I am writing an article for a sports magazine called Sports Daily and they asked me to write about why cricket is better than football for the which sport is better section. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Whenever it comes to sports, no matter where you live in the world, this question always gets asked. What is better cricket or football? So in this article I have explained to all the cricket fans the most important reasons why cricket is better than football. The shorter versions of cricket are longer than any football match, meaning it offers more entertainment over a longer period of time. Action replays in cricket are so nerve-wracking because the result can change the entire game. This also makes the game more fun. Football is played for 90 minutes and all that will happen is it will be a goal or not but in cricket every ball is different even the result is different like maybe a run out, a catch out, a six, a four, a stump , a wicket or simply a point you never know. This gives fans more reasons to cheer. Football doesn't have much commercial value because it only provides one time, which is half-time, for advertising where, like in cricket, you can have an advertising between balls and overs, and to be precise in T20 you have 40 time slots. T20 is one of the shortest versions of cricket. This makes cricket more commercially valuable. If you watch football on your TV, tablet, mobile phone, laptop or PC, you are mostly shown one camera angle unless it is a goal or penalty. While, as if you are watching cricket on one device, the entire stadium is covered with cameras, so you can watch the match from many angles. Also, in football the only advanced technology used is goal line technology which is used very rarely, where as in cricket you have a hot spot, speed gun, snicko-meter, hawk eye, stump camera, super slow motion, heartbeat monitor and fish dart. All this makes cricket more technologically advanced and makes the game fairer. Commentary in football is so predictable. They almost say it for most of the match: “Marcelo to Kroos, Kroos to Bale, Bale to Ronaldo, and it's a goal. The commentators do not analyze the techniques or the power they put into passing or shooting, but simply comment literally on what happens during the match. But in cricket commentators have to analyze every delivery, which makes the job harder and more professional. In addition to the uniforms that players wear in soccer, they use shin guards which are quite cheap. While in cricket players need to wear a lot of safety equipment such as ball box, pads, helmet, thigh protector and chest protector, which makes cricket richer and gives players better nutrition. Cricketers are paid more than footballers. The IPL is ranked second, while the EPL is ranked fourth. Virat Kholi is the sixth most marketable athlete. He is taller than Messi and Ronaldo. This once again proves that cricketers are richer than footballers. In the end they all do it for money. If we start talking about the popularity of cricket and football. Cricket is much more popular. Here are some figures: The total population of the 32 nations that take part in football is 1,541 million. The population of 3 cricket-loving countries, India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, is 1,572 million. This number will be higher if you count the countries I excluded. This clearly shows that cricket is more popular among people. Football doesn't even mean the same sport in some countries like America. In America the.