Originally posted by chancremechanicThat's probably the difference.
OK, I understand....but not everybody has a CD player their car, home, office, etc.....and, some people actually listen to the radio here in the U.S. 😵
Our main radio stations are crap - play a very narrow range of chart pop/rap/r&b.
A few years ago, a couple of the DJs used to joke that music didn't exist before 1997, this was back in 2000-ish.
Originally posted by T1000South Africa will play for the Ashes and then we'll come and show you guys how it looks now and then.
If England disbanded its national cricket team the worldwide game would no doubt take a hit, but would continue largely as it is.
None of this winning the Ashes only every 40 odd years crap any more.
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingettInteresting. Who are these 'people' of which you speak?
But when people think of cricket, they think of England. The game is linked to England, both in origin and in spirit. Baseball plays a similar role in the American psyche. In both cases the game has grown beyond it's original borders but they each still bear the indelible stamp of their origins.
Yourself and those close to you, whose attitudes you experience?
Or the American population in general?
Or are you seriously suggesting - and for the point to hold much weight it would be necessary to do so - you can say what all people the world over think when they think of cricket? A mighty assumption to be sure, something I wasn't aware Freethinkers indulged in often. Perhaps you have sufficient empirical evidence to satisfy your (admirable I confess) principles.
Without such evidence, I put forward that you are projecting your own view (and of course plenty of others) on to all people. When the British think of the telephone, many think of Alexander Graham Bell. For Italians it will likely be Antonio Meucci. There is rarely an international mindset.
My own assumption is that there are more people in more countries who think of baseball as being inextricably an utterly American sport, than there are who think of cricket as equally unavoidably being an utterly English sport. But that's nitpicking. And even a point I'd be prepared to concede than become bogged down in it.
I still consider the aspect of (serious) mulit-national competition as a better arbiter of 'real' sport at international level rather than insularly domestic level (not that there's anything wrong with domestic sport; I'm something of a long-distance NBA and NHL fan, for my sins, only that a global sport has a certain additional cachet). The sports most beloved in Britain, namely football, and er, football, some more football, and then to lesser extents cricket and rugby, these are sports that are fiercely competitive on the international stage, with real edge. American Football, baseball, ice hockey, basketball tend to have nowhere near that edge internationally (though of course the US excels at track and field, tennis and several other 'real' sports). And without that edge sport becomes a procession, and for me that makes it a lot less 'real' or worthy of participation.
It's true that GB are relatively poor at the Winter Olympics, and that the Winter Olympics medals are won by multiple countries (though it is still worth noting that in all Winter Olympics combined, Norway has won more medals than the whole of Asia, Australasia, the Pacific Rim, Africa and South America put together). However, GB more than makes up for it by its more than decent competitive showing in football, cricket, rugby, and the Summer Olympics.
And that's a long-winded way of saying GB doesn't suck. As if a nation can suck anyway. Vacuum cleaners suck. Nations do not. Next you'll be saying they blow. Which apparantly means the same thing as suck. Madness. But you're American and since we truly are nations divided by common language, I'll let it go. 😛
Originally posted by CrowleyShush. We do it like that to keep it special. Makes the look of a defeated Aussie that much more memorable. Serial winning is for losers.
South Africa will play for the Ashes and then we'll come and show you guys how it looks now and then.
None of this winning the Ashes only every 40 odd years crap any more.
Originally posted by VargI 100% disagree with this.
Our main radio stations are crap - play a very narrow range of chart pop/rap/r&b.
BBC have got some great channels which focus on world music/Jazz/DnB/anything you'd like to listen to.
Tell me the type of music you like, and I'll find BBC radio shows which are exclusively for that type of music, within reason. Yorkshire belly dancing music might not have a big enough following.
D
Originally posted by RagnorakI'm sure there are no shows which play most of the kind of music I'd like to listen to.
I 100% disagree with this.
BBC have got some great channels which focus on world music/Jazz/DnB/anything you'd like to listen to.
Tell me the type of music you like, and I'll find BBC radio shows which are exclusively for that type of music, within reason. Yorkshire belly dancing music might not have a big enough following.
D
Anything even vaguely close would be at an unsociable hour.
Originally posted by VargI agree, almost all radio stations suck. I think I would raher not pay the licence fee, and choose to pay for other channels, and do without BBC. I never use it, and it is filled with 'adverts' for it's own programmes anyway.
I'm sure there are no shows which play most of the kind of music I'd like to listen to.
Anything even vaguely close would be at an unsociable hour.
The only good thing about BBC is it's website, which I use for the sports forums, which it seems to be single-handedly trying to destroy anyway...
Originally posted by welsharnieActually I do like some BBC radio stations, just not the ones with music on.
I agree, almost all radio stations suck. I think I would raher not pay the licence fee, and choose to pay for other channels, and do without BBC. I never use it, and it is filled with 'adverts' for it's own programmes anyway.
The only good thing about BBC is it's website, which I use for the sports forums, which it seems to be single-handedly trying to destroy anyway...
R4 and 5 Live are both pretty good at times.
4 edits
Originally posted by rwingettWhich are both proverbial and therefore actually have a great deal in common.
Comparing India with Finland would demonstrate nothing except that they have absolutely nothing in common. In short, it would be like comparing the proverbial apples and oranges.
We pay jack towards the winter olympics. Our collective interest in snowball-fighting and tassel-skating or whatever the smeg currently passes for the winter olympics is about 0.005% of the nations' that have the misfortune of taking it seriously, and the coin that we generate is of roughly the same proportions.
Originally posted by darvlayInteresting. I wonder where the cash came from?
I agree. In fact, I found I was taken aback when I learned that the Italian government awards every Italian gold medal winner with a cash prize (approx. $150,000 US).
Mugabe (allegedly) offered each of the Zimbabwe footballers at the Cup of Nations a villa if they won the trophy.
I wonder how he got those?
(and no it didn't include Aston V - that's hardly worth trying for)
Originally posted by StarrmanWahey! Olympic fishing and kite flying. You could include pool and darts in there too. Wet T-shirt running to boot. Anyone think of any more?
If we had an Autumn Olympics in which events were akin in some way to continual rain and grey skies, we'd wipe the floor with all of you.
Running for a bus in the rain whilst holding a newspaper "umbrella" over your head.
Running the puddle gauntlet, trying to avoid being splashed by passing cars.
Skating on wet leaves.
T-shirt wearing in sleet and wind (I have just witnessed a potentially strong showing from Hull, this last weekend - could also have extreme weather short skirt and high heel event for the ladies).