NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm pleased to report that after the first days events at the Commonwealth Games, Britain is in second place in the medal table with the USA no where to be seen.

If you can't beat 'em...make up your own event and don't let them play. :D

I'm pleased to report that after the first days events at the Commonwealth Games, Britain is in second place in the medal table with the USA no where to be seen.

If you can't beat 'em...make up your own event and don't let them play. :D
Sadly the prison camp boys will win as normal. bloody colonials...

Sadly the prison camp boys will win as normal. bloody colonials...
We'll just wave the Ashes at them.:D

There is no reason why the US (or for that matter, Isreal, Iraq or Iran) can't join the commonwealth - theoretically only the original 13 colonies (as could isolated parts of France, Gernany, China, Spain, Holland, Russia) could join, but since the introduction of Mozambique the "you have to have (at sum point) been a British colony" rule is defunct. My country usually does quite well in the Commonwealth games, sadly the dictator pulled us out...

The Commonwealth Games are underway? Dang... I happened to be in England last time, but of course they're not showing them over here in France.

And France joining the Commonwealth would just look weird. ;)

There is no reason why the US (or for that matter, Isreal, Iraq or Iran) can't join the commonwealth - theoretically only the original 13 colonies (as could isolated parts of France, Gernany, China, Spain, Holland, Russia) could join, but since the introduction of Mozambique the "you have to have (at sum point) been a British colony" rule is defunct.
I'm sure it would create quite a stir if the original 13 colonies exercised their rights and applied for membership. Mind you, seeing as the UK competes under the seperate flags of England, Wales etc I suppose there is no reason why the colonies couldn't compete as individual states.

Can't see it happening, though, really...

My country usually does quite well in the Commonwealth games, sadly the dictator pulled us out...
:(

:(

Yes:( :headbang:

Yes:( :headbang:
I'm never sure exactly what the UK should do about the problem - doing nothing seems like we're washing our hands of the whole affair, but if we get involved then it simply hands ammunition to his 'British conspiracy to rebuild empire' theory.

Congratulations.

I'm never sure exactly what the UK should do about the problem - doing nothing seems like we're washing our hands of the whole affair, but if we get involved then it simply hands ammunition to his 'British conspiracy to rebuild empire' theory.

Sadly, the truth of all African politics is that the West must choose the lesser of two evils and pray they've made the right choice. The cold truth is, Zimbabwe is the mess it is today because Harold Wilson made the wrong choice by facing Smith (I don't agree with UDI, and the british point of view on this is quite sckewed in general). Failing to "do" anything, obfiscation and delaying tactics only make things worse, which is why Tony Blair's stance is so damaging. I realise this is not the right place for this debate, so if you want to continue it elsewhere I'ld be happy to move to that thread.

The Brits ought to play in the World Baseball Classic. That's another sure-fire way to beat a U.S. team.

Sadly, the truth of all African politics is that the West must choose the lesser of two evils and pray they've made the right choice. The cold truth is, Zimbabwe is the mess it is today because Harold Wilson made the wrong choice by facing Smith (I don't agree with UDI, and the british point of view on this is quite sckewed in general). Failing to "do" anything, obfiscation and delaying tactics only make things worse, which is why Tony Blair's stance is so damaging. I realise this is not the right place for this debate, so if you want to continue it elsewhere I'ld be happy to move to that thread.
I feel I would be inadequate in any debate on the state of Africa today - for a situation we are in many ways responsible for causing, it is not something we are taught about. I for one strongly support the idea of school history lessons teaching about the Empire - it seems bizarre that something that had such an influence on the world today is completely ignored. I can honestly say that the only reference to the British Empire I saw at school was a small box in a history textbook when I was about 10 saying "once Britain had an Empire that stretched over a quarter of the world." The only other hint you'd ever get there was an Empire without researching it yourself is the occassional references to Empire forces when talking about various wars.

The Brits ought to play in the World Baseball Classic. That's another sure-fire way to beat a U.S. team.

When is America going to give up its silly sports and join the rest of the world (provocative i know)
Cricket is much better than rounders (sorry i mean baseball)

Cricket is much better than rounders (sorry i mean baseball)
Did you see the South Africa vs Australia One Day match? That was extraordinary. :eek:

I feel I would be inadequate in any debate on the state of Africa today - for a situation we are in many ways responsible for causing, it is not something we are taught about. I for one strongly support the idea of school history lessons teaching about the Empire - it seems bizarre that something that had such an influence on the world today is completely ignored. I can honestly say that the only reference to the British Empire I saw at school was a small box in a history textbook when I was about 10 saying "once Britain had an Empire that stretched over a quarter of the world." The only other hint you'd ever get there was an Empire without researching it yourself is the occassional references to Empire forces when talking about various wars.

In the former Empire, the Empire dominates our history, too much I think sometimes

Did you see the South Africa vs Australia One Day match? That was extraordinary. :eek:

I didn't see it, but it was horrendously bad bowling if the stats are to be beleived. Wonderers is not renowned for being a batsman's paradise, is it?

US Football vs Union Rugby (or for that matter 7s)?

When is America going to give up its silly sports and join the rest of the world (provocative i know)
Cricket is much better than rounders (sorry i mean baseball)
As long as they sell beer in the stands, I'm in. No, not really, I've both watched and tried to play cricket and I just can't get excited about it.

As long as they sell beer in the stands, I'm in. No, not really, I've both watched and tried to play cricket and I just can't get excited about it.
Cricket is a fantastic game, it just takes a bit of patience to get into it. Once you understand what's going on, no other sport can match it for tension and excitement.

You might like the new Twenty20 games; they're much faster and only take 3 hours, not five days. They're a bit too quick for some 'traditionalists' like myself, but they're good for introducing new people to the sport.

When is America going to give up its silly sports and join the rest of the world (provocative i know)
Cricket is much better than rounders (sorry i mean baseball)
You're the one to talk about silly sports. When do you guys drop the cricket and bowls and join the rest of the world.

As long as they sell beer in the stands, I'm in. No, not really, I've both watched and tried to play cricket and I just can't get excited about it.

I grew up with cricket and I didn't understand for quite it that well dispite being an umpire at school. The key is to watch one day cricket for a while before trying to understand test.

The simplest way to explain cricket is this,

Batting
the team batting have to run as many times between the stumps to score points.

knocking to ball to the boundry is worth four runs because it was considered that in the lenght of time it takes to go get the ball a batsman could run four times between the stumps. A six is is score, with the same logic, if the ball goes to the boundry without touching the ground. This saves in getting sweaty which is most ungentlemanly
Bowling
Because throwing the ball requires less skill than power and is ungentlemanly, the inventors created a strang set of limitation that evolved into "bowling", the purpose of which is to knock out the batsman or helping the feilder catch the ball.

I hope that helps (maybe not much)

And France joining the Commonwealth would just look weird. ;)
True...but England did rule most of France in the 13th/14th centuries. And the term 'Commonwealth' comes from the High Medieval word 'commonweal' meaning a two or more united nations - generally referring to England and Wales.

You're the one to talk about silly sports. When do you guys drop the cricket and bowls and join the rest of the world.

Cricket is played by:
11 test playing nations (10 if you discount Zimbabwe which is currently on a break)
30 one day and potential oneday international team
120 Associate nation

Sum total 161 countries

Baseball is played at an international level by? USA, Canada, Japan, Philipens S Korea and Cuba....

Cricket is a fantastic game, it just takes a bit of patience to get into it. Once you understand what's going on, no other sport can match it for tension and excitement.

You might like the new Twenty20 games; they're much faster and only take 3 hours, not five days. They're a bit too quick for some 'traditionalists' like myself, but they're good for introducing new people to the sport.
I do like Test matches, but it involves up to a five-day commitment if you want to watch the whole lot, so I generally find myself dipping in and out. With the exception of the Ashes, when I watched all of the first, fourth and fifth tests (the other two, I was in eastern Europe).

One day is probably the best - it's not too long, but it gives you the chance to kick back and relax for a whole day pretty much.

True...but England did rule most of France in the 13th/14th centuries. And the term 'Commonwealth' comes from the High Medieval word 'commonweal' meaning a two or more united nations - generally referring to England and Wales.

Hmmm... You may have a point.

Apparently, there is actually a French equivalent to the Commonwealth Games, but it's utterly obscure even here in France. It's called "les Jeux de la Francophonie", and the last Games, in 2005, were held in... Niger.

The 2009 Games will be held in Lebanon. I'm betting the French media won't even mention them.

I do like Test matches, but it involves up to a five-day commitment if you want to watch the whole lot, so I generally find myself dipping in and out. With the exception of the Ashes, when I watched all of the first, fourth and fifth tests (the other two, I was in eastern Europe).

One day is probably the best - it's not too long, but it gives you the chance to kick back and relax for a whole day pretty much.
One days and 20/20s are the way of the future I think

I do like Test matches, but it involves up to a five-day commitment if you want to watch the whole lot, so I generally find myself dipping in and out. With the exception of the Ashes, when I watched all of the first, fourth and fifth tests (the other two, I was in eastern Europe).

One day is probably the best - it's not too long, but it gives you the chance to kick back and relax for a whole day pretty much.
I enjoy the one day games too - it's Twenty20 I find goes too quickly. I went to see a game the first summer they tried it and couldn't believe it when I was home again in time for lunch.

I didn't see it, but it was horrendously bad bowling if the stats are to be beleived. Wonderers is not renowned for being a batsman's paradise, is it?

US Football vs Union Rugby (or for that matter 7s)?
The bowling wasn't actually Bad, it was just the batting was incredable. I can't work out quite how it happened. Yorkers where being hit for 6!

I enjoy the one day games too - it's Twenty20 I find goes too quickly. I went to see a game the first summer they tried it and couldn't believe it when I was home again in time for lunch.
But you could fit a whole international tournament into a week, much more teams could play and it would open up the sport to the associate nations like the US...

But you could fit a whole international tournament into a week, much more teams could play and it would open up the sport to the associate nations like the US...
Oh, I'm not saying it shouldn't be played - it's been fantastic for bringing new people into the game. I just don't think it will ever replace the Test as the ultimate game in the sport.

Oh, I'm not saying it shouldn't be played - it's been fantastic for bringing new people into the game. I just don't think it will ever replace the Test as the ultimate game in the sport.
You ahve to know the ga,e better in test though, it should go.

20-20
50-50

Test

Oh, I'm not saying it shouldn't be played - it's been fantastic for bringing new people into the game. I just don't think it will ever replace the Test as the ultimate game in the sport.

The problem with test is that it is not very television friendly. I don't think, ultimately, that test will survive outside of anual grudge matches or presige friendlies between the present 11 and possibly Kenya or Scotland. The World cup is already played on the one day format and the role of the tests on global rankings will ultimately fall away, granted it might take a decade or more.

I don't agreew ith you there...

Anyone see the 7's? ENGLADN! 3 players in that team should be with the 15's!

The problem with test is that it is not very television friendly. I don't think, ultimately, that test will survive outside of anual grudge matches or presige friendlies between the present 11 and possibly Kenya or Scotland. The World cup is already played on the one day format and the role of the tests on global rankings will ultimately fall away, granted it might take a decade or more.
I'm not sure - for one thing, I can't imagine anything matching the excitement of a good Test match, and for another, I think the one day game is going through a bit of an identity crisis at the moment. It's no longer the 'quick and exciting' game, nor is it the 'long and serious' one. The result is that it's trying to reinvent itself with these silly super-sub rules and so on. We'll have to see where the game heads before we can see which particular branch will become dominant.

Did you see the South Africa vs Australia One Day match? That was extraordinary. :eek:

Was brilliant that match, the bowling wasn't shappy, but the batting was simply tremendous, esp. by Herschelle Gibbs who just seemed to smash everything everywhere.

Cricket is a fantastic game, it just takes a bit of patience to get into it. Once you understand what's going on, no other sport can match it for tension and excitement.
I have the same opinion about baseball. I guess it's what you grow up with. We were on a job in Punjab a few months back. The local crew we hired had some worn out balls and a stick they used for a bat, so we bought some new stuff for them. In return, they let us try to play. We were pretty good batters because it isn't that much different from baseball, but we just didn't get the rules.

I'm not sure - for one thing, I can't imagine anything matching the excitement of a good Test match, and for another, I think the one day game is going through a bit of an identity crisis at the moment. It's no longer the 'quick and exciting' game, nor is it the 'long and serious' one. The result is that it's trying to reinvent itself with these silly super-sub rules and so on. We'll have to see where the game heads before we can see which particular branch will become dominant.

I agree in many ways, sadly we no longer live in a world were sport is played for the the players, it is played for the audience, and they will ultimately, demand speed and action, excitement and heartbreak. Test is like chess, and few people can sit through a chess match unless they know and understand the rules...

I say thumbs up for George Bush - no matter what you think of him he knows a good sport when he sees it. :D

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e283/Slippery__Jim/_41403582_bushstrikes_afp220.jpg

The problem with test is that it is not very television friendly. I don't think, ultimately, that test will survive outside of anual grudge matches or presige friendlies between the present 11 and possibly Kenya or Scotland. The World cup is already played on the one day format and the role of the tests on global rankings will ultimately fall away, granted it might take a decade or more.
Very true. Channel 4 (when they had the cricket, f**king Sky) would have cricket on from 10 in the morning to 6.30-7 in the evening, and then a highlights show later. If you watch all of a five day match, that's nearly 45 hours. Two whole days!

I agree in many ways, sadly we no longer live in a world were sport is played for the the players, it is played for the audience, and they will ultimately, demand speed and action, excitement and heartbreak. Test is like chess, and few people can sit through a chess match unless they know and understand the rules...
Probably true, but then Test cricket has survived against the odds so far, so it might continue longer than we expect - I certainly can't see the 'historical' tournaments and trophies disappearing.

I say thumbs up for George Bush - no matter what you think of him he knows a good sport when he sees it. :D

http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e283/Slippery__Jim/_41403582_bushstrikes_afp220.jpg
He would so be caught from that.

I have the same opinion about baseball. I guess it's what you grow up with. We were on a job in Punjab a few months back. The local crew we hired had some worn out balls and a stick they used for a bat, so we bought some new stuff for them. In return, they let us try to play. We were pretty good batters because it isn't that much different from baseball, but we just didn't get the rules.

I'm sorry that the rest of the english speaking world berates baseball, I know I do, it is unfair of us. However, it is a bit pretentious calling a championship a "world Series" if only one nation enters, and smacks of isolationism. The US is coming round to cricket, and more importantly rugby and football (sorry socer) so they are loosing that image (slowly)

He would so be caught from that.
That's probably what the wicket keeper behind is thinking. :D

Mind you, it would probably be against diplomatic etiquette, so I expect they dropped him (they might have employed Shane Warne as the catcher...)

That's probably what the wicket keeper behind is thinking. :D

Mind you, it would probably be against diplomatic etiquette, so I expect they dropped him (they might have employed Shane Warne as the catcher...)
Or Kevin Pietersen.

Have we not moved away from the actual point of the thread, the commonwealth games, and the feeling that it is the only place Britain has any chance of competing as a top boy because the EU, America and China are not involved....

(trying to be provocative)

Or Kevin Pietersen.
I'm never sure about Pietersen - I would have gone with Thorpe before the Ashes and I'm still not convinced that wouldn't have been the right decision. Pietersen does have amazing natural talent but he's so impatient - he's much more suited to the one day game than Tests. Even when he has scored big runs there tends to have been a piece of complete luck in the innings somewhere, such as an easy catch put down where he's swung at the ball. I don't think there is an alternative to him now, but I still wish he'd calm down a bit...

Have we not moved away from the actual point of the thread, the commonwealth games, and the feeling that it is the only place Britain has any chance of competing as a top boy because the EU, America and China are not involved....

(trying to be provocative)
That's not provocative - it's just the truth. :p

I'm never sure about Pietersen - I would have gone with Thorpe before the Ashes and I'm still not convinced that wouldn't have been the right decision. Pietersen does have amazing natural talent but he's so impatient - he's much more suited to the one day game than Tests. Even when he has scored big runs there tends to have been a piece of complete luck in the innings somewhere, such as an easy catch put down where he's swung at the ball. I don't think there is an alternative to him now, but I still wish he'd calm down a bit...
He's new to international Test cricket. Give him a few years, he will be absolutely amazing. He'll calm down, play more conservatively, but he won't lose his attacking instincts. Look at Freddie Flintoff - a few years ago, people were saying they didn't think he'd make a great cricketer, because he was too impatient when batting, and too inconsistent when bowling. Now he's England captain, albeit only temporarily, and is possibly one of the best players England have had for a couple of decades.

He's new to international Test cricket. Give him a few years, he will be absolutely amazing. He'll calm down, play more conservatively, but he won't lose his attacking instincts. Look at Freddie Flintoff - a few years ago, people were saying they didn't think he'd make a great cricketer, because he was too impatient when batting, and too inconsistent when bowling. Now he's England captain, albeit only temporarily, and is possibly one of the best players England have had for a couple of decades.
Yeah, I do always think of Flintoff in his early years when looking at Pieterson. I really hope he does go down that route rather than the hopeless, drunken, washed up sports star one.

Have we not moved away from the actual point of the thread, the commonwealth games, and the feeling that it is the only place Britain has any chance of competing as a top boy because the EU, America and China are not involved....

(trying to be provocative)

Except in true British style we manage not to be top dogs at our own games, first we split into the seperate nations and then we let much bigger sports daft nations like Canada and Australia play...

Except in true British style we manage not to be top dogs at our own games, first we split into the seperate nations and then we let much bigger sports daft nations like Canada and Australia play...

That seems like an arguement for British teams, would that extend as far as football? would be nice, as having four teams for one country is "taking the miky" just a bit...

That seems like an arguement for British teams, would that extend as far as football? would be nice, as having four teams for one country is "taking the miky" just a bit...
Never in Football or Rugby-NEVER.

Never in Rugby-NEVER.
The Lions?

To be honest i don't have opinion either way although i co nsider seperate fottball teams to be a bit more justifable since football holds such a huge place in the UK populations hearts and minds.

The commonwealth games is quite strange as on oen hand you have the falklands or the Isle of Man while on the other you have canada... so the seperated british nations are all more middle of the road and to be honest strict competitiveness is not really the point of the commonwealth games.


Now for a truely different "sports festival" you should check out the Island Games: http://www.islandgames.net/ where you might face the sporting might of St Helena!

I'm sorry that the rest of the english speaking world berates baseball, I know I do, it is unfair of us. However, it is a bit pretentious calling a championship a "world Series" if only one nation enters, and smacks of isolationism. The US is coming round to cricket, and more importantly rugby and football (sorry socer) so they are loosing that image (slowly)
Half the appeal of baseball is the tradition. Back in the day, there was only one nation playing baseball and the monicker "World Series" fit. Now, it's just traditional. See my earlier post about the WBC.

The Lions?
More of a one off event, every 4 years. it isn't a actual teeam but a touring party.

You're the one to talk about silly sports. When do you guys drop the cricket and bowls and join the rest of the world.
I agree. I'm from london and once watched a few minutes of cricket on TV. Next thing I remember is waking up after a nice long sleep.

I'm afraid to sound stupid but, what exactly are the Commonweath Games?

I'm afraid to sound stupid but, what exactly are the Commonweath Games?
Basically the Olympic Games, but only for Commonwealth countries.

I'm pleased to report that after the first days events at the Commonwealth Games, Britain is in second place in the medal table with the USA no where to be seen.

If you can't beat 'em...make up your own event and don't let them play. :D
Heh it's our way of getting the Yanks jealous by having something they will never win.:D

My Cousin won a Silver and NZ just one Gold in Rugby 7's!

Heh it's our way of getting the Yanks jealous by having something they will never win.:D

My Cousin won a Silver and NZ just one Gold in Rugby 7's!
Let's add another world-wide competition to the ones we'll never win. The World Baseball Classic is in the semi-finals. Guess who's not playing?

There is no reason why the US [...] can't join the commonwealth - theoretically only the original 13 colonies [...] could join,
And Florida (which remained loyal to Britain when the 13 colonies broke away).