Cricket

I went to my first ever cricket matches, taking in 2 double-headers as part of the Twenty20 World Cup. This version apparently offends purists, since each match takes only a few hours, includes excitement, and ends with one team winning. It also has music and dancing cheerleader types during pauses, which sounds American except it's done in a charmingly amateurish way. Anyway, I really enjoyed it.

Lord's vs. the Oval: The pitch/field/whatever you call it at the Oval was beautiful. Our seats were better at the Oval, and I got the impression that the average viewing is better there. Lord's, though, has more charm. They don't compares favorably with decent US baseball stadiums. The charming bits are not as charming as those on the old ballparks, nor are the "modern" bits anywhere close to the comfort and slickness of the modern ballparks. Next time a cricket ground needs building or modernizing, they'd do well to take a trip to half a dozen good baseball stadiums for an idea of what to aim for.

That said, the appeal of the game is very similar: a grassy oasis in an urban setting, a game without a clock, during the day, that allows a break from the city pace. The sounds of the ball-on-bat and the look and smell of the cut grass are, as with baseball, part of the allure.

Skills: Batting and bowling, although different than baseball, are equally demanding of skill. The fielding was shockingly poor. I assume fielding must not be that important in the multi-day test matches. Even many of the acrobatic catches fans would ooh and aah over were acrobatic only because the fielder misjudged the ball and had to make a wild leap at the end to compensate. The number of bobbles and miscatches or outright misses was astonishing. If Twenty20 continues to increase in popularity, this will naturally improve as younger players come up with fielding skills actually mattering. Baserunning was the other odd skill -- there was often a lack of hustle. Too much lollygagging, waiting to see what happens and if you should continue running. But it makes more sense to hustle to the wicket so you're in shape to continue on if need be. It's hard to explain without some visual examples, but each team left several potential runs on the field simply due to lackadaisical running.

Game Shortening: This was the most worst, and most surprising, aspect. I was not clear on the rules, but England got screwed by a rain delay in a loss to the West Indies. England batted (pretty well), and then there was a rain delay before West Indies came up to bat. This lasted long enough to shorten the game, which meant that not all of England's overs would count. So West Indies to win had to score fewer runs in fewer overs but with no reduction in wickets. This makes no sense. It's a different game and you can take risks you otherwise wouldn't. In essence, you get license to swing away. A 9 overs match is different than a 20 overs match. England did not know they were playing a 9-overs match until after they'd already batted 20 overs, which makes it patently unfair. In baseball terms, imagine if baseball were played, instead of alternating, by having one team bat until they reached 27 outs, or the other team had thrown 150 pitches, whichever came first, then the other team got to bat using the same rules. The rain delay rule would be like the second team coming up to bat but, to win, only having to exceed the first team's total after 50 pitches, but still getting 27 outs. Not being nearly as limited for outs, they'd go nuts swinging for the fences. If your team can hit big (and West Indies can), it's a huge advantage. I'm still bitter.