Stanford 20/20 Cricket Tournament

[Royal Oak]

This is causing quite a stir in the cricket world. Texan tycoon Stanford has arranged a $20 million cricket match between England and the "Stanford Superstars" on Saturday.

My question is to the Americans on the board - is anybody watching this? I read a quote from Stanford today that 700 million people will be watching the game on Saturday.

I haven't watched any of the build-up games as I don't have Sky Sports, but it seems that the most exciting thing to have happened so far is the diplomatic row caused by pictures of Stanford flirting with some of the England players' WAGs during England's last game. This included Matt Prior's (England wicketkeeper) wife sitting on Stanford's knee while mugging for the cameras, watched on a big screen by Prior himself while the game was going on.

Edited October 28, 2008 by rdavenport

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Do any Brits care? I didn't even KNOW about this.

MG

[Hot Ptah]

I think that it is fair to say that most Americans are unaware of this, and would not care very much about it if they were aware. The 16 page sports section in our daily newspaper has not mentioned it.

It would be interesting to get a statistic on the percentage of Americans who understand cricket well enough to follow a match. I would guess that the percentage is under 5 per cent, perhaps under 1 per cent.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

perhaps under 1 per cent.

Optimist! No perhaps about it

MG

[Royal Oak]

I suspected as much. Stanford plans to use this game as a way into the American market. At $20 million (plus prize money for the build-up games) it's a bold move.

I really can't see it happening - I seem to remember similar attempts to introduce American sports to the UK. American Football had a go in the 1980s, then Ice Hockey in the 1990s (I went to a "Manchester Storm" match once) along with basketball, but none of them seem to have caught on.

[Dan Gould]

I think that it is fair to say that most Americans are unaware of this, and would not care very much about it if they were aware. The 16 page sports section in our daily newspaper has not mentioned it.

It would be interesting to get a statistic on the percentage of Americans who understand cricket well enough to follow a match. I would guess that the percentage is under 5 per cent, perhaps under 1 per cent.

I would bet a fraction of 1%.

An alternative question would be, with the obvious similarities, do many people from cricket-playing countries become baseball fans when exposed to the game?

[Royal Oak]

I think that it is fair to say that most Americans are unaware of this, and would not care very much about it if they were aware. The 16 page sports section in our daily newspaper has not mentioned it.

It would be interesting to get a statistic on the percentage of Americans who understand cricket well enough to follow a match. I would guess that the percentage is under 5 per cent, perhaps under 1 per cent.

I would bet a fraction of 1%.

An alternative question would be, with the obvious similarities, do many people from cricket-playing countries become baseball fans when exposed to the game?

I would love someone to sit me down and explain how baseball works. I read a thread on AAJ about the game, and it did make me want to get into it. I liked the idea of the sunny day, the hot dogs and the beer and all that.

One night when I couldn't sleep I caught some coverage of a US baseball game on TV. It probably didn't help that I had to have the volume off so as not to wake everyone up, but I found it incomprehensible. Much of the action I saw centred on a middle-aged man (I presume the coach) chewing gum, spitting, and making a series (and I mean a series) of non-verbal cues - touching his cap, his ears, nose etc.

Edited October 28, 2008 by rdavenport

[Dan Gould]

I think that it is fair to say that most Americans are unaware of this, and would not care very much about it if they were aware. The 16 page sports section in our daily newspaper has not mentioned it.

It would be interesting to get a statistic on the percentage of Americans who understand cricket well enough to follow a match. I would guess that the percentage is under 5 per cent, perhaps under 1 per cent.

I would bet a fraction of 1%.

An alternative question would be, with the obvious similarities, do many people from cricket-playing countries become baseball fans when exposed to the game?

I would love someone to sit me down and explain how baseball works. I read a thread on AAJ about the game, and it did make me want to get into it. I liked the idea of the sunny day, the hot dogs and the beer and all that.

One night when I couldn't sleep I caught some coverage of a US baseball game on TV. It probably didn't help that I had to have the volume off so as not to wake everyone up, but I found it incomprehensible. Much of the action I saw centred on a middle-aged man (I presume the coach) chewing gum, spitting, and making a series (and I mean a series) of non-verbal cues - touching his cap, his ears, nose etc.

I understand that strategy is important in cricket, but do the coaches need to keep their strategy secret? In short, what made the impression on you was the manager using "signs" to signal to his coach (if his team is up at bat) or to his catcher (if his team is in the field) what he wants them to do (have the base runner "steal" the next base, throw a "pitchout" so that if the runner is stealing, you have a better chance to throw him out). Those are the main strategic decisions but the manager may also signal when he wants his pitcher to attempt to "pick off" the runner by throwing to that base (even if unsuccessful, this can effect the running game if the base runner is less certain when to run, or takes a shorter "lead" off of the base. The manager also signals if he wants the hitter to "take" the next pitch (don't swing) or if he gives him the "green light" on a count that is favorable (say, 3 balls, 0 strikes - now the pitcher has to throw a good pitch because another pitch out of the strike zone will be a "walk" or "base on balls", so if it is a good hitter, he may take advantage of a good pitch to hit).

I was curious enough to go to Wikipedia for a description of cricket, their explanation of baseball isn't too bad.

Edited October 28, 2008 by Dan Gould

[sidewinder]

20/20 cricket has really taken off here in the UK. The great thing is that you can start a game around 4pm and complete it in an evening, with floodlights for the last hour or two. People like seeing big hits and lots of runs in a short time, so it is popular and has been generating the ££.

The danger is that the standard of First Class and International Test Cricket, a much more 'refined' game, might suffer as a result.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I was curious enough to go to Wikipedia for a description of cricket, their explanation of baseball isn't too bad.

Somebody has been buggering about with Wiki's description of cricket. See second para of the game and its objectives. Yoicks!

Thanks Dan

[Royal Oak]

I was curious enough to go to Wikipedia for a description of cricket, their explanation of baseball isn't too bad.

Somebody has been buggering about with Wiki's description of cricket. See second para of the game and its objectives. Yoicks!

Thanks Dan

Bloody hell - they don't use those rules in Cheshire league! Tempted to say something about Jerry Lewis's latest gaffe here...

Edited October 28, 2008 by rdavenport

[Royal Oak]

Seriously though, the Wiki guide to baseball did make things clearer for me, thanks Dan. I was surprised that a game of 18 innings is completed in less than 3 hours. (Adopts Yorkshire accent) - 3 hours? Pah - you want to play for 5 days and still not get a result!

[Dan Gould]

Seriously though, the Wiki guide to baseball did make things clearer for me, thanks Dan. I was surprised that a game of 18 innings is completed in less than 3 hours. (Adopts Yorkshire accent) - 3 hours? Pah - you want to play for 5 days and still not get a result!

Actually that's one important difference - an inning is complete when both teams get up to bat, so a baseball game is 9 innings. Certainly though the unique thing about both games is the lack of a "clock". Non-fans hate it and think its boring, but I say a game when you can't run out the clock as in football (either kind) or hockey makes a huge difference in the competition.

By the way, really fast, well-pitched games can take about two hours. Games with a lot of offense and pitching changes can go four or more. Add in commercials in a world series or playoff broadcast, and they can go even longer.

[Aggie87]

Games with a lot of offense and pitching changes can go four or more. Add in commercials OR STORMS in a world series or playoff broadcast, and they can go even longer.

Fixed it for ya.

[Jazzmoose]

Games with a lot of offense and pitching changes can go four or more. Add in commercials OR STORMS in a world series or playoff broadcast, and they can go even longer.

Fixed it for ya.

On the other hand, earthquakes usually shorten the game considerably, although they can keep an obviously inferior team's hopes alive longer in a series...

[Royal Oak]

Well, England were soundly beaten by the Stanford Superstars last night. A very one-sided game with England playing very poorly. England captain Kevin Pietersen said after the game that his team had failed to concentrate on the game, allowing themselves to be distracted by "a lot of nonsense" over the past week - a reference to the Stanford/WAGs incident and the subsequent media brouhaha, and the fact that Stanford had walked uninvited into the England dressing room (I understand this is fairly common practice in US sports)

So, did anyone watch it?

Edited November 2, 2008 by rdavenport

[Dan Gould]

... and the fact that Stanford had walked uninvited into the England dressing room (I understand this is fairly common practice in US sports)

To my knowledge, I wouldn't call it common. In baseball, sometimes a former member of a team makes an appearance in their clubhouse, but not uninvited. Often he'll wait outside the door and get an attendant to relay a message that he wanted to say hi to the team or particular players. So usually an opposing player is greeted in the hallway or brought into the clubhouse. But its generally considered that the clubhouse is off-limits.

Players will mingle during batting practice, which is something that old timers hate, because back in their day, there was no fraternization between teams. With the advent of a strong union and free agency, players are more collegial than they were when a team had perpetual rights to the services of every player on the roster.