u get more for your money and see top class players
by the way i saw england v sri lanka at edgebaston we were brillant
2006-06-19 23:58:13 · 28 answers · asked by josh p 2 in Sports ➔ Cricket
I love both - but for very different reasons. Football is a lot faster-paced and easier to pick up on. It's much more accessible as there aren't a million rules to stick to. Everyone in the world who can find something to kick can already begin to appreciate it. Cricket is more restricted because of the need for a pitch, boundaries, wickets, gear, bats and the ball itself - not to mention rules like bowling with a straight arm (give or take 15 degrees), LBW etc.
Both are extremely tactical games, and both also have their moments of beauty although cricket sceptics may disagree. Watching Brazil and Argentina play can leave you breathless with awe, but the same can happen in cricket too, when you witness an unplayable delivery or an exquisite cover drive.
In terms of watching them live, they are both brilliant in different ways. Watching live cricket is as much about the atmosphere, the picnics, the papers and the bubbly as it is about the sport itself. Watching live football is about getting sucked into the noise, the singing and the sheer passion.
In the end, my analogy between football and cricket involves computer games. Football is like a first person shooter, you go in guns blazing and look for action and thrills. Cricket is more like an adventure game, where you play a character and get involved in a longer, more winding plotline.
2006-06-20 00:32:14 · answer #1 · answered by Mark C 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
football is followed or played in so many countries and so many players are their but cricket is followed or played in only 10-15 countries this shows it's popularity
and moreover football match brings out a result within 90 minutes whereas a cricket test match is played for 5 days without a result
the game of cricket is slow as well as football is fast
2006-06-20 00:06:14 · answer #2 · answered by rajkumar62 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cricket is hardly played by few countries where as football playing nations are almost thrice the number so obviously there is a greater fan following for football and secondly football games are shorter to that of cricket which makes it even more interesting
2006-06-20 01:46:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, Cricket is a game popularly known for Gentlemens and Football is a game popularly known for hooligans.... Cricket is a game of patience, one has to spend his/her whole day in watching the game and 5 days in test maches and it really needs strong mind to understand the game, while football is a 90 minutes game and one get free very quickly, and u have to raise and get down only when a player takes the ball to rivals penalty area, otherwise u do not have anytning to deal with.
2006-06-20 01:37:36 · answer #4 · answered by kaps 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cricket is far more enjoyable than football!! Football is shite.
20 20s are better to watch than a game of idiots throwing themselves on the floor just to try and get a penalty kick.
I watch & support engalnd in cricket but I wouldn't do that when it came to Rugby (or football) so that makes it a more national friendly game.
2006-06-20 00:03:19 · answer #5 · answered by MISS B.ITCH 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on what kind of football you are talking about. If it was American football (which I'm sure its not) then it would be no contest. Men like violence. If you could take that cricket bat (excuse my lack of knowledge on the equipment) and then beat a guy with it, then yes, you'd have... hockey. But anyway, footy is more action and faster. Cricket is like watching baseball, it's a picnicers sport.
2006-06-20 07:16:03 · answer #6 · answered by CorpRed 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't really think so mate. FQ-Man Utd 2-0 Liverpool FQ2-Rooney and Vidic. If there is a third goalscorer, it's probably Berbatov because he nets all the unimportant goals like the last ones eg vs Chelsea btw Berba sometimes nets the first goal but he has never done that (in my memory) against a big team.
2016-05-20 04:25:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it takes sooo long, rains then ends in a draw .... football is a nice 90 minute fix. I agree that 20 - 20 is a huge step in the right direction (despite what the purists say) ... I also admit that the ashes was cool (as it shut up the aussies) and that a test match on a hot day is good as you can sit in the sunshine in public and drink without being a hobo.
2006-06-20 00:09:25 · answer #8 · answered by richie_b 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cricket is too slow and goes on for ages. Football is fast and exciting and only takes an hour and 45 mins. (90 + 15 mins half time).
2006-06-20 00:04:12 · answer #9 · answered by Small Claims 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
cricket is more fo an intellectual game where as football ha sbeuty and speed.
cricket is not that beautiful
but it ll b interesting if v have a nail biting finish like 26 vruns frfm 3 balls etc
this is missing in foot ball
2006-06-21 04:40:18 · answer #10 · answered by sachi 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋