General Cricket Discussion

Till Valhalla said:
Third
Click to expand...
Please don't use such common terms. A third in Cricket can mean anything. Maybe a third-slip, third run, third wicket-partnership, third batter, third bowler more commonly known as first change bowler. That would basically lead to a lot of confusion!!!
confounded-face_1f616.png
 
Despite these changes, am pretty sure not many commentators are going to use the terms. It's just more convenient sticking to the terms that have been used for almost a century now.

Personally believe the ICC is trying to appease the feminist agenda by introducing these terms.
 
icyman said:
Despite these changes, am pretty sure not many commentators are going to use the terms. It's just more convenient sticking to the terms that have been used for almost a century now.

Personally believe the ICC is trying to appease the feminist agenda by introducing these terms.
Click to expand...
You're right. It's far easier to stick to a term that has excluded 50% of the world than changing it to be more inclusive.

No doubt feminists around the world will be celebrating this. First they get rid of the word batsman. What next? Equal pay, voting rights, autonomy over their own body? The slippery slope just had banana skins thrown all over it.
 
icyman said:
Despite these changes, am pretty sure not many commentators are going to use the terms. It's just more convenient sticking to the terms that have been used for almost a century now.

Personally believe the ICC is trying to appease the feminist agenda by introducing these terms.
Click to expand...
And that is bad because?

Plus it is MCC and they have only changed batsman to batter. Batter is already being used in womens cricket telecast and commentary. It will take over men's cricket soon now that it is official
 
icyman said:
Despite these changes, am pretty sure not many commentators are going to use the terms. It's just more convenient sticking to the terms that have been used for almost a century now.

Personally believe the ICC is trying to appease the feminist agenda by introducing these terms.
Click to expand...
Plenty of traditions that we ditched. Just because something is a tradition doesn’t mean it’s right.
 
Also, "third man" or "nightwatchman" aren’t present in the rules of the game. And they don’t refer to the person itself like "batter". Third man is a fielding position ("she’s standing quite square at third man"), nightwatchman is a batting role ("he's come in as the nightwatchman").
 
It doesn't matter to me one bit. Just that, changing the name of the term wouldn't have a great impact.
abhi_jacko said:
Batter is already being used in womens cricket telecast and commentary. It will take over men's cricket soon now that it is official
Click to expand...

Lol! Am waiting for the day when Ian Chappell writes an article to lambast this move. Don't imagine the likes of Gavaskar and others to follow suit here. Someone like a Bhogle, who likes to be an all-out pleaser would definitely use it.
 
icyman said:
It doesn't matter to me one bit. Just that, changing the name of the term wouldn't have a great impact.


Lol! Am waiting for the day when Ian Chappell writes an article to lambast this move. Don't imagine the likes of Gavaskar and others to follow suit here. Someone like a Bhogle, who likes to be an all-out pleaser would definitely use it.
Click to expand...
I bet that doesn't happen

They will be called out as senile, old men for opposing this logical move. Bhogle being the decent man he is would definitely follow suit and be an early adopter.
 
icyman said:
Despite these changes, am pretty sure not many commentators are going to use the terms. It's just more convenient sticking to the terms that have been used for almost a century now.

Personally believe the ICC is trying to appease the feminist agenda by introducing these terms.
Click to expand...

More like the "equality agenda", my friend! 'Convenience' and 'tradition' are the biggest roadblocks to progress. The insatiable lust for the testosterone has got to stop!

Our brains are malleable, and they will eventually re-adapt themselves to new terminology if its given enough exposure. Yes it is going to start off with resistance where folks dont want to wrap their heads around it. But persistence will eventually make them do it.

Some on social media have been arguing that "hu-man" includes women and thereby "bats-man" is inclusive of them too. But in cricket, its also connotated as "batsmen" where the "men" makes it completely male specific. I know "human" and "mankind" are gender neutral words, but this is more of a strong statement to ensure that the imp is given to all gender cricket. Keeping them separate and calling them "batswoman", "fields woman" doesn't work. Bring the lingo into men's cricket to normalize it, and things change.
 
 
Ashutosh. said:
Click to expand...
Gambhir pointed this out on twitter like a whiny baby.

It's crazy how far he has fallen off. I mean, he could have been one of our most celebrated openers but then he just lost the plot. All people are going to see is one whiny, cry baby seeking attention desperately versus one celebrated, legendary captain who never ever asked for attention. Guess who is going to win GG
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

aussie1st
  • Locked
New Cricket Chat Rules
Replies
0
Views
3K
aussie1st
aussie1st
N
  • Poll
Reliving Virat Kohli- The Captain
9 10 11
Replies
150
Views
20K
NILAYSHAH60
N
icyman
  • Poll
Future Indian Captains
2 3
Replies
40
Views
5K
asprin
asprin
Satan666
Underrated/Overrated Players
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
icyman
icyman
ddrap14
Draft: The Fender Feud Draft
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
ddrap14
ddrap14

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Top