>>>What are you on about? I think you're being unjust. I'm not anti-American - I've always considered myself to be an "Americanophile". As a kid I used to kid other kids on that I was American sometimes. I rarely give other than undue criticism and I'm just as critical about my own penny-pinching country.
>>
>>You look down your nose at the U.S. all the time. It gets old.
>
>You've got it wrong. I may take the mickey a bit. But, yes, sometimes I may be critical, e.g. talking about the amount of shiny metal US forces wear on their dress uniforms, but equally I mentioned that the reason why the British wore red was because it was the cheapest material around and that we're penny-pinching. I could go on about how "for want of a [boot] the [Falklands War] was nearly lost..." but never mind...
>
>Anyway, Americans are notorious for looking down their noses at us, over here. There are those who are charming and have the grace to keep stumm and "when in Rome..." but there are others who are loud, aggressive, critical, demanding, dissatisfied, ungrateful, rude. Complaints about the weather (as if we can help what comes across from the Gulf - and we don't need A/C all summer long, in fact ever).
>
>But that isn't a beef of mine, as I know there are equally legions of insufferable Brit lager louts on holiday all over the world.
>
>>Baseball requires much more athleticism than cricket. Of course a test match takes three days -- they never break a sweat! Watch a stolen base, a diving over the shoulder catch in the outfield, a triple, a double play turned by the pros, a 98 miles per hour fastball, a home run (the American metaphor to end all American metaphors). Then tell me about cricket. In my opinion there is no comparison.
>
>A cricket ball, hard, heavy and covered in leather, in the top game is delivered at, say, 95-110 mph by the fast bowlers. Why do you think the batsmen wear head, forearm, thigh, hand, groin and knee protection? They may have to make tens of runs in an inning, fielders make "diving over the shoulder catches" and run fast after balls (not just the one per half-hour that a baseball batter manages). And they're a lot harder to catch, without a mitt. A home run (quite rare I thought) is no more arduous than running 3 wicket lengths.
>
>I discussed the comparison of the two games in a past thread on the subject. In it I stated that I used to think baseball was more glamourous and exiting than cricket, but then I watched the "Ashes" test match between England and Aus., and watched some baseball and was bored stiff. I couldn't see anything happening, other than the pitcher throwing balls at the plate, for ages. Then the batter might miss altogether and get striked out.
>
>So I don't think you can make such an all-sweeping statement. And if I made disparaging remarks about baseball or gridiron, it were against the games and not Americans (otherwise you might as well drag canucks and japanese into it). Don't take things so personally.


Sorry for the delay in responding. My mom had a heart attack on Thursday and I was out of town. She is fine -- amazing technology, stents. When I first got there things did not look so good. She was immediately post-op and lying on her back. With the drugs and all she did not respond to my words or my touch. She was ashen. Not to be morbid but she looked dead. All of which is my roundabout way of saying there isn't much point in bickering about petty things, is there?

Cricket vs. baseball, now that's another matter ;-). Let's return to that one when we all need an amusing time. All I will say for now is I already know why cricket batsmen wear head, forearm, thigh, hand, groin and knee protection -- because they're pussies! LOL