<< PREDICTIONS ASTRAY ~ MAIN ~ LABOR'S BIG JOKE >>

CRICKET EXPLAINED

Latest column, presented in cutting-edge Portable Document Format, might be slightly tricky to locate; try here if the above link isn’t helpful.

Posted by Tim B. on 11/02/2007 at 05:30 PM
  1. Oh, great.  You know, I almost had cricket figured out once, then I made the mistake of asking an Aussie to explain to me.  Afterwards I knew less than I did before.

    On the other hand, the beet and grilled onions on the burger were pretty good.

    Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2007 11 02 at 06:08 PM • permalink

  2. Thanks Tim. The subtle difference between a yorker and a new yorker is revealed. Does a googlie have anything to do with internet searches?

    Posted by blogstrop on 2007 11 02 at 06:08 PM • permalink

  3. Good show, Blair.

    For me, the cricket coverage on the television has never been the same since the directors became too PC to show us some of the random good sorts in the crowd between deliveries during the slower periods of play. Surely there is some UN body we can complain to about this.

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 11 02 at 06:16 PM • permalink

  4. Cricket is not explainable, nor is it meant to be. Understanding of this greatest of games is essentially genetic and cultural. Unless this basis is there, the best that can be achieved is a level of knowledge, which may be quite comprehensive.

    But understanding….never.

    And of course PC has taken over, with the demise of, interalia, the C-word

    Howzat?
    RodC

    Posted by Rod C on 2007 11 02 at 06:22 PM • permalink

  5. In my search for a UN body to complain to about the malicious withdrawal of eyecandy referred to at #3 I have come up with this.

    Surely there is an enormous reservoir of untapped goodwill towards women that can be achieved during cricket broadcasts.

    Chief contacts will be goodwill ambassadors Nicole Kidman and HRH Princess Basma bint Talal of Jordan.

    Posted by Margos Maid on 2007 11 02 at 06:43 PM • permalink

  6. Now that’s really going to help our fellow anglospherics understand the game.

    Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 11 02 at 07:26 PM • permalink

  7. #45 Sexist! SEXIST! There isn’t a UN development fund for men, and particularly, this one.

    Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 11 02 at 07:28 PM • permalink

  8. ooops, fingers. I’m afraid, Margos maid, you will have to repat #5 comment at #45 - coming soon.

    Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 11 02 at 07:29 PM • permalink

  9. Well done, Tim.

    That should explain it all nicely to the Seppos our furrin friends and allies.
    Maybe they need to get out here and experience it first hand? Speshly the drinks afterward.

    Posted by kae on 2007 11 02 at 07:31 PM • permalink

  10. Egads, I noticed that the bottom of the PDF an invitation for people to visit timblair.net and join in with the comments.

    Are we about to be beset by a brace of cricket nutters?

    Posted by mr creosote on 2007 11 02 at 07:56 PM • permalink

  11. Tim, I thought you held back on the ‘Roebuck’ a little. Was the ‘beats me’ intentional?

    Posted by Nic on 2007 11 02 at 08:40 PM • permalink

  12. #9 yea Kae, tis now clear as mud to me now!

    Posted by missred on 2007 11 02 at 09:12 PM • permalink

  13. Yet another cut n’ paste column. Next you’ll be printing a comic book edition.

    Thanks for the info on Roebuck. I had no idea he was a cricket writer. I thought he must have been the literary editor or something.

    Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2007 11 02 at 09:18 PM • permalink

  14. Hehe enjoyed the sightscreens definition

    Posted by egg_ on 2007 11 02 at 09:19 PM • permalink

  15. Ermmm, e-y-e-a-h . . . cricket. “Explained”, indeed. I think I’m marginally closer to deciphering linear A than cricket. There is much truth in Rod C’s assertions, up there at comment #4.

    Posted by paco on 2007 11 02 at 10:57 PM • permalink

  16. I thought it made perfect sense.  Then the Skilaxen wore off.

    Posted by JorgXMcKie on 2007 11 02 at 11:49 PM • permalink

  17. #4, right.  Fine.  Be it known that I have read every word P.G. Wodehouse ever wrote about cricket, understood none of it, yet enjoyed it immensely.

    I once watched a large part of a match at the Singapore Cricket Club in the early ‘90’s and enjoyed it.

    But if you tell me that it is not explainable, that does match my experience and I will not argue.  However, what also is not explainable is why the rest of the Anglosphere makes this elaborate pretense at not understanding baseball.  The Japanese freakin’ get it, as does a large chunk of Central America, but you guys?  Oh nooooooo.  And it’s wearing a bit thin.  Not funny anymore.

    Posted by Steve Skubinna on 2007 11 03 at 12:18 AM • permalink

  18. #17 Steve S ....I cannot speak for the rest of the Anglosphere, but for myself, as an old man, I enjoy baseball.  But that is less important than respecting a game which, like cricket is a game of numbers, endless statistics, ancient records awaiting a breaker, but most importantly heroes and legends.  Like cricket it is a team game but apart perhaps from boxing the ultimate individual contest….who is more alone than when walking out to bat??

    There is of course more than one version of cricket.. For the purist, and old blokes like me the long game (4 or 5 days, 6 hours play per day) rules.  The shortened one day version, usually 50 overs per side, is now the most played, and normally attracts huge crowds and TV viewers for international contests (A notable exception, this years World Cup, held in the Caribbean, which was a fiasco). A game can go for 7-8 hours A statistical weakness with this variant is that the side batting first has an advantage. On the whole, I prefer baseball to one day cricket, if I have the choice.

    There has recently appeared a ghastly version called 20/20.  I prefer not to discuss it.

    Interesting the Anglosphere spread of the game.  I think yourselves and Canada are the only former Brit possesions that hardly play it.  Baseball is played by enthusiasts at club level here in Oz.  It used to be a winter game, played by cricketers to keep the eye in.  Attempts to get a commercial leage off the ground have failed.

    Cheers
    RodC

    Posted by Rod C on 2007 11 03 at 01:01 AM • permalink

  19. TIM…I finally got your column to load -very droll indeed…but I see the C-word was too non -PC even for your esteemed self

    Cheers
    RodC

    Posted by Rod C on 2007 11 03 at 01:41 AM • permalink

  20. #19 Rod:

    The C-word is gradually being expunged and replaced with “Controversial action, but a great challenge to play against.”

    This summer’s other great challenge will see Channel Nine trying desperately to avoid showing any super slo-mo high-res footage of said controversial actions.

    Posted by Tony.T.Teacher on 2007 11 03 at 02:40 AM • permalink

  21. Like many Australians I started my own business some years ago.  One of the few tragedies about that was losing “the sickie” to watch 4 days of test cricket at the SCG each year.

    Having permission to go lessens the flavour.

    Posted by allan on 2007 11 03 at 02:43 AM • permalink

  22. #20 TTT—See your point on that C-word but I had another in mind.  BTW, was at the ‘G -what? 12 years ago, to see Hoare have the guts to call him. Strange -took the crowd some minutes to cotton on just what had happened

    Posted by Rod C on 2007 11 03 at 02:52 AM • permalink

  23. allan -let’s hope you are able to keep your business after end Nov

    Posted by Rod C on 2007 11 03 at 02:54 AM • permalink

  24. #22 Rod:

    Two questions:

    1) What’s your C-word?
    2) Is “Hoare” a joke?

    Posted by Tony.T.Teacher on 2007 11 03 at 02:58 AM • permalink

  25. TTT

    1. CHINAMAN-prize for anyone who can explain that one!

    2.  No, a F*~KUP.  For Hoare, read Hair.  Didn’t look right when I typed it in.  Old age

    Posted by Rod C on 2007 11 03 at 03:16 AM • permalink

  26. #25 RodC

    The answer to number one is dead easy—A “Chinaman” is the mirror image of a “Googly”.

    Posted by MentalFloss on 2007 11 03 at 05:20 AM • permalink

  27. Oh Lord here comes cricket again. Is it too late to ask for my donation back?

    Posted by dean martin on 2007 11 03 at 09:15 AM • permalink

  28. #27 Much.

    I’m still waiting to hear how I can donate!

    Posted by Ash_ on 2007 11 03 at 10:17 AM • permalink

  29. Sure, Tim.  Try to explain the inexplicable.

    Posted by RebeccaH on 2007 11 03 at 12:21 PM • permalink

  30. #27 Dean -how surprising -this is a cricket post.  Been on the turps again?

    Posted by Rod C on 2007 11 03 at 04:35 PM • permalink

  31. #26 Floss -very very good.  I had a four page explanation in my head in case anyone asked!!

    Posted by Rod C on 2007 11 03 at 04:37 PM • permalink

  32. Tim,

    A bit disappointing that Mike Coward couldn’t make it to your definitions particularly with India touring this summer.  All season will be bombarded with Coward’s lavish praise on Indian Cricket and the Indian players regardless of their on-field performance.

    Mike will be creaming his strides over the:

    “exquisite timing and technique of the little master Sachin”

    “the flourishing blade of Laxman”

    “in a world of fast food and short attentions spans of the youth, Rahul Dravid’s stonewall defence and perfect technique are a refreshing throwback to days thought long gone.” 

    You get the picture.

    Posted by macho man on 2007 11 03 at 06:15 PM • permalink

  33. #19 RodC, you miss a few key points about baseball and cricket [both of which I played and loved]. 
    The one thing they have in common is that they both try to ban the ‘spit-ball’, the ‘bean ball’ and the ‘scuffed ball’, though the third is sort of essential in cricket and nowadays it’s the umpire who gets sacked for bringing attention to it..

    As for 20/20, at last the cricket authorities have allowed a form of cricket that is hugely more entertaining than baseball, where the scoring is often as dull as any soccer match.

    Baseball-lovers - imagine a three hour slugfest with about 10 homers for each side!  Eat your hearts out and change your outdated view of cricket!

    Posted by Barrie on 2007 11 03 at 06:31 PM • permalink

  34. #33 Your point about ” a form of cricket that is hugely more entertaining than baseball” is noted,  Aficionadoes of both games will doubtless treat it with the contempt it deserves.

    Still, Barrie, it’s a free country…...for a little while longer anyway…..!

    Posted by Rod C on 2007 11 03 at 07:25 PM • permalink

  35. I don’t need any explanations.  Just tell me how to get rid of the little pests.  We are still swamped with the little critters even at this late stage of the year.  Try being more helpful for goodness sakes.

    Posted by yojimbo on 2007 11 04 at 01:29 AM • permalink

  36. I don’t think we have anything to come close to;

    “The bowler is Holding, the batsman’s Willy.”

    The only think I can think of is Jerry Coleman of the San Diego Padres who said something like;

    ” He goes headfirst into the fence…it’s rolling back towards the infield!”

    Posted by yojimbo on 2007 11 04 at 01:44 AM • permalink

  37. Page 1 of 1 pages

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Members:
Login | Register | Member List

Please note: you must use a real email address to register. You will be sent an account activation email. Clicking on the url in the email will automatically activate your account. Until you do so your account will be held in the "pending" list and you won't be able to log in. All accounts that are "pending" for more than one week will be deleted.