Search This Blog

Sunday, November 02, 2008

Why you can't make sport *more* exciting

When I turned in last Saturday night Juande Ramos was the manager of Spurs and they had two points. I woke up Sunday morning to a text from my son saying we had a new manager. Since then they have played three games. They've won two of them and, in incredible circumstances, drawn the other. Of course all these were down to the most extraordinary combination of luck and renewed belief but they do underline, if it were needed, why football has such as grip on the national psyche, eloquently expressed this week by Danny Kelly's microphone-shattering screech of "I *love* football, Stan!" on Talk Sport.



Contrast this with the hollow farce of the England cricket team's participation in the million dollars-to-the-winners Stanford match in Antigua. The local team won and got the cash. Good luck to them. But if Stanford or anyone think they will seed interest in the game this way, they're mistaken. Stanford is the man who thinks Test cricket is boring. This alone should disqualify him from having any part in the game's future. It'll be a long time before anyone shouts "I *love* Twenty20, Aggers!"

11 comments:

  1. Having been to a live match yesterday I think the basic problem with most other sport is that football is just better. It's more exciting.You have the fast paced and non stop play. But also when the tykes were stuffing Charlton and the game had a lull our fans entertained us with a myriad of songs mainly about our hatred of W*dn*sday or the respective merits of our players. And then while we were gloating they broke free and scored and the excitement for both sides went back up. All this and it was filthy cold and raining. I've yet to go to cricket match that was so consistently enthralling, imagine what it was like when we beat Chelsea!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, they've all got their strengths.
    Football is the simplest and most heart-stopping.
    International rugby union is like war.
    Test cricket is like Shakespearean tragedy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The problem I have with rugby is that due to the scoring (far more than in football) games can be tied up well before the end, it's rare for the all blacks to loose if they 21 points up and yet liverpool can come back from 3 down to win the European cup.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Except three converted tries equal 21 points so it amounts to the same. Then again the All Blacks rarely let themselves get that far behind. But in 1999 the French came back from 24-10 down against them to win 31-43. Rugby's all about momentum. People rarely score against the run of play.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Test cricket is like Shakespearean tragedy." (Mr Hepworth)

    ... then 20:20 must be Aladdin at the Town Hall in Scunthorpe...

    ReplyDelete
  6. slight retraction F1 has it's moments!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm now going to be forever wondering what way2lovely4u2 had to say about the argument that football is the best sport.

    He/she is definitely too lovely for any Irish rock group though. Glad that's clear.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was flicking through the telly channels here in the USA yesterday afternoon and was astonished to find that Stanford game on ESPN. It's the first time I've ever seen cricket on American telly in all the years I've lived here. Though my thoughts of having a cozy afternoon with the sound of leather on willow lasted about as long as the England batsmen, what's all this nonsense with the ugly uniforms and a white ball? And every time someone hit a boundary this big swooshing "4" flew across the screen like it was a game show.

    Did like the shots of the ladies cooking food in the stands though.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm impressed you even saw a four if you were watching the England innings.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It was some nonsense pyramid selling spam WWM - and not even about the Premiership either.

    ReplyDelete