Why not have our own little non-American sports thread? Cricket, Rugby (League, Union), Tennis, Soccer, Swimming, et cetera.
Post your thoughts on recent happenings.
I think that the Aussie Cricket team should replace Gillespie with Kasp. for the next Test match, and replace Katich with Symons.
I also think that the Springboks shouldn't sledge Australia. I think sledging is better after the game is over. Or else they make foold out of themselves.
My thoughts, at least...
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
How about the Tour de Lance, I mean France?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
If it's non-American, we can't be having any talk of soccer.
<Spanish accent>Football!</Spanish accent>
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Also, I find this a convenient place to plug the most successful film Bollywood has yet produced - Lagaan. It's got everything; historical goodness, noncolonial goodness; musical goodness, and cricket.
Beautiful stuff.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
fohohtbayye?
Posted by Hamson (Member # 7808) on :
What about Handball?
Posted by johnsonweed (Member # 8114) on :
I don't see how any of the sports you mention are not American. Go to any college in the US and you will find teams for each of these full of American and foreign born students playing them. I teach at a small midwestern college and even see the students playing cricket in the mall!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*places a bet on the Chudley Cannons*
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think we can easily call them "not American" in the sense that, while some Americans play these sports, the sports themselves do not enrapture the American public like American football, basketball, and baseball do.
That being said, I have an Indian boyfriend who is crazy about cricket and plays Fifa all the time.
When Pakistan was touring India awhile back he ordered a streaming live version of the series. We (along with most of the other Indians on campus) watched every game. This is LIVE, mind you, and India is almost exactly on the opposite end of the world from the midwest.
But a true fan must do what he must, I suppose.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's not hard to find a game of soccer on television in America. My brother rarely goes a day without watching some sort of soccer, be it internationally or from MLS.
Cricket I'll give you. Rugby even.
But Tennis and Soccer I most certainly will not.
Swimming is somewhere in the middle. I was unaware of Europe, the Middle East's, and South America's growing love of swimming...
Just because there isn't a national fervor for swimming, or a freakish love of tennis the way the English or French do, doesn't mean it's Non-American, any more than Cycling is un-French or un-British because no non-American has won the Tour de France in the last seven years.
I don't know many kids around me who didn't play soccer on a team as a kid, I did, my brother did until college. Two of my best friends play it on college women's teams. We don't watch soccer on television that much, but we still like it a lot.
You need to define the criteria for what makes a sport Non-American, other than "well they don't have a national league for it" ::coughcough::MLS::coughcough::
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
While this generation seems to be growing up on soccer, I still don't know if I'd call it a national sport yet.
About half the international students at my college could walk onto the school's soccer team, and the coach would be delighted to put them on the field. This isn't because my college requires all international students to be excellent at soccer - they've just all played and obsessed over soccer their entire lives. Like I said, my boyfriend plays Fifa (a soccer game for PC and Playstation) all the time. He also has another game in which you manage a soccer team, and until he went back to India, he was playing in pickup soccer games two or three times a week this summer with the other international students on campus (Americans played too, but the core was international).
I agree that you can't really call swimming, tennis, or cycling non-American sports, if only because we kick ass at all three, in some form or another. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You make valid points. And you're right about some of it.
Still, I disagree about soccer. I'm willing to be the MAJORITY of American youth are playing soccer. They might not be talking about it, but many of them are out there playing it. It's one of the mostly widely played sports for young people in America.
The first generation of younger soccer players is finally growing up, and when they do, there will be more places for them to go once they get out of collge. But for college age and under, while I don't think they are AS excited about soccer as some western European countries, you can hardly call it a Non-American sport.
I can imagine there would be a lot of very angry Europeans if we were to call Hockey a purely North American sport. I doubt anyone is as into it as the Canadians are.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Soccer is the international sport. You can't define it with one country. This is why it is cool.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh god, an article! Well, my goodness, that just solves EVERYTHING doesn't it?
You certainly win there, as one guy in Sports Illustrated is certainly proof enough to silence all opposition to your argument.
America's soccer history is strong and growing at a faster pace than anywhere else in the world. It is a stretch to say that soccer has no popularity in America.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:It is a stretch to say that soccer has no popularity in America.
Nobody here said that.
Posted by amira tharani (Member # 182) on :
Jonathan, I didn't think Symonds played Test Cricket, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not sure the Aussies should change a winning formula, but it was a close call between Dizzy and Kasp to begin with. I don't think England should change their side at all - Collingwood is making a good case for inclusion, but the only person he could replace is Ian Bell, and I think it's too early for that. That said, I think the selectors made a mistake including Bell in the first place - should have been Pietersen and Thorpe. Freddie needs to find some form with both bat and ball, and Vaughan needs to find some runs. Still, even with the portents not looking so good for us, I'm still looking forward to the Edgbaston Test.
I didn't watch much of the SA/Australia rugby match, though when I saw it they were 30-something points to 8 up, so the Aussies must have put up a strong finish. I think the All Blacks will be very hard to beat on current form, though, so they would be my pick for the Tri-Nations.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I'm not sure about Symonds being a test-player, but I reckon he's pretty good at number 7-8... Dizzy had a few very bad matches, but he shaped up just in time to be included. Kasp had his share of good bowling and fielding, so the question is who's a better batsman for number 10...
I wasn't struck negatively by Ian Bell, though it's hard to tell when the only serious batsmen England had started at number 6 or so. I mean, if Vaughn scored less than 10 runs in both innings and Pietersen - fist time in a match - reached several dozens - something is seriously wrong here. If it were just vaughn who buggered up - one thing. But when it's Tres; Strauss; Vaugn and Bell - something is quite messed up. They need a Botham to save them. He can't do it from the commentary box, though.
Freddy is probably their best all-rounder shape. But he can't face McGrath, Lee and Warne for too long. Also, with Warne the danger is that Gilchrist is brething onto the back of his neck. He's surrounded by brilliant players... Add to the fact that Warne's best trick is his straigt, unspinning bowl. It got Harmison. (I think it was him!)
The problem is when Australia can afford to play jokes: Warne bowling a Bouncer at 45 mph just to amuse Pietersen.
The Wallabies beat the All-Blacks last year, impossible as it sounds. What we need is to get into shape and yearn to bring the All-Blacks down the way we got Namibia last year (or two years ago? Can't remember) - in Cricket score: 142-0...
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Hmmm... Shall I start up the great cricket vs. baseball debate?
*ponders*
All right - I'll come out as saying that cricket requires far more athletic skills, IMHO, than any position in baseball.
It's also more fun to watch if you understand the game.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
We won! We won!
And the little things matter more in Cricket, if I'm not mistaken.
[ July 28, 2005, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Baseball is too short a game. If you want something short, watch Rugby. What's cool with Test Cricket is that you can go shopping meanwhile, do the laundry, and even miss a whole day!
I can't believe that Brett-Lee is talking about Baseball.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Fencing. Now that's a sport. Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Hadnt noticed WRC mentioned. If chicken chasing ..erm NASCAR is a sport than the World Rally Championship certainly must be.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
Brett Lee - be up to your name.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
They aren't sharp! I swear!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess I'll just agree to disagree then. Or maybe I live in a soccer bubble in Michigan, I don't know. Or perhaps I just don't understand what your definition of "non-American" sport is.
Soccer is more popular where I live than baseball and football combined. I suppose I could chalk much of this argument up to region, the popularity of sports differs greatly depending on where in the country you live.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Lyrhawn - is it more popular in terms of the number of people playing, or in terms of the number of people watching?
I think most of the people on this thread are talking about watching, and playing to a lesser extent. (How many people are amature competative swimmers, after all?)
Like that article above said, even when the really great guys are playing soccer in America, few people care to tune in.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I find soccer great to watch in person, boring to watch on tv, and awesome to play.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
More playing than watching. There are tons of teams all over the area here. You can play for fun at the local U-19 league or if you're good there's a dozen premier teams in the area, or at the college level, or just for fun in the 20+ league.
As for watching, I tend to agree with mackillian. I love to watch a soccer game in person, but unless I'm really in the mood, or unless one of the teams playing is MY team, it's not as much fun to watch on tv. That having been said, I don't watch many sports where MY team isn't play.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
We lost to SA in Rugby. Kiwi referee *snort*! Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
I hate that Equestrian Sports get NO air-time in the US. We watch the Derby every year, and that's it. Halfthe time they don't even air the Belmont or the Preakness. What about the Rolex? Or Reining nationals? That would freaking rock.
I mean, what's more fun than watching somebody try to control a 1500 pound animal by pulling it around by the mouth, and trying not to get dizzy at the same time?
Ni!
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Watching people stab each other with electrified swords. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I thought it worth bumping this thread to announce:
Well, here we go, second Test and England not doing so badly, though we have rather thrown our wickets away. Come on KP!
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
So my boyfriend said India is sucking it up with Sachin out injured. I need to know if I should comfort him with either:
A) "Don't worry! India has a lot of good players and soon they'll be back at the top again before you know it."
or B) "India's just entering a 'rebuilding' stage. Wait a few years, get some new young blood on the team, and you'll be doing better. And you can still beat Bangladesh!"
So is India doing poorly 'cause they suck currently, or is it just a little fluke? I don't know enough about the other test-playing nations to make a call on the relative strength of India, other than Bangladesh is something of a joke (according to my Bangladeshi friend), and Pakistan seems to be getting better, at least relative to India.
Posted by amira tharani (Member # 182) on :
I'm not sure: India have one of the best batsmen of 2004 in the shape of Virender Sehwag, but I haven't really seen them play enough to know whether this is a temporary slump, or even that they are in a slump. My other half always tells me that cricket is the sort of game where nations (other than Australia) do go up and down, so you can find yourself being at the top in the 1980s and then down around 7th (like the Windies at the moment) or rubbish through the 90s and now 2nd (like England).
Talking of England, Aus are 280-odd for 8 and it is beginning to look pretty good I am very impressed with Simon Jones' bowling thus far, and I'm glad Ashley Giles is in the wickets. My favourite moment so far is Steve Harmison knocking Shane Warne back over his head for 4.
Edit: WOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! All out for 308!!!!!
[ August 05, 2005, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: amira tharani ]
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Well...here in Brazil I guess soccer don't grow much because...because...well...it's THE sport over here, I mean, it seems like people grow with a soccer ball attached to their feet, or something. I'm a kind of a freak over here, since I never liked to play. But I always loved to watch soccer games. :-)
One nice memory I have about watching a soccer game (and one very tough match) was USA 0 X 1 Brazil, back in '94 World cup.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Woot! My boyfriend met Steve Waugh the other day. Got an awesome picture of the two of them too.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)