Friday, August 09, 2013

Cricket vs. Football (Soccer): The obesity wars

Under this headline:

Fitness and the beautiful game -- and football

A letter in The Times of London on August 5:

Sir, I do not agree that football is better than cricket in answering problems of inactivity and obesity (letter, Aug 3). Neither sport will cure obesity, but cricket demands far more physical and mental activity than football, at least where school and casual play are concerned. Indeed, the stamina required by cricketers far exceeds that of the footballer. The batsman's concentration, while defending the stumps and trying to score, is probably unequalled in any sport.  And each fielder must be ready to respond within a fraction of a second. As to the bowler, his every delivery will be watched and judged by one and all. Football is easier to stage and less expensive, but let us not forget the significance of the phrase, "That's not cricket," and despite misgivings about some umpiring, as a lesson for pupils in later life, there can be no better. And anyone who thinks cricket is the preserve of a certain class owing to a lack of equipment and facilities, ought to visit India where mile after mile of land plays host to the game, often with improvised implements, but never lacking in enthusiasm.
Pinner, Middx

Whaddayamean? This isn't hard exercise?

No comments: