Cricket

Rain (AM and PM) 3° London Hi 10°C / Lo 3°C

James Lawton: Cricket should not be fun – Twenty20 has stripped it of intrigue and brutality

Real men shouldn't dress up in garish outfits and prostitute a game of sublime potential

Twenty20 is not a game but a fad

Getty Images

Twenty20 is not a game but a fad

Cricket "purists," for want of a better dirty word, are constantly being told it is time for them to wrap themselves in old army blankets, lie under the stars and await their admission to that happy hunting ground where their heroes do not dress up in pyjamas and lunge, with extreme predictability and ugliness, at almost every ball bowled in their direction.

However, the suggestion has rarely been as compelling, surely, as on Sunday, when England beat Pakistan in a Twenty20 match of such banality it was quite often hard to look.

The late Harold Pinter once declared, "Cricket is the greatest thing that God ever created on earth." It wasn't on this occasion. It seemed more like evolution in reverse.

Twenty20 contrives its thrills in a crayon-drawn format so pre-ordained, so soul-grindingly repetitive, that its defenders declare it foolproof, but then what happens when one of two allegedly competitive teams has neither the form nor the inclination to make a match of it? We saw it at The Oval on Sunday night. It is a hideously jerked-up formulaic parody of the real game, the one that delighted such as Pinter and Samuel Beckett and was once lauded by a visiting African chieftain, a guest at Lord's of the Foreign Office, as the finest, most elaborate and still most subtle rain-making ceremony ever devised. Twenty20 is about as subtle as a ram-raid.

Any idea that all the hype in the world might just sustain for cricket a rather higher status was somewhat shot through by the beaten Pakistani captain Younis Khan when he declared, "We didn't field very well and it is a problem for us at the moment. But Twenty20 is a fun game. It's meant to be fun, that's all." If only it was, Younis.

The problem is that it is supposed to be so much more than that. It is the straight-faced projection of the salvation of cricket. It is the way, we are told, to prise the kids away from King Football and maintain, more effectively than ever more, the downward motion of the game's nose in the great trough of television.

This, of course, wasn't quite the image being projected by England's captain Paul Collingwood, who declared, "I'm loving the captaincy now but I wasn't loving it on Friday night" (when a Dutch debt collector heaved two sixes at Lord's by way of match-winning momentum). "I know I have 11 good men in the dressing room who have backed me up. They wanted to go out there and show what they could do and they did that. They showed their character and it shows we have real men in the dressing room."

Real men don't eat quiche. In a perfect world nor do they dress up in garish outfits and prostitute a game of sublime potential. However, we know it's far from perfect and no-one is saying that free men shouldn't be able to pursue the richest possible living. However, some day the golden penny may drop that Twenty20 is not a game but a fad, a brief and foredoomed exploration of cricket's most sensational possibilities. The trouble with sensation is that you can have a little bit too much of it.

In separate parts of his excellent new book, And God Created Cricket, TV analyst Simon Hughes writes hauntingly about the misplaced appeal of the old game – as so magnificently demonstrated in the 2005 Ashes series – and the appeal of Twenty20. With a nice touch of ambivalence, he writes of the latter, "There were inevitable reservations from the purists, a euphemism for the short-sighted and the hard of hearing, suggesting that Twenty20 wasn't a proper contest between bat and ball (actually, I might have said that).

"But the compensations were huge. The 5.30 start benefited everyone. You could see all the skills of the game – even the forward defensive and the shouldering of arms, occasionally – compressed into two and a half hours, sipping wine and sitting next to Julia from accounts, and still be able to go out for dinner/get home in time for supper afterwards.

"The players, ground down by the monotonous routine, revelled in the concept and the public response, and in only having to report for work at 4pm – and knock off at 8.30 – and their enjoyment was infection. Twenty20 made cricket fun again – and almost cool. I said almost."

Whoever said cricket had to be fun? Cricket is supposed to be thrilling and absorbing, attritional and brilliant, intriguing and brutal, and always filled with the possibility of moments of great beauty and power. Twenty20 seeks to make every hack slogger look like Viv Richards. Sometimes, as it was when the Pakistanis fretted and jabbed without a glimmer of hope, the impersonation is both cheap and about as enjoyable as a session of canal work at the dentists.

If the Oval action had somehow left you still the right side of a coma you merely had to switch channels to watch a study of West Indian cricket at the apex of its glory. It ran on the BBC, which used to cover live, real cricket, and some of the images were quite haunting: there was Gary Sobers, bowling, spin and seam, and batting like a god, hitting six sixes in one over, and there were the young Viv Richards and Brian Lara, dissecting the field with shots which might have been fired from a rifle.

If that was the past, and the gunk we saw on at The Oval was the future, yes, indeed it may be time to reach for that old blanket.

Setanta's struggles suggest football is no longer in its own league

So according to the ledgers of Setanta television, it seems that outbidding all your rivals for a big football contract is not necessarily a licence to set up your own mint. Now this is a twist, is it not?

That the life-threatening crisis of the Irish TV company should come in the same week that we learned of Liverpool's problematic financial future must, at the very least, provoke questions about the banker assumption that the game will always be besieged by eager paymasters, and that in the meantime all the normal requirements of good business practice can be be put on one side.

The most optimistic scenario is that the appeal of the world game will always operate in a captive market, whatever the degree of wider economic strain. The nightmare, on the other hand, is that football will, like everyone else, feel a sharp pinch indeed. And then upon what does it fall back? Unfortunately it is not years of hard-headed management and an understanding that any league is, ultimately, only as strong as its weakest member.

They do say that pride always comes before the fall. Ditto, the ungovernable arrogance to believe that for some reason you are quite separate from the rest of an embattled world. This no doubt is still enshrined in the working philosophy of the upper echelons of English football. However, if anyone is going to blink this is probably the time.

Reality bites at last for lucky Lewis

As Jenson Button luxuriates in the success that took so long to come, and lavishes praise on his engineers, it seems that the reigning world champion Lewis Hamilton is beginning to grasp some of the realities of a business which didn't require him to wait hardly at all.

Hamilton talked of the need for patience after guiding his ailing McLaren into 13th place and declared, "I see my role from now on as helping the team to cure the problems with this year's car and to make next year's car the best it can possibly be. When the team gives me a car to win, I will win."

Yep, that's the deal Lewis. You put in the hours in the pit, you glean a fraction of second here and there, and maybe you get to to be the fastest of them all again. Ideally, you also reflect on the fact that if, say, Robert Kubica or Nico Rosberg had started out with a machine as fast as the one you were given in your first season there might still be everything to prove.

Meanwhile, Button sets a splendid example each time he revisits the podium. He reminds us that if Formula One ever wants to create a genuine sense of a truly competitive drivers' challenge it still has quite a bit of levelling to do.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Cricket should not be fun
[info]rick231 wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 02:02 am (UTC)
I am really sorry. Old Brits like you still want to live and gloat over the past. As Bernard shaw once said (something like this about cricket) " ten fools are playing and ten thousand fools are watching", essentially concluding people are wasting time watching "test match" cricket. None of my fellow Americans will ever play or watch (test match) such a boring game. I assume this is the realization of young Brits and people around the world. We young people never understand what is the big deal in so-called "Ashes series" played over a month( except for the media hype). Most test matches are either drawn intentionally by playing teams or by nature's intervention. If you still like the so-called test match buy a DVD and gloat over those boring matches played over 30-40hrs. Your arguments in the article make no-sense to a teenager. T20/20 is more like what cricket shold have been and should be( with all the adrenaline pumping action and for families with kids). I bet no kid will be excited to watch a match played for 40 hrs spread over five days
Re: Cricket should not be fun
[info]hexish wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 11:17 am (UTC)
thankfully, the world doesn't completely revolve around what kids think is "exciting".
Re: Cricket should not be fun
[info]claudiusgoth wrote:
Wednesday, 17 June 2009 at 09:22 pm (UTC)
unfortuneately you're wrong there
Cricket should not be fun
[info]berbician wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 02:43 am (UTC)
Later this season, you will see lots of "young Brits" watching and enjoying Test cricket. It saddens me that there are people who lack the intellect to understand and appreciate proper cricket, but then the world is as it is and not as we would like it to be.
Let them play rounders
[info]bigsandpit wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 05:05 am (UTC)
rick231, It's not about living and gloating about the past. It's about the death of tradition and history that the writer is bemoaning. Ask a few Indian kids if they would like to go and watch a test match, I know the answer they'd give. You and your fellow Americans are welcome to stick with Rounders, you are welcome to stick with overweight , gum-chewing rednecks whose trousers are laughably tight and whose beer guts oscillate in harmony with the crowd. That's your chosen entertainment. Stick with it, and let us stick to ours.
An Indian kid speaks
[info]siddistani wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 06:12 am (UTC)
American sports are, like all sufficiently competitive sports, great, but so heavily pivoted on power and reflex, nothing more, that they have, inevitably fallen prey to steroid abuse and all kinds of weird extrapolations.

When you take subtlety out of a game, the current incarnation of baseball is what you get. Dominated by A-Rod and Manny, while cleans like Jeter linger in the shadows. American culture is reflected in their sport. Quick, aggressive, powerful entertainment for the beer-swilling, hot-dog-stuffing multitudes. Look at NASCAR, would you?

You have no platform from which to criticize cricket. Gentlemen play the game. Ugly incidents aside, the general ethos remains unscarred. A cricket pitch is a place of mystery and greatness. A baseball diamond is a shrine to the lust for power and linear superstardom.

Shoosh, man.
boring
[info]isemeco_me wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 08:12 am (UTC)
Test cricket is a boring sport that nobody really cares about any more apart from a handfull of toffs with 5 days spare a week to lounge around whilst waiting for someone to hit a four at some point during the morning session. How interesting. Twenty20 is not perfect but it definately allows more opportunities for progreesion by the smallers nations instead of having just eight good countries playing the sport, or is that what you want, limited participation and minor interest? Move on sir, test cricket is dying..
Re: boring
[info]l3enz0 wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 09:37 am (UTC)
Not at all correct , I'm afraid . Take a look at the crowds for the upcoming Ashes and then tell me no-one is interested . Most of my mates would rather watch test cricket than any other form . That said though , I've enjoyed this T20 competition so far , much more than I thought I would , but T20 is still the last form of cricket I would pay to watch .
Dont Panic!!!
[info]lordrandall wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 08:42 am (UTC)
Over-reaction to new things is dpressingly predictable, and traditionalists often get worked up defending things that can look after themselves. Many Americans don't understand cricket. Er, who cares? The beauty of cricket is that it can exist in several formats as essentially the same game, but with hugely varied emphasis. The same cannot be said of baseball, or football (5 - a - side is, for instance, not really the same game). Test cricket has a particular appeal, and one - day cricket also. I like cricket in all its forms - but I have to say that in some respects 20-20 may represent the best spectator sport ever devised. I love it, but I really hope that its success encourages people to appreciate the subtleties of the longer forms, rather than causing a sort of 'dependency' on adrenaline driven slogging. I'm not sure we're in an 'either/or' situation just yet.
I don't like cricket... I love it!
[info]botham wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 08:46 am (UTC)
Any sport that goes on for weeks (although could in theory, could be over in a 10 balls) involves lunch and tea, doesn't require athlete level fitness (always) and can be played to a high standard into ones forties has got to be a good thing. Everyman has the potential to win (or lose) the game. To top it off - it can be rained off and end in a draw after all that bother -much like life. There is a lot to be learned from test cricket.

P.S - Siddistani - great comment, had me chuckling.
20 20
[info]jaberwokie wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 08:53 am (UTC)
what ever you say, 20 20 brings in the zillions to watch the matches. And veryone enjoy the games.
Lack of TV coverage will destroy cricket
[info]allenn007 wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 09:02 am (UTC)
The ECB and the Government, by allowing Sky to monopolise TV coverage will probably end up destroying the game. Nobody can see it anymore unless they pay a large monthly subscription. This should not be allowed to continue, becuase ultimately the game will be the greatest loser, as well as denying millions of people something that they used to be able to watch on BBC and Channel Four.

You can talk about the nuances and different versions of the game, but the lack of TV coverage is the greatest threat to the game.
[info]brinksman wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 09:43 am (UTC)
James, loosen your arse up a bit, mate. It's only a game. The days of playing with queen vic sheering you on, is long gone. Get used to it and enjoy the game.
www.millarcrime.com
[info]gloops wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 09:53 am (UTC)
I used to think Test Cricket was the most boring thing ever devised - until I slumped in front of my TV some time in the 80's and got hooked into a match between England and W Indies. Suddenly I 'got it'. Test Cricket is a cerebral sport; like physical chess. It requires effort to understand and appreciate, but it's worth it if you do. Twenty20 is crap. Just play rounders or something if all you want to do is wear pyjamas and bash a ball.
I love cricket
[info]snowdonwatcher wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 11:01 am (UTC)
Like a previous comment I was never sure about 5 day cricket until I was ill, & had nothing else to do than lie in bed & watch the "Botham" test series some years ago. Wow, was I converted. It was a fantastic game of cat & mouse that kept me sane for several months.
Thank you cricket!
You can keep the 20 slog game if that's what you want, but give me a test match any day.

Jim Jimmeney
[info]jim_jimmeney wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 11:16 am (UTC)
Mr Lawton

Just in case you failed to notice Test Cricket does still exist and is doing very nicely. 2020 cricket was created to generate new cricket fans at a time when the sport was suffering and it has done so - last season in the UK gates were up in all formats of the game (granted they are down this year, but it has more to do with the recession than 2020 despite the claims of the 2020 haters). The biggest problems Cricket had for years was that it had stagnated and the exclusivity and snobbishness of a certain section of its long standing support who see themselves as above the man in the street and actively helped drive potential new supporters away. 2020 has generated new supporters which the sport desperately needed and was after all the main reason for its creation - it has been a success.

Further to this it is not the slog fest a lot of its detractors claim it to be, the majority of most successful batsmen at 2020 all play proper cricket shots and what exactly is so wrong about seeing a great batsmen hit a magnificent 6 of a bad ball (or a good one for that matter). Spin bowling has also become a very effective weapon in 2020 which very few expected when it was launched and has helped hone the skills of several spin bowlers. You are part of the Taliban of cricket who seem to fear change or anything new and the new supporters and interest that change attracts, it was that attitude that held cricket back for years whilst other sports accepted and adapted to changing times. Claiming that it is a 'fad' and pretending that it isn't 'real' cricket is just deliberately missing the point, additionally it is not 2020's fault that the BBC doesn't cover Test Cricket anymore - that would be the BBC's fault.

I love cricket I think it is a great sport and 2020 has helped the sport since its creation not hindered it - fielding has improved, bowlers have to think on their feet, batsmen have created new shots and above all else it has generated the new supporters that the sport needed; there are many more families attending cricket these days than there ever used to be. This is typical of the problems within cricket - 2020 has achieved and exceeded its objectives so the people who never wanted it in the first place have to resort to pathetic arguments about colored kits (which by the way existed prior to 2020), what makes a 'real man or pretending that one one sided games are exclusive to the 20 over version of the game.

Honestly shave your beard off and embrace the 21st century.
Cricket is NOT for the likes of us!
[info]raymondode wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 11:26 am (UTC)
It's fine for people like James Lawton in their ivory towers to sing the praises of test cricket but some people actually have to work for a living. You can't have thursday, friday and monday off every week over the summer and so twenty twenty is a nice way for people from the real world to actually get a chance to see the game. It also makes a bit of cash for the counties (who in an average four day game get about 6 spectators) which can't be a bad thing.
Cricket for everyone - and everyone for cricket
[info]10rowsback wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 11:51 am (UTC)
James,

Your opinion is almost exclusively held by older, more experienced fans. That's neither surprising nor contemptible. It's just natural, you've seen the game in all its forms and prefer Tests.Fine.

But we've got kids flocking to our local club to take up bats and balls to emulate their heroes - and 20/20 is a big part of winning the battle for the attention of the young. Look at the age of the crowds.

Over time, we watch those kids grow and naturally develop an appreciation of all forms of the game. Teenagers who go on about 'boring 30-40 hour games' don't know what's coming. They nearly all turn into Test nuts as they hit their twenties. Have a little faith in people's ability to make sensible judgments, mate.

The dangerous arrogance of the cricket 'old guard' risks dividing the sport far more than the raw appeal of 20/20 alone. It's the responsibility of every cricket fan to at least try to appreciate the game in all its forms and not denigrate others' love of the game.

That's what being a real gentleman is, as opposed to a just grumpy git posing in a panama - which I'm sure you're not, are you?
YAWN........
[info]mowfalmighty wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 11:58 am (UTC)
The words crikcet and entertainment should not be used in the same paragraph. Its obvious somethings deeply wrong with a game that has to dress itself up and change it's structure and format just to keep the fans awake.
Re: YAWN........
[info]l3enz0 wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 03:17 pm (UTC)
... it hasn't changed to keep the fans awake (they're not really fans if they find it that boring are they ) but has merely adapted to appeal to a wider audience . Although clearly it will never appeal to some .
T20 Cricket
[info]huudugi wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 12:05 pm (UTC)
I am glad the cricket has moved to the subcontinent, At least they get chance to appreciate the enjoyment of the game. Any type of sport has its place. So ok Test cricket especially the Ashes is what the english supporters respond to ... well and good.

Poor pakistanis they dont know anything about social etiquette! SOUR GRAPES is word theyare looking at , Maybe all the other bar sri lanka india and south africa are feelingt he same.

Rock on T20.
It's all good in my opinion
[info]realitydose wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 12:08 pm (UTC)
I think Twenty20 is very exciting and entertaining, I also enjoy Test Cricket too.

I fail to see why so many people have to make a mountain out of a molehill, if you do not like Twenty20 then don't watch it, there's no need tocry about it now is there!!

I for one am enjoying the Twenty20 and will also be watching the Ashes series as well. Different forms with different aspects to appeal to different tastes.
Tests + T20s
[info]alipac wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 12:26 pm (UTC)
I have no problems with anyone preferring ODIs over T20 and Tests over ODIs. I do too. I know, certainly, that a Test match/series loss is more enduring than an ODI/T20 one. And there is more prestige to winning a Test match. Certainly, Test cricket provides the more staisfying viewing experience overall.

But wait... not all Test cricket, surely? Bangladesh versus Zimbabwe (or WI versus ENG circa May 2009)... due apologies to all concerned nations... I'm supposed to care for that more than a T20 because... Just because it's TEST CRICKET? Ah, right. So Test Cricket is not supposed to have any real value to it for the viewer, it's superior just because... well just because it is, silly! On which note: "What happens when one of two allegedly competitive teams has neither the form nor the inclination to make a match of it?" Er... England versus West Indies Test Matches, anyone?

Lets stop with the T20 bashing please. It's a new form of the game. It is not the most important form of the game, but it has it's place, it's entertainment value. We may have 32 teams in the T20 world cup of 2017, but only 8 playing Tests. And hey, i have no problems with that...
Reductio ad absurdum?
[info]jellymillion wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 12:34 pm (UTC)
If T20 is better then 40-overs is better than 60, then surely we're headed inexorably towards one batter, one bowler and one ball? We could have entire tournaments in a lunchtime. How exciting would that be?
[info]banjo_1 wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 12:45 pm (UTC)
I was going to say that 20/20 is to test cricket what distillate from your garden pot still is to Chateau Lafite. But that could be interpreted as meaning the essence without extra flavours. But it's less than that. The essence of test cricket is decision making. When to bat, what shots to play or leave, when to attack or defend...it's a constant series of little decisions that the educated watcher can understand and agree or disagree with. There are no decisions in 20/20. The decisions are pre-made by the format of the game. Every game is the same. What's more, the most absorbing and exciting elements of the 5 day game are missing completely. If you really want excitement and drama, watch a great pair of fast bowlers like Michael Holding and Andy Roberts bowling to a field with 8 men around the bat, with the SOLE intention of taking wickets. You NEVER see a proper attacking field in limited overs cricket. Because taking wickets is irrelevant other than in keeping the run rate down - 50 percent of the game is missing. The batting side always attacks and the fielding side always defends. So rather than being the essence with the extras taken out, it's the extras (pyjamas, dancing girls, mexican waves) with the essence of the best games (brutal fielding attack) taken out. Sad really.
Twenty20 is to cricket...
[info]iaintom wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 01:33 pm (UTC)
...as par 3 golf is to Golf. How good would it be if they replaced 4 round of the British Open or The Masters with a single round of a par 3 course? Sure - you'd get plenty of birdies and holes in one. But what a drag it would be, and who would really care?
great article james 20/20 is mickey mouse cricket give me test match cricket any day
[info]maradona_2009 wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 02:21 pm (UTC)
all this 20/20 lark is just a money makeing exercise that no true sports fan especially cricket fans get the format does nothing for me the only good thing i can say about this mickey mouse cricket is if it gets kids excited and wanting to take up the game with the ambition and desire to become a test match player one day fantastic but if it produces players to only play the 20/20 game that one man and his dog could play it will kill the game off
'King' Football also has a 'format' problem
[info]stgeorge_67 wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 03:20 pm (UTC)
Well if 20/20 is the death of cricket, then football died on the day of the 1994 World Cup Final, when the most watched sporting event on earth was concluded by one of those ghasty, disgusting penalty shootouts. Italy got it down pat in the last WC. Just develop the most perfect defence possible and practice your penaties. I love Test cricket, tolerate ODIs, and can't stand 20/20. However, over time my dislike of it will soften. There is no perfect sport, but cricket is my favourite, and given a bit more of a chance to digest 20/20 I'm sure I'd take it nearly evry time over a 0-0 draw and penalty shootout.
Proper cricket
[info]johnmckgibbs wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 03:28 pm (UTC)
James Lawton is absolutely right. Real cricket is a noble, uplifting, subtle, intriguing, savage, beauiful game, and many other things as well. One part pf the tragedy unfolding is that here we are, in the middle of June, with scarcely a 4-day county game having being played anywhere and none in prospect until the end of his month. All in the interests of money and of satisfying those who wish to see cheap thrills.
It is likely, however, that the Twenty-20 version will pall and wither away once it is seen what a shallow entertainment it is. (If the Americans don't like proper cricket, so what?)

JOHN GIBBS
Mexico City
You used a bad 20/20 match to justify your argument
[info]wordnoise wrote:
Tuesday, 9 June 2009 at 05:09 pm (UTC)
Mr. Lawton

I do enjoy your writing style and whether I agree or disagree with your opinions I take great pleasure in reading your articles.

However, I was very disturbed by the battering you gave 20/20 cricket today with the justification stemming from the statement...

"but then what happens when one of two allegedly competitive teams has neither the form nor the inclination to make a match of it?"

Any match in any sport would prove to be ghastly to watch under such circumstances.
For the most part though 20/20 can provide masses of entertainment. Fantastic cricket from slog hitting to masterful stroke play and incredible bowling to outstanding fielding (plus all the mishaps and mistakes inbetween.) Mostly though it condenses all that cricket is into 40 overs.

We live in a fast paced world and test cricket appeals only to cricketing purists. Sport lovers, like myself, who want a taste of football, rugby, basketball, formula one etc. love the fact that an entire world class cricket match can be seen in minute by minute without having to forgo everything else in life for 5 whole days...
Who cares of Americans don't like cricket?
[info]brainbiter wrote:
Saturday, 13 June 2009 at 02:44 pm (UTC)
This is a good article by James Lawton. The intrinsic value of its message may be judged by the hostility it encounters. Perhaps dressing in pyjamas and thrashing wildly at a (white!) ball is an argument for abandoning cricket altogether and taking up baseball. I do not know. What as an Englishman (not a 'Brit') I do know is that affected by everything from the condition of the ground to the light to low-lying cloud to the wear and tear inflicted on the seam of the ball cricket is perhaps the greatest of all competitive sports. It is certainly a game of immense subtlety and tactical nouse.

For this reason efforts to render it accessible to the sparsely furnished mental landscape of the average American have to be a mistake, and will not be achieved without significant loss at both the intellectual and spiritual level. You may still call it cricket, or 'cricket for a fast-paced world', but the damage will have been done.

Let us then applaud Richard231. His solipsistic 'take' on matters - including the usual quotation from that over-rated Marxist oirishmen - demonstrates with utter clarity that for he and his compatriots appreciating the intrinsic merits of a game come a distant second to ordering changes to things they don't like.

But so what if they don't understand the Ashes (and a good deal else besides)? Why should they? Children (I prefer it to the more ideological 'kids') demand excitement. That is what children do - until they learn that excitement tends to follow a principle of diminishing returns and is anyway just as frequently the reward of patience and study and absorption as it is the next infantile Hollywood blockbuster. American billionaire John Paul Getty III 'got' the message. A cricket (that is to say the 3 and 4 day game) fanatic he has proved a wonderful friend to the game.

Who knows? If Americans in general ever grow up they too might change their mind.
If the Brits don't like Twenty20, so what?
[info]rosooki wrote:
Saturday, 27 June 2009 at 01:28 am (UTC)
Since when do they matter in any sport?
Re: If the Brits don't like Twenty20, so what?
[info]brainbiter wrote:
Saturday, 27 June 2009 at 04:16 am (UTC)
'Brits' don't exist - except in the short-circuited brains of Americans, whose impatience with words of more than one syllable disregards the offence such idle pig-ignorance causes others. We are English, Scots, Welsh and (for 'UK' purposes) Northern Irish.

You have a point if by 'matters' you mean English lack of success. However it is enough to have invented most sports of international renown. It would be impolite to be good at them as well. Now I suggest you get back to watching wigger-ball on the dude-tube.


Free gym pass

Get fit for summer with Fitness First gyms in London

Download a free gym pass from Fitness First today