Quote from: newportnobby on June 09, 2015, 09:24:23 PM
Nice spelling boob, Vonk

Come on chaps - keep it clean. We should be talking about BRAnch lines and things instead!

Two sides go out  to play..

they toss  to  see  who is 'in'..

the  side  that is in  goes out....

the fielders on  the other   side also  go out...

if the  batsman is  dismissed  he goes out..


etc...

What Cricket Looks Like to Americans

! No longer available
(actually it's still available!)

Not about the Laws of Cricket, but still about the game.
I gave up watching when the players started wearing clown costumes instead of traditional 'whites'. Watching the above, it may not exactly have been cricket, but at least the players LOOKED like cricketers.

Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on June 15, 2015, 06:15:42 AM
Not about the Laws of Cricket, but still about the game.
I gave up watching when the players started wearing clown costumes instead of traditional 'whites'. Watching the above, it may not exactly have been cricket, but at least the players LOOKED like cricketers.

The "clown" costumes as you call them are only used in 1 day + T20 which although I really do enjoy the tactics of a good test match T20 is good if you want to watch quick hard hitting batting and is bringing a new audience into the game and is almost a party atmosphere. Definitely a good way to introduce people that dismiss cricket to the game is watch a bit of T20. They don't even use the pavilions just bus shelters by the pitch it is that quick

Quote from: Vonk on June 15, 2015, 12:40:06 PM

Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on June 15, 2015, 06:15:42 AM
Not about the Laws of Cricket, but still about the game.
I gave up watching when the players started wearing clown costumes instead of traditional 'whites'. Watching the above, it may not exactly have been cricket, but at least the players LOOKED like cricketers.

The "clown" costumes as you call them are only used in 1 day + T20 which although I really do enjoy the tactics of a good test match T20 is good if you want to watch quick hard hitting batting and is bringing a new audience into the game and is almost a party atmosphere. Definitely a good way to introduce people that dismiss cricket to the game is watch a bit of T20. They don't even use the pavilions just bus shelters by the pitch it is that quick

The point I was making is that they could do that in 'whites', not fancy dress.

For the "fancy dress" you can blame the media, trying to attract viewers, all the players in white make it difficult for the couch potatoes to tell which side is which.

Cricket is big business now and competes with socccer, especially in India which is its biggest market. They have had a professional T20 league with foreign players since 2008. "Clown costumes" are de rigueur.
Bangladesh has copied India.

Not for the purists but at least it generates interest in the wider population, especially females (apologies in advance for sexism). The biggest cricket stars in India are treated like film stars and earn as much.

Best regards,


Joe

I'm a big cricket fan and have to say I still prefer the traditional long form of the game (be it 3, 4 or 5 day) where the players still wear whites.
However, I can see that the game badly needed (needs) to appeal to a much wider audience so I have become accustomed to and actually enjoy the shortened form of the game despite the players wearing different coloured clothing.
Cricket should, I believe , be applauded for trying to progress whilst still retaining it's tradition and heritage.
I suppose it can be likened to a heritage railway holding Thomas events (despite the fact that some "purists" might object).
I'll jump off my soapbox now and get my coat !

Quote from: port perran on June 15, 2015, 08:42:26 PM
I'm a big cricket fan and have to say I still prefer the traditional long form of the game (be it 3, 4 or 5 day) where the players still wear whites.
However, I can see that the game badly needed (needs) to appeal to a much wider audience so I have become accustomed to and actually enjoy the shortened form of the game despite the players wearing different coloured clothing.
Cricket should, I believe , be applauded for trying to progress whilst still retaining it's tradition and heritage.
I suppose it can be likened to a heritage railway holding Thomas events (despite the fact that some "purists" might object).
I'll jump off my soapbox now and get my coat !

I too am a 'purist' - why today I even saw on the news a bowler wearing a number on this back, like a common footballer 
As for being 'able to tell which side is which' we knew that for CENTURIES before this modern fad of 'colours' - like you, I'll say no more on this post as I've had my say now.

Quote from: D1042 Western Princess on June 15, 2015, 06:15:42 AM
Not about the Laws of Cricket, but still about the game.
I gave up watching when the players started wearing clown costumes instead of traditional 'whites'. Watching the above, it may not exactly have been cricket, but at least the players LOOKED like cricketers.

Yes, a colleague at work some 40  yrs ago told me that cricket had Laws not rules.  He passed the exams to be a qualified umpire  - he played at Kent Village level.  I also have been bemused at the near demise of the white shirt and flannels I had to wear at school.  Though I realise that advertising and colour is the thing these days - sadly.  And I am no cricket fan - I always found it deadly dull!  At which comment I will duck.

Quote from: Dorsetmike on June 15, 2015, 07:54:18 PM
For the "fancy dress" you can blame the media, trying to attract viewers, all the players in white make it difficult for the couch potatoes to tell which side is which.

One way I use to tell which side is which when in "whites" is if they are padded up with a bat (normally only 2 on the field) then they are in bat  All the rest on the pitch are generally bowling/fielding.
With regards to whites I remember a few years back they were very cream/magnolia but now they seem to have gone back to a very white colour.

I think it is about getting the balance and so long as we don't go too much like india and focus completely on the T20 game and keep funding going into the county leagues then I am happy but if too much money is pumped into the shorter game then we will lose the heart of the technical game that is test/county.

I have no problem with the wearing of colours in the shorter games but can really do without the annoying bursts of loud pop music (e.g. Another one bites the dust) when someone is out or a boundary is scored
Personally I'm pleased to see the short game is popular as the games can be played at times of the day to suit those who work and allows families to attend, which can only be good for the game overall.

When I did OBs, I quite enjoyed the odd test at Edgbaston or Trent Bridge. Nice weather, some gentle applause, listening to Jonno and Westy on the program circuits. Then it all changed, got a lot more rowdy, especially when the West Indies were playing. Lots of tin cans bashed together. No more peaceful dozing.

Quote from: Malc on June 16, 2015, 02:09:48 PM
When I did OBs, I quite enjoyed the odd test at Edgbaston or Trent Bridge. Nice weather, some gentle applause, listening to Jonno and Westy on the program circuits. Then it all changed, got a lot more rowdy, especially when the West Indies were playing. Lots of tin cans bashed together. No more peaceful dozing.

I know exactly what you are talking about regarding the changes Malc.  Despite not being a big time cricket fan, (I am Scots so I have my excuse) I have attended international matches in Bombay and in Port Of Spain (Trinidad).  Lords it AIN'T!  Enthusiastic, fun, interesting - but it just isn't British!!!

Regards, Allan.....