Temujin Khaghan Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 relax mate, all i was trying to say earlier was that knowing certain sportsperson doesnt indicate the popularity of the sport. If we measure the popularity of the sport by the number of passionate fans(only Vs tennis), then easily cricket is on top, mainly because there are a billion people in India(add other populous countries like pakistan and BD for its size) and cricket is the only sport. But almost half the world hasnt seen a single game of cricket but surely seen tennis. So what do measure popularity by?number of passionate fans? Or number of people who has heard about him? or number of countries that follow the sport? If you drop federer on the streets of India, China or Korea, he is just another white dude similar to Sachin being just another brown dude in US, China or korea. But surely more number of people in the world can identify Sachin than federer, mostly because of India's uncontrolled awful population. u need to check the previous posts. i was talking about which sport was more global... iam not talking about the intensity of fan-following here. maybe people wouldnt get into fights after a tennis match... but the tennis game and its popularity is much more and huge compared to cricket. bigger global sport meaning the more number of countries actively participating in it... not fan-following wise... even there i wouldnt underestimate tennis
cowboysfan Posted June 12, 2010 Posted June 12, 2010 cricket is similar to soccer in that it will become excruciating to watch if 2 bad teams are playing.
Bradman99 Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 AFL :dontknow: God no, that's bottom of the pile.
Chorazin Reto Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 U can almost narrow down where abouts in Australia Bradman comes from by the sports he likes :D Likes league, generally that says NSWelshman or Queenslander, and does not like AFL so generally not S.Aus, Vic, or WA. Couple of grey areas in Tas and NT, but id say QLD or NSW. I used to watch league back in the day(way back in the day) dont like a lot of the modern changes to the game so gave up watching it. I still dont understand tennis, without Mcenroe whats to watch it just is kinda dull, he was like the Happy Gilmore of tennis.
DomainK Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 But football allows its players to headbut each other. Cricket is far behind. Cricket has it's own standards. When was the last time you saw a football player try to bite the ball?
vvvslaxman Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 Cricket is flexible. We can change the format of the game anyway we want (50 overs, 20 overs, 5 overs) :--D
b555 Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 Cricket is flexible. We can change the format of the game anyway we want (50 overs' date=' 20 overs, 5 overs) :--D[/quote'] then we can even try and change the format sof the football game example there will be no goal keeper and each half will be of 30 minutes, who scores maximm goals will win . no direct free kicks into the goal. penalty will be a adding a goal to the opposition. 3 corners=1goal. u want anything else or any other formats? :--D
Mr Eintstein Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 Love both. Football=Cricket. Both are beautiful in their own way.
Steyn Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 Tennis Vs Cricket: tennis is played more country than cricket but in none of them it is played by more than 20%. Cricket is otherhand played more than 50% people in some country. So cricket holds the edge as its better to be a major sports in some countries than being a minor sports in most of the countries
anssrini Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 It is difficult to imagine playing either football and tennis without the appropriate playing space and equipment. Cricket on the other hand, anything will do. A little space in the backyard of the house, a rural bat made of coconut branches , a tennis or even a plastic ball can give rise to an interesting game. No wonder cricket ( gully cricket?) is so popular amd playable in some form by everyone and even those without enough money to buy costly equipment.
Brainfade Posted June 13, 2010 Posted June 13, 2010 It is difficult to imagine playing either football and tennis without the appropriate playing space and equipment. Cricket on the other hand' date=' anything will do. A little space in the backyard of the house, a rural bat made of coconut branches , a tennis or even a plastic ball can give rise to an interesting game. No wonder cricket ( gully cricket?) is so popular amd playable in some form by everyone and even those without enough money to buy costly equipment.[/quote'] Tennis, yes. Football (soccer) - no. You can play football with a lot less than even cricket. A lot of impoverished nations play soccer.
Sachinism Posted June 14, 2010 Author Posted June 14, 2010 It is difficult to imagine playing either football and tennis without the appropriate playing space and equipment. Cricket on the other hand' date=' anything will do. A little space in the backyard of the house, a rural bat made of coconut branches , a tennis or even a plastic ball can give rise to an interesting game. No wonder cricket ( gully cricket?) is so popular amd playable in some form by everyone and even those without enough money to buy costly equipment.[/quote'] Mate football can be played pretty much anywhere and with anything, no ball is required, anything can be kicked about
mastana Posted June 15, 2010 Posted June 15, 2010 I know only 1 reason and that is enough i guess. Cricket has Sachin. :adore:
Herculus Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 world football is 100 times more organised than world cricket the length of a 50 over match by which world cup is played also drags it down way below football
Serani Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 world football is 100 times more organised than world cricket the length of a 50 over match by which world cup is played also drags it down way below football Yeh but wait till pro35 comes along, football will have no answer.
flamy Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 still cricket is considered as religion in Indian and sachin to be the god it so comparison of cricket with football. how did everyone miss this shining beacon of resplendent genius? :woot:
UmarAkmal Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 Nobody in Brazil knows about Sachin or Umar Akmal while same cannot be said about Maradona or Pele in India or Pakistan.
Serani Posted June 16, 2010 Posted June 16, 2010 Nobody in Brazil knows about Sachin or Umar Akmal while same cannot be said about Maradona or Pele in India or Pakistan. So?
The Dark Horse Posted July 9, 2010 Posted July 9, 2010 cricketers(Fielders) can take a nap in the field for a while, footballers cannot:giggle:
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now