Cricket in the US?
#1
Posted 08 September 2006 - 08:11 AM
I just saw this on the BBC...never realised that there was such a long tradition of it there. I can't see it catching on though, what with baseball being so big...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from...ent/5321126.stm
Cricket: The latest American craze?
By Simon Worral
BBC News, Atlanta
Even the president has had a go
One of the fastest-growing games in the United States is, surprisingly, cricket.
The game flourished there for a while in the 19th century, but a combination of war and baseball sent it into decline. That is, until now.
Atlanta, Georgia is not a place you normally associate with cricket. It is famous for a fizzy drink and a baseball team called The Braves. So I was pleasantly surprised, on a recent visit, to hear the distinctive "thock" of leather on willow.
"Shot, Mouse!" shouted the tall, silver-haired West Indian standing next to me, as a batsman lofted a ball over the fence for six.
It was the semi-finals of the Atlanta regional play-offs between Tropical Sports Club and North Atlanta.
It was not a real cricket ground - just a piece of matting laid out in the middle of a schools softball field near the Atlanta airport.
Long history
But it felt like Sunday in Antigua. Under an awning, a large-hipped lady in a bandana barbecued jerk chicken in an oil drum. Men sat under the trees drinking Red Stripe and reminiscing about home. A copy of Ovid's Metamorphoses lay open on the ground.
The silver-haired man standing next to me was not any old bystander. His name was Desmond Lewis and in his cricketing heyday he had opened the batting for the Windies with Sir Garfield Sobers.
Cricket, he told me, has grown exponentially in America. When Des arrived in 1978, he could not find 11 players to make a team.
Today, Atlanta boasts 23 teams, with 600 players competing in a well-organised league.
Though few people either side of the Atlantic know it, cricket has a long history in the United States.
It was once the national game and the annual fixture against Canada, which was first played in the 1840s. It is the oldest international sporting event in the modern world, predating today's Olympic Games by nearly 50 years.
The earliest account of a cricket match in North America comes from a plantation owner in Westover, Virginia, named William Byrd.
"I rose at six o'clock and read a chapter in Hebrew," he noted in a diary he kept between 1709 and 1712.
"About 10 o'clock Dr Blair, and Major and Captain Harrison came to see us. After I had given them a glass of sack we played cricket. I ate boiled beef for my dinner."
Baseball
The outbreak of the War of Independence in 1776 temporarily queered cricket's pitch. Like tea and taxes, it was associated with Britishness.
But by 1860 an estimated 10,000 Americans were playing the game. Presidents turned out to watch. When Chicago hosted Milwaukee in 1859, Abraham Lincoln was among the spectators.
Three years later, disaster struck. The American Civil War uprooted men from their homes, pitches fell into disrepair, and a new sport adapted from an English girls' game called rounders, took America by storm.
Baseball suited war. It was quick, easy to learn, and required little in the way of equipment or facilities - just four gunnysacks thrown on the ground, a simple bat and an equally simple ball.
Today, thanks to a huge influx of immigrants from India, Pakistan and the West Indies, cricket is bouncing back.
There are 29 leagues nationwide, with an estimated 700 clubs and 50,000 active cricketers. As well as traditional bastions like Philadelphia and New York, where Mayor Bloomberg recently announced a $1.5m investment for a purpose built pitch in Queens, cricket is now being played in such unlikely places as Dallas, Texas, and Wichita, Kansas.
In Los Angeles, a team called Compton Homies & Popz uses cricket to teach "boyz from the hood" old-fashioned virtues like discipline and manners.
'Too complicated'
So can cricket do what soccer has done, and once again become a contender in the US?
A student I met at a charity game in Atlanta was more than a little sceptical. "It's way too complicated for Americans," he said. "And too slow."
But that doesn't stop Des Lewis from dreaming.
"My dream is to get a piece of property," he told me, as the sun began to set over Georgia.
"Twenty acres or so. And build a proper cricket field. With a real pavilion."
Sir Thursday
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from...ent/5321126.stm
Cricket: The latest American craze?
By Simon Worral
BBC News, Atlanta
Even the president has had a go
One of the fastest-growing games in the United States is, surprisingly, cricket.
The game flourished there for a while in the 19th century, but a combination of war and baseball sent it into decline. That is, until now.
Atlanta, Georgia is not a place you normally associate with cricket. It is famous for a fizzy drink and a baseball team called The Braves. So I was pleasantly surprised, on a recent visit, to hear the distinctive "thock" of leather on willow.
"Shot, Mouse!" shouted the tall, silver-haired West Indian standing next to me, as a batsman lofted a ball over the fence for six.
It was the semi-finals of the Atlanta regional play-offs between Tropical Sports Club and North Atlanta.
It was not a real cricket ground - just a piece of matting laid out in the middle of a schools softball field near the Atlanta airport.
Long history
But it felt like Sunday in Antigua. Under an awning, a large-hipped lady in a bandana barbecued jerk chicken in an oil drum. Men sat under the trees drinking Red Stripe and reminiscing about home. A copy of Ovid's Metamorphoses lay open on the ground.
The silver-haired man standing next to me was not any old bystander. His name was Desmond Lewis and in his cricketing heyday he had opened the batting for the Windies with Sir Garfield Sobers.
Cricket, he told me, has grown exponentially in America. When Des arrived in 1978, he could not find 11 players to make a team.
Today, Atlanta boasts 23 teams, with 600 players competing in a well-organised league.
Though few people either side of the Atlantic know it, cricket has a long history in the United States.
It was once the national game and the annual fixture against Canada, which was first played in the 1840s. It is the oldest international sporting event in the modern world, predating today's Olympic Games by nearly 50 years.
The earliest account of a cricket match in North America comes from a plantation owner in Westover, Virginia, named William Byrd.
"I rose at six o'clock and read a chapter in Hebrew," he noted in a diary he kept between 1709 and 1712.
"About 10 o'clock Dr Blair, and Major and Captain Harrison came to see us. After I had given them a glass of sack we played cricket. I ate boiled beef for my dinner."
Baseball
The outbreak of the War of Independence in 1776 temporarily queered cricket's pitch. Like tea and taxes, it was associated with Britishness.
But by 1860 an estimated 10,000 Americans were playing the game. Presidents turned out to watch. When Chicago hosted Milwaukee in 1859, Abraham Lincoln was among the spectators.
Three years later, disaster struck. The American Civil War uprooted men from their homes, pitches fell into disrepair, and a new sport adapted from an English girls' game called rounders, took America by storm.
Baseball suited war. It was quick, easy to learn, and required little in the way of equipment or facilities - just four gunnysacks thrown on the ground, a simple bat and an equally simple ball.
Today, thanks to a huge influx of immigrants from India, Pakistan and the West Indies, cricket is bouncing back.
There are 29 leagues nationwide, with an estimated 700 clubs and 50,000 active cricketers. As well as traditional bastions like Philadelphia and New York, where Mayor Bloomberg recently announced a $1.5m investment for a purpose built pitch in Queens, cricket is now being played in such unlikely places as Dallas, Texas, and Wichita, Kansas.
In Los Angeles, a team called Compton Homies & Popz uses cricket to teach "boyz from the hood" old-fashioned virtues like discipline and manners.
'Too complicated'
So can cricket do what soccer has done, and once again become a contender in the US?
A student I met at a charity game in Atlanta was more than a little sceptical. "It's way too complicated for Americans," he said. "And too slow."
But that doesn't stop Des Lewis from dreaming.
"My dream is to get a piece of property," he told me, as the sun began to set over Georgia.
"Twenty acres or so. And build a proper cricket field. With a real pavilion."
Sir Thursday
Don't look now, but I think there's something weird attached to the bottom of my posts.
#2
Posted 08 September 2006 - 08:23 AM
Its a good sport to get drunk too..
I guess thats all that Matters.
I guess thats all that Matters.
#3
Posted 08 September 2006 - 08:46 AM
I wish I knew where to go to watch a cricket match, and had someone to explain it to me. I'd be interested in checking it out, but the few times I've seen it on TV I had no clue what the deal was.
Error: Signature not valid
#4
Posted 08 September 2006 - 08:50 AM
I could try to explain it to you, but the problem is that there is an awful lot of jargon that is sometimes hard to explain but is essential to understand...that is why it is hard to teach someone and also hard to pick up. In reality the rules aren't that complicated, it's just that the technical terms confuse the issue.
I'll try and work out a good way to explain it over the weekend.
Sir Thursday
I'll try and work out a good way to explain it over the weekend.
Sir Thursday
Don't look now, but I think there's something weird attached to the bottom of my posts.
#5
Posted 08 September 2006 - 09:22 AM
If you're watching it from the stand it can't be that complicated (no idea if theres commentry, I can't see it but I may be wrong as I'd have thought it would annoy players).
Anywho the bowler throws the ball, the batter tries to hit it. If he hits it over the boundary without it bouncing they get 6 runs, if it bounces 4 runs. If it doesn't make it to the boundary then the runs scored are how many times the batsmen run between the wickets hence the name. Catching rules are the smae for baseball, bounce you're safe, no bounce you're out. If it hits the wicket (what the batter stands in front of) then you're out (you can also be run out if the ball hits the wicket while you're trying to run between the wickets and not past the little white line). If its judged teh batsman used his leg to block a ball that would have bowled him out then he gets called out anyway.
Thats the basics really, its got a lot of similarities to Baseball, the only differance is it needs a large flat piece of ground to be played properly, and hence it was hard to find that during the American Civil War hence baseball which doesn't involve the ball hitting the ground from the bowler took off. If it hadn't been for that the games would probably be the other way round in popularity as from a basic way to look at it they have the smae attributes, pretty much non-contact, uses a modified weapon, and can have huge amounts of statistics and you can get completly sh*t faced watching from the stands
Anywho the bowler throws the ball, the batter tries to hit it. If he hits it over the boundary without it bouncing they get 6 runs, if it bounces 4 runs. If it doesn't make it to the boundary then the runs scored are how many times the batsmen run between the wickets hence the name. Catching rules are the smae for baseball, bounce you're safe, no bounce you're out. If it hits the wicket (what the batter stands in front of) then you're out (you can also be run out if the ball hits the wicket while you're trying to run between the wickets and not past the little white line). If its judged teh batsman used his leg to block a ball that would have bowled him out then he gets called out anyway.
Thats the basics really, its got a lot of similarities to Baseball, the only differance is it needs a large flat piece of ground to be played properly, and hence it was hard to find that during the American Civil War hence baseball which doesn't involve the ball hitting the ground from the bowler took off. If it hadn't been for that the games would probably be the other way round in popularity as from a basic way to look at it they have the smae attributes, pretty much non-contact, uses a modified weapon, and can have huge amounts of statistics and you can get completly sh*t faced watching from the stands
#6
Posted 08 September 2006 - 09:50 AM
The jargon's the best thing about the sport.
"So Wilson's got three maidens under his belt today as he sets off towards the pavillion end at the start of his 5th over. He bowls a great googly, hoping for a tickle in the slips, but the batsmancuts it across square leg to the boundary and that'll be a four."
Fantastic.
I can stand ODI's, 20/20 and the like- the type where you know who's won after only a whole day- but test cricket is just too long and too much.
"So Wilson's got three maidens under his belt today as he sets off towards the pavillion end at the start of his 5th over. He bowls a great googly, hoping for a tickle in the slips, but the batsmancuts it across square leg to the boundary and that'll be a four."
Fantastic.
I can stand ODI's, 20/20 and the like- the type where you know who's won after only a whole day- but test cricket is just too long and too much.
#7
Posted 08 September 2006 - 09:53 AM
I have a feeling I would like cricket more if I liked baseball. I prefer contact sports. Football, rugby, MMA, wrestling, etc. Strangely, not a huge fan of boxing though.
Error: Signature not valid
#8
Posted 08 September 2006 - 10:33 AM
Thelomen Toblerone;113138 said:
The jargon's the best thing about the sport.
"So Wilson's got three maidens under his belt today as he sets off towards the pavillion end at the start of his 5th over. He bowls a great googly, hoping for a tickle in the slips, but the batsmancuts it across square leg to the boundary and that'll be a four."
Fantastic.
I can stand ODI's, 20/20 and the like- the type where you know who's won after only a whole day- but test cricket is just too long and too much.
"So Wilson's got three maidens under his belt today as he sets off towards the pavillion end at the start of his 5th over. He bowls a great googly, hoping for a tickle in the slips, but the batsmancuts it across square leg to the boundary and that'll be a four."
Fantastic.
I can stand ODI's, 20/20 and the like- the type where you know who's won after only a whole day- but test cricket is just too long and too much.
Sorry to be pedantic, but you can't cut across/through square leg...cut shots are played through the off side.
I was given a CD entitled The Wit of Cricket for Christmas a few years back - basically its about how commentators can make some funny spoonerisms with the jargon. I can't remember any off the top of my head though.
I personally really appreciate the tests - I guess that's natural as I like spin bowling, and there's not enough of that in ODIs and 20-20. It has the potential for incredible duels between batsmen and bowlers and requires strategy, patience and endurance. Then there's the way that there is time for the pitch to wear and change...but the single most important reason why Tests are better than ODIs and 20-20 is that there is always a chance for the side that is losing through the draw. There is a sense of inevitability in ODIs because very often you know who has won quite early, but because you get two innings each in Tests you get a chance to redeem yourself and hold out for a result. It thus creates much more suspense. Look at the 3rd test in the Ashes last year, for example. There was an awful lot of tension on the last day because Australia had a chance of holding out for a draw. In the shorter forms of the game you don't get that.
Sir Thursday
Don't look now, but I think there's something weird attached to the bottom of my posts.
#9
Posted 08 September 2006 - 10:35 AM
Sir Thursday;113148 said:
Sorry to be pedantic, but you can't cut across/through square leg...cut shots are played through the off side.
*hangs head in shame*
#10
Posted 08 September 2006 - 11:17 AM
I heard that they invented baseball in the US as an alternative to cricket because it was too slow to keep their attention. It must be true, some random guys in a New York bar said it. They must have more spare time now for it to be making a come back.
Burn rubber =/= warp speed
#11
Posted 08 September 2006 - 04:01 PM
Well, it's good news, but 600 players in a state is what percentage of the population?
O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde; keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.
#12
Posted 08 September 2006 - 04:17 PM
The Indian community in Texas is nuts for cricket. My wife's uncle gets all the games via satellite, and stays up all hours of the night to watch the matches live. It's a bit tough to sit through a visit at their house during a match (sometimes I find it interesting, most times not), but her aunt is such a great cook it's hard to say no.
OK, I think I got it, but just in case, can you say the whole thing over again? I wasn't really listening.
#13
Posted 09 September 2006 - 02:34 AM
Hmmm ... finally some hope for Americans.
Properly done, cricket is the epitome of fair play.
I can't wait for the Gabba test. Revenge!
Cheers,
La Sombra, medium pace, offspin and middle-to-lower-order batsman
Properly done, cricket is the epitome of fair play.
I can't wait for the Gabba test. Revenge!
Cheers,
La Sombra, medium pace, offspin and middle-to-lower-order batsman
"Fortune favors the bold, though statistics favor the cautious." - Indomitable Courteous (Icy) Fist, The Palace Job - Patrick Weekes
"Well well well ... if it ain't The Invisible C**t." - Billy Butcher, The Boys
"I have strong views about not tempting providence and, as a wise man once said, the difference between luck and a wheelbarrow is, luck doesn’t work if you push it." - Colonel Orhan, Sixteen Ways to Defend a Walled City - KJ Parker
"Well well well ... if it ain't The Invisible C**t." - Billy Butcher, The Boys
"I have strong views about not tempting providence and, as a wise man once said, the difference between luck and a wheelbarrow is, luck doesn’t work if you push it." - Colonel Orhan, Sixteen Ways to Defend a Walled City - KJ Parker
#14
Posted 09 September 2006 - 02:52 AM
"It's way too complicated for Americans - and too slow"
...if they found cricket complicated its not a wonder they didn't publish Malazan there until 5years after the rest of the world...does this mean that the overall american population is stupid?
...if they found cricket complicated its not a wonder they didn't publish Malazan there until 5years after the rest of the world...does this mean that the overall american population is stupid?
<div align='center'>You must always strive to be the best, but you must never believe that you are - Juan Manuel Fangio</div>
#15
Posted 09 September 2006 - 03:27 AM
As an American, I can assure you that, yes, the overall population is stupid.
#16
Posted 09 September 2006 - 04:01 AM
Going to have to agree. Idiots and morons abound in the US.. but then I believe they abound elsewhere. They just dont make enough money and tend to die off faster, lowering the tard-rate.
Whereas, here in the US, the government says its ok not to try, just have lots of children and we will take care of you.
Whereas, here in the US, the government says its ok not to try, just have lots of children and we will take care of you.
Monster Hunter World Iceborne: It's like hunting monsters, but on crack, but the monsters are also on crack.
#17
Posted 09 September 2006 - 12:08 PM
Quote
The American Civil War uprooted men from their homes, pitches fell into disrepair, and a new sport adapted from an English girls' game called rounders, took America by storm.
hehe. hmm, so they changed rugby to American Football so they could wear lots of padding and avoid getting hurt. Then they took a girls' sport from England, and changed that slightly.
#18
Posted 10 September 2006 - 12:14 PM
Obdigore;113600 said:
Whereas, here in the US, the government says its ok not to try, just have lots of children and we will take care of you.
If you are using America as an example of a welfare state I'm afraid you are a little misled...European countries have much larger welfare systems. Over here we see the US as a country where the government doesn't coddle the people who are 'slackers' as much...but then again, my view may be equally misled.
Sir Thursday
Don't look now, but I think there's something weird attached to the bottom of my posts.
#19
Posted 10 September 2006 - 12:38 PM
Sir Thursday;113970 said:
If you are using America as an example of a welfare state I'm afraid you are a little misled...European countries have much larger welfare systems. Over here we see the US as a country where the government doesn't coddle the people who are 'slackers' as much...but then again, my view may be equally misled.
Sir Thursday
Sir Thursday
I'd have to agree with you there, America has at least from the outside been seen as the least likely to give real help to the people in benifit form, and obviously Britain falls somewhere between America and mainland Europe in what we give to who. Although this is really a DB topic . . .
#20
Posted 10 September 2006 - 12:43 PM
Back to cricket affairs...
England manage to keep Pakistan down to 154 for 9 in 50 overs? Who would have thought it after the first 2 ODIs?
Sir Thursday
England manage to keep Pakistan down to 154 for 9 in 50 overs? Who would have thought it after the first 2 ODIs?
Sir Thursday
Don't look now, but I think there's something weird attached to the bottom of my posts.