<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Warne versus Chanderpaul</title>
	<atom:link href="http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/22/warne-versus-chanderpaul/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/22/warne-versus-chanderpaul/</link>
	<description>a blog about information</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 01:37:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: JP</title>
		<link>http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/22/warne-versus-chanderpaul/comment-page-1/#comment-129379</link>
		<dc:creator>JP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 21:32:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/22/warne-versus-chanderpaul/#comment-129379</guid>
		<description>In principle I agree, but I fear that even Test cricket isn&#039;t what it used to be. I see far too much negative bowling, and for that matter far too much negative batting. 

Balls constantly outside the offstump, treading a thin line between wide and legal, boring the batsman into playing an injudicious stroke. Not the cricket I used to watch.

Pads constantly out of the crease just crushing the spin before there is spin to crush, lulling the bowler into losing his rhythm. Not the cricket I used to watch.

I can live with the changes in technology. I can live with (but detest) the noisy sledging. I deplore the paucity of batsmen walking (though I am heartened occasionally). I deplore the appeals for nothing, and the number of occasions they get a result.

I want to see cricket where batsmen try to score and bowlers try to get batsmen out, real wars of attrition are fine but not the negative nonsense we see regularly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In principle I agree, but I fear that even Test cricket isn&#8217;t what it used to be. I see far too much negative bowling, and for that matter far too much negative batting. </p>
<p>Balls constantly outside the offstump, treading a thin line between wide and legal, boring the batsman into playing an injudicious stroke. Not the cricket I used to watch.</p>
<p>Pads constantly out of the crease just crushing the spin before there is spin to crush, lulling the bowler into losing his rhythm. Not the cricket I used to watch.</p>
<p>I can live with the changes in technology. I can live with (but detest) the noisy sledging. I deplore the paucity of batsmen walking (though I am heartened occasionally). I deplore the appeals for nothing, and the number of occasions they get a result.</p>
<p>I want to see cricket where batsmen try to score and bowlers try to get batsmen out, real wars of attrition are fine but not the negative nonsense we see regularly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dominic Sayers</title>
		<link>http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/22/warne-versus-chanderpaul/comment-page-1/#comment-129084</link>
		<dc:creator>Dominic Sayers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2007 08:48:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/22/warne-versus-chanderpaul/#comment-129084</guid>
		<description>David, while disagreeing with your points 5 and 7 I agree with your overall response to 50 over cricket. I think cricket&#039;s administrators are coming to the same conclusion too, which is why they have invented the execrable Powerplay idea to try to overcome the shortcomings of the format. Powerplay has failed, and 20 over cricket will inevitably come to dominate the short form because it has all the good things of 50 over cricket and none of the bad.

Of course 20-20 cricket is an order of magnitude more vulgar than 50 over matches. This, I think, is one of its strengths. It is not pretending to be Test cricket lite. There is no compromise between entertainment and the subtle arts of the game - it is purely about entertainment.

It will develop its own language, and like any new language it will absorb words from other arenas that help to convey its particular requirements of meaning. If this is baseball then so be it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>David, while disagreeing with your points 5 and 7 I agree with your overall response to 50 over cricket. I think cricket&#8217;s administrators are coming to the same conclusion too, which is why they have invented the execrable Powerplay idea to try to overcome the shortcomings of the format. Powerplay has failed, and 20 over cricket will inevitably come to dominate the short form because it has all the good things of 50 over cricket and none of the bad.</p>
<p>Of course 20-20 cricket is an order of magnitude more vulgar than 50 over matches. This, I think, is one of its strengths. It is not pretending to be Test cricket lite. There is no compromise between entertainment and the subtle arts of the game &#8211; it is purely about entertainment.</p>
<p>It will develop its own language, and like any new language it will absorb words from other arenas that help to convey its particular requirements of meaning. If this is baseball then so be it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Butler</title>
		<link>http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/22/warne-versus-chanderpaul/comment-page-1/#comment-125337</link>
		<dc:creator>David Butler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 10:59:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/22/warne-versus-chanderpaul/#comment-125337</guid>
		<description>Iâ€™ve come to the conclusion that I detest one-day cricket. I shanâ€™t watch it any more, either at the ground or on TV. Here are my reasons.

1.	Itâ€™s not possible for a batsman to play a long patient innings against the odds, as Atherton and Thorpe (for example) have done for England in Tests.
2.	Itâ€™s not possible for a bowler to have a long, well-sustained spell. At Manchester in 1956 Lock and Laker bowled over 50 overs apiece.
3.	It encourages defensive bowling at the expense of wicket taking.
4.	Itâ€™s not possible for a side to gain an honourable draw.
5.	The staging of the events is vulgar in the extreme, with ghastly music and dancing.
6.	The crowd behaviour is distasteful, especially in some overseas countries. One-day matches are for people who know nothing about cricket.
7.	The language of the one-day game is infiltrated with Americanisms like â€˜pinch hitterâ€™ and â€˜power playâ€™. If  people want to play baseball, let them.
8.	It encourages bad behaviour among the players more than Test cricket. Even newcomers like Tait are already mouthing obscenities at the opponents.
9.	In many one-day matches, the result is inevitable long before the end.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Iâ€™ve come to the conclusion that I detest one-day cricket. I shanâ€™t watch it any more, either at the ground or on TV. Here are my reasons.</p>
<p>1.	Itâ€™s not possible for a batsman to play a long patient innings against the odds, as Atherton and Thorpe (for example) have done for England in Tests.<br />
2.	Itâ€™s not possible for a bowler to have a long, well-sustained spell. At Manchester in 1956 Lock and Laker bowled over 50 overs apiece.<br />
3.	It encourages defensive bowling at the expense of wicket taking.<br />
4.	Itâ€™s not possible for a side to gain an honourable draw.<br />
5.	The staging of the events is vulgar in the extreme, with ghastly music and dancing.<br />
6.	The crowd behaviour is distasteful, especially in some overseas countries. One-day matches are for people who know nothing about cricket.<br />
7.	The language of the one-day game is infiltrated with Americanisms like â€˜pinch hitterâ€™ and â€˜power playâ€™. If  people want to play baseball, let them.<br />
8.	It encourages bad behaviour among the players more than Test cricket. Even newcomers like Tait are already mouthing obscenities at the opponents.<br />
9.	In many one-day matches, the result is inevitable long before the end.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Butler</title>
		<link>http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/22/warne-versus-chanderpaul/comment-page-1/#comment-124256</link>
		<dc:creator>David Butler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:14:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/22/warne-versus-chanderpaul/#comment-124256</guid>
		<description>The death of Arthur Milton reminds me of another of those strange coincidences which seem to be plentiful in cricket. Milton was the last man to play cricket and soccer for England. He made his debut as an opening bat at Leeds against NZ in 1958. The opening bat at the other end was M.J.K.Smith, the last man to play cricket and rugby for England.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The death of Arthur Milton reminds me of another of those strange coincidences which seem to be plentiful in cricket. Milton was the last man to play cricket and soccer for England. He made his debut as an opening bat at Leeds against NZ in 1958. The opening bat at the other end was M.J.K.Smith, the last man to play cricket and rugby for England.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ric</title>
		<link>http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/22/warne-versus-chanderpaul/comment-page-1/#comment-123407</link>
		<dc:creator>Ric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Apr 2007 01:34:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/22/warne-versus-chanderpaul/#comment-123407</guid>
		<description>They have no idea, do they?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They have no idea, do they?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dennis Howlett</title>
		<link>http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/22/warne-versus-chanderpaul/comment-page-1/#comment-123372</link>
		<dc:creator>Dennis Howlett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:18:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://confusedofcalcutta.com/2007/04/22/warne-versus-chanderpaul/#comment-123372</guid>
		<description>And our American cousins find cricket dull? </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And our American cousins find cricket dull?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

