Comments on: Bally Jerry pranged his kite right in the how’s your father

By: dave heasman

dave heasman — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:24:32 +0000

“cricket, as a historical game of the ruling class…”

“But one which is the actual game of the working class”

Dsquared was right; village cricket, and league cricket as played in Yorkshire, Lancashire & Staffordshire remains primarily working-class although all these forms are slowly dying. Certainly more & more English Test players come from public school and top university backgrounds, as ordinary schools no longer play the game.
I believe grade cricket in Australia is still largely non-toff, but Australia has different sorts of toff, who may not be attracted to cricket at all.
West Indian cricket is currently suffering from the increasing popularity of baseball.

By: tvd

tvd — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:06:27 +0000

Ah, you are correct, dsquared. The Ashes cycle has settled into every 1.5-2.5 years.

As to the class aspect of the game, that’s open to discussion, but certainly any sport that draws the vast majority of its supporters from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh will trend toward the low side of per capita income.

As for England itself, I dunno. Do the yobs like cucumber sandwiches with their tea as well?

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 06:23:08 +0000

cricket, as a historical game of the ruling class

But one which is the actual game of the working class; I would bet money that of all genuinely international sports, cricket has the lowest average income of its spectators. Certainly much lower than football.

(and thank God, the Ashes is not a yearly contest. I don’t think I could take it if it was)

By: tvd

tvd — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:47:36 +0000

If anyone’s still reading this thread—-

“Slog” is a pejorative; in baseball, it would be “he was just up there hacking,” as in swinging from the heels in hopes of a home run.

Comments #3, 4, 5, 7 and 12 (hi, Nick) are all illuminating.

But the point is—-cricket, as a historical game of the ruling class has always been about the honor of steadfastness more than the result.

Until recently, before globalization, at least. Or shall I say, Americanization, the Lagaan notwithstanding. ;-)

Mr. Healy, I hope you’ll keep popping cricket (and The Ashes, the yearly England-Australia Test series, the crown jewel of world cricket) up in this forum. There are lessons in that great game that are availed by no other sport.

By: Ron

Ron — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 03:42:23 +0000

Does England ever win against Australia ?

11 years ago I travelled in Oz, and every once in a while the ‘Pommie’ backpackers would congregate in front of the hostel’s TV, and start cursing over losing to the locals.

By: nick

nick — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:09:03 +0000

British, he said? Well, ‘English as defined in cricket eligibility terms’.

By: nick

nick — Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:07:01 +0000

I suppose the main distinction between a slog-sweep (ugly, ugly term) and a plain sweep is that in the former, you don’t roll your wrists over the ball in order to send it trundling down to fine leg / long leg: instead, you open the face a little and hope to send it flying towards the boundary around deep square leg or thereabouts.

Alas, being in a land without cricket on the telly, I have limited ability to see the damn shot in question. That said, as much as it’s amusing to see Yet Another British Batting Collapse, the TMS chaps seemed to think that McGrath’s spell was one of the best he’d bowled in years.

By: gmoke

gmoke — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 18:47:14 +0000

May not help much but interesting nonetheless: http://english2american.com/index.html#index

By: tvd

tvd — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:53:58 +0000

Most of the concern is for the astonishingly poor performances of the #3 and #4 batsmen. But we should not call them failures; they're enjoying deferred success..

By: gnat

gnat — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:19:58 +0000

For the longest time, I was too embarassed and intrigued to ask what a Pin Shitter actually did. Imagine my disappointment etc…

By: Cheryl Morgan

Cheryl Morgan — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:09:44 +0000

I have no objection to cricket commentators inventing new terms, but I find their persistent mis-use of the term “pinch hitter” highly irritating.

By: gnat

gnat — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:42:05 +0000

Too early to say that, dsquared, I’d burn on through if I were you.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the Slog-Sweep. My understanding was that it was Steve Waugh’s invention (the term if not the stroke) for a standard sweep shot but with extra welly, oomph, zing and elan such that it would get the boundary too fast for the fielder to block it. Seemed to work well enough for him.

As for England’s performance against Australia…Waiter! Four double espressos! Now!

By: dsquared

dsquared — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 13:24:52 +0000

No, I won’t hear of it. The BBC hates us for our freedom and anyone who does not join in my condemnation of them for being insufficiently respectful to Pietersen is a fellow traveller and apologist for Australiofascism. Yes, perhaps four double espressos and no lunch was not the best of ideas.

By: des von bladet

des von bladet — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:22:44 +0000

“Slog-sweep” is a standard commentary term; it’s a sweep played uppishly and with power—the shot in question went for six (6), after all, which is a bit of a giveaway—and I don’t think the soundness of Pietersen’s technique for Test cricket is really in doubt anymore.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:40:02 +0000

The important thing to remember is that England always lose in a really entertaining way.

On DD’s point, the passage quoted by Kevin includes the neologism “slog-sweep”, which certainly seems to support the claim that they are determined to call him a slogger regardless of what he does. It’s hard to see how you can slog a sweep.