Challenge Debate: Cricket or football
 | ||
|
|
|
|
1
point
What mean to play the every country in WC of football bcz we know that the bigeer team will only win like argentina Spain you know that many countries play for qualification in cricket even usa to plays they were losed by afghanistan that's they weren't in WC of cricket Side: Cricket
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1. Even the shortest version of cricket is twice as longer than any football match, thus providing entertainment for longer duration of time! 2. In football, for 90 minutes you wait and wait for a goal which may or may not happen. But in cricket there is some action-a six, four, bowled, run out- on virtually every ball. Thus, providing more reasons to cheer! 3. Football provides just one time slot (i.e half time) for advertisers, while in cricket there are atleast 40 time slots (in T20 format). And then, if its IPL you can have ads in between deliveries also. Thus, making it more commercially viable! 4. In football, for majority of the time you are shown just one camera angle. But in cricket, broadcasting is a challenge! You need cameras in every corner of the ground, you require technologies like hawk-eye, speedometer, snicko-meter, zoomer, hotspot. Thus making cricket more technologically advance! 5. All commentator do in a football match "Kaka.. Kaka to ronadinho, to giberto, passes it to Julio...". (Thanks, vuvuzella, now they are not required to do even this much!). While in cricket, you have to analyze each and every delivery or if its IPL, tell the whole world about the MRF blimp hanging in the sky. Thus, making the job of commentators tougher and more professional Side: Cricket
1. If we made a boring sport like football twice as long would it give more entertainment? No. Double the length of cricket doesn't make it good. 2. There is no reason to cheer since all the action is meaningless to the final outcome. 3. More commercials is good? 4. You need a whole bunch of camera angles for golf too. It doesn't make it any less boring. 5. If the sport really needs the commentator to make it interesting the sport doesn't really stand on its own. Side: Football
1
point
Even the football will be twice it will be much boring think if football will be played for 5 days it will toooo boring but in cricket in 5 days match the ground is full everytime in India while test match of 5 days while India is playing will the Brazilians come to watch 5 days match of football? Side: Cricket
1
point
6. Cricketers get full clothes to wear along with safety gears like helmet, pads, ell guard, chest guard. While footballers only get a small nicker to wear. Thus clearly showing that cricketers are richer and very well fed! 7. In terms of weekly salary to players, IPL is ranked No.2 in the world after NBA, while EPL is at 4. Again showing cricketers are richer than footballers! Refer Virat Kohli named sixth most marketable athlete ahead of Messi, Ronaldo 8. Talking about popularity, here are some stats- Total population of 32 nations participating in football: 1541 millions. Population of just 3 cricket frantic nations (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) : 1572 millions. Clearly, cricket is popular among more people! Side: Cricket
6. I have no idea what football you watch, but it sounds creepy. 7. Playing the sport should be enough of a reward. The more boring the sport the harder it would be to get people to play it. The harder it is to get people to play it the more you have to pay them. 8. What percentage of people even like cricket in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Side: Football
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
|
1
point
Have you heard any news about the international organization that runs cricket? No. Is there a world cup that gets countries who traditionally hate the sport to watch the games every four years for cricket? No. That's because cricket is far more boring than football. Side: Football
|
