarke is a cannier captain than Ponting, and the team as a whole played out of their skins in the way England did in 2005.
I thought we were lucky in 2005. We got some very friendly umpiring decisions and we were within a whisker of going 2-0 down. Yep - we had a great bowling attack and some great individual contributions with the bat, but it was seat-of-the-pants stuff. McGrath's injury was the turning point.
And for me this was one of those occasions where Ponting showed poor captaincy, choosing to put England in to bat. The pitch was expected to be tough for batting, but at most for only a couple of hours. After surviving that, England had by far the best of the batting conditions, and Australia did well to come close on the last day. Had Australia batted first they may well not have won, not having as strong a bowling attack, but they would have avoided the need to chase runs on a deteriorating pitch.
I was at Lords that first day when Hoggy boomed a big inswinger through Hayden early on and then Harmy hit Langer on the elbow (oof!) and tinned Ponting (hurrah!). It was all going great 'til we batted. I think we were 90-7 or something at the end of the day - we just couldn't cope with McGrath. We were lucky in 2013 too (that could easily have been 2-2 going to the last game after we scraped through at Trent Bridge and rain saved us at Old Trafford) and I thought the cracks in the side were obvious, tho' all my mates thought we were brilliant. I was at Trent Bridge when Agar scored his 98 - absolute misery. Only Bell's batting got us through that year.
Yes, Australia was only just emerging from a poor couple of series, having sacked Micky Arthur as coach - a man who was apparently a very bad fit for the people in the Australian team he was dealing with - and with some attitude problems among some of the players. On the one hand Australia's performance in 2013 was very erratic, but on the other hand it was pointed out that England won the series without reaching 400 in any innings.
The only series where England were clearly superior were 2009 (I had two great days at Lords - the first day when Australia just went to pieces in the field and the last day when Freddie got his 5-fer - and a great day at the Oval when Trott got his ton) and 2010/11. Poor Ricky copped a lot of stick - is he the only Aussie skipper to lose three Ashes series? At least he didn't cry like Kim Hughes did.
Well, as I've pointed out a couple of times I don't think Ponting was a clever captain. In the final test in 2005 when Australia had to win he accepted an offer from the umpires to stop play for bad light when the batsmen were well set and risks needed to be taken. On the other hand in the first test in 2009 he kept Australia batting too long when the opportunity was there to get a demoralised England back in to bat. And as a general rule he had a very negative approach when dealing with a recognised batsman batting with tailenders (rather than trying to get the batsman out he'd try everything to just get him off strike in an attempt to bowl at the tailender). He also seemed to have little idea of using part-time bowlers or of innovative field settings - neither of them necessary when you have two of the world's best bowlers in your team as he did at the start of his captaincy, but increasingly important when your attack is rather more pedestrian.
However in 2010-11 it was mostly a case of Australia's best not being up to the task of facing an England in awesome form.
-
Aside from the Ashes, it would appear that the 2019 WC is going to be reduced from the current 14 teams to 10, which means Ireland and Afghanistan are going to find it more difficult to qualify. So, when other sports are discussing the expansion of their their World Tournaments and the IOC is always churning the sports in the Olympic programme, the ICC takes a backward step.
Utter sigh from me >:(
-
Cricket, Rugby and American Football. I understand some rules, but not all. Hey I'm German, so what do I know ;D
Anyway I like to watch it, although I get confused (especially by watching cricket) with the rules. But it's a good show, and I think this is the most important thing.
-
You could always go to watch a game live in Germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cricket_in_Germany
-
Cricket, Rugby and American Football. I understand some rules, but not all. Hey I'm German, so what do I know ;D
There are no rules in cricket and rugby, there are laws. ;)
Eh, I played both games for several years, and I don't know all the laws. I remember going for a ball once in rugby and my skip was screaming at me not to play the ball. I was offside. I played the ball and we conceded a penalty and lost territory. Skips was not too happy.
In another game I kept being pinged (called) by the ref. I had no idea what for. I enquired:
'Sir, with all respect, why do you keep pinging me at the ruck?'
Believe it, or believe it not, the ref was not happy that I asked and penalised us 10 metres for my dissent. I should have asked my skipper to ask him.
-
Good win for the Proteas last night. At this stage who is favourite to lift the World Cup? I still think it will be Australia, but the Proteas look solid too.
-
It's warmed up to offer some big clashes. Two great semi-finals in prospect.