If it’s pyrotechnics and big-hitting your correspondent requires, may I suggest he tries baseball or some other glitzy show. The nudgers have a beauty of their own, and who’s to say a stolen single into the covers is any less dramatic than a bludgeoned hoick over mid-wicket? Cricket lovers who will be supporting the game long after the bandwagon boys have moved on to floodlit golf or disco chess would argue that the game would be better served if the balance between bat and ball were less in favour of those wielding the willow.Yeah! What he said! The response:
Sir, Harry Baker describes baseball as a “glitzy show” consisting of “pyrotechnics and big- hitting”. He is the latest in a line of commentators who demean this sport.
Anyone who takes the trouble to watch baseball will discover that there is the same mixture of subtlety, skill, guile and power as in a game of cricket. Many teams win games without ever hitting a home run, relying instead on moving players around the bases in a variety of ingenious ways. The difference between the games is that because the odds are in favour of the pitcher, unlike in cricket where they favour the batter, most baseball games can be completed in around three hours.
What's the British version of "Oh, snap!"?
I have no idea about the dynamics behind this little debate, but I am glad to see some disagreement on a higher rhetorical plane than "Yankees suck!"