It seems to be working better 60 years later than expected.
Brighter cricket was probably more about the format of the FC game and
keeping people watching at grounds in order to keep the sheckels
flowing.
Look now at all they would have had to do to make cricket brighter. Or
is it not so simple?
Would a team from the early 60s brighter cricket period have been able
to play the way England are playing now?
Could it have even got away with trying it without being summoned to
Lords and questions being asked in the house?

I've seen slogging mentioned. Four centurians at around a run a ball
isn't slogging and two more at about half that rate is nothing like
slogging.
As far as the declaration goes, 'reckless and just turned out to be
well timed' is bullshit, it was perfectly timed with complete
confidence and the result is the proof of that.

max.it

On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 8:08:09 PM UTC, max.it wrote:
> It seems to be working better 60 years later than expected.
> Brighter cricket was probably more about the format of the FC game and
> keeping people watching at grounds in order to keep the sheckels
> flowing.
> Look now at all they would have had to do to make cricket brighter. Or
> is it not so simple?
> Would a team from the early 60s brighter cricket period have been able
> to play the way England are playing now?
> Could it have even got away with trying it without being summoned to
> Lords and questions being asked in the house?
>
> I've seen slogging mentioned. Four centurians at around a run a ball
> isn't slogging and two more at about half that rate is nothing like
> slogging.
> As far as the declaration goes, 'reckless and just turned out to be
> well timed' is bullshit, it was perfectly timed with complete
> confidence and the result is the proof of that.
>
>
> max.it

On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 8:08:09 PM UTC, max.it wrote:
> It seems to be working better 60 years later than expected.
> Brighter cricket was probably more about the format of the FC game and
> keeping people watching at grounds in order to keep the sheckels
> flowing.
> Look now at all they would have had to do to make cricket brighter. Or
> is it not so simple?
> Would a team from the early 60s brighter cricket period have been able
> to play the way England are playing now?
> Could it have even got away with trying it without being summoned to
> Lords and questions being asked in the house?
>
> I've seen slogging mentioned. Four centurians at around a run a ball
> isn't slogging and two more at about half that rate is nothing like
> slogging.
> As far as the declaration goes, 'reckless and just turned out to be
> well timed' is bullshit, it was perfectly timed with complete
> confidence and the result is the proof of that.
>
>
> max.it

Lazarus shows his ignorance of FC cricket . The "brighter cricket" drives in the 1930s and and the period 194-60 when limited overs cricket at county level arrived it was based on a a false idea that faster scoring generally was a good thing. Hence, it was a supposed one dimensional cure for something which was much more complex. RH

On Tue, 06 Dec 2022 20:08:05 +0000, max.it <max@tea.time> wrote:

>
>It seems to be working better 60 years later than expected.
>Brighter cricket was probably more about the format of the FC game and
>keeping people watching at grounds in order to keep the sheckels
>flowing.
>Look now at all they would have had to do to make cricket brighter. Or
>is it not so simple?

You clearly misunderstand first-class cricket. The essence of
first-class cricket is that it is supposed to be incredibly boring.
That is the whole idea, and all this pandering to idiots who want to
actually enjoy the game they are watching is completely misguided. The
fact that many more people want to watch exciting cricket is neither
here nor there; what is important that an English cricket ground
should have white players playing in white while thousands of people
gently snooze in the stands... RH

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 10:56:44 AM UTC, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2022 20:08:05 +0000, max.it <m...@tea.time> wrote:
>
> >
> >It seems to be working better 60 years later than expected.
> >Brighter cricket was probably more about the format of the FC game and
> >keeping people watching at grounds in order to keep the sheckels
> >flowing.
> >Look now at all they would have had to do to make cricket brighter. Or
> >is it not so simple?
> You clearly misunderstand first-class cricket. The essence of
> first-class cricket is that it is supposed to be incredibly boring.
> That is the whole idea, and all this pandering to idiots who want to
> actually enjoy the game they are watching is completely misguided. The
> fact that many more people want to watch exciting cricket is neither
> here nor there; what is important that an English cricket ground
> should have white players playing in white while thousands of people
> gently snooze in the stands... RH

Another liberal bigot forgery of a post falsely claiming to be by me... RH

On Wednesday, December 7, 2022 at 8:56:44 PM UTC+10, Mike Holmans wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Dec 2022 20:08:05 +0000, max.it <m...@tea.time> wrote:
>
> >
> >It seems to be working better 60 years later than expected.
> >Brighter cricket was probably more about the format of the FC game and
> >keeping people watching at grounds in order to keep the sheckels
> >flowing.
> >Look now at all they would have had to do to make cricket brighter. Or
> >is it not so simple?
> You clearly misunderstand first-class cricket. The essence of
> first-class cricket is that it is supposed to be incredibly boring.
> That is the whole idea, and all this pandering to idiots who want to
> actually enjoy the game they are watching is completely misguided. The
> fact that many more people want to watch exciting cricket is neither
> here nor there; what is important that an English cricket ground
> should have white players playing in white while thousands of people
> gently snooze in the stands... RH

This is just another liberal bigot forgery of a post falsely claiming to be by me... RH
PS: Why do people never talk about the good things Hitler did?

On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 11:42:26 UTC, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:

> Another liberal bigot forgery of a post falsely claiming to be by me... RH

Behold a man so desperately bereft of any sense of humour.

On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 08:13:08 UTC, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 8:08:09 PM UTC, max.it wrote:
> > It seems to be working better 60 years later than expected.
> > Brighter cricket was probably more about the format of the FC game and
> > keeping people watching at grounds in order to keep the sheckels
> > flowing.
> > Look now at all they would have had to do to make cricket brighter. Or
> > is it not so simple?
> > Would a team from the early 60s brighter cricket period have been able
> > to play the way England are playing now?
> > Could it have even got away with trying it without being summoned to
> > Lords and questions being asked in the house?
> >
> > I've seen slogging mentioned. Four centurians at around a run a ball
> > isn't slogging and two more at about half that rate is nothing like
> > slogging.
> > As far as the declaration goes, 'reckless and just turned out to be
> > well timed' is bullshit, it was perfectly timed with complete
> > confidence and the result is the proof of that.
> >
> >
> > max.it
> Lazarus shows his ignorance of FC cricket . The "brighter cricket" drives in the 1930s and and the period 194-60 when limited overs cricket at county level arrived it was based on a a false idea that faster scoring generally was a good thing. Hence, it was a supposed one dimensional cure for something which was much more complex. RH

Can you possibly re write your post so it makes sense? F-

On Thursday, December 8, 2022 at 12:00:24 AM UTC, Najeeb ybo wrote:
> On Wednesday, 7 December 2022 at 08:13:08 UTC, anywh...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 8:08:09 PM UTC, max.it wrote:
> > > It seems to be working better 60 years later than expected.
> > > Brighter cricket was probably more about the format of the FC game and
> > > keeping people watching at grounds in order to keep the sheckels
> > > flowing.
> > > Look now at all they would have had to do to make cricket brighter. Or
> > > is it not so simple?
> > > Would a team from the early 60s brighter cricket period have been able
> > > to play the way England are playing now?
> > > Could it have even got away with trying it without being summoned to
> > > Lords and questions being asked in the house?
> > >
> > > I've seen slogging mentioned. Four centurians at around a run a ball
> > > isn't slogging and two more at about half that rate is nothing like
> > > slogging.
> > > As far as the declaration goes, 'reckless and just turned out to be
> > > well timed' is bullshit, it was perfectly timed with complete
> > > confidence and the result is the proof of that.
> > >
> > >
> > > max.it
> > Lazarus shows his ignorance of FC cricket . The "brighter cricket" drives in the 1930s and and the period 194-60 when limited overs cricket at county level arrived it was based on a a false idea that faster scoring generally was a good thing. Hence, it was a supposed one dimensional cure for something which was much more complex. RH
> Can you possibly re write your post so it makes sense? F-

Oh dear, yet another liberal bigot of very little brain. The post makes perfect sense. Just for the amusement of the group please list list the parts of my post you do not understand. RH