• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

Durham v Sussex (h) C.C.

Parkside said:
Interesting how you've formed that viewpoint. The holistic view is formed by the sum of the parts so each game is an integral part of the whole season;logically then each game contributes to the overall season, each game a team should aim to achieve the maximum points reasonably possible. The criticism of Sussex was that they made no attempt to maximise that opportunity.
Yes,teams do have an obligation to entertain; spectators are paying a fee with the expectation of enjoying the performance. Sussex chose not to do that without satisfactory reason.
You appear to know little about the purpose of professional sport; it 's part of the entertainment industry
Click to expand...
There is no obligation to ‘entertain’ - something which is completely subjective. No club is getting pulled up in front of a board because a few people in a crowd didn’t feel they got their moneys worth.

It could be argued that the entertainment part of the sport is the television and media production where the pundits are the entertainment surrounding the ‘product’ which is professional sport. No player that doesn’t bowl fast enough, take enough wickets or score enough runs are ever released with the reasoning being ‘not entertaining’.

You - nor do I - have any idea why Sussex approached the game the way they did to know and not do either of us have any right to decide whether their reasoning would be ‘satisfactory’ or not. For all you know that may well have been the maximum they felt they could get from the game - people behind a laptop don’t get to decide if that’s true or not and whether they should try harder to ‘satisfy’.

My point about people being furious at how they played but it not putting anyone off watching cricket in the future still stands. The people that watched yesterday and are disgruntled, will watch again next week. Cricket has not lost anyone as a result of the game yesterday - it has never been a discussion about the holistic view formed by the sum of its parts as you’ve put it.
 

mackemmover94 said:
There is no obligation to ‘entertain’ - something which is completely subjective. No club is getting pulled up in front of a board because a few people in a crowd didn’t feel they got their moneys worth.

It could be argued that the entertainment part of the sport is the television and media production where the pundits are the entertainment surrounding the ‘product’ which is professional sport. No player that doesn’t bowl fast enough, take enough wickets or score enough runs are ever released with the reasoning being ‘not entertaining’.

You - nor do I - have any idea why Sussex approached the game the way they did to know and not do either of us have any right to decide whether their reasoning would be ‘satisfactory’ or not. For all you know that may well have been the maximum they felt they could get from the game - people behind a laptop don’t get to decide if that’s true or not and whether they should try harder to ‘satisfy’.

My point about people being furious at how they played but it not putting anyone off watching cricket in the future still stands. The people that watched yesterday and are disgruntled, will watch again next week. Cricket has not lost anyone as a result of the game yesterday - it has never been a discussion about the holistic view formed by the sum of its parts as you’ve put it.
Click to expand...
Aye because we have already bought our memberships. IF they reduce it next season and still fanny on with this stupid ball, it's a 100% fact they will see a reduction in membership. Also when the ball experiment is advertised it won't have people wanting to watch and pay on the gate for county cricket because people know what to expect.

County Cricket will lose people with this ball experiment 100%. Throw in the potential game reduction as well.
 
GordonMuchallNo1Fan said:
Aye because we have already bought our memberships. IF they reduce it next season and still fanny on with this stupid ball, it's a 100% fact they will see a reduction in membership. Also when the ball experiment is advertised it won't have people wanting to watch and pay on the gate for county cricket because people know what to expect.

County Cricket will lose people with this ball experiment 100%. Throw in the potential game reduction as well.
Click to expand...
Completely agree re: ball and reduction in cricket having ramifications on people’s interest in the game. That on the whole is a different conversation to this and how Sussex batted as a one off leading to people no longer remaining interested in cricket.
 
You've lost me completely.
I responded originally because I didn't think you had the right to pour scorn on posters who have the right to criticise what they perceive as a wholly negative approach to cricket. As a cricket spectator I do have the right to express a belief or an opinion -I believe that Sussex'approach was overtly negative.
Sportsmen do have an obligation to entertain -to play defensively to draw a game when there's no alternative is itself entertainment. There was opportunity for Sussex to open up the game-that they chose not to warrants criticism in the opinion of some and not deserving of ridicule for expressing that belief.
 
Last edited:
Parkside said:
You've lost me completely.
I responded originally because I didn't think you had the right to pour scorn on posters who have the right to criticise what they perceive as a wholly negative approach to cricket. As a cricket spectator I do have the right to express a belief or an opinion -I believe that Sussex'approach was overtly negative.
Sportsmen do have an obligation to entertain -to play defensively to draw a game when there's no alternative is itself entertainment. There was opportunity for Sussex to open up the game-that they chose not to warrants criticism in the opinion of some and not deserving of ridicule for expressing that belief.
Click to expand...
I disagree completely about sports players having an obligation to entertain; a term that is completely subjective anyway. Nowhere in their contract or terms does it say must entertain a crowd or people watching on TV/youtube? Some people watching may well have found it gripping and entertaining to watch - did Ibrahim and Simpson fulfil their ‘obligation’ to those people?

Cricketers have an ‘obligation’ to their county/franchise/International team etc to fulfil the duties and requirements expected of them within the team.
 
mackemmover94 said:
I disagree completely about sports players having an obligation to entertain; a term that is completely subjective anyway. Nowhere in their contract or terms does it say must entertain a crowd or people watching on TV/youtube? Some people watching may well have found it gripping and entertaining to watch - did Ibrahim and Simpson fulfil their ‘obligation’ to those people?

Cricketers have an ‘obligation’ to their county/franchise/International team etc to fulfil the duties and requirements expected of them within the team.
Click to expand...
Yeh,we disagree. Some,including me,found the Sussex approach unduly negative. We have the right to express disappointment at that attitude.I question why you feel you have the right to pontificate on such beliefs. I was educated,worked with and socialised with Mackems. Salt of the earth -all of them.
I assume you are one -you're the only one who has appeared to be wholly arrogant.
 
Last edited:
Parkside said:
Yeh,we disagree. Some,including me,found the Sussex approach unduly negative. We have the right to express disappointment at that attitude.I question why you feel you have the right to pontificate on such beliefs. I was educated,worked with and socialised with Mackems. Salt of the earth -all of them.
I assume you are one -you're the only one who has appeared to be wholly arrogant.
Click to expand...
I am not the arrogant one demanding entertainment from professional athletes and passing comment on people a tonne more talented than I am how they should or should not play a sport…
 
mackemmover94 said:
I am not the arrogant one demanding entertainment from professional athletes and passing comment on people a tonne more talented than I am how they should or should not play a sport…
Click to expand...
No,you're the
one doing the domineering.
Cheeers
Disappointed that this has descended into a slanging match.
124 run win for the 2nds, ably led by that delightful Mackem, Borthwick
 
Last edited:
Bri said:
I think everyone likes a defensive battle to achieve a battling draw. However, this wasn't a battling draw, it was just a match that drifted away into nothingness.
Click to expand...

Kent’s effort at Blackpool was an ‘achievement’. 5 of the other 6 draws were boring as hell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top