Arseface

19 hours ago an arse was born. That arse proceeded to grow into Arseface, champion defender of cricket on the forums.

Happy birthday, have a good one.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY ARSEFACE(; SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAM.

Let's just drop it.

Exactly. The competition isn't even or entertaining on it's own, so you need to add rules to make it less stupid.

... That's... even more boring than watching a 14-inning baseball game. Congrats. I had no idea that was possible.

See? Cricket sucks. You need all this extra **** for the game to be fun. I bet it's really expensive compared to baseball, too. All those paddle-shaped bats have got to be harder to make than a wooden bat (turn it on a lathe) or an aluminum one.

Okay, so you claim that we're doing indirectly what the UK did directly for many, many years with an iron certainty that they were doing what was right, and one day the people they were doing it to would get down on their hands and knees and kiss their feet in an ecstasy of gratitude. Also, congrats on the Middle East thing. I bet it's nice to know that your hands are completely clean. Not that Afghanistan is exactly the Middle East, of course. And it must be very reassuring that you guys don't interfere in other countries. Or does it make you feel better than you got the UN to rubber-stamp it for you? And that you're helping to suppress somebody else's revolt?

That's what it sounded like. Or trying to force them to play less boring for the same win result.

How? You mean the score was equal when the time ran out?

Says who? Since when have soldiers been worried about legitimacy? And, if you want to go that way-- there was no fence, no mound, no basepaths. I mean, really, how is that legitimate? Baseball can just be adapted into *******y with such ease and enthusiasm that it can't help but be more awesomely adaptable than cricket.

:O no wai. Kay, shoot, I haven't been on my blog in like forever. D:

No, I don't. We haven't ass-raped anyone's sovereignty since Cuba. We're the 600-pound gorilla in the room, but at least we don't make you our protected little colonial *****. Which the Brits LOVED doing.

"Yes, but only in the new modified version of the game, the ODI match. The test match (the original) doesn't have that problem, because if there aren't 40 outs in a game, no one wins. The fielders have to bowl offensively if they want to win. As opposed to one days, where the fielder just has to wait for 50 overs to pass without letting too many runs getting through." That SOUNDS like avoiding ties. No? Either that or a deep flaw in the game making it even more boring than it already was.

Okay, so test matches are the five-day extravaganzas. How can there be no result? Does this make sense?

Fastpitch softball gets played here at just about every high school with a baseball team. Women's baseball, on the other hand... as far as I know, it's very rare. And it's definitely little-known.

Also, a new argument for baseball's superiority. Baseball you can play everywhere. Get a few friends together, grab a broomstick and a ball, take over a street. Head to the back yard. Monopolize a court. Cricket, though. You say you need a carefully prepared pitch, you need plenty of space, you need a wicket instead of a four things that you can just say "those are the bases." You need a specially-shaped flat, paddle-like bat. You need all this junk, where baseball you just need a bit of inventiveness.

No. Most other countries can tell us to go **** ourselves and we aren't obligated to send in our army to smack them down. Now, what happened when India told the Brits to get ****ed?

Um... no?

But the rule is designed to avoid ties, no?

? Tie and draw mean the same thing in non-whacky-commonwealth-nations.

So... not a damn person? I mean, I didn't even know women's baseball existed until recently.

We were assholes, but at least we weren't as big of assholes as the Brits. The worst we ever did was the **** we pulled with Cuba and the Phillipines. And the White Man's Burden BS, if you take it at face value, is balls-out racist, paternalistic BS. Yes, I used that term twice.

WEASEL WORDS. "May have been." What next, will you be telling me that baseball became more popular because Abner Doubleday hated cricket?

PISTOLS? What do you take me for? As the challenged party, I may choose the weapon. Rifle or shotgun! And since I'm broke, would you mind spotting me twenty bucks for ammo?

Yes, but it takes more skill to get three outs without bull**** double plays that with them.

So... basically, your power play rule is what you use instead of softball's international tiebreaker, and you use it all the damn time, because cricket is too rigid to have a flexible in-case-of-tie rule.

So how many women play cricket?

Ah, I thought you were talking about the men. It was very disturbing.

Basically, yeah. The hardcore version played mostly by women. Between baseball and softball... all versions of softball have no mound, baseball has one. Softball has a smaller field. There might be a few more, but those and ball size/pitch motion are the only real constants. EDIT: Almost forgot. Baseball has nine innings*, softball seven. The bats are a bit different in size. And softball recently added this weird thing where first base is twice as wide-- one half for the runner to tag, one half for the first baseman. Also, apparently, baseball players can use any motion they want. But overhand works better. Or sidearm, I suppose.

*I forget what the difference is between baseball/softball innings and cricket is, but there is one. An inning for us is one at-bat for each team, at-bats end after three outs.

Entertainingly, baseball was underhand when it started out.

My sister could explain it better, but there's multiple softball variants, with different pitching styles and ball sizes. The major ones are slowpitch, which uses a slightly bigger ball and a big, arching throw, is known as the sport played by middle-aged men and is usually recreational. Fastpitch is what was played at the Olympics. Played mostly by women, uses a smaller, neon-yellow ball and a windmilling pitching motion.

Also, do you know what I just discovered about the Baseball World Cup? It was originally the Amateur World Series (actually involved the world, this time). Not entirely sure when they renamed it, but that's why it was amateurs-only for so long.

Additionally, right now the Little League World series is running. I have little to no interest in it, but I'm pretty sure there's some Aussie teams involved. That's a tournament rather than a straight series, teams of kids from all over the US and the world.

EDIT: The bit about the balls might be untrue. I looked it up, and couldn't find that difference. I don't think slowpitch uses the yellow balls, though. The major difference is pitch speed and the arc requirement for slowpitch.

Look up "actual imperialism." Look, the fact that we have a powerful economy and intrusive culture is nothing compared to the very real world domination that Great Britain held for a century or two.

Please show me where I disputed any evidence you got from Wikipedia. I've recognized Wikipedia as a valid source in all our arguments. Look, that isn't "required." When I was little we'd play baseball up in the court (cul-de-sac, whatever. Street that ends in a circular patch of road), which can't be more than sixty feet across at any point, using lacrosse balls, when only about half of us had gloves. Baseball has been improvised with sticks, stones, and everything else you can come up with. If you expect me to believe that you can't do the same with cricket, and just make do without the bouncing... I'm going to have to call bull****. Not that it's really a source, but I seem to recall reading a book where the protagonists played cricket (threw a ball to each other to hit, anyway) with nothing more than crabapples and a bat.

How darest thou slander my good name, Jack?!

It wasn't cheating that the rule was created to stop. How does the rule remove skill from the equation? You're already aware that it's stupidly easy to catch an infield fly, are you not? And yes, the power play rule does all of that... because the game was too easy and/or boring otherwise.

So women don't play any game related to cricket at all? Also, do you know what I just discovered? Baseball and softball are no longer legally the same game in the US, and no one but Japan and Venezuela broadcast the women's baseball world cup. Which makes me sad. Also, apparently, the Aussie team got their asses kicked 6-1 by Canada.

How do you mean? You mean, like, "I'd go gay for that one?"

No, they didn't force them to play cricket. But they controlled every other aspect of their societies. Like, for instance, their schools. Cricket was an incidental addition, but there was nothing reallt voluntary about it.

Look, five seconds ago my dad channel surfed past a a guy and his kid playing cricket in the back yard. It is possible. It's no more difficult to play a pickup game of cricket than it is baseball.

No, that's what it was here.

No, I mean the power play rule, not beanballs. It forces the players to play stupid to make the game more interesting.

Also, I wanted to ask. How does cricket work with women? By which I mean, in the US, baseball is played mostly by men. The Women's Baseball World Cup is going on right now, but it's not very big (can't even find a channel that broadcasts it). Fastpitch softball is the analog to baseball for young women, and softball is played by older men and women both.

All I've seen has been men and boys playing cricket. What do women and girls play?

You gave me a multiple choice question and I answered with the relevant choices. Didn't bother de-questionifying them.

Cricket was a monolith, imposed from above (as in, HEY! India! Have we got a great game for you!). Baseball grew naturally, in several different places, in different traditions. There are slight differences in the different countries, yes, but they're still the same game. And people all over the world love their baseball. And how is it "behind" "modern" games? Especially when you've been bragging that cricket is obsessed with tradition for... awhile.

No, because the companies and individuals that own the teams wouldn't make any money off the international competition. Though that opinion seems to be changing slowly.

Okay...

I seriously doubt that it's impossible to play cricket if the field isn't up to your standards. You can have a pickup game of cricket in your front yard if you want to.

No, because that's what it WAS in the US, it got that reputation.

And does letting the batter get bashed make the game any less boring? No, would be my guess, unless you're even more bloodthirsty than I would have thought. I mean, hell, you guys needed to add that "power play" rule to make YOUR game a little less stupefying. At least we don't have any flaw in our game so major that we need to restrict the players from playing to the best of their ability.

[cough]Bull****[/cough] A cricket pitch is a couple of sticks shoved in the ground with a crossbar balanced on top. A baseball field is five rocks or bags or chunks of wood dropped on the ground. Which is simpler? Wikipedia's theory is that the fact that cricket was a pretentious bull**** sport played mostly by rich Anglophiles had more to do with it.

Oh? So it's somehow better to just live with the bad situation? You guys love bashing batsmen. Sounds pretty bad to me.

Or you don't think that it being the premier league has anything to do with baseball not being a popular world game? You don't think that the fact that the USA's and Japan's domestic leagues respectively use different rules is some reflection of the lack of interest in an international form of the game? And no, technically the MLB is not a domestic league.

The only difference between the NPB and the MLB is a slightly smaller field, strike zone, and ball over in Japan. The ball is tighter, and the games can end in a tie. How is this a major difference?

I can't tell you why the initial decision was made. I can tell you that in modern times, the MLB has not wanted to allow their players to be involved in the international competition (they didn't want the guy they were playing millions of dollars to play baseball to hurt themselves in a game they weren't making money off of). Since the MLB is the richest league, can buy the best players, that meant that the best players couldn't be involved. The MLB didn't CARE if the international competition sucked. Which is one of the excuses the ****ing IOC used to kick baseball out of the Olympics. Now the MLB has become vaguely less reasonable-- they're the ones pushing the WBC, along with the Player's Union and all.

Exactly. That's paid for by the government, isn't it? You don't have the money behind it, so it's small and crappy. But you yourself were complaining that people liked to go out and play ball for the fun of it. Also, here: Nationals are based here and Orioles Play here. The only reason the neighborhoods are nice NOW, is because when the stadiums were built they were accompanied by a ****ton of money. And Nats park was built so recently that the neighborhood is still pretty bad.

sweet, can't wait to check it out.

to be totally honest i haven't gotten around to the new stuff yet. i can't say i've been busy, but i'll be sure to get around to it tomorrow and let ya know how it went.

I differ with every conclusion you draw in that paragraph.

Um... what? Does that sentence make sense? I'm going to go with no. What are you trying to say, exactly?

And here's my reply to your "countries who already have cricket don't play baseball." How long ago was it that you said baseball was disgustingly popular in Australia, which ought to be playing cricket? So far as I can find, Bangladesh is the only cricket country that DOESN'T have a national baseball team (which is unfair, since even the US has one... even if only one player is US-born). And, at least according to Wikipedia, cricket was very popular in the US before baseball came along, meaning that there is one recorded instance of baseball completely kicking cricket's ass, and none of cricket doing the same to baseball.

I was actually referring to the thing that the infield fly rule prevents as being no fun, but maybe boring would have been a better word. Let's watch the fielder deliberately drop an easy fly and get two stupidly easy outs! Yay!

How do you mean that? More interest as in more people watch them or the game is more interesting? The games themselves are no more interesting, and while more people give a rat's ass about international cricket, that is changing... and way fewer people in fewer countries care about the professional/domestic/business cricket leagues, if any.

Not if the international competition had banned professional players for decades preceding.

I didn't say unsportsmanlike, did I? Look up the word I used. The drop-the-ball-and-get-extra-outs wasn't unsportsmanlike, it was just no fun.

Okay, so Wikipedia thinks they're in different families. But I think Wikipedia is wrong.

Okay, lets see.... sorry, my sister wants her computer back. I'll find one later.

Allow me to be succinct. Go to hell.

That first bit is true, in absolute numbers. The fact that the games themselves are between national teams is also true. The bit about "more interest than baseball?" Not true.

Now, tell me. Which do you care about more-- the Olympics, or the AFL championship?

Yes, it is. (I don't even remember what this is in reply to, but it's easier to say that than try to figure it out.)

Your love of beanballs, for one thing.

1) They AREN'T the same, but they're still in the same family of games. 2) Did I just walk into a minefield? Around here field hockey is solely a girl's sport and only at high schools and colleges.... but when I googled it the third result was about some Aussie (field) hockey league and showed a guy playing it.

3) How is that relevant?

Look, saying that my country is a rapist is rude. By extension, you're calling ME a rapist, and I only ever rape with consent.

They play cricket (badly) and baseball (also badly). And I'm not entirely sure why they play either.

Oh, that nobody plays baseball? No, people play baseball and they ****ing LOVE it. Like I said, Japan has a huge hardon for the game. This being Japan, it almost certainly also has some massive tentacles, demons, rape, and schoolgirls for the game, but they do that to everything. I don't actually know much about the other leagues, but I do know that the DR, Cuba, Colombia, and Venezuela all have their own. So do Mexico and Canada, but those ARE of the "no one cares" variety.

No comment.

Yes it is.

No, because you guys embrace this "gamesmanship" **** and rape it into the ground. Us Americans prefer the game to be slightly more focused on just playing, rather than beating the opponent to death.

I didn't say bat-and-ball, I said stick-and-ball. Hockey, lacrosse, curling, field hockey, baseball, cricket, all of them are from the same family of games. As opposed to, say, ball games like soccer, rugby, football.