Reason why Rugby and Cricket are boring compared to football

Scroll to see replies

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.

I would say that you see underdogs winning in cricket far more frequently than in rugby or football. There are constatntly teams winning games who were expected to lose, not necessarily winning the series but picking up games. Because the game lasts much longer than football or rugby it leaves more room for swings in luck, good individual performances, team collapses, etc...

Reply 121

mackemforever

Original post by Raiden10

Obviously you have Lara's legendary 153* against Australia, dropped on 145 in the final innings run chase (Warne I think) needing 5 or 6 to win, then proceeded to spank the winning runs. Laxman's 281 against Australia in that legendary comeback (Dravid also played a blinder with 180).

Actually Tendulkar's 126 was a vital innings in that series. One of his best. He was too often too quiet when Glenn McGrath was around (IMO that's one of the factors that brings Brian Lara equal with Sachin Tendulkar, in test cricket), but what a vital innings.

Hussey's 134* against Pakistan also in 2010. Australia trailed by 206 after the first innings, and won in the final innings, just. Hussey was dropped 4 times by Akmal the wicketkeeper. The betting guy going to prison claims it was fixed and all the players were in on it, but several loud lbw appeals that would have killed the game off suggest at least one player wasn't.

And then in more recent memory the test at the start of this month between Australia and South Africa.

Australia making almost 300 in their first innings, then bowling South Africa out for just shy of 100. Game over, no way back from that.
Unless of course South Africa were to skittle Australia for 47 in under 20 overs and then knock off the required 240 runs for the loss of only 2 wickets.

Unfortunately I wasn't able to watch any of it on TV but I listened to the majority of it and it sounded like an abolute epic.

Reply 122

Raiden10

Original post by mackemforever

I feel kinda bad that I fluked into watching it. I checked out cricinfo and got a general sense of mania that South Africa were 70/6, or something like that. I thought, I'll check that out. I saw the next 14 wickets and it was just ridiculous. I got the sense (on sky sports) that they wanted to show the wickets that had fallen on the day, but couldn't because every time there was a lull there was suddenly another wicket!

Glad I did watch it though. Not many matches like that around in the history of test cricket. There was an element of luck in that it started to flatten out as SA came into bat for the second time, but they batted really well, Smith and Amla making hundreds. Smith actually looked pretty good in South Africa's first innings, I think he got 37 but unfortunately dragged on.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 123

pyramidmartialarts

mixed martial arts? oh yeah. definitely.

Original post by Cabine Sono Qui

How about mixed martial arts eh? This debate could go on forever.

Anyway, this thread was about boredom. Having played cricket for a number of years, watched numerous test matches on TV and attended international test matches, I can safely say that test match cricket is probably the most boring sport in existence.

Nowadays the only cricket I can tolerate is 20/20.