[Aron Peterson]

I think the US could do very well with the level of athletic achievement they like to reach.

[design219]

Because nobody here knows how to play it.

[Aron Peterson]

It's easier than baseball, except you have to protect the wicket too.

[olePigeon]

They do. It's just that Americans watch NASCAR... for whatever reason.

[Dakar²]

We like our coaches not to die?

[ink]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

It's just that Americans watch NASCAR... for whatever reason.

Kinda like Europeans watch Le Mans?

Not that I enjoy either, FWIW. I do love baseball though.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

They do. It's just that Americans watch NASCAR... for whatever reason.

I see, but they're still not playing the major teams. And I never understood the appeal of NASCAR.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by ink 

Kinda like Europeans watch Le Mans?

C'mon. Le Mans isn't like driving around in a circle.

[Demonhood]

everyone knows that cricket bats are only useful for killing zombies.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Demonhood 

everyone knows that cricket bats are only useful for killing zombies.

Yeah, boyeeeee!

[andi*pandi]

as opposed to football bats.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

I never understood the appeal of NASCAR.

says the guy with the race car in his sig

[Dakar²]

Different style of racing.

[design219]

It should be obvious, captain.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

says the guy with the race car in his sig

That's F1. NASCAR is nothing in comparison.

[Atheist]

Why? Because any single country can only handle one excruciatingly boring sport... we already have baseball.

[Dakar²]

zing.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Why? Because any single country can only handle one excruciatingly boring sport... we already have baseball.

Some people would argue that Cricket is Baseball on Valium.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

Why? Because any single country can only handle one excruciatingly boring sport... we already have baseball.

Boring? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4CuzgGdLmw

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

Boring? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4CuzgGdLmw

It took every ounce of will not to poke my eyes out... please tell me you were joking.

[Jawbone54]

I've honestly never watched a cricket match, and it gets ZERO exposure here. I've watched Aussie rules football here in the States, but I've never seen a cricket match. What makes it so great anyways?

On a sports note, I went to a series-clinching CHL playoff hockey game last night (Bossier-Shreveport Mudbugs). It was a rabid crowd cheering on guys who all have regular jobs during the off-season, and it was one of the best sporting events that I've ever been to.

Every time we score, our fans throw hundreds of 10-inch long rubber crawfish onto the ice, which they somehow clean up in less than a minute. Goofy Southerners...

[real]

I think we have enough trouble with the MLB. Imagine Cricket too. Plus do't those cricket matches last days sometimes

[ink]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

C'mon. Le Mans isn't like driving around in a circle.

Yes, it's much better than a circle.

Plus the race lasts 24 hours so that it doesn't get old.

Although I'd rather watch Le Mans than an entire season of 24 back-to-back.

[philm]

Originally Posted by real 

I think we have enough trouble with the MLB. Imagine Cricket too. Plus do't those cricket matches last days sometimes

Yes, the most important matches ('test' matches) last up to five days. And quite often end in a draw ('tie' if you prefer, although this term has a specific meaning in cricket). Best of all there is a 40 minute break for lunch and a 20 minute break for tea each day. Doesn't sound like it would appeal to the American psyche.

Then again, I have been to baseball and no-one seems to watch the game - the crowd just chats amongst itself.

[Atheist]

Originally Posted by real 

I think we have enough trouble with the MLB. Imagine Cricket too. Plus do't those cricket matches last days sometimes

Test matches last 5 days. They also have one-day matches. It doesn't lend itself to TV viewing so there's no way it would work in the States.

[brassplayersrock²]

it's bleedin' boring!

alex

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock 

it's bleedin' boring!

alex

Bloody right mate.

Now curling is rightiously freaking exciting!!!

Now don't get me started on soccer. Two or three hours of running your ass off and the score ends up 1 zip.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ink 

Yes, it's much better than a circle.

Plus the race lasts 24 hours so that it doesn't get old.

I hope that was sarcasm

[Cipher13]

I don't see why anyone plays cricket.

It's mind-numbingly boring.

[Naplander]

Cricket can be very boring - test cricket especially.

Limited overs one day cricket on the other hand can be very, vey exciting!

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Bloody right mate.

Now curling is rightiously freaking exciting!!!

Now don't get me started on soccer. Two or three hours of running your ass off and the score ends up 1 zip.

I'd watch the US Women's Curling Team all the time if I could.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

Bloody right mate.

Now don't get me started on soccer. Two or three hours of running your ass off and the score ends up 1 zip.

It's 90 minutes of the most fastest paced sport in the world. The US used to be very good at it until the 50s, before the era of marijuana and steroids that gave us munchie eating audiences and athletes whose knees wear out at 30 years old.

[Dakar²]

I'd say basketball is faster paced, but the beauty of soccer is you know something's going to happen when the tension starts building in the announcers voice.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I'd say basketball is faster paced, but the beauty of soccer is you know something's going to happen when the tension starts building in the announcers voice.

The ball moves around faster in basketball but not the players. By speed I meant running, shooting and covering distances quickly. Yes, commentary really makes the game too thrilling because those commentators literally stand up and piss themselves.

[Dakar²]

Pace is dictated by ball movement, not player movement.

[Mithras]

I think the real question here is why anybody anywhere plays cricket, ever.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Pace is dictated by ball movement, not player movement.

That's generalising too far and missing the obvious. Anyone who plays both games will know basketballers can turn and stop easier than a footballer because the latter's pace and speed is much faster. You only have to look at the number of footballers with larger thigh muscles and how many fall over because they can't slow down quick enough. Pace isn't just ball movement.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

That's generalising too far and missing the obvious.

What's the obvious?

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

What's the obvious?

Doh!

[Dakar²]

You planning on keeping me in perpetual suspense?

Edit: Oh hi, you edited you post after I quoted it.

[design219]

for security reasons?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

Anyone who plays both games will know basketballers can turn and stop easier than a footballer because the latter's pace and speed is much faster. You only have to look at the number of footballers with larger thigh muscles and how many fall over because they can't slow down quick enough. Pace isn't just ball movement.

Ball movement ≠ footballer who can't turn fast enough or basketball players that can

Two examples:
Nobody is allowed to move but the ball can still be passed around.
Everyone can move but the ball doesn't go anywhere.

ball moving around = pace
players moving around ≠ pace

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

ball moving around = pace
players moving around ≠ pace

You're only acknowledging pace of the ball, and not pace of the players with and without the ball. To teach you a lesson, I'm going to make you fingerless gloves with all the spare leather I have around me...so you can't type

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

You're only acknowledging pace of the ball, and not pace of the players with and without the ball.

I'm saying that how much the players move is a minor factor compared to the ball. It's all about the ball.
You want me to argue guys running off screens and jumping for alley-oops are an integral part of measuring the pace for basketball?

I doubt soccer would be remotely considered 'faster paced' than basketball if b-ball were played on a court the size of the soccer field, either.

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

To teach you a lesson, I'm going to make you fingerless gloves with all the spare leather I have around me...so you can't type

...if someone understood this, please explain it to me.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

That's generalising too far and missing the obvious. Anyone who plays both games will know basketballers can turn and stop easier than a footballer because the latter's pace and speed is much faster. You only have to look at the number of footballers with larger thigh muscles and how many fall over because they can't slow down quick enough. Pace isn't just ball movement.

Hm...it has nothing to do with the surface they're playing on either.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

Hm...it has nothing to do with the surface they're playing on either.

No. The same thing happens no matter what surface you place on. The speed and pace a footballer reaches at full throttle makes it very difficult to stop. Please experience it before coming up with pseudo-scientific theories. Surely you've played both sports at some time in your life?

Soon this topic will change to golf so be quick.

[Dakar²]

Nice sig.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Aron Peterson 

No. The same thing happens no matter what surface you place on. The speed and pace a footballer reaches at full throttle makes it very difficult to stop. Please experience it before coming up with pseudo-scientific theories. Surely you've played both sports at some time in your life?

Soon this topic will change to golf so be quick.

I have. I also know I've sprinted fast enough down a basketball court fast enough that I couldn't stop and ran into the padded walls at the end. I think it's ridiculous to try and claim you need a soccer field's length to reach top speed.

[Aron Peterson]

Originally Posted by Gossamer 

I have. I also know I've sprinted fast enough down a basketball court fast enough that I couldn't stop and ran into the padded walls at the end. I think it's ridiculous to try and claim you need a soccer field's length to reach top speed.

The greater distance footballers have does allow them to reach a higher top speed. And to prove a point that the ball's pace alone doesn't dictate pace, it is usually the player without the ball, in both games, who have to move around faster to get into position and to check other players.

Dakar, like sig? I've just done icons for about 15 apps for the next version of the 'TEH ICONS' icon set. The current version is available here http://www.icantfly.com/icons/

[Gossamer]

Well no matter who you think has a faster pace, I would rather watch basketball. I've never seen a basketball game end up 1 to 0. I have seen one go 18-96 though.