Page 2 of 2

Re: You wanna know what sucks?

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:50 am
by aldo
Black Wolf wrote:Clarke can knock over 6 for 9 (Yes - Six wickets for nine runs) and we can still lose the bloody match chasing 107. And again, yes, 107.

I mean, sure, we won the series. But a six for nine and we los chasing 107? WTF happened there?
Ah, shot a quaggle for a legoff on the second overundernearorfar going for a gingangoolywhatchamacallit, then?

Cricket = equally as bad a sport as baseball = not as good a rounders.

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 3:26 pm
by Hunter
I saw a live game in Scotland... I couldn't follow it...
No surprise there.

And Scotland have a cricket team? :P

Re: You wanna know what sucks?

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:53 pm
by liberator
aldo wrote:
Black Wolf wrote:Cricket = equally as bad a sport as baseball = not as good a rounders.
Baseball's good and it does make more sense than cricket.

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 7:37 pm
by Black Wolf
Baseball is exceptionally boring as a spectator sport - they never score (I mean, nine innings and single figure scores? WTF?), there's maybe one or two difficult catches in the entire game, and the rest is just repeating the same stuff over and over again, with different players. At least in cricket they'll hit a bondary with a reasonable degree of regularity, and intersperse it with other stuff actually happening.

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 10:26 pm
by Sparhawk
I'd have to agree with Black Wolf about how boring baseball is.

Posted: Tue Nov 09, 2004 11:04 pm
by Mad Bomber
If you ask me, they should do buzkashi.

...look it up. :P

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:02 am
by WeatherOp
I can't say if cricket is bad or not, but I have read the rules on the internet and drool basicly fell out of my mouth and I said a lot of dowhats and goodgriefs. Too hard for me to understand. Baseball is a whole lot easier to understand and play and even to watch.

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 12:14 am
by Hammer
i wish i understood the rules n s###, cause it looks like a cool game

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 5:24 am
by Top Gun
Maybe I'm just a boring type of guy, but I don't find baseball boring at all. I enjoy watching the dynamics of a game change; there's a lot more strategy involved than in a lot of other sports, like basketball/hockey for instance. Of course, I'm the same person who enjoys watching NASCAR Nextel Cup races, so maybe that says something. :P

As for cricket...o_0

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 2:36 pm
by Singh
Sparhawk wrote:I'd have to agree with Black Wolf about how boring baseball is.
I'll have to agree as well.
Baseball is for the short of attention span...its a rip-off of cricket just to spite the british!

Now Cricket....beauty of a game there, if you know about it. Having grown up with it, all i can say is that it pwnz baseball anyday.

Ah, the thrill of each ball as you watch the score. The constant asking of questons - will sachin hit a six? can he do it again? NOOOOO!! DUCK OUT!! WTF??! and all that stuff. Each ball holds a surprise as it can go anywhere.

However, I will concede teh point that test matches are boring. It's the ODIs where the action is.

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 3:04 pm
by karajorma
The big problem with cricket and baseball is that they somehow got swapped over. I think an old internet oracle posting explained it best.

} Dear supplicant, I'm afraid this brings back bad memories from my
} misspent youth working as the Pony Express Oracle back in the 1800's.
} You see back then our filing system was a little more primitive and I
} managed to mix up the following two questions:
}
} > I say, Oracle old chum, how can we make the game of rounders more
} > interesting for the spectators?
} >
} > Your obedient servant,
} > Lt. John Spotherington, Rtd
} > Basingstoke, England
}
} and
}
} > Howdy Orrie, how can we make the game of rounders more interesting
} > for these here spectators?
} >
} > Yours sincerely,
} > Jefferson Smith, IV
} > New York, New York
}
} Now for the first supplicant, I devised a fast-paced game, with short
} innings, where the field could get wet without interrupting play, and
} which could be finished quickly. Ideal for England with its summer
} rains and which would allow the rather straight-laced upper classes
} relax a little as they got into the action.
}
} For the second I devised a game ideal for the long, warm, dry summer
} days of North America, a slower game, more gentle, allowing the country
} folk to relax over a period of 5 days, and yet be entertained as subtle
} strategies played themselves out.
}
} The first I gave a fast, hard-hitting name: Baseball!
} Pow! Wham! Exciting or what!
}
} The second I gave a name which evokes warm summer nights: Cricket.
} Doesn't it just make you want to sit out on the stoop and listen to
} the sounds of the night?
}
} And then I swapped the answers to the two supplicants. Perfectly
} understandable mistake, I'm sure you'll agree, given the similarity
} of the questions.

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:36 pm
by d3jake
I still don't understand...

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2004 4:39 pm
by WeatherOp
But, still baseball is way easier to understand. If someone comes in that don't know about baseball and askes you what happened, and you tell him he hit a home run and he askes what is that, then you tell him he hit the ball over the fence. Not hard to understand at all... And baseball is full of surprises like you wonder is the pitcher gonna throw a perfect game? or it the batter gonna hit a Grand Slam? Is he gonna steal second? and Third?