25 Comments

1. WedgeHead:

Adopted by indigenous social climbers. Unlike polo, the capital barriers to entry are low. Once so established, it is self-perpetuating.

May 2, 2005 - 7:23 am 2. David Thomson:

ìIt rivaled baseball for most of the 19th century, with as many stories in the sports pages of The New York Times until 1880.î

I strongly suspect that the brutally competitive nature of Americans is responsible for the success of baseball over cricket. The latter game seems like it is devised for wimpy people. The ball is thrown towards the batter slow enough for oneís proverbial grandmother to hit. Whereís the challenge?

Am I merely a bigoted ìugly Americanî unable to appreciate the offerings of other cultures? Iíve only seen cricket played a few times in my life. Is there a possibility that Iím missing something?

May 2, 2005 - 7:32 am 3. richard mcenroe:

Successful democracy IS promoted from the top down; witness the success of republican democracy in the US versus its failure in Revolutionary France, for example.

The situation in the middle east is clouded by the fact that the people in charge are NOT the people at the real top of the culture, being neither the creators of wealth or the creators of social progress but only the biggest thugs, whether hereditary or self-starting. Government by mafioso always obscures the readiness of a culture for democracy…

May 2, 2005 - 7:46 am 4. Cynic:

“Might the same be true of other Western cultural practices, like democracy?”

Now if Democracy could be used as a similar nationalistic weapon to humiliate, that is defeat the other, it might succeed.

WedgeHead,

I’ve known clubs where Jews and Afrikaaners didn’t get into the clubhouse for 4 o’clock tea interval, but had to take theirs on the grass outside!

David Thomson,

Bowling slow off-breaks I occasionally hurt somebody who didn’t use a box, or his bat, to protect himself. Also some nasty cuts and welts resulted from the stitching spinning against unprotected skin.

Then again depending on the state of the pitch the fast bowlers send down balls well in excess of 90mph.

http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s119/st21509.htm

“Sachin Tendulkar has confirmed his status as the best batsman in the world, but that India’s trio of fast bowlers is the fastest legal bowling attack in the world.

During this 2003 World Cup, Shoaib Akhtar of Pakistan sent down the fastest delivery ever recorded in cricket: a 161.3 Kph or 100.2 mph thunderbolt, the second time he has broken the 100 mph barrier, standing alone as the 100 mph man of cricket, while Brett Lee of Australia followed him closely at 160.7/99.8 mph — frustratingly close but not across the 100 mph mark.”

Even much slower pace bowlers have caused plenty of orthopaedic damage.

May 2, 2005 - 7:58 am 5. Sandy P:

I think I’d rather watch curling….

May 2, 2005 - 8:02 am 6. Canucklehead:

Here is my two cents worth.

Government by the people for the people is simply a communication strategy amongst people. It’s meant to address their faults and tribulations.

In the old days, the biggest warlord looked after you (was benevolent) or subjegated you. The English method of benevolent royalty won out over other European and Eurasian modes of government order.

As trade increased, the world became smaller. This lead to the increase in communication between people. This increased level and speed of communication necessitated input into government decisions by the ordinary people. That lead to the various forms of democracy (republican and monarchical).

As the internet greatly influences the communications between people, it will significantly affect the evolution of democracy as likely the world will evolve in a series of best practises.

Cricket is the content… the medium is the messiah. All the world will become democratic. It’s in the cards. Play’em like you own’em…

May 2, 2005 - 8:04 am 7. melk:

“The latter game seems like it is devised for wimpy people. The ball is thrown towards the batter slow enough for one?s proverbial grandmother to hit. Where’s the challenge?”

Cynic beat me to it. A cricket ball is as hard as

a rock and the fastest bowlers rival the speed of baseball pitchers. Moreover,the nature of bowling and the presence of a seam on a cricket ball leads to the situation where optimally delivered balls bounce unpredictably before the batsman. A ball that does not bounce(called a full toss) is relatively easy to hit. And being hit by a cricket ball does not give one a cosy trip to first base. You carry on batting against 95mph+ deliveries that are designed to bounce off uneven parts of the wicket. It’s only in the last 20-30 years that batsmen have even been equipped with helmets. Most importantly,regarding the “wimp” factor,is that the fielders do not have gloves.Some of them(not necessarily of the lower social classes)are positioned a few feet from the batsman. Extremely dangerous and not for the faint of heart.

May 2, 2005 - 8:09 am 8. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

There’s a Bollywood movie called “Lagaan” about an Indian village that plays cricket against the local Brits–the stakes are the taxes for the next several years, which depending on the outcome of the game will be either doubled or waived.

May 2, 2005 - 8:16 am 9. David Thomson:

“Cynic beat me to it. A cricket ball is as hard as

a rock and the fastest bowlers rival the speed of baseball pitchers.”

Oh my God, am I truly a cultural illiterate? Is my memory failing me? I must be going stark raving nuts. It seems that I remember seeing a cricket ball being slowly thrown to the batter. Is the faster version something new? Has modern day cricket been ìAmericanizedî to more resemble baseball?

May 2, 2005 - 8:43 am 10. Silicon valley Jim:

Baseball is my first love (to the extent that I’m still a White Sox fan), but I find cricket to be quite enjoyable.

My understanding is that a cricket ball is just about the same size and consistency as a baseball, and that the bowler usually throws just about as hard as a major league pitcher; he’s not allowed to bend the elbow on his throwing arm, but he does get a running start. I believe, however, that, while a typical change-up in the major leagues travels about 65 mph, the equivalent in cricket is much slower. I’m guessing that the ability to bounce a ball makes this a reasonable thing to do. As the late, great Warren Spahn said, “Hitting is timing. Pitching is upsetting timing.” I’m sure that the same applies to cricket.

I’m certainly not an expert on this, so those more knowledgeable than I should feel free to correct me.

May 2, 2005 - 8:57 am 11. melk:

“Oh my God, am I truly a cultural illiterate? Is my memory failing me? I must be going stark raving nuts. It seems that I remember seeing a cricket ball being slowly thrown to the batter. Is the faster version something new? Has modern day cricket been ?Americanized? to more resemble baseball? ”

David. There are “slow” bowlers in cricket who rely on spin and guile, as opposed to sheer pace.But the starting bowlers are invariably high-speed merchants. And this is not new. My experience of international cricket dates back to the 1950s(unfortunately). Maybe you were watching a slow-motion replay?

May 2, 2005 - 9:04 am 12. vegetius:

Why not rugby??? It is played all over the world

and is just as passionately followed. It must be too bloody bloody. N’est pas?? It takes leather balls to play rugby…that’s the reason..heh-;)

May 2, 2005 - 10:29 am 13. thibaud:

I strongly suspect that the brutally competitive nature of Americans is responsible for the success of baseball over cricket. The latter game seems like it is devised for wimpy people.

Actually, it’s baseball players who are wimps: big fat cushy gloves to protect their hands, and the ball is softer to begin with. Baseball is less hazardous and less strenuous than soccer, for that matter, another rough global sport derided as “soft” by the clueless.

May 2, 2005 - 11:38 am 14. UML Guy:

“It shows that such practices can be promoted or discouraged from the top down; it is not necessarily a bottom-up process, as is commonly believed. Nor does such downward dissemination require the point of a gun…

“Might the same be true of other Western cultural practices, like democracy?”

I begin to wonder if the New York Times staff collectively suffers from a form of hysterical blindness, in which they just can’t see dictators when those dictators don’t fit their world view?

Hey, New York Times: the reason we had to bring democracy at gunpoint to Afghanistan and Iraq was because evil dictators were holding their own people at gunpoint and murdering anyone who tried to instill democracy. Their guns were pointed at the people to empower the dictators and terrorists; ours are pointed at dictators and terrorists to empower the people. There’s a bit of a difference there.

I guarantee that if Saddam or an equivalent had been in Pakistan or India, murdering cricket players and dumping them and their children into mass graves, cricket would have never have taken hold.

The New York Times actually thought this guy’s point of view was worth publishing? Idiots!

May 2, 2005 - 11:51 am 15. chuck:

Actually, it’s baseball players who are wimps: big fat cushy gloves to protect their hands

Well, baseball didn’t start out with gloves, they came later. Likewise for football, the old equipment was basically a leather helmet, now the players suit up like medieval knights. I think this trend towards equipment is profoundly American

May 2, 2005 - 12:11 pm 16. PeterUK:

Fast bowlers are simply trying to take the batmans head off,they are not aiming at the wicket.The batsman is trying to defend himself with the bat,herein lies the attraction for post colonial nations.

May 2, 2005 - 12:47 pm 17. PeterUK:

BTW,has Pamela been reading No equipment required?

May 2, 2005 - 12:48 pm 18. Cynic:

David Thomson

” It seems that I remember seeing a cricket ball being slowly thrown to the batter. Is the faster version something new?”

Well playing in the 1st Eleven at school in the late 50’s certainly saw the occasional split lip, lost tooth and even a broken nose when the pace bowler found a spot on a drying pitch to get the ball to lift right into the batsman’s face. Although not at today’s speeds certainly 75+ mph.

And no, there was no lovey dovey democracy in bowler’s mind.

I’m sure melk will attest to this.

May 2, 2005 - 1:09 pm 19. Kevin P:

Roger:

I think the myth that cricket players are not athletes arose from the fact that untill the satellite TV exposure began years ago was because the only time most Americans were exposed to cricet it was by watching middle aged ex-pats playing for fun in the park. The vast majority of proffesional baseball players are outstanding athletes and their are only two positions where fat players can still compete. Pitchers who are not expected to produce offensive results at the bat and those one dimensional or old who are allowed to hang on because of the evil invention of the designated hitter.

I think the main reason that cricket will never catch on in America, except by those who have immigrated here, is because the length of the contests. I don’t think the rules and traditions are any more complex then those in baseball but many Americans complain about the length of baseball games, let alone cricket.

May 2, 2005 - 1:20 pm 20. Silicon valley Jim:

The vast majority of proffesional baseball players are outstanding athletes

Absolutely. Michael Jordan’s inability to hit .200 in AA ball with Birmingham testifies to that, although some sportswriters, (the San Francisco Chronicle’s appallingly ignorant Henry Schulman is one) still don’t understand that.

It’s quite obvious, but it bears repeating that different sports require different abilities. Twenty years ago, I was an excellent cyclist, but I’ve never been able to throw a baseball even 50 mph. I consistently ran sub-40 minute 10-K races until I experienced some back problems, but I would have been an absolute joke at any distance under a mile.

May 2, 2005 - 1:54 pm 21. Richard Nieporent:

WHAT broader lessons might the history of cricket have for the globalization of Western cultural practices?

Besides the destruction of the Universe?

May 2, 2005 - 2:44 pm 22. richard mcenroe:

David Thomson ó The main virtue of cricket is that it allows large Jamaicans to throw hard objects at the faces of skinny Englishmen, just as the principal virture of American football is that it offers 300-lb African-Americans the chance to stomp on a skinny white guy… it is a powerful device for racial harmony.

May 2, 2005 - 6:20 pm 23. Daniel Berczik:

Yes, this is what I like to call the DID or Democratic Imposition Doctrine. Most people believe that democracy springs organically from the hearts of the oppressed, but history and practice has shown that democracy is often “imposed.” Link

As for cricket: it is definitely an acguired taste. But there is something oddly attractive about the game. My first experience with cricket came by way of watching on my first trip to Britain. We had the game on in the room (I gave up trying to find CNN)for backgroud noise and soon I was staring at the tube in a cricket-induced trance. Maybe I’m prewired to like foreign sport, but I still find the game oddly fascinating.

May 3, 2005 - 4:03 am 24. richard mcenroe:

Daniel ó Forget cricket. Try curling.

May 3, 2005 - 7:17 am 25. Daniel Berczik:

Richard,

Curling is just too fast-paced for me.

May 3, 2005 - 8:06 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: