Kevin: It’s one-day cricket. Anything can happen. I still can’t believe that Pakistan and India didn’t make it past the first round . . .

First, I think it’s worth remembering that the very American John Paul Getty came to love cricket and found great solace in it. I think it’s similar to baseball in that it has a mythic quality stretching beyond the game itself. But I do think it’s wrong to suggest that Australia likes cricket because it “lost its shackles” later than the US. The interesting thing about the cricketing world is that we all share certain things about the game but each country also brings a unique flavour to it.

One other thing. It’s always said that Americans have no sense of irony, and yet here in the UK, Seinfeld was shown on a minority channel very late at night. That’s ironic.

But some generalizations stick, and coming from the most self-deprecating nation on earth, I’d have to say that it’s actually born out of supreme confidence. That’s why the English (and Australians) are suspicious of people who keep telling you how good they are – our attitude is that if you were really that good you wouldn’t feel the need to keep telling everyone.

Finally, electifying first round game between Aus and S Africa yesterday. Aus have got to be looking good. Meanwhile, England would have to shape up dramatically and stop Freddie falling off the pedalo again – and sadly, I’m not being self-depracating on this occasion.

But I think that part of the disjunction is between the mass-produced American culture that gets sold to/imposed on the rest of the world, and the actual cultures that play out in different parts of the US. Like, on the one hand, Muhammed Ali said “It ain’t braggin’ if it’s true,” which seems to fit in with the idea of the US valorizing a kind of arrogance, but that kind of interpretation doesn’t take into account the place of trash-talking in specifically African-American culture, and how hated Ali was by much of white America for his mouthing off. Just an example that springs into my mind. And what about the difference between being a genuinely self-aggrandizing prick, and being good-natured showboater who’s more or less in on the joke?

But all that is, as you say, Justine, why national character stuff is a mug’s game.

whereas I get the impression for usians, the charge of bighead/snootiness/above yourself means that you act as if you’re better than you are, your ego outrates your abilities. (there’s also the whole snob thing which I suspect is an anti-british class hangover — anti anyone perceived as upper class, whereas in aus it’s more likely to be anti anyone who thinks they have power/authority — subtle difference)

have i just tied myself in knots here??? i think the whole thing is fascinating.

Additionally, I have seen PLENTY of big billboards advertising the cricket world cup (I don’t watch TV, so I haven’t seen it on TV), so I fail to see any of the points the guy is making.

Of course having said that I should also point out that baseball pitches have a great deal more variety than you suggest. Also in cricket it is only ever possible to get one batsman out at time, whereas in baseball you can (and do) get three outs in one play. That adds a considerable amount of tactical complexity.

I don’t know that the complexity of rules per se is the point. What Tharoor is talking about is complexity of tactics and outcomes. From a cricketing perspective, every baseball pitcher is a fast bowler, every delivery a full toss, every hit a straight drive, and every baseball field placing employs slight variations on the same nine positions, whereas Wikipedia lists about 60 positions for cricket. (This isn’t really the best way to describe the difference in fielding, but it gives some idea.)

It’s like comparing chess to checkers. Interesting and unexpected situations can arise in checkers, but all the pieces are the same.

*Well, no general circumstance. There might be specific circumstances to do with keeping an incompetent batsman at the wicket.

however, being usian myself, i’d also like to point out that you’re absolutely right about generalizations. most of the people i hang out with on a regular basis are not the type who enjoy the mcworld.

Cheryl: Really, the infield fly rule is pretty simple. If the defense could get multiple outs by dropping the ball on an infield pop-fly, the batter is automatically out and the base runners are not forced to advance. This eliminates the issue where a runner could be doubled off for leaving before the ball is caught, or doubled off for not advancing if the ball is intentionally dropped.

Or the fact that there are plenty of Americans who hate all three. Just as there are Indians and Australians who hate cricket.

Trying to define a national character is a mug’s game.

But cricket has interesting tactical complexities. The fact that the ball generally bounces before reaching the batsman opens up a whole new world of possibilities, and the use of the entire park rather than just a diamond means that field placings are much more complicated than baseball.

Spin blowers go even slower than that. Of course, their balls are also rotating at 400RPMs in multiple dimensions, so the speed is irrelevant.

Fast bowlers (a separate species of bowler, not merely a descriptive term) get up to 100MPH (I think 160KPH is the record held by Brett Lee). And remember, they’re not allowed to bend their arms!* So that’s why they have to do a major run-up to get those speeds.

*The rule is way more complicated than that, naturally.

In the eighties a pitcher got blown off the mound in the middle of his windup. Balk.

A lot of eccentricities have gotten ironed out of baseball over the years. Baseball originally allowed running substitutions, until a player in the dugout yelled himself into the game in order to catch a pop fly. A player once stole second from first because his manager was ticked he’d stolen second without permission – now against the rules, as well as a bad idea. The infamous pine tar incident, in which the Yankees noticed that George Brett had pine tar too far up his bat, and waited to call the rule on him until it benefited them the most.

A Red Sox minor leaguer once put himself on the disabled list by ironing a shirt while wearing it.

Any plausibility to the notion of sports being associated with a national character should be rendered laughable by the fact that many Americans like all three of baseball, football, and basketball.

I just saw some cricket for the first time on a business trip to London, and I had a question – are the bowlers really only throwing the ball at around 75 mph?

SK

however, as someone above said, “stuck up” is VERY american. as are “snobbish”, “full of yourself”, “too big for your britches”, “big head”, and “uppity”.

but you gotta keep in mind that the us is very very protestant in its ethic, and vanity is one of the deadly sins. so we feel perfectly comfortable using more formal language to express our disgust at someone’s vanity, since it’s culturally appropriate to accuse someone seriously of vanity.

also: “If an Aussie says “I’m a genius!” odds are they’re being sarcastic. If a Usian says it not so much.” are you freakin’ kidding me? the only difference is that if an aussie makes a mistake they’ll say “i’m a genius” and if an american makes a mistake they’ll say “i’m an idiot.” if an an american does some small, silly thing right, they’ll say “i’m a genius.” that’s also about making fun of yourself, but in a slightly different way.

as for social class in america, it’s all rutherford hayes’s fault.

You know, I think you’d really enjoy cricket.

Yes, but does it have fire ants? (Probably I should look into this cricket thing, because my favorite nerdy part of baseball is answering questions like, “What happens if the ball gets stuck in somebody’s trousers? Can you still run the bases?” Infinite minutiae are great fun.)

What I think Justine is describing is the unconscious assumption of a myth so powerful it’s not often called into question any more: an awful lot of Americans really believe social class does not exist, and will say so, and will say they’re “middle class” even when they’re in the top 10% of income for the nation.

If everybody is middle class, then people with absolute confidence that they will succeed are just “driven” or “serious” rather than “too big for his britches.”

Of course, that varies within the country, by region and subculture. But anybody who watches television can tell you a hundred stories about upwardly-mobile people, while stories of the downwardly-mobile are relegated to public television and VH1 specials about coke-addled rock stars.

congratulations on the book. i’ll be buying it for my libraries–of course.

As for USian confidence, I think it may be more bravado than anything. But we also celebrate entrepreneurship probably more than any other country. There’s a reason they call it ‘The American Dream’…