Reason why Rugby and Cricket are boring compared to football

By competitive I mean that each team even though they may be underdogs in a match have the chance to win the match.
You rarely see underdogs winning in cricket.

You see underdogs winning in cricket all the time.

What you mean is, unlike in football, you don't often see the team that has played the worse fluking a win. 90 minutes of negative play and one outrageous deflection or dodgy decision can win you a football match. That's not going to get you far in rugby or cricket.

By competitive I mean that each team even though they may be underdogs in a match have the chance to win the match.
You rarely see underdogs winning in cricket.

Underdogs do win in cricket, but its not as common as its in football.
And there is no harm in 90 minutes of negative play. Teams that do not deserve to win, may win but the fact remains that they may have been playing good for the duration of the whole match even if they defended in numbers.
Dodgy decision are less common in cricket because the game is stretched longer.

Sorry but IPL cricket beats the **** out of football in terms of excitement.

LOL what excitement is there in cricket when there's at-least 20 minutes between each bowl?

Sorry but IPL cricket beats the **** out of football in terms of excitement.

Since you don't know about cricket, you won't know about the matches that Afghanistan have won. They are turning into a very good cricketing side in spite of the fact that their "star players" stand every chance of being killed in action, they have virtually no training facilities and they don't have pitches so much as flat bits of dirt. If they're not underdogs, no one is.


If a team has been "playing good for the duration" then surely they would deserve to win? If they don't deserve to win, it's because they haven't been "playing good" (or at least not as well as the opposition). Since all sport should be entertaining, football fails because 90 minutes of negative play is like a bus company refusing to run any buses so that they won't lose any in an accident. It's stupid and pointless. Footballers are there to play their game, not to stop everybody from playing.

And surely, if a game lasts longer, there are more opportunities, not less, for dodgy decisions, especially if that game is cricket where there are so many more factors and rules to take into account than in football.

Afghanistan happens to have a strong bowling lineup. Yes they are at a disadvantage at home but that does not make them underdogs.

Their team is still competitive.
What I am conveying about cricket is that you will rarely see a #10 Ranked team beat #1 Ranked team. This is not the case in other games because of the difference in gameplay.

90 minutes of negative play may not be entertaining, but its a tactic that can work out. End of the day the team with the 3 points goes home happy

and there is no harm in employing tactics like that.
And not all games are 90 minutes of playing 10 man behind the ball. There are are hotly contested games in football, and in cricket. The only thing is that its rare to see that in cricket if the teams are not close in strength.

Lastly decisions do affect the result of a football game. But there is no " referring the decision to the 3rd Umpire."

Its all about playing a game in the time limit which incase of cricket, the time period is so long, decisions can be referred.

Test cricket is the epitome of entertainment.

not sure if serious...

its without doubt the epitome of the world's sporting competitions. there is no more rigorous test of skill and mental strength.

its without doubt the epitome of the world's sporting competitions. there is no more rigorous test of skill and mental strength.

its without doubt the epitome of the world's sporting competitions. there is no more rigorous test of skill and mental strength.