Why cricket is less popular than football?

[grkrama]

And Inception is my all time favorite movie.

Not to pick a bone, but Inception was damn good, and all that but I dont think its even Nolan's best film.

^favorite is the keyword i guess
and how come shawshank,godfather,beautiful mind, missed it out on your list

 

[abhi_jacko]

Not to pick a bone,

Despite your attempts to not pick a bone, I think you still managed to pick a bone

 

[PokerAce]

Despite your attempts to not pick a bone, I think you still managed to pick a bone

Umm Picking a bone would be saying something like "your choice sux". Instead I have made a very objectice comment and said its my personal opinion. I did admit Inception in a good film. Also I put up my list for discussion - none of which can really be said to be picking a bone.

----------

^favorite is the keyword i guess

Excellent point actually, can't argue with that.

and how come shawshank,godfather,beautiful mind, missed it out on your list

Well yes, a good case could be made for Shawshank and Godfather, but you know its a close thing. Personally I have not been that great a fan of the Godfather, though when I first it, I thought it was the best thing ever. However since then when I look back I find it to be not quite in the same league as any of Kubrick's classics, let alone the rest of them. I do see how someone would rate Godfather much higher than I do. Again call it a matter of taste, but Godfather was too in your face if u know what I am saying.

I prefer Kubrick's style where nothing is in your face and everything is open to interpretation.

Shawshank I do admit I rate higher than Godfather, but its not by that much off from the list. In fact one another day I may have put Shawshank in there ahead of 12 Angry Men.

Beautiful Mind with all due resect doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as these films. Its a great film, but then there are good films, there are great films, then there are legendary films, then there are once in a lifetime films, and then there are films like 2001 -ASO

However I am not saying these are my Fav films, but rather the top 5 films I have seen, as in they are technically perfect or the top 5 near perfect films I have seen. If I made a list of my fav films I am sure TDK and TDK Rises would feature on it somewhere.

I really don't know how many of the 5 films I named above u have seen, but trust me there is a whole diff level of films out there than A Beautiful Mind. Yes there was a Time when I too thought that A Beautiful Mind was the pinnacle, of filmmaking, but well that has long passed.

If you haven't seen the films then I strongly urge you to watch them. If u have seen those films and still think they aren't the 5 best, then well I respect your opinion, but don't agree with it. Either way what I can say is that films are a great adventure and being into good films is a great hobby to have. So

 

[grkrama]

^Ya will sure checkout of your list, i have seen only 2001 and good bad ugly i guess.
Nothing can beat space oddesy, kubrick was like way way ahead of his time, i saw the film few years back and was totally blown by it,couldnt believe it was a movie made in 1960's, the way he had predicted tablets in the future n stuff, hal was fun and the ending was great, still it keeps changing your interpretation every time you see it, it holds good visually also even all these years later unlike other oldies.

 

[SWITCHHIT]

Who has seen "The Silence Of The Lambs".....

 

[PokerAce]

^Ya will sure checkout of your list, i have seen only 2001 and good bad ugly i guess.
Nothing can beat space oddesy, kubrick was like way way ahead of his time, i saw the film few years back and was totally blown by it,couldnt believe it was a movie made in 1960's, the way he had predicted tablets in the future n stuff, hal was fun and the ending was great, still it keeps changing your interpretation every time you see it, it holds good visually also even all these years later unlike other oldies.

Yeah 2001 - ASO is an unbelievable film. There are many films in the past the were based in the future, but Kubrick got his future right, and his future was out kind of future the future of today . Do check out Citzen Kane though like 2001 - ASO it is a timeless film, and is as watchable and valid today as it was when it was made.

 

[StinkyBoHoon]

not to be a pain but we have a lovely movie thread over in the entertainment forum or you could create a new one to discuss your favourite films. this has gone a bit off topic over the last posts.

 

[shubham466]

Not to pick a bone, but Inception was damn good, and all that but I dont think its even Nolan's best film

That was not the point actually, I was just giving my opinion. Everyone has their own opinion. I've been a huge fan of Christopher Nolan. Memento was a great movie but for me Inception was excellent.

Umm Picking a bone would be saying something like "your choice sux".

This time I'm picking a bone.

----------

Its enough for me now.. We're going off topic.

 

[grkrama]

Why cricket is less popular than football?
ICC

 

[shubham466]

Why cricket is less popular than football?
ICC

That is good for a fresh start

 

[grkrama]

^Now see the twist here

football is almost first to promote itself whatever the new/popular medium is whereas cricket is always happy playing the catchup game at a very slow rate, whether its game industry,movie, starting a premier league etc. Also football has the advantage of popularity gets more popularity advantage.

football glamorizes itself in a way that cricket never did until recently, football star were always used as idols and posterboys even by people least interested in football.

all this talk about movies got me thinking how many mainstream movies in Hollywood are there regarding cricket almost none (sure there are a handful in Bollywood like lagaan and a few docu ) this lack of movies on cricket unlike football which receives great marketing through media and movies worldwide and even reaches countries that are not into footy.

So my question is will movies on cricket promote it like movies had done for footie and boxing or the movies will fail because the people wont be interested in a cricket movie too(though this could be neutralized to an extent by casting stars and a ever popular underdog wins script) ?

 

[Umair7]

Who says Football is more popular than Cricket ? (See poll results...)

Actually it depends upon the position of that sport in their country. For instance Argentina, Brazil and so many teams play cricket .. but who cares? You know why they do not like cricket.

If we consider India, Pakistan for their football skills... then !!

That's why some people like football and some cricket.. but we can't measure their popularity on timing or format basis. Popularity totally depends upon the country ranking on that sport.

Poll=Voters=Majority of Asians=So yeah you cant expect a different opinion can you

 

[P Squared]

Yeah a great idea to host a poll over which sport is better on a cricket forum, no prizes for guessing who'll win....

Football is the better sport by an absolute country mile, and there are loads of reasons behind why it is the single most popular sport on the planet, the main one being that at 90 minutes it is a very short game, another one being that there is not a single moment when you can 'rest'(except half time of course) but in cricket you can have a rest after every ball, and football also requires a very high level of fitness, while in cricket you can be a fat arse and still be decent at it.

Plus the atmosphere at any football game absolutely beats the shit out of anything that cricket can come up with.

Cricket teams also dont have the sort of connection with their fans that football clubs have with their supporters, which is a pretty big reason behind that sort of atmosphere.

 

[PokerAce]

Yeah a great idea to host a poll over which sport is better on a cricket forum, no prizes for guessing who'll win....

Football is the better sport by an absolute country mile, and there are loads of reasons behind why it is the single most popular sport on the planet, the main one being that at 90 minutes it is a very short game, another one being that there is not a single moment when you can 'rest'(except half time of course) but in cricket you can have a rest after every ball, and football also requires a very high level of fitness, while in cricket you can be a fat arse and still be decent at it.

Plus the atmosphere at any football game absolutely beats the shit out of anything that cricket can come up with.

Cricket teams also dont have the sort of connection with their fans that football clubs have with their supporters, which is a pretty big reason behind that sort of atmosphere.

I totally understand a layman not well versed with the ins and outs of cricket being swayed by the fast paced action of football. However as someone who understand both Football and Cricket inside out, albeit admittedly, cricket slightly more than football, I safely say that overall cricket is the way more enjoyable than cricket.

The fast paced action of football and the thrill a second ride it promises are often unfulfilled in matches, and over the course of a season Football throws up its fair share of drab boring matches too. Sure when football throws up something like the most recent El Classico ppl go overboard and say football is the most exciting thing ever, but matches like these come along once in a decade, at most twice. Each season be it EPL, La Liga, even Champs League, football throws up a much larger chunk of drab nil-nil or scrappy one-nil matches which aren't exactly the best advertisment of football. Even the so called big teams play in these matches often enough, like for instance last week the game involving C Pal 1 - 0 Chelsea. Sure not every nil-nil is a boring affair, but similarly not every 2-0 or 3-0 is a thrill a minute ride that football fans make it out to be.

To the contrary if someone is aware of the game of cricket, then at the mental level cricket is so much more enjoyable. I do understand a layman looking at cricket and wondering wht the fk is going on here, but to the educated cricket viewer, cricket is much more fun. The thrill of a test match on the final day, final session with the team batting 8 wickets down, 20 runs to win, and 7 overs in the day to go ... ah unbeatable. Or watching a close finish in an ODI or T20, that is uncomparable especially when the stakes are high. While to the layman football would be more popular because its simple to pick up, and get the hang of the rules, but there are also some reasons that make cricket less popular even to the educated viewers.

One huge advantage that Football has over cricket is that it is better structured than Cricket, which seems to be a never ending affair with no start and finish. With Football every season there is a start and there is a finish, someone wins the league, someone wins the cups, there are winners and then there are struggles and at the end of each season you know who has won. This bottom line is what is badly required in cricket, which goes on forever and there are no real winners (except three tournaments).

Someone is Test No. 1 but that means nothing because soon someone else will be the Test No. 1. When in football you are no. 1 at the end of the season you are declared champions. However in cricket there is no concept of being crowned champions, atleast no 'real' concept of being crowned champions. Picture if the EPL was a never ending league and points were carried forward from year to year (like they are with cricket), and there was no concept of a season end date. The EPL trophy was given to whoever was at top of the table at the time, and then when someone overtook them, then the EPL trophy (much like the Test Championship Mace) was then given to the new team on top. It would totally lose its charm, as there would never ever be a 'Champion', because the season would never end. Even after 10 years, of EPL there would never be a single champion, just a bunch of teams who had been on top at some point and held the mace (EPL title) for that period only. It would be beyond stupid.

Sadly that is how cricket is structured. It is never ending, there is never a bottomline and no concept of a champion, just a matter of who is at top 'right now'. This is not a very satisfying way of running the sport, as any sport must have a winner, final. Picture if a 100 m race was instead a never ending race, with never any winner, and at best you could ever see was who is leading the race right now. Totally would take away the thrill of a race.

In football there is in every match the extra element of the larger picture involved and that is why even the boring nil-nil matches have a sense of intrigue about them. Even if you are watching a boring match between two teams fighting for relegation that larger picture adds that element of tension which the match itself may be missing. You look at the larger picture and think of Team A at home must win this they will be relegated surely, and Team B away no doubt are happy to settle for the draw, but if they could nick it they could be safe. I mean the match itself may be boring as hell, but the larger picture in the background adds a lot to even the most boring of matches. If its even a semi-baked affair where two relegation fighters have played out a match with 3 scrappy goals, where the ball bounced into the net off the testes of some striker who had no clue where the ball was (too much mention of balls here ... ahem !!), the larger picture makes the match much more interesting than it actually was. This connect with supporters comes from this. Cricket fans are much madder than football fans, especially in Asia, but they lack the context to fully channel their energy.

Sadly for cricket there is no larger picture to add any value to even the best of matches. Think of the Test Match in Kolkata in 2001 where VVS Laxman led india to a win after following on. A classic test match. However just picture its equivalent happening in football with the extra element of a backgroud picture. Final day of the season Team A who are second in the table at home are playing Team B, who lead the table by 1 point, and Team A must win at home to win the league. However after 60 mins, they trail by 4 goals only to then come back and win at the end ... Fking epic.

Now picture the same match without any real background context, say Team A and Team B have both already been relegated and play out the exact same match, and its not so much of a epic then is it. Or if Team A and Team B are point apart as in the example above but are instead no. 11 and 12 in the table and instead of fighting for no 1 spot, are fighting for no. 11. The same match then follows and again not so much of an epic. Sadly cricket matches with no background larger picture often feel like these inconsequential matches. Yay, India won an epic against Australia but ... er then what? Nothing next series roll on. Football has had many last minute goals but the context the larger picture is what makes them so legendary. Aguero may have scored many injury time goals but the won to win City the league, is most memorable because of the larger picture. That match will go down in city history. Without the larger background picture that same match, in say a 5 match bilateral series as part of QPR tour to Man City, becomes much less of a historic event.

However while the structuring of cricket is a huge issue, but as far as watching individual matches go cricket does take the cake for me. Its a much more engaging sport, where the flash in the pan rarely works. A blinder may decide a football match, but a cricket match needs more than just one extraordinary to decide it. The tension it does provide, in close matches is unparalleled in any sport. 20 runs to win 2 overs left no. 7 batting ... ooh !!

Also this tension is often without any larger picture, just imagine what cricket would be like with a larger picture or context throw in. Final match of the season SA hosting Australia and SA need to pick 2 wickets in the final 5 overs and Australia need 12 runs to win or draw to be the Test Champions for the year whatever. That would be an epic test match.

 

[P Squared]

Just so you know, I am in no way, shape or form a layman in cricket, I know all about its intricacies as I used to be a big cricket fan myself before I discovered just how awesome football is.

Sure, the last day of a test match can be exciting but the thing is it takes 4 days to get there, not a lot of people in today's world have 5 free days to burn. Even ODI's are ridiculously long and T20's are just plain cringeworthy what with all the cheerleaders and stuff.

But to each their own I guess, I come from a country where cricket rules the roost and football is badly neglected(the standard of football in the I-league is worse than even the Conference), which probably makes me hate cricket so much more.

Which begs the question wtf am I doing on this forum, got no idea myself lol.