Not sure how many of you (English & Aussies) are following the Ashes. But what a fairy tale of an innings from Steve Waugh.. http://www-ind.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2003/JAN/116526_AUS_03JAN2003.html

There's nothing quite so unintelligible as reporting on a sport with which one is unfamiliar.

Out of curiosity, how much do you Brits know about (to be somewhat equivalent) baseball?

Out of curiosity, how much do you Brits know about (to be somewhat equivalent) baseball?

I'm vaguely familiar with the rules (which AFAICT are much simpler than those of cricket), but, even armed with that knowledge, reports of baseball matches are completely impenetrable. Sports writing (sport squared, in Eco's term) seems to generate jargons entirely its own, above and beyond the jargons of actually playing the sports in question.

Peter

Out of curiosity, how much do you Brits know about (to be somewhat equivalent) baseball?

It's a bit like Rounders (which most kids play at school in the UK) but in rounders you score a run for each base you reach, and if you are hit with the ball you are out. The bats and balls are smaller too, though many people play with a softball bat & ball to make it easier (and hurt less!)

Just done a bit of searching and found these pages:

http://www.sabruk.org/examiner/03/madeinbritain.html
http://www.thebaseballpage.com/features/origins_02.htm

Gareth

I tried to explain baseball once to a Greek friend of mine. You know, it is never quite clear exactly how silly the whole damn thing is until you actually have to sit down and explain it. Then you realize what a completely inane and artifically constructed thing most sports are.

and to think there was speculation over his selection only last year.

How good are we at cricket??!

How good are we at cricket??!

Pretty good, although I have to admit they probably have their noses in front at the moment - it might not be a clean sweep after all.

"Sir" Steve Waugh just managed to get out caught in the slips.

I find 2 rules of baseball to be just completely daft.

Firstly, the fact that no-one can run a plate on a foul ball, yet can still be caught or run out. That just stinks... either the ball is foul or it isn't.

The second thing that really gets me is the fly ball rule...I just can't see why you're not allowed to run until the ball hits the ground (or is caught).

The 'dedicated hitter' stinks as well, but at least that isn't universal in the game.

Here's what I think I know about cricket. It's like baseball but a lot less running and hitting. It's a cross between baseball and croquet that british people can play while they sip their tea (that I WILL NOT pay taxes on). I'm probably way off target, but that is what my subconcious has gathered from the mass-media, so it's how I always pictured it in my head.

Do brits play basketball, football, or hockey?

"no-one can run a plate on a foul ball, yet can still be caught or run out. That just stinks... "

If by run out you mean tagged with the ball and called out, then you can't be. But your foul ball can be caught.

"I just can't see why you're not allowed to run until the ball hits the ground (or is caught). "

You can run, but if it is caught you have to 'tag up' on the base you left or otherwise they could just throw the ball to that base and you're out. so someone can't just hit a high fly into the outfield while the runners advance 2 or 3 bases. now the infield fly rule is a whole different ball game..

Close but you missed a few points. Cricket is like baseball except without the excitement until right at the end. I heard an American comedian, whose name escapes me, on a show here describe it as, "counting backwards from one million; you tend to get a bit edgey as you reach the end."
It's a great game to watch on a sunday afternoon with a few beers as it doesn't require a lot of analysis and stats.

Americans (massive generalisation, I appologise) tend to think that baseball is the only game where the defenders have control of the ball.

It's a cross between baseball and croquet that british people can play while they sip their tea

It doesn't much resemble croquet, except in the very general way that yes, they're both entertainingly daffy ways to spend a long English summer's afternoon.

Do brits play basketball, football, or hockey?

Basketball: not really, but a similar game (netball) is popular in schools and colleges. It doesn't get much media attention.

Football: means "soccer" to a Brit. American Football does exist, but isn't a big media sport. Some friends of mine at university were in the uni team, but this was Cambridge and they'll play any old sport there as long as there's a chance they can beat Oxford at it. Average crowd turnout for the matches (on Coldham's Common, not in any kind of stadium) was well under 10, although the Varsity match (Oxford vs Cambridge) drew a crowd of about 30. As for the US American football leagues, the Superbowl result will get mentioned in media sports bulletins, but that's about it.

Hockey: ice hockey no; "hockey" to a Brit means field hockey, which again is popular in schools and colleges but gets no media coverage. Despite occasional forays into more exotic sports, school P.E. lessons still centre in the summer on cricket for boys and netball for girls, and in winter on football (soccer) for boys and (field) hockey for girls. And sometimes rugby for the boys if they're extremely unlucky.

The only really huge media team sports in Britain are football (soccer), and, to a lesser extent, cricket and rugby. AFAIK there are no professional basketball, netball, American football, ice hockey, or field hockey teams in Britain.

Peter

no-one can run a plate on a foul ball [...] the fly ball rule [...] The 'dedicated hitter'

Oh. OK. Maybe I don't really understand baseball then. I had assumed (and this is after watching a game live too, some Philadelphia college match) that it worked just like rounders.

Peter

I tried to explain baseball once to a Greek friend of mine

Maybe you should have tried to explain plane spotting as well, because we don't seem to have done so well here in the U.K.: news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/uk/1682520.stm

While I'll admit that cricket is probably rules-ier than baseball, baseball is pretty rules-y, too.

BTW, no-one can run a plate on a foul ball (7.08(d)) (you can steal, though), fly ball rule (definition for ``INFIELD FLY'') (which prevents an infielder from intentionally dropping a ball in order to force an easy forced double play), and the designated hitter rule (6.10) (which is a travesty).

you can't steal on a foul.

baseball is pretty rules-y, too

Boggle.

Peter

You're right, and that's what I initially thought, but I misread the rule.

Well, even our second National team rocks
Although I did jinx this match

It's my contention that the Australian test side (especially under Steve's captainship) has lost the ability to play for the draw. How many 5-day draws have there been in recent years? Not very many, especially if you don't count the rain affected ones. Captains usually seem to be making "sporting declarations", and leaving enough time for a result one way or the other. In this case, I reckon Australia would have had a hard time matching England's total, and I was hoping that after the first wicket or so fell, they would knuckle down for the long haul, but no such luck.

I think it's a bit of a shame, in a way, because the draw is part of the game.

Richard.

I think our first team should play our second
link

something's wrong with the selection!