Comments on: Why Test cricket is not about runs https://www.kingcricket.co.uk/why-test-cricket-is-not-about-runs/2016/02/01/ Independent and irreverent cricket writing Wed, 05 Jan 2022 12:15:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.1.3 By: King Cricket https://www.kingcricket.co.uk/why-test-cricket-is-not-about-runs/2016/02/01/#comment-242422 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 12:56:51 +0000 http://www.kingcricket.co.uk/?p=16168#comment-242422 In reply to Chuck.

Dunno. They definitely made some money off it. On several occasions we took people there specifically to see the innovative décor.

]]>
By: Ged https://www.kingcricket.co.uk/why-test-cricket-is-not-about-runs/2016/02/01/#comment-242420 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 12:17:08 +0000 http://www.kingcricket.co.uk/?p=16168#comment-242420 In reply to King Cricket.

Thanks.

Paranoia with regard to machines generally and you specifically now averted, at least for the time being.

]]>
By: BailOut https://www.kingcricket.co.uk/why-test-cricket-is-not-about-runs/2016/02/01/#comment-242419 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 12:09:35 +0000 http://www.kingcricket.co.uk/?p=16168#comment-242419 In reply to Chuck.

From what I recall it wasn’t a financial success unfortunately. But there’s something attractive about the concept.

]]>
By: Chuck https://www.kingcricket.co.uk/why-test-cricket-is-not-about-runs/2016/02/01/#comment-242418 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 11:49:13 +0000 http://www.kingcricket.co.uk/?p=16168#comment-242418 Maybe that neutral venue for the Australia/Pakistan test is a factor in raising competitiveness and interest. More neutral venues, please.

Having said that, the upside-down picture of a crow with human legs in your local pub does sound intriguing.

]]>
By: King Cricket https://www.kingcricket.co.uk/why-test-cricket-is-not-about-runs/2016/02/01/#comment-242417 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 11:35:11 +0000 http://www.kingcricket.co.uk/?p=16168#comment-242417 In reply to Ged.

More likely I just haven’t checked my email for a few days…

On it.

]]>
By: Ged https://www.kingcricket.co.uk/why-test-cricket-is-not-about-runs/2016/02/01/#comment-242416 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 09:12:08 +0000 http://www.kingcricket.co.uk/?p=16168#comment-242416 In reply to King Cricket.

I think your e-mail account might be consigning me to junk again, KC!

]]>
By: King Cricket https://www.kingcricket.co.uk/why-test-cricket-is-not-about-runs/2016/02/01/#comment-242415 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 08:38:14 +0000 http://www.kingcricket.co.uk/?p=16168#comment-242415 In reply to Deep Cower.

Essentially, it’s about ensuring there’s a contest and one that’s likely to be resolved within sufficient time so as to be meaningful to the outcome of the match.

]]>
By: Deep Cower https://www.kingcricket.co.uk/why-test-cricket-is-not-about-runs/2016/02/01/#comment-242414 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 06:52:55 +0000 http://www.kingcricket.co.uk/?p=16168#comment-242414 To me personally, it is not the number of runs or the wickets per se, or even the result, the decides my involvement in a game. It is tactics, one team trying to outsmart the other – that stuff creates drama. I would still watching Warne bowling to Dravid with India at 400/3. Because Warne would still try to get Rahul out, and Dravid would still try to beat Warne.

I realize this is just a different way of saying the same thing, because it is only a helpful pitch that makes such a battle possible. But the subtle difference is important, as claims like a good pitch should only allow 280-300 runs sort of miss the point, IMHO.

]]>
By: BailOut https://www.kingcricket.co.uk/why-test-cricket-is-not-about-runs/2016/02/01/#comment-242413 Tue, 02 Feb 2016 01:10:40 +0000 http://www.kingcricket.co.uk/?p=16168#comment-242413 In reply to Balladeer.

Also unrelated, but Namibia’s Zhivago Groenewald has just muscled his way into my all-time Top Ten Cricket Names list.

]]>
By: Balladeer https://www.kingcricket.co.uk/why-test-cricket-is-not-about-runs/2016/02/01/#comment-242412 Mon, 01 Feb 2016 18:50:20 +0000 http://www.kingcricket.co.uk/?p=16168#comment-242412 On a completely different topic, good news: Giles Clarke fails at something!

]]>