I don't get it when people complain that baseball games are too long.
Baseball has the great advantage over cricket of being sooner ended.
I don't know if you could take a whole 90 minutes and say that was the best game we ever played.
The ball is round, the game is long.
These days, I'm always trying to have lots of touches, to be involved, and to play my football for 90 minutes.
In red ball cricket, with the field placements, you can look around, take your time, because you have five days to play, whereas in limited overs cricket, you have limited number of balls to play and score.
If I come on for 10 minutes and play well, I can't go home and tell everyone, 'I played a great 10 minutes.' I have to play the full 90.
I don't know how we could use it to improve the job that umpires do, ... The human element in sport has always been a big part of the game. I'm a football fan, too, and I hate instant replay in the NFL. Football games are taking four hours.
I wouldn't rule out the idea of four-day Test cricket, if we can get the playing conditions right and the right circumstances it might be a good thing in some parts of the world.
Not only do you have 16 regular-season games, you also have four preseason games. Then if you make the playoffs, you can have four more games before you get to the Super Bowl. So you can already have 24 games without the 18-game season. And 24 games takes a real toll on somebody's body.
T20 has become a longer and longer format of the game. It is more than four hours in a lot of parts of the world.
If a football official were to call for a slow-motion replay every time Didier Drogba fell over, each match would last about six weeks.
On the other hand, chess is a mass sport now and for chess organisers shorter time control is obviously more attractive. But I think that this control does not suit World Championship matches.
College football is the only game in the country, of any kind, that the college game is longer than the pro game.
For a player with his talent, it is about doing it consistently week in, week out and over 90 minutes.
I don't think I can be expected to take seriously any game which takes less than three days to reach its conclusion.
Cricket takes so long. There's a lot of airtime to fill. Guys have to talk about someone's technique for half an hour.
You need to have a great, strong bladder to call professional sports because, especially in football where, you know, you don't know how long a half's going to last and then the timeouts happen and a incomplete pass.
Weary soccer players just cannot run anymore and must resort to shootouts after 120 minutes when a result is mandatory, but men on skates can go indefinitely, no matter how badly it disrupts the television network's schedule.
We don't want people to leave the stadium until the game finishes.
In England, the referees don't call many fouls, as opposed to Spanish football. Consequently, you must be really strong all through the 90 minutes.
Three hours for an average game is not good for baseball.
Nine games? It's too long.
With a movie, it's probably easier to sustain intensity and seriousness over the 90-minute duration. But in an open-world game it becomes exhausting, demotivating and even uninteresting for the player.
My games are rather stressful games, where you have to play for a long time.
