Kevin Drum is “mystified”:http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_07/006789.php by “cricket slang”:http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/england/4711875.stm. Me, too. The important thing to remember is that England are losing in a really entertaining way.
{ 18 comments }
norbizness 07.24.05 at 11:47 pm
Cricket— that’s a real tinny word, isn’t it?
I actually made an effort to understand the sport, and actually enjoyed the Indian semi-epic underdog cricket movie Lagaan. Although the Leone-esque subtitle “Once Upon a Time in India” doesn’t make a lot of sense.
des von bladet 07.25.05 at 4:24 am
Cabbage crates over the briny!
We took two (2) American wimmins to a cricket match yesterday; needless to say, it rained.
Oh, and I’m not greatly entertained by England’s lossage.
(New preview! Hoorah; we likey!)
dsquared 07.25.05 at 4:35 am
I’m mystified by the obsession someone at the BBC has with calling Pietersen a slogger. There’s nothing at all wrong with his strokeplay; he selects some slightly unusual strokes but he plays them in textbook fashion. In the opinion of the BBC, anyone who’s got a little bit of physical strength and comes forward to the ball rather than acting like a gentleman and being caught on the back foot gets tarred for slogging.
John Quiggin 07.25.05 at 4:40 am
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.
des von bladet 07.25.05 at 6:22 am
“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.
dsquared 07.25.05 at 8:24 am
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.
gnat 07.25.05 at 8:42 am
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!
Cheryl Morgan 07.25.05 at 10:09 am
I have no objection to cricket commentators inventing new terms, but I find their persistent mis-use of the term “pinch hitter” highly irritating.
gnat 07.25.05 at 10:19 am
For the longest time, I was too embarassed and intrigued to ask what a Pin Shitter actually did. Imagine my disappointment etc…
tvd 07.25.05 at 12:53 pm
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..
gmoke 07.25.05 at 1:47 pm
May not help much but interesting nonetheless:
http://english2american.com/index.html#index
nick 07.25.05 at 7:07 pm
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.
nick 07.25.05 at 7:09 pm
British, he said? Well, ‘English as defined in cricket eligibility terms’.
Ron 07.25.05 at 10:42 pm
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.
tvd 07.25.05 at 11:47 pm
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.
dsquared 07.26.05 at 1:23 am
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)
tvd 07.26.05 at 3:06 am
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?
dave heasman 07.26.05 at 3:24 am
“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.
Comments on this entry are closed.