Cricket in America

Sneering commentaries about the relative merits of cricket over baseball are a staple of British sports writing. But I'm willing to tolerate a screed of this genre by Steven Wells in the Guardian, because it's a noble attempt at a historical explaination of why baseball emerged over cricket in the United States, despite cricket's propularity in the colonial era. Well's explaination is cricket's snobbishness is to blame thank:

American cricket shot itself through both kneecaps to avoid physical contact with the working classes. When the rest of the cricketing world embraced professionalism (cricketing code for "let the oiks have a go"), the American cricketing establishment remained stubbornly elitist. Many clubs abandoned the game altogether and turned to golf and tennis. This happened all over the USA. Except, bizarrely, in Philadelphia.

In England, this snobbery is still holding cricket back from drawing the levels of athletic professionalism and attendence that baseball enjoys in the United States.

Unfortunatly, amongst this interesting analysis, Wells spews the usual nonsense:

So why did baseball win out? Not because it's less boring. Trust me on this. The only time baseball gets even slightly exciting is when a batter actually manages to hit the ball. This happens so infrequently that you could read a book between home runs.

Note to all baseball-bashing cricketers: baseball types think cricket is boring for the opposite reason: because the batter rarely ever fails to hit the ball -- and isn't forced to run when he hits it poorly! Learn to appreciate the art of pitching and understand the limitations on the batter, and baseball becomes much more entertaining. Contrary to well-worn cricket snobbery, baseball is not a game of bashing the ball with brute force! Cricketers interested in going beyond mutual ignorance would be well advised to read the book by Kent (and occasional England) cricketer Ed Smith, Playing Hard Ball.