Well, for starters, Major League Baseball also includes a team in Canada, so at the very least people in Canada care (and it’s usually us Americans who get chided for acting as if Canada is not a separate country).

But baseball is also not American football. Just because the cricket-playing countries (with the possible exception of Australia) don’t care about baseball doesn’t mean that much of the rest of the world is equally indifferent.

In fact, baseball is huge in most of Latin America and East Asia, and it’s growing in the Netherlands. The Japanese, at least, pay a lot of attention to Major League Baseball now that so many Japanese stars are playing here, just as British football fans care about Real Madrid-Barcelona.

The real parochialism is the assumption that, since Americans tend to be parochial, no American sport can possibly have any international interest. In fact, baseball and basketball are both truly international sports. American football is the exception, not the rule.

I can’t place this quote but it doesn’t originate with Ponting. Maybe Bradman? Certainly that period (30s/40s). It is the truth, though.

Fine, but no-one outside the U.S. cares. This smacks a bit of the Olympics (forget which) where the favoured American lost the 100m sprint, but won the 200m. Until then, the 100m winner was considered the “World’s Fastest Man”, but the Americans insisted on a 150m run-off to decide the issue. Is this what they mean by “exceptionalism”?

“”Nine times out of ten, you should automatically bat first. The other time you should think about fielding, but then bat anyway.”

And that’ll go done for posterity as either a Colemanball or as I reckon another sardonic piece of Aus gamesmanship.

I think young Ponting is shaping up rather well as Australian Captain don’t you? He seems to have the requisite guile and guts of his immediate predecessors along with a fair hand with the willow.

But I don’t want video. I want radio, please, and nobody appears to have the rights to the ABC/BBC broadcasts in the US. Or if they are, they’re keeping it to themselves.

There’s a partial solution: Radio Sport NZ has limited rights to dip into the ABC/BBC coverage for an over or two at a time, and I survived on that for the first day. (Even though, as Daniel says, England are going to be slaughtered, and this one will be over by the Boxing Day Test at the MCG.)

Oh, rivalries: Stoke City – Port Vale, and Southampton – Portsmouth. Think ‘Old Firm without the religion’; neither of these have any hint of the ‘friendliness’ that you’ll see in a Merseyside (or even Manchester) derby.

The problem with the Ashes rivalry is that it has to be competitive to burn at its fiercest, and that hadn’t been the case until last time.

Another example of the positive effects of a nuclear standoff!

good as the English batsmen are

Really? For which one of these lot is the idea of them being in “a lineup containing Dravid, Laxman, Tendulkar, Ganguly and Sehwag” anything other than a joke?

Flintoff – gneuinely talented and aggressive but half-fit and exhausted from being captain and bowling himself too much (he hasn’t yet, but as things get tough he will). Will make one or two valiant captain’s innings but is almost bound to get injured.

Strauss – solid and good. Probably the only one who actually could be in that lineup without embarrassing himself. But he needs partners …

Cook – exactly the kind of defensive batsman that England always take to Australia on the basis of a good record elsewhere. They always crumble.

Bell – Never seen it with Bell, even ignoring the 2005 disaster. He’s timid. Pokes at things moving away from him. A guaranteed six wickets for Warne.

Pietersen – entire reputation based on one innings. A good, exciting batsman (I don’t agree that he’s a slogger) but completely undisciplined and wildly selfish – he never acts like he has any idea of the importance of his wicket. Will make a glorious hundred in the dead rubber match to ensure continued selection but otherwise basically a liability. If I were a selector I would hate myself and not pick him.

Collingwood – abysmal technique. I cannot believe that anyone takes seriously the idea that this man is going to bat against Australia.

Jones – by way of perspective, this role used to be played by Alec Stewart and we still lost.

Joyce – who?

and that’s it, isn’t it?

btw, I don’t agree with:

after the first test England looked like they would be lucky to get zero

on a flat track at Lord’s which is their worst ground, England actually managed a pretty respectable showing that could have looked really good if a couple of marginal decisions had gone the other way. In particular, the Australian batsmen were clearly rattled by having to face Jones, Flintoff and Harmison, all bowling very fast and aggressively. I put my money on after that test, on the assumption that the odds were worth taking a punt on an injury to McGrath or some such.

England are truly fucked this time. They have basically no fast bowling attack; Jones is out and Flintoff and Harmison are half-fit – one or both of them is bound to miss at least one match through injury. Resting our hopes on spin bowling against Australia is just completely futile, particularly when we have two of the most utterly pedestrian spin bowlers on earth (I really do not see it with Panesar). Our batting order is a complete shambles as well – we have no openers and once more, the tail begins at 5. This is actually a very weak England side, made even weaker by injury. I would love to eat crow over this unequivocal prediction but I don’t think I’m going to have to – it’s Australia 3-1, as they always ease off in a dead rubber, from which we get one draw and one win.

By the way, no one mentioned the Boat Race; if we’re talking history here, isn’t that longer than those mentioned?