November 17, 2004


The 2004/5 Wisden Cricketers' Almanack (968 pages) contains a short piece by me on Mark Waugh's retirement. An extract:

Mark Waugh announced his Test arrival with a perfectly-timed straight drive against England on the first day of the Fourth Test in January, 1991. On any ground other than the elongated Adelaide Oval, Waugh’s first shot would have earned four runs; as it was, he ran three.

In a way, that very first drive - the ball dispatched with a speed impossible to reconcile with Waugh’s liquid, slow-motion swing - summarises the right-hander's Test career; falling, as it did, slightly short of numeric expectations. But Waugh belongs to that category of cricketers impossible (or inappropriate) to analyse by numbers alone ...

Even as a limited-overs opener, Waugh worked within borders more artistic than barbaric. He subverted the one-day game, presenting precise minimalism to an audience primed for furious medieval assault. A straight six during a one-day match against the West Indies in 1994/5 smashed a commentary box window, but Waugh’s apparent effort in achieving this would not have disturbed a Royal funeral. He may as well have been quietly leafing through a Bible.

This appears alongside an item on Michael Slater written by ... Bob Ellis! Scary. Even scarier, for different reasons: only a couple of pages away is Gideon Haigh's farewell to Jo Angel. Gideon is possibly the world’s finest cricket writer; I've envied him for decades. One day I will have his fingers broken.

Gideon's latest book is brilliant, of course. Every serious cricket follower should buy it.

Posted by Tim Blair at November 17, 2004 01:16 PM

Experimenting with a little purple passaging there Tim B! Good to see.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at November 17, 2004 at 01:29 PM

But Waugh belongs to that category of cricketers impossible (or inappropriate) to analyse by numbers alone

There are some elements of Waugh's career in which numbers are the definitive measure, as MK Gupta would attest.

I trust that Tim B's full article contains a discussion of this aspect of Waugh's legacy.

Posted by: tim g at November 17, 2004 at 01:32 PM

Mark Waugh's style and career is even more amazing when married with that of brother Steve's - arguably Australias most successful, yet ruthless captain. A double act probably never to be repeated.

Posted by: jafa at November 17, 2004 at 01:34 PM

Completely OT - I sense a general exhaustion in the RWDB Blogger community - Gnu is gone, Currency Lad is taken time off and Steyn in in a hiatus. A well earned rest for all I say. cheers

Posted by: Razor at November 17, 2004 at 01:36 PM

Tim, the question I want to see you answer is this one: Lehmann or Katich?

Posted by: Tex at November 17, 2004 at 01:44 PM

Can you suggest a book for the cricket-ignorant?

Posted by: Cris at November 17, 2004 at 02:08 PM

How long before someone highjacks this thread to talk about George W and complain about the left?

I'll give it about 5 posts!

BTW, Katich needed to be dropped to get some form. It should help him get back better than ever, in the future.

Posted by: Fat_Pat at November 17, 2004 at 02:12 PM

An Australian Cricket thread. I shouldn't have sold that Oz-Yank phrase book on eBay.

Posted by: The Real JeffS at November 17, 2004 at 02:27 PM

Katich is a dirty traitor and should never have left WA and therefor edoesn't deserve a place. On the other hand Gilchrist is a dead-set legend for coming to WA and fully deserves his place.

Posted by: Razor at November 17, 2004 at 02:36 PM

Waugh, what is it good for? Bet no one has heard that one before.

Didn't he used to write comic novels?

Posted by: Harry Hutton at November 17, 2004 at 02:36 PM

No, wait. That was his dear mother Evelyn.

Posted by: Harry Hutton at November 17, 2004 at 02:37 PM

Gideon far too readily goes purple. Overblown, inappropriate, pompous and strained IMHO. Sounds a bit like Tom Brown back at Rugby under Dr Arnold. (Probably wants to).

Posted by: paul at November 17, 2004 at 02:42 PM

Razor - Sharp Wit.

Spoken like a true Sandgroper.

Good on ya.

Posted by: Aussie Old Fart at November 17, 2004 at 03:00 PM


You guys lost me right after "2004/5".


Is there a website that describes this bizzare game otherwise known as "cricket"? I don't want to play it, but enough people have talked about it that I should probably at least understand what's going on.

Posted by: ed at November 17, 2004 at 03:01 PM

Gideon Haigh, another brilliant Geelong-educated writer.

Posted by: slatts at November 17, 2004 at 03:20 PM


Cricket is just like baseball, except that you need more than a 3 year old's attention span to enjoy it. Have a look here for your very own home grown version.

Posted by: Todd at November 17, 2004 at 03:38 PM

ed, all you need to know about cricket is that a games lasts 5 day, with 6 hours play per day..... and can end in a draw!

Oh, and we are really good at beating the Poms!

Posted by: Fat_Pat at November 17, 2004 at 03:40 PM

I'll chime in and make a request also.

Is there a website that contains something like 'Cricket for Dummies' (or 'Cricket for Yanks')? Nothing too deep, just an overview of how the game is played with links for those who wish to know more.

Only thing I may know about cricket is that it's played using a bat, like baseball. At least, I think it is.

How popular is this game? I gather it's not as popular as non-US football, but does it come in second or third?

I somehow have the impression that cricket is more popular among the 'upper classes', and not so popular among all others. Is this true?

Is it something schoolchildren like to play? (I'm thinking US baseball and how kids like to play that.)

Posted by: Chris Josephson at November 17, 2004 at 03:42 PM


in OZ there is no issue about "Upper Classes", though that *may* be the case in the UK - especially in the south perhaps.

I recall reading an article on the "wire" about the fact that more cricket bats are sold in New York State that all of the UK. Aparrently a lot of West Indian and other Commonwealth Migrants are bringing their love of Cricket to the "Great Satan". I'll see if I can find it.

Posted by: Fat_Pat at November 17, 2004 at 03:45 PM

I have, in harsher moments, despaired of Mark Waugh. How many times did Mum's cushion hurtle across the TV room in utter disgust as Afghanistan wasted his wicket, and sauntered off the paddock as if he'd done nothing more serious than spill a VB at a backyard bbq? I'd curse him like a fleabitten cur. Then, magically, he would redeem himself with an impossible feline leap in the slips cordon, or a deft clip off his legs to the boundary rope, and my resentment would ebb. Why did I resent him? Cos the plucky bastard had more talent in his earwax than I could muster with my entire being through 20 years of pulling on the flannels, donning the zinc cream, and playing ordinary cricket. But it's the most divine game on the planet, and I love it no less for my inability to master it.

Ay, M. Waugh's numbers aren't heavenly, but his loose-wristed cover drive was. I will always picture it easily in my mind, and recall my grandfather's words about Victor Trumper, another statistical underachiever: "The Don had the numbers, but Trumper's straight drive was poetry written by God"


Posted by: trojan at November 17, 2004 at 04:07 PM

PS, our Gideon tends to be gassy but I don't dispute his grasp of the game. The greatest cricket writer remains Neville Cardus.

Why doesn't cricket gossip ever get beyond cricket circles? Is it true that the Waugh bros practically banned Stuart Law (best player of past 20 years not to get a regular slot - Jamie Cox possibly excepted) from playing for Australia?

Gideon, get a pseud handle and spill the beans!

Posted by: trojan at November 17, 2004 at 04:15 PM


Thanks in advance if you can find that article. If not, I can Google for it. Sounds interesting.

I didn't mean 'Upper Class' to only be those real classes they have in the UK. I was thinking that in Australia, like the US that has no real classes, that cricket may be favored by the wealthy or upper middle class.

(The word Class being only a way to describe differences in income levels. At least, that's the way it's used in the US.)

Posted by: Chris Josephson at November 17, 2004 at 04:17 PM

I was thinking that in Australia, like the US that has no real classes, that cricket may be favored by the wealthy or upper middle class.

Nah, the only sport that *used* to be like that was the divide between Rugby Union/Rugby League.

Most kids in Oz are introduced to cricket in the backyard or the street.

Posted by: Quentin George at November 17, 2004 at 04:26 PM


no offense is taken. I was trying to highlight that anyone is welcome to come and play. There have been many and influential playes of cricket throughout its history - from every social niche.

Posted by: Fat_Pat at November 17, 2004 at 04:32 PM

So what's the chance of the Pakistani's fostering the game in Afghanistan? I think they already play a bit .It would be a good way to take their mind off fighting American's for 5 days(If they still are) at a time. Also they'de would play Hindu's as well as Christian's. Civilizing, no?

Posted by: gubbaboy at November 17, 2004 at 04:34 PM

Delete 'de ouch.

Posted by: gubbaboy at November 17, 2004 at 04:37 PM

Cricket explained for our foreign visitors:

You have two sides, one out in the field, and the other in.
Each man that's in the side that's in goes out and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he's out.
When they are all out the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out.
Sometimes you get men still in and not out.
When both sides have been in and out, including the not outs,
THAT"S the end of the game.

Clear as muddy water in a beer bottle, hey?

Posted by: Pedro the Ignorant at November 17, 2004 at 05:40 PM

right cricket for dummies - i can do that here goes.
Well its EXACTLY the same as baseball! Except-

-Baseball has 4 bases cricket has two.
-Baseball has a pitcher/catcher/batter cricket has bowler/keeper/batter.they do the same jobs but the bowler bowls from the other base (think just home and 2nd) and not from the mound.
- for a run in baseball the batter runs around 4 bases. for a run in cricket you run to the other base ie other end.
- in base ball you have a rest after scoring your run in cricket you can keep scoring as many as you like until you are out. because you are up the wrong end after scoring a run you have a second batter run from 2nd to home to take your place ie you swap positions passing half way between being careful not to run into each other lol.
-in baseball side away is 3 out in cricket it is ten out.
-in cricket you can go out caught (same as baseball)/ bowled when the ball hits the stumps/vertical home plate (think one strike your out)/run out (same as baseball xcept the ball hits the stumps instead of someone catching it on base)and also in cricket if the ball hits your body and stops it hitting the stumps.
There are no walks in cricket if you are hit you can be given out for stopping the ball hitting stumps but otherwise the bowler can go back and line you up again.
cricket gives 6 runs for a homer and 4 runs if you make it to the fence otherwise its what you run.
pitchers pitch on the full. cricket is played on very hard rolled grass and the ball has a ridge. this enables bowlers to use the grass surface to move the ball in any direction or height in an unpredictable manner. Balls that dont bounce are seen as easy targets and are only bowled by accident. hmm thats it i guess
oh the cricket world series has 32 countries competing the baseball world series has one. :)

Posted by: madmax at November 17, 2004 at 06:32 PM

....and in Cricket we don't have an annoying keyboard player knocking out another version of "Baby Elephant Walk".

Posted by: Fat_Pat at November 17, 2004 at 06:45 PM

In answer to the Katich v Lehmann debate - Katich had the third highest aggregate in India, and is a better long-term proposition. But is arrogant, and Fatty Lehmann fits in better with the senior players.

I was at the WACA the day Hayden hit 380. Comment of the day: "Come on Fatso - get out at let Gilly have a crack at 'em!"

Posted by: Wazza at November 17, 2004 at 06:53 PM


unfortunately, I was unable to find the article. google has failed me this time. I remember that someone from Singh's sporting shop - - was quoted in regard to this, but that was several months ago, so I may be mistaken.

Whatever, Cricket is a great game, so if you haven't tried it yet, keep an eye out. I believe that a game or two is to be played in the U.S. as part of the next World Cup - based in the West Indies. Could be the start of a whole new relationship.

Posted by: Fat_Pat at November 17, 2004 at 06:54 PM

sorry, I tried to add link to Singh's Sport Shop, I wonder if this works... SSS

Posted by: Fat_Pat at November 17, 2004 at 06:58 PM

For Yanks who are still puzzled, think how baseball would be with a few important changes:

1. Imagine that there are only two bases instead of four. Get rid of 2nd and 3rd base, and just have home and 1st. Instead of a diamond, you just have the track between home and 1st. The batter runs to 1st, and then turns around and runs back home, and that's a home run. Also, after every six balls, home becomes 1st and 1st becomes home, i.e. the batter and the guy on 1st stay where they are but the fielding team all switch positions, and the pitcher now comes from the other end, throwing to the guy on what was 1st but is now home. Six balls later they all switch again.

2. Imagine a rule that the bases are always loaded. When you start batting, not only do you send one person to the home plate with a bat, you also send another man to stand at 1st base, just as if he had got there in the usual manner. When the batter hits the ball and runs, the man on 1st proceeds, and as he crosses the home plate a run is scored. If the man on 1st gets out, another man is sent out to replace him.

3. You do not have to hit the ball. If you don't like it, you can usually just let it pass and stay put. That isn't a strike, it's a legitimate decision. Some master batters are really really good at ignoring balls that lesser players would attempt to hit and get themselves out, and picking only the good balls to hit. They can stay in for hours and hours, slowly accumulating runs without taking unnecessary risks. This is effective, but rather boring for the spectators. To prevent players from simply ignoring every single ball that they can't hit out of the ground, there are three sticks set up behind the batter, with two smaller sticks sitting on top of them, and if the ball hits this arrangement, causing one of the two little sticks to fall down, he's out. So occasionally he has to hit the ball in order to stop them from hitting the sticks. He has to protect the sticks with the bat, not with his body, so if the ball hits him, and in the umpire's judgement it would have hit the sticks had he not stood in the way, he's out. This forces slow-but-steady batters to take some risks, and that's what eventually gets them out.

4. Once a man is out, he's out for the rest of the inning; he cannot bat again in that inning. Instead of 3 outs, an inning is over when the team can no longer send two men out - one at bat and one at 1st. There are 11 men on a team, so when 10 are out, the inning is over. But injured players cannot be replaced, so if a player can't bat that's his team's bad luck, and the inning will be over after 9 outs instead of 10.

5. The combined effect of 3 and 4 makes for long innings. To make up for this, there are only 2 innings, not 9. That is, each side only bats twice, so a game is 40 outs, while a baseball game is 54 outs. Still, when the best teams in the world play each other, a game can take 5 days; if after 5 days it's not over yet, it's just called a draw. For those without the patience to play through two full innings per side, there's One Day Cricket, where each side only gets one inning, and only 300 balls. If the ball has been thrown 300 times and the team is not yet all out, it's out anyway. This encourages batters to take more risks, which makes for a better spectacle.

There are lots of other differences, but they're relatively minor compared to the ones I've explained above. Armed with the above, you can watch a cricket game and not be completely baffled by what's going on. I have deliberately avoided using terms specific to cricket, and have substituted the appropriate baseball term, so I've written of 'batters' instead of 'batsmen', and of 'throwing' the ball instead of 'bowling' it, etc. Don't worry about the jargon.

Posted by: Zev Sero at November 17, 2004 at 07:02 PM


an excellent and concise analysis. All you needed to say was that it usually makes more sense when you actually watch a game.

I'm sure there are Pay TV that has cricket in the states....go find them and join in the with the rest of the world.

Posted by: Fat_Pat at November 17, 2004 at 07:26 PM

All that, some of which I never knew before. Also, the ball is really, really, really hard. It hurts to catch even when you're playing girly cricket. But taking up the stance and doing that bat thumping thing on the ground feels right somehow.

Posted by: Janice at November 17, 2004 at 07:46 PM

Ah, I love your shameless self promotion, Tim. Reminds me of an old "Andy Capp" cartoon where he says, "I often quote myself - adds class to the conversation".

Posted by: Waste at November 17, 2004 at 07:47 PM

Half way through the quote .. I woke up, cricket is boring people. Stick to the greatest game of them all ...... Football or soccer as you guys know it.

Posted by: chileau at November 17, 2004 at 08:54 PM

I was also at the WACA the day Haydo hit 380. When Gilly eventually came in he hit a very swift century indeed (under 100 balls), including consecutive sixes, the second of which ended up on the roof of the members pavillion. Brilliant stuff.

I have heard that Mark Waugh once hit the ball on the roof of the Lillee-Marsh stand. A much, much bigger hit.

I just caught the two day test in Bombay. Katich looked like he was going to get out every ball (but then so did everyone except Tendulkar).

Posted by: Mathers at November 17, 2004 at 09:28 PM

Zev and madmax,

Both great explanations. Having spent 3 months down under on business I became somewhat familiar with all your slightly different games (Snooker, VFL, Lawn Bowling, Cricket, etc.)

The one addition I would make to your "Cricket for Yanks" is that there is NO foul territory.

When you hit the ball it can go forward, backward or sideways and it's still in play.

But tell me, what the h*** is a googlie?

Posted by: AlanC at November 17, 2004 at 10:36 PM

I know this post is about something, I know it. After all, there's an awful lot of writing about something that almost sounds like a sport ... or maybe a role-playing game? Or a reality TV show? I just know it's about something.

It's like you're trying to tell me something.

Posted by: William Young at November 17, 2004 at 11:16 PM

Every serious cricket follower should buy it.

You misspelled "both".

Posted by: hideous bouncing brain at November 18, 2004 at 12:14 AM

OK, good explanations of what appears to be a ridiculous game (this coming from someone in a country where curling is popular ), but tell me, what the hell is an "over"?

Posted by: Axeman at November 18, 2004 at 12:26 AM

I dont agree with Bob Ellis' foreign policy analyses, or his idea of public intellectualism, but he is a fine literary stylist.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at November 18, 2004 at 12:34 AM


An over is six consecutive balls that are bowled to a batter at one end. May be a diferent batter if runs are scored. The bowler may also bowl a maiden over. Imagine that.

Posted by: Aussie Old Fart at November 18, 2004 at 12:59 AM

Given the choice between watching a soccer game or a WNBA game, I would claw my eyes out.

I'd give cricket a go, based on Aussies previously recommending the pretty cool Australian Rules Football. Since Aussies don't seem keen on soccer, I trust their judgement.

Posted by: Dave. at November 18, 2004 at 01:32 AM

Thanks to everyone who has patiently tried to explain cricket. Using the baseball analogies was VERY helpful. I'd like to see a game now.

(I like that a player can keep scoring.)

Sounds fun!

About the " .. no annoying keyboard player ..". As much as I may enjoy some of the songs/tunes that are played during baseball games, there are times when it DOES get annoying. However, I couldn't imagine a baseball game without those songs/tunes, annoying or not.

There is a web site (don't have URL) that lists the songs/tunes played for each baseball player in the NL and AL. For anyone who didn't know, or didn't care to know, 99.9% of the songs are chosen by the baseball player himself, not by those cranking out the songs.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at November 18, 2004 at 06:31 AM

Half way through the quote .. I woke up, cricket is boring people. Stick to the greatest game of them all ...... Football or soccer as you guys know it.

Posted by: chileau

*i used to love soccer and played it as a youngster but now i find it boring as bat shit. trust me, rugby league is the greatest game on earth.

*for our yank friends; cricket used to be the biggest sport in america before the civil war after which baseball took over.
there are reports of washington's troops playing cricket during the revolutionary war.
the first international cricket match was between usa and canada.
american cricketers actually invented baseball as an easy way to practice cricket without the need of a grass pitch.

Posted by: vinnyboombutts at November 18, 2004 at 07:29 AM


Don't get up. Just dropping by to say hello. Can't stay. Nice to see you all.

Thought you might like to know we're in the medication business now. We do a very nice line in ointment for batsmen. Our top-of-the-range wind-up special is called 'Bodyline Cream'.

Well, must run. Toodle pip. ;-)

Posted by: Douglas Jardine & Harold Larwood at November 18, 2004 at 08:15 AM

Cricket explained

FYI for those whos still dont get cricket, a 'batter' can stay in for as long as he/she wants, until they get out. If they get out without scoring any runs, tough, or they can stay in and score 400 (which is the world record for an individual highest score) or more.

When the ball is hit the batsmen do not have to run, it is up to their discretion if they want to or not. A run is scored when both 'batters' successfully cross to the other end of the pitch, 2 runs if they come back again to their original end, 3 if they swap again etc. Their is no limit to the number of times they may run, but each time they do so they risk getting 'run out' kinda like baseball. If a ball is hit and it reaches the boundary after hitting the ground it is immediately worth 4 runs, regardless of how many runs were scored before it reached the fence. If it reaches the boundary without touching the ground (a home run as it were) it is immediatly worth 6 runs.

An over is 6 *legitimate* balls from one end of the pitch to the other, the fielding team then changes positions and another 'pitcher' bowls 6 balls from the other end in the opposite direction.

A googlie is a type of ball bowled by spin bowlers (bowlers who dont use speed but rather make the ball bounce awkwardly by spinning it) where the 'batter' is fooled into thinking the ball is going to bounce one way, but it bounces differently.

Posted by: RhikoR at November 18, 2004 at 09:04 AM

Actually Vinnyboombutts, baseball originates from the game rounders, which is similar.

Yanks shouldn't worry about cricket, if you want to adopt a great game play AFL. For a fast paced game with plenty of action, you can't go past it. Cricket's great to watch but boring to play. Rugby League, like soccer would be a great game if there wasn't so much rule...bending.

Oh and by the way Douglas and Harold, We've got Brett Lee so don't give us any shit or we'll start breaking some ribs. DUUUUCK!!!

...And Lehman should have been dropped. Katich has outplayed him, is in better form and is younger.

Posted by: robw25 at November 18, 2004 at 10:32 AM

Check out Haigh's The Cricket War. It's on the WSC revolution and is without doubt the best cricket published in this coutry.

It's amazing that WCS was less than 30 years ago and yet we know so little about it. Same goes for Rebel Tours of 85/86 & 86/87.

Posted by: the_brown_hornet at November 18, 2004 at 12:03 PM

robw25: Brett Lee? Never heard of her.

OT: Talking of ducks - heard the one about the duck who goes into a bar?

Duck to barman: "Got any bread?"
Barman: "No."
Duck: "Got any bread?"
Barman: "No. We only sell beer."
Duck: "Got any bread?"
Barman (tensing up): "No."
Duck: "Got any bread?"
Barman (still in control): "I told you. No. We only sell beer."
Duck: "Got any bread?"
Duck: "Got any bread?"
Barman: "NO."
Duck: "Got any bread?"
Barman loses it completely, reaches over, snatches duck up by neck forcing beak down hard on bar.
Duck: "Got any nails?"
Barman: "No."
Duck: "Got any bread?"

Posted by: Douglas Jardine & Harold Larwood at November 18, 2004 at 12:37 PM

Dear RhikoR,

THANK YOU!!!!!! That stupid term has been bugging me off and on for years.

I guess the baseball equivalent would be a slider, screwball, knuckleball, etc.

Posted by: AlanC at November 18, 2004 at 12:58 PM

To the unenlightened who think cricket is a boring game, the problem is that you probably just don't understand it.

Here is what I think make the game exciting:

Batsmen try to reach landmarks - the first one to reach is to score 50 runs. If a batsmen can achieve that he's put in a good performance for the team. Next up is the fabled century - 100 runs. One of these performances can win the game for a team (like hitting a home run with all bases loaded). Anything higher is getting into immortal territory.

There are type general types of bowling action. Fast bowling and spinning. With fast bowling, the bowler takes a long run and tries to throw the ball as hard as possible in a pretty much straight line. The real speed demons are able to get up to speeds of over 140kmh. Some fast bowlers can even spin the ball a bit. The great Pakistani pair of Waqar Younis and Wasim Akram perfected reverse spin which is even more devious.

Then you get spin bowling where the bowler takes a slow runup and delivers a much slower ball but putting huge amounts of spin on it. There are lots of different types of spin deliveries and it takes a really good batsmen to play a spin master. The unquestioned king of spin bowling is the Aussie Shane Warne, although the guy is a complete dickhead.

Then there is the fielding. Watching a great fielder in action is very exciting stuff. They have to stop the ball which may have been hit at very high speed, then throw it back accurately enough to hit the stumps, before the batsmen can run across. Or pull off amazing airborne catches. The greatest fielder was the South African Jonty Rhodes.

All in all, definately not a boring sport!

Posted by: El-Diablo at November 18, 2004 at 01:40 PM

Did anyone notice the 2 guys in the crowd at the Gabba today? They were wearing long fake beards and had a sign saying "new zealand insurgents". Love it.

Posted by: Art Vandelay at November 18, 2004 at 01:41 PM

Will one of you chaps explain the "One Bounce - One Hand Catch" rule? I can't, as I am busy watching the Aussies flog the Kiwis in Brisbane!

Cricket *can* be boring, unless Adam Gilchrist is batting, and then anything can happen, mostly very exciting!

Posted by: Fat_Pat at November 18, 2004 at 01:42 PM

quote: robw25
Yanks shouldn't worry about cricket, if you want to adopt a great game play AFL. For a fast paced game with plenty of action, you can't go past it. Cricket's great to watch but boring to play. Rugby League, like soccer would be a great game if there wasn't so much rule...bending

i used to love afl until they took away the biffo and turned it into a soap opera, rugby league is much more earthy and honest.

Posted by: vinnyboombutts at November 18, 2004 at 03:03 PM

Well described tim,there will never be another mark waugh.

Posted by: marklatham at November 18, 2004 at 09:22 PM

Some excellent explanations there for baseballers. You forgot to mention that if you're Sri Lankan, compliance with the rules is completely optional, but if you're white, you will cause a diplomatic incident and be hounded for the rest of your life if you bowl a legal but unsportsmanlike delivery.

Posted by: Clem Snide at November 18, 2004 at 09:56 PM

Vinnyboombutts - Couldn't agree with you more. Watching two grown men slap and shove each other is pretty dissapointing. League needs to get away from the professional cheating (I'm still a Red V member so I haven't given up on that yet). Clubs teach their guys how to cheat (like soccer). Anywho, what I meant was that AFL is better to watch. You can't appreciate the game on tv. At the ground you see everything making it far more entertaining.

Dougals and Harold - Alright, so Brett Lee is lucky to hit the pitch let alone the batsman, but I'll be damned if I'd stand at the other end when he's bowling - just in case he gets lucky.
As for the joke - I'll pay it...put it on my bill. badoom tish.

Posted by: robw25 at November 19, 2004 at 12:18 AM

for any yanks who dont know what rugby league is check out and in the multimedia section you can watch heaps of games.

the last great britain V aust match is great, also the state of origin matches are top shelf.

Posted by: vinnyboombutts at November 19, 2004 at 06:30 AM