Dud sports....

[Alan Wanwierd]

Following a discussion on another thread that most of you probably ignored due to its title - "Will team X beat team Y in some regional competition of a sport that most the world doesnt care about?" (paraphrased)...

Some sports clearly dont work very well.... heres my list (feel free to argue!) :

1) Basketball -
As far as I can tell, theres has never in the history of Basketball been a "statistically significant" result. A score 99-95 is considered a sound victory when really... the game was pretty much a draw... Most games follow an EXTREMELY predictable pattern described by:

...
for (int i=0;i < 100;i++){
   if (isEven(i){
       teamA.getBallAndScore();
   }else{
       teamB.getBallAndScore();
   }
}
...  

There is of course a small chance that the getBallAndScore() method will fail - but not small enough... which makes for a tedious exchange of scoring....

2) Rugby Union -
(Much as I'd like to declare it a great game what with the English being World Champions and everything) but... - TOO MANY RULES!!!
C'mon - half the time when the ref blows the whistle the players, commentators and crowd have no idea what the infringement was..
CLearly the rules have got out of hand - I remember reading that line-outs (throwing the ball in from the side when it goes out of play) have something crazy like 120 different rules governing how they work!

3) Baseball -
swing - miss
swing - miss
swing - miss
swing - hit - wave to ecstatic crowd and sit down again
Did I miss something?

4) Cricket - (wait for the outrage from the Indian ranchers!)
5 days and you still often dont get a result?..
How can any game possibly work when it takes 5 days? This means amateurs cannot possibly play the game! Who has 5 full days to spare for a sporting fixture?
..and yes - its only marginally more interesting than Baseball!!




Now - just to appease some of you (and offer something to suggest that I'm not TOTALY anti-USA heres some sports that do offer entertainment:

1) Gridiron -
Yes yes - apart from the annoying stop-start nature of the game there are moment of fantasic skill and amazingly engineered tactics.. Watching a good NFL game is a wonderful experience!

2) Soccer -
Grace and teamwork... moments of beauty... and anyway that many people cant be wrong! I believe that FIFA may be the worlds biggest organisation of ANY kind with more voluntarily paid members than any other organisation on the planet (I heard it somewhere but I could be wrong.. any suggestions?)

plenty more - but I'll stop ranting for now!!!

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Adrian Wallace:

Some sports clearly dont work very well....
1) Basketball -

I must agree. They may as well not bother with the running around bit and just take it in turns having shots.

2) Rugby Union -
(Much as I'd like to declare it a great game what with the English being World Champions and everything) but... - TOO MANY RULES!!!

I do enjoy watching Rugby Union, but I never really know what is going on. Its a bit like tennis - once a year (i.e. 5 nations for Rugby and Wimbledon for tennis) I relearn the rules after a few games and can almost understand it, and by the same time the next year I have completely forgotten it again.

3) Baseball -
swing - miss
swing - miss
swing - miss
swing - hit - wave to ecstatic crowd and sit down again
Did I miss something?

Now this has to be the most pointless game ever invented - the only sport known to man that is more boring than cricket. Whenever I've watched it (which is thankfully not many times) I've been completely amazed by how excited the crowd got about nothing happening and how even more excited the commentators got about some meaningless statistic. Perhaps the commentators where desperately looking for something that would keep them awake

4) Cricket - (wait for the outrage from the Indian ranchers!)

Cricket seems to be having something of an identity crisis between the boring and traditional 5 day game and the newer modern 20-20 type thingies. Although I like the aesthetics of the game, and the atmosphere it has I don't see anything but a long term decline for cricket in an age where the media clamour for fast exciting and trendy sports.

1) Gridiron -

Eurgh yuk yuk yuk. What a silly game. 5 frantic seconds of people in padded suits running into each other and then the ball gets thrown to the end and everyone stops jumping on the other team and starts jumping on their own team. When you look at the free flowing grace of Rugby (especially Rugby League), its hard to see how the stop-start American Football could have had the same roots. I can see why it is so popular in America though - if the other choices where basketball or baseball, then I'd rather watch this instead

2) Soccer -
Grace and teamwork... moments of beauty...

Ahem Football ahem. Surely the greatest sport mankind has ever come up with. There is no other sport that so many people over the world play. There's no other sport that kids of any ages can play together with little or no equipment... just a tennis ball and a pile of jumpers will do. Ah, the beautiful game. Who can deny the grace, the elegance and the artistic merit of the game being played as it should be - free flowing passing movements across the pitch. Unfortunately its not always done that way. The team I support, the mighty Reading, (surely due their deserved place among the worlds elite any time this centaury) tend to spend 90 mins running around like demented chickens, only occasionally kicking the ball by accident. It doesn't really matter though - football is so much more than just the game.
[ October 15, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]

[Axel Janssen]

Basketball can be extreme cool TV sport. It has some extra suspense (fouls count of Dirk Novitzki) and is also elegant to watch. I played myself in the lowest liga in a average team as an average player when younger.
You'll like it more, if your national team gets better.

Rugby and Gridiron appear to be quite similar sports to me with Rugby being more archaic and Gridiron more strategic and somehow post-industrial (players look as if they were genetically designed for the sport).

I never really followed a baseball match. Best about baseball: it doesn't disturb much, when reading a good book.

Soccer is like bread in the morning. It was allways there and is still by far the best.
Reading. cool. I am fan of of allways great, once more successfull Borussia Moenchengladbach

I would like to watch a Cricket match for first time, but they never had transmitted one. I must say that it appeared even more boring than baseball and I know only the "highlights" ( ) they sometimes show in CNN. For me suspense high lights in Cricket is like break in football.

What's with (Ice) Hockey? Its nice to watch, but it was much better in the past when players weren't that athletic. Years ago it was very strategic match, but now its too much defence.
[ October 15, 2004: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Bacon]

The perception that basketball is a virtual tie is due to a lack of understanding of the nature of the game. Like my lack of understanding of soccer and the 0-0 or 1-0 finishes that some get so excited about.

I clearly do not appreciate the game. To each his own.

If you've ever watched MJ and Bulls of the recent past you will know that with 2 minutes left, if the score is within 4 either way, the Bulls will win 9 times out of 10 and the bigger the game the more likely. Basketball happens in the last 10 minutes of the game, unless it is a total blow out, The good teams know how to finish and win.

Baseball... you either get it or you don't. During the regular season I can sleep through a game and check the score with one eye half open, every 1/2 hour or so. Now that's entertainment!

Now in the playoffs, that's different... Bottom of the ninth... final game of a series... 1 run difference in the game... man on second... 2 outs... full count... the pitch... the swing... Now that's drama!

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

Rugby and Gridiron appear to be quite similar sports to me with Rugby being more archaic and Gridiron more strategic and somehow post-industrial (players look as if they were genetically designed for the sport).

Plus Rubgy players aren't armour wearing pansies

Reading. cool. I am fan of of allways great, once more successfull Borussia Moenchengladbach

I wonder which one gets mis-pronounced by foreigners more - "Reading" or "Borussia Moenchengladbach"! To all people no acquainted with the exciting town of Reading (famous for...er... making biscuits), its pronounced to rhyme with "bedding" not "reeding". The only idea I've got for pronouncing Borussia Moenchengladbach is from listening to football news on the telly, but I've got no idea if they are saying it right... something like "monchun-glabdback".

[Alan Wanwierd]

Reading

Nothing wrong with Reading... new stadium is great!.. and Reading is of course famous for being the place where Oscar Wilde was imprisoned..

Isnt it about time they got themselves promoted though?

(I grew up in Basingstoke just 10 miles down the road - but used to go down to Southampton to watch games... unfortunately new home Brisbane, Australia doesnt quite have the same standard of footy to watch!)

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Joe King:

"monchun-glabdback".

Not bad. But its more like
moench'n-glad-bach

"ch" is very difficult sound for english tongues. We produce it in the most deepest part of our throat.
Let someone pour a glass of water in your open mouth while sleeping and you are going to produce the right spelling automatically.
English or americans who know german most often spell it like ck.

Its similar to "J" in spanish Javier.
[ October 15, 2004: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Thomas Paul]

Baseball is my favorite sport. To people who don't understand it I can see why it might be tedious, but how someone who likes soccer could complain about another sport being boring is beyond me.

[Stan James]

After years of watching baseball on TV I couldn't imagine how people got excited about it. But a night out at the park can be magical. We have a AAA team in town and I was pleasantly amazed at how much fun it is to go in person. It requires a perfect night and an appetite for hot dogs, tho.

I went to one game as a youngster ... Warren Spawn's 300th win. About all I remmeber is the beer guy had two openers in each hand and could open a case of bottles in under 5 seconds. And Spawn dropped to his knees when the outfielder brought him the ball after the final out.

[Eric Pascarello]

My favorite baseball moment was when I was a kid, sitting there waiting for a foul ball all game and did not get one. Then my mom gets me ice cream and as I am sitting there eating it, a ball comes right for me. That is when I realized that ice cream was more important then a ball and ducked as it hit the people behind me.

I used to goto the minor league Reading Philles games when I was younger since it was closer then any of the other pros.

Eric

[Malhar Barai]

Hi..

Has anyone heard about Kabaddi

Cheerz

[Stan James]

I was chuckling over this and it turns out my cube neighbor was quite familiar with it, played a lot in his youth. Straightened me out on pronunciation, too.

So who remembers 43 Man Squamish?

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Adrian Wallace:


Nothing wrong with Reading... new stadium is great!.. and Reading is of course famous for being the place where Oscar Wilde was imprisoned..

Blimey. Its rare enough to find someone who has heard of Reading, let alone actually seen its stadium. It certainly is a great stadium, such a difference from the old Elm Park (although I do feel a bit nostalgic whenever I pass where it used to be).

Isnt it about time they got themselves promoted though?

A big yes to that one. Somehow we're second in the table, but I can't see things staying that way for long. I'm sure we will get promoted one day, although we probably need a year or two more. Its hard to be confident after the play off close run a while back when we were just ten mins away from promotion though.... that'll probably scar me for years until we finally get promoted . Seeing as Reading has been playing since 1871 and never been in the top league, I think we're about due

(I grew up in Basingstoke just 10 miles down the road - but used to go down to Southampton to watch games... unfortunately new home Brisbane, Australia doesn't quite have the same standard of footy to watch!)

Cool. I grew up in Wokingham, so was able to have a season ticket at Reading until I left to go to university in London. I've stayed in London since finishing uni, so I only get to see the occasional game whenever Reading happen to be playing in the area... its just too expensive to travel back every weekend.... although probably not quite as expensive as for you if you wanted to travel to Southampton to watch a game
[ October 25, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

"ch" is very difficult sound for english tongues. We produce it in the most deepest part of our throat.
Let someone pour a glass of water in your open mouth while sleeping and you are going to produce the right spelling automatically.
English or americans who know german most often spell it like ck.

Its similar to "J" in spanish Javier.

[ October 15, 2004: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

Indeed. I'm currently trying to learn Greek and it has a similar sound for its "X" letter. I find it very hard to pronounce, normally saying a "k" or "h" sound instead. Apparently Scots find it a lot easier to pronounce this as they use the same sound at the end of words such as "loch".

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Jesse Torres:

I know that the following is an obvious question to Brits; however, it is not obvious to me. Is Rugby just as popular as Football (Soccer).?

For international games Rugby is very popular - when England recently won the world cup in Rugby there were huge street parades for the winning team, with tens of thousands of people turning up. Domestic Rugby has a much smaller following then football though, with a smaller amount of money being involved. Many Rugby teams in the UK play in fairly small stadia, except for those that share a stadium with a Football team.

Also, how do Europeans feel towards the USA for referring to the game as Soccer?
Thanks,

The British opinion of this can be summed up fairly simply : Hate it, hate it, hate it.
I'm not sure about the opinion in the rest of Europe, but the Brits don't really like using American terms when they are different to British terms for things. We kind of see it as American culture taking over a bit of British culture. Normally this is a low-key annoyance - we have a bit of a laugh when we see things like trousers called pants (a word we use just for underwear), but sport is a serious business, and when the beautiful game is called something other than Football, we tend to start doing things like making funny snorting sounds and pulling strange faces.

[Marcus Green]

During my 8 years or so in Australia It amazed me that there were three different games that got called footie, or football, of which none of which was essentialy engaging foot with ball. To save confusion they referred to the game which mainly involves engaging foot with ball soccer. For the non australians the other three were rugby union, rugby rugby league, and Australian Rules "football".

For members of the minority browsing this, I believe a standard cricket match can continue for five days and still come to a draw!

Feel free to correct details on the above information as my knowledge of sport is filtered through a complete lack of interest in the actual subject mildly enhanced by an interest its absurdities.

[Ray Marsh]

Originally posted by Joe King:
[QB]...the Brits don't really like using American terms when they are different to British terms for things...QB]

Why would you? I don't use British terms for things that already have American terms. If I told someone that I needed use the loo, some would laugh and others would have no idea what I was talking about.

The differences in cultures are what makes the world interesting. I am always fascinated by other people's views. It makes you realize how narrow your own little slice really is.

One thing that takes place in America that I really dislike. I don't know if it happens elsewhere... is the continual re-naming things that already have names. Its usually done to soften a word that is perceived as too harsh or politically incorrect. No one says "lay-offs" or "fired" any more... its down-sizing, right-sizing... etc. I haven't heard of anyone being fired in a long time.

[Thomas Paul]

You should note that the terms "soccer", "football", and "rugby" are all sort of intermingled in history and the fact that "soccer" is used in the US has to do with the fact that the British had not seperated rugby and football at the time that American football was being developed.

I had written a detailed post a while back but I couldn't find it in meaningless drivel.

[Frank Silbermann]

Joe King: "Its rare enough to find someone who has heard of Reading, let alone actually seen its stadium."

I've heard of Reading. My wife was born there, and lived there until the age of 9. I visited with her in '86 and saw some nice sheep and a church where a famous war movie was filmed thirty years ago. (Was it "Where Eagles Dare"?)

Joe King: "the Brits don't really like using American terms when they are different to British terms for things. ... Normally this is a low-key annoyance - we have a bit of a laugh when we see things like trousers called pants (a word we use just for underwear), "

I thought you used the word "knickers" for that. One thing I've only recently learned is that the Brits say "different to" instead of "different from."

Ray Marsh: One thing that takes place in America that I really dislike ... is the continual re-naming things that already have names. Its usually done to soften a word that is perceived as too harsh or politically incorrect. No one says "lay-offs" or "fired" any more... its down-sizing, right-sizing... etc.

That would be one of the valid criticisms of America. (As distinct from criticisms that are actually compliments).
[ October 25, 2004: Message edited by: Max Habibi ]

[Ray Marsh]

If we used the same terms all of the sudden it would cause more confusion.

If I, as an American, say "football" a brit will think "American football"

If I say "soccer" a brit will think "football... stupid American!"

If a brit says "football", I think "soccer"

If a brit says "American football", I think "football... what other kind is there?"

If I say "football" and really mean "soccer" or a brit says "football" and really means "American football" we'll have no idea what either one is talking about... until someone mentions the score... then it will all be very clear!

It all translates very nicely, provided we know the nationality of the speaker.
[ October 25, 2004: Message edited by: Ray Marsh ]

[Alan Wanwierd]

..and the terms get worse....

In Queensland and NSW (Austalia "football" for some completely inexplicable reason means Rugby League..

Rest if Australia "football" means Aussie rules....

Of course inter-state and international migration being fairly common place teh term "football" is realll really vague and most people in Australia will now consider the term "football" to be a collective term for all of soccer, rugby league, rugby union or aussie rules.

(Of course as an Englishman I *know* that the only REAL football is the one where the object of the game is spherical (*ball* not *egg*) and the ball is passed around primarily by being propelled by the the *foot* and not by the hands!... but I've given up trying to make that point these days!
[ October 25, 2004: Message edited by: Adrian Wallace ]

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Ray Marsh:

Why would you? I don't use British terms for things that already have American terms. If I told someone that I needed use the loo, some would laugh and others would have no idea what I was talking about.

American terms are becoming more and more widely heard in many parts of the world, mainly down to the vast amount of money that American companies can use to market things like films, music etc etc across the globe. Most films I see in the UK are American, and an increasingly large amount of the music in the charts is either American or American influenced. This means that kids are increasingly using American terms in every day language. There is a general feeling that eventually American terms will kind of smother the British terms and replace them. By and large this isn't a serious worry (I think other countries, such as France, are more worried about the influence of American culture) but it is still a bit annoying whenever companies like Sky talk about soccer instead of football.

The differences in cultures are what makes the world interesting. I am always fascinated by other people's views. It makes you realize how narrow your own little slice really is.

Absolutely. The other day I watched a fascinating programme about Michael Palin's trip around the Himalayas. It struck me how different the culture of the people that lived there was - its great how much variety there is out there.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:

I've heard of Reading. My wife was born there, and lived there until the age of 9. I visited with her in '86 and saw some nice sheep and a church where a famous war movie was filmed thirty years ago. (Was it "Where Eagles Dare"?)

Excellent, the best people are born in Reading... ahem... did I mention I was born there?

I didn't realise that they filmed Where Eagles Dare near there.... wow, its known for something other than biscuits and Oscar Wilde.

Reading's probably changed a lot since '86 - its about twice the size now for a start. The town centre has seen an impressive regeneration in the last decade or so, and a large number of IT companies have moved into town. As the town has grown a lot they frequently apply to get city status. Near the millennium the town council was so sure that Reading would be made a city that they started changing road signs to say things like "City Centre" etc, but Reading missed out. There is now an odd situation where all the signs say its a city, but it isn't yet.

I thought you used the word "knickers" for that. One thing I've only recently learned is that the Brits say "different to" instead of "different from."

Almost. Pants is the main word for underwear, but there are several subclasses - "knickers" is used for female pants. For men there are the subclasses "boxer shorts" and "y-fronts", but "pants" is normally used. In the late 90's there was also a trend to say things like "its a bit pants" to indicate that something was not good.

One other amusing difference is the phrase "Lets table that motion". In the UK it means "Lets discuss it now" where as it seems in the US it means "Lets talk about it later". I can imagine that causing a few confusions in trans-Atlantic business meetings.

This page has a great list of similar confusements: http://www.uta.fi/FAST/US1/REF/britguid.html

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Jesse Torres:
Where did the term Soccer originate?

IIRC its a weird abbreviation of Association Football, which is how Football is sometimes officially referred. Strangely this term originated in the UK but never really became popular there.

[Thomas Paul]

In the mid-1800's, Rugby and Soccer were the same game. Both were called football. The rules were dependent on which part of England you were playing in. The game of Rugby got its name because the version of football that allowed the use of the hands was played mostly around Rugby. Association Football was the kind that didn't allowed you to use your hands and was called soccer. That term made its way to the US. In England, Rugby football became Rugby and Association football became football. In the US, association football became soccer and a new-fangled game that looked sort of like Rugby football became football. So its all the fault of the Brits.

[Helen Thomas]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
So its all the fault of the Brits.

The rest of the world knew which names to use and rules to follow.


So when Man U gets taken over by the American would they still be playing the same game ? This can get even more confusing.

[Ray Marsh]

When I was a kid we played "Kill the man with the ball" A nice friendly game sort of a cross between hot potato and rugby. There were no real rules and only a suggestion as to the object... that was to get the ball and hold on to it as long as possible, while running away from everyone else who was trying to get it from you by any means available. The ones with moxey would take their lumps, the others would throw the ball away before getting trounced. There was no scoring either... none of that technical stuff to muk up the fun!

[Mark Fletcher]

Dud Sports:

I cant believe noone has pointed out Ice Hockey. Ok I dont really have a problem with the rules per-se, but the twenty minute icing between periods is a complete tension killer. Now I understand why folks get all excited when there is a punch up...

Cool Sports:
Soccer/Football/Association Football/World League of Socher! (*) I cant believe that Thomas Paul thinks this sport is boring. But then again, he's a Yankee fan, so hes probably wrong on a lot of things

Rugby I dont understand all the penalities either. Its usually given for trying to stamp the opponents head. Shouldnt they be giving penalties to these big men who like nothing better than grabbing each others ears, genitalia, asses, and then make a habit to all taking a bath together after the game? Minors watch this sport for goodness sakes! Ok, apart from that, it is good to watch when a run is setup.

Football / American Football / GridIron Its good, enough said. Any chance they could extend the season?

Mark

(*) World League of Socher - Any of the Brits remember the "Mary Whitehouse Experience"?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ray Marsh:
When I was a kid we played "Kill the man with the ball"

You didn't really call it that did you? We had a more politically incorrect name for that game, as childen often do.

[Ray Marsh]

Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:
Football / American Football / GridIron Its good, enough said. Any chance they could extend the season?

Yeah... its called the pre-season, otherwise known as full price tickets for meaningless games. The other thing they do to extend the season (for TV revenue, I believe) is the cursed bye-week.

I think they should take two of the four pre-season games and make them regular season games and jettison the bye-week and offer the pre-season games @ 1/2 price.

If you buy season tickets, you have to buy the pre-season tickets too! At least for the Bills.

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
You didn't really call it that did you? We had a more politically incorrect name for that game, as childen often do.

Yeah... we did. I guess we lacked imagination. You had a more politically INcorrect name for it?
[ October 28, 2004: Message edited by: Ray Marsh ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ray Marsh:
Yeah... we did. I guess we lacked imagination. You had a more politically INcorrect name for it?

It sounds like a game that was called "smear the queer". As I said, a very politically incorrect name, but I don't think political correctness was something they were teaching elementary school kids in the 70's.

[peter wooster]

Originally posted by Mark Fletcher:
[QB]Dud Sports:

I cant believe noone has pointed out Ice Hockey. Ok I dont really have a problem with the rules per-se, but the twenty minute icing between periods is a complete tension killer. Now I understand why folks get all excited when there is a punch up...

Ice Hockey, known here by the simple term "Hockey", the other kind played mostly by upper class girls is called "field hockey".

This game, currently on hold professionally over a labour dispute, looks a lot like Soccer on Ice. It's really similar, you can't use your hands, there's a goal keeper and lots of action resulting in very little scoring.

Soccer I love this definition of "football", although I don't know its origin.
"Rugger - a hooligan's game played by gentlemen, Soccer - a gentleman's game played by hooligans."

[peter wooster]

Originally posted by Joe King:

IIRC its a weird abbreviation of Association Football, which is how Football is sometimes officially referred. Strangely this term originated in the UK but never really became popular there.

You are correct: From the Shorter OED (on historical priciples).

Soccer: Also socker. orig University slang 1891. [f. Assoc. (short for Association)+ -ER6.] Association football.

[peter wooster]

And don't lose track of the Americanadian term "Soccer Mom". This is the person who drives her children to their extracurricular pursuits in a minivan. Usually of the early middle aged demographic.

[Joe King]

While on the subject of strange sporting terms, can anyone explain why baseball has a World series made up of teams from only two countries? Is this reflective of a North American opinion that the rest of the world doesn't count, or down to some strange historical accident?

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Joe King:
Is this reflective of a North American opinion that the rest of the world doesn't count.

Yes.

Regarding baseball's international flavor, I might point out that the Little League World Series, which is actually a fairly big to-do involving major sports coverage, features teams from all over the world. It is quite regularly won by teams outside of the US, usually from Asia or South/Central America.

As far as Major League Baseball goes, you may or may not have realized that a very large number of players are not born in the US. Quite a few come from South America, Central America, Cuba, Japan, and Korea. Would opinion that these players aren't representative of the world community be reflective of a European opinion that the rest of the world doesn't count?

[Alan Wanwierd]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

As far as Major League Baseball goes, you may or may not have realized that a very large number of players are not born in the US. Quite a few come from South America, Central America, Cuba, Japan, and Korea. Would opinion that these players aren't representative of the world community be reflective of a European opinion that the rest of the world doesn't count?

I think we've already had this discussion and are now going round in complete circles but:

Yes its true, the teams in U.S Baseball may contain 'foreign' players but it is still a domestic competition in the same way that the various European football leagues (English Premiership, Italian Serie A, German Bundesleague etc etc) all have large numbers of foreign players but are all still domestic competitions. Only when teams from the various domestic leagues compete against each other can a competition claim to be be truly international.

If "World Series" wants to be taken seriously as an international sport then it should allow teams from Japan, Australia and anywhere else to at least try and qualify for the competition.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Adrian Wallace:
If "World Series" wants to be taken seriously as an international sport then it should allow teams from Japan, Australia and anywhere else to at least try and qualify for the competition.

If there was a team in the world that could compete with a US team then it might be worth considering. The fault lies with the British who would rather play cricket.

Anyway, here is write up of the origin of the name "World Series":

http://roadsidephotos.com/baseball/name.htm

[Alan Wanwierd]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
The fault lies with the British who would rather play cricket.

What??

Oh forget it - I cant even be bothered to carry on this argument.....

You're absolutely right of course - if only the British had never played cricket - then Baseball would be a truly magnificent international specatacle, packed full of excitment. Kids world over would be practicing in the street with rolled up newspapers for a bat, a lump of dirt for the ball and a jumper([sweater, pullover?]) wrapped around their hand to emulate the silly gloves...! There would be thriving leagues all over Europe and the Asian sub-continent, Australians would no doubt sell their souls to ensure their nation overachieve in this sporting arena and African and SEAsian nations would be experiencing a surge in interest.

I apologise on behalf of my fellow British countrymen for failing to do my part and allowing baseball to become a dull featureless game that only raises interest in such a tiny regional corner of the world. If only I had realised that being British carried such responsibilities.. that the whole world takes their entertainment cues from our tastes!!


[ October 31, 2004: Message edited by: Adrian Wallace ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Adrian Wallace:
What??

Oh forget it - I cant even be bothered to carry on this argument.....

Ok then, perhaps you can explain why the World Cup was called the "World Cup" when only 13 countries participated the first time it was held? In fact, not a single country from Asia or Africa participated.