World Baseball Classic ?
![[Print This Post]](http://www.rantlust.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-print/images/print.gif "[Print This Post]")
It’s rather audacious to call an inaugural sporting event a “classic”. The term, in my mind, suggests that the tournament is an established one, well steeped in sporting tradition and history. So with the very first World Baseball Classic, we see a rather comical attempt to recreate a baseball version of a World Cup. There are certain farcical or funny sides to the event:
- a schedule that favors the US (the only team that got a rest day in the first round)
- American citizens playing for (or thinking of playing for) the countries of their parents (we’re talking born and raised Americans here … Nomar Garciapparra playing for Mexico, Mike Piazza playing for Italy, A-Rod deciding to play for the US, no make that Dominican Republic, no make that US again … a true flipflopper if there ever was a sporting one)
- the very real possibility of the US being knocked out in the first round. It almost happened because they got upset by Canada and if Canada had beaten Mexico by a low scoring game, it was bye bye American pie. In the end, Mexico played savior and thumped Canada.
Baseball has a very long way to go if it is ever going to create a tournament that truly is global in its reach and appeal. It currently is played and followed strongly in North America, Central America, a few Carribbean and South East Asian nations. Contrast this with football (soccer) played everywhere or cricket which is truly a worldwide played sport which has gone beyond traditional former British colonies.
A World Baseball Classic? I don’t think so. Actually the World Series is a more appropriate title than its current application where the baseball championship of two nations is deemed a global event by its sweeping name. Or perhaps World Baseball Championship. One day when we have true representative worldwide participation of baseball players, maybe then we can expect something classic.
I don’t know if the meaning of the word “classic” here is the same as we are intrepreting. There are a lot of tennis and golf tournaments which have “classic” appended to their names. Maybe they are just predicting future “classic-ness?”
As for it being a “World Cup” or “World Championship,” I don’t see any issue with that since as you say, it’s definitely more appropriate than its current application. Cricket also is played in only a few countries and yet we have a “World Cup.” In fact, it could probably be argued that more nations play baseball (or are at least aware of it) than cricket. Note that I didn’t say more “people.”
You’re mistaken here. Cricket is played in far more countries than baseball is. Check out the CricInfo’s list of ICC-affiliated countries. All of these countries have official cricket boards and national teams. What you’re probably referring to is the number of official Test playing nations which is only a few at 10 but still more than the number of major baseball playing nations. So in terms of countries and numbers playing, cricket outshines baseball by miles. In the cricket World Cup, outside of the Test playing nations, the other competing nations make it to the dance by playing a series of qualifying tournaments in their geographic regions.
damn… can you imagine a cricket world cup (ala futbol)? it’d be a continuous world cup, by the time one is done, it’d be time for the next one
Hmm… I don’t know about that. Here’s the list of member countries of the International Baseball Federation:
http://www.baseball.ch/2003/f/mc/mc.html
I haven’t counted the number of countries on either list but it looks close or maybe more for baseball. Another point I want to bring up is that during my travels, I have realized that in other countries, people know more about baseball than cricket. Of course, I am not talking about any test playing nation. Even in the Test playing (as part of the West Indies) Jamaica, the locals were more knowledgeable about their football and bobsled teams than cricket. They couldn’t even tell me which Jamaican was currently in the national team.
Having said all this, I think the only truly global sport is football (the non-American kind). Nothing else comes close.
You are talking about the 5 day version of cricket (called Test cricket). The current world cup for cricket is of the one-day variety. There is no official world cup for the 5 day version though there is something akin to the Formula 1 championships in which teams build points towards a world championship. Or at least that’s my impression.
Though I have to say even the one-day variety of this game takes longer than other sports. But it’s so much fun! I follow Test cricket only for the statistics.
Call me a purist if you like but I actually prefer the traditional Test cricket to the one day version and since a Test match is spread over 5 days, fortunes can change dramatically. The one day version is exciting in its own right and is the more practical version for tournament play. Any time a country tours another one, I’m focussed more on the Test series than the one day series because I feel the true character of a team is reflected in their Test performance.
With the debate on cricket versus baseball, I guess we’ll keep wondering which has greater global reach. Another thing about baseball is that there is no format for baseball playing nations to be regularly playing against each other. Or at least until this “Classic” was developed. I wonder how often this will be held. In the end, it seems more likely to be a scouting event leading to hitherto unknown players from other countries showcasing their talents in hope of getting an MLB contract.
And the US win was not without help coming from the ump. See story here
Imagine a world cup soccer game with a ref from the same country as the teams competing on the field.
The US team continues to bumble its way through this tournament and lost to South Korea comprehensively. It is now facing the very possibility of elimination from the competition. The performance of this team invokes strong parallels to way the US Olympic basketball “dream team” played in Athens.
So Mexico played spoiler instead of savior this time around and the US is out. So what I think is that the US athletes are simply overhyped. From basketball to baseball to Bode Miller.
Like the England cricket team and that Scottish tennis player.
Going by form, it would make a great final if the Dominican Republic meets South Korea. Wouldn’t it also tickle Castro pink if Cuba went on to win this tournament on US soil. Of course in that case, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a rash of defections happening.
England won the last Ashes through a combination of:
1. All of their players playing extremely well at the same time.
2. Most of Australia’s players playing pretty poorly at the same time.
Yet the series was a close one that England edged out Australia. That ought to tell you something. Of course the English press would proclaim this as the greatest series ever and how this is the most amazing England team ever and all that superlative nonsense that the English press are capable of when England achieve even the slightest of sports victories. England’s subsequent tours of Pakistan and India have firmly put them back in place and goes to show that the Ashes victory was but an aberration.
I also think that India cricket players are over-hyped.
Care to elaborate? This is one of the best Indian cricket teams (maybe even the best ever) with talent, unity, captaincy and coaching. I think we’ve already started seeing steady results that are quite different from the Ganguly era.
No, being quite ignorant of the cricketing world. I just wanted to see how many hackles I could raise. Your comment gives me some gratification
Seriously though, to me all this is just an illustration of how your frame of reference can muddy your point of view. There was a time when I used to follow cricket somewhat and see all those grand stats of Indian players on paper. The hype and then they would fall flat. From time immemorial, I’m sure people have been hyping up their own local heroes to larger than life figures (and granted a lot of these athletes are superhuman when compared to the rest of us mortals). But when they meet their own peers, they don’t look so great anymore.
And the media funny enough becomes a double edged sword. On the one hand, instead of getting hyped in your own little village, you get hyped on a world stage. But as Bode Miller proved, the bigger the hype, the louder the giant sucking sound.
Speaking specifically of Indian cricket, I know what you mean about the team not living up to their hype. However, we’re talking here about the teams prior to the current generation of players. India has never had a genuinely quick bowler (Kapil in case you’re wondering was at best a fast medium pacer) and most often, the hype you talk about revolved around their batting talent. A team like Australia has been at the top for so long because they excel in all departments (batting, bowling and fielding) and have a solid self-belief that they can beat anyone. The old Indian team were all about batsmen first with the medium pacers and spinners then thrown in with hope they could somehow get the wickets. Let’s not even discuss their attrocious fielding and fitness. The Indian current cricket team is loaded with all-round talent. They have great batsmen, exciting new and genuinely quick bowlers along with very athletic, enthusiastic fielders. This time it is not hype but truly a much more complete team than ever before. Like I said the results that show as a result have been more consistent of late. I predict a repeat of the 2003 World Cup finalists next year in the West Indies with a different result this time.
Remember john, the Web (and rantlust) never forgets. Check this page in 2007.
Sure thing. I’ve been wrong before and am not afraid of failing in the prediction. But I would be very disappointed if India does not win it all. It will, after all, (from many indications) going to be Sachin Tendulkar’s swan song and he so deserves to go out on a high note.
The team under Ganguly wasn’t that much different (okay maybe there are better fast bowlers now) from what it is today. If you want to compare with former Indian teams, you should go further back.
He was fast? There was this other guy, whose name escapes me now, who was quite fast but he didn’t have the stamina to finish his overs sometimes. I believe he was from the south.
Disagree. The team under Ganguly were a far better team than those earlier. We’re not talking about bowlers, we’re talking about the team’s performance over all. Bowling-wise, you’re right … there was nothing great to write home about. Ganguly helped instil a tougher mentality in the team who in years past were always seen as being soft.
Read what I said. Kapil was a medium pacer (who was fast medium pacer at best.)
Javagal Srinath.
That’s exactly what I wanted to say. In your previous comment, I thought you meant that the current team is quite different from the “Ganguly era” or did you mean the Gavaskar/Dev/Azharuddhin era?
Chill, dude. It was a (lame) attempt at sarcastic humor.
Not Srinath. Of course I know Srinath. I am talking about someone who played in the Gavaskar era. I think his name was Sridhar or Shekar or something similar. He didn’t play that long for India.
It’s T A Sekhar that I was referring to. He was quite fast.
My fault for not being clear here. I did indeed mean to compare the Dravid/Chappell era to the Ganguly/Wright era in terms of consistency. Dravid’s team is already winning more consistently and that is what I meant by being quite different from the Ganguly era. In my opinion, Indian cricket is going through a change (different scales though) like when Border/Taylor/Waugh transformed Australia. Ganguly’s time will be seen as the changing point but he could only take things so far. I do believe Dravid will take the team to even better heights because we have the coach, the captain, the attitude and the new talent to do so. Over all, any Indian team before Ganguly were hype machines.
John:
“England won the last Ashes through a combination of:
1. All of their players playing extremely well at the same time.
2. Most of Australia’s players playing pretty poorly at the same time.”
England won the Tests which McGrath didn’t play. That’s it.
I can’t believe I forgot this crucial point considering how much we had discussed it at the time. You’re absolutely right and this fact was the single biggest difference to the entire series.
The “tafkap curse” has taken hold. It’s sure funny that India lost so miserably to — of all teams — England so soon after these comments were made.
That was a miserable loss no doubt and it was helped a lot by a “great” Indian team effort. Probably the biggest mistake was Dravid electing to field first. All in all, you take the losses with the wins and can’t judge the team on a bad outing. England will come away feeling extremely pleased to have levelled the series. However, they still need to prove their worth consistently against other the big test playing nations like Pakistan (who already whooped their asses) and South Africa. I expect Australia to terrorize them and win in the next Ashes.
In baseball, Japan won the WBC against Cuba with a real strong game showing in the final. There were tons of Cuban supporters in the stadium I noticed.
Our internal Indian mailing list is having a passionate discussion around India’s latest collapse.
The angst in some instances is quite comical. The discussion has now devolved (perhaps predictably) into musings about basic Indian psyche. How Indian upbringing may have a role in producing stars who wilt under the blaze of competitive pressure. Oh! Were it all only a game