Football Special

[byebyebadman]

i hope west brom win purely because kevin phillips is a pure legend and he deserves some kind of trophy after having peter reid ruined his career by makin him stay at sunderland

[penfold]

Originally Posted by TimR No, I didn't know - sounds interesting. Please proceed...

Okay. In the 18thC cricket was still at an early stage in its development; no overarching rulebook had been formulated, teams could vary in size, local variations existed. At this time, the game was most popular in London, some Army regiments, some public (posh) schools like Winchester, and the southern counties such as Hampshire and Surrey.
Early inter-village games - the travelling, pre-rail links, must have been hard for player and spectators - were sponsored by local tavernkeepers keen for the extra trade a cricket-viewing public brought. Prize money was huge - one cutting advertises a game being played for £1000 - two years income for Jane Austen's Mr Darcy, IIRC, 20 years later.
Inevitably betting occurred, and rivalries between local aristos vying to have a better team than the neighbouring aristos - and so two things happened; a local smith with a talent for the game would find himself offered a far more lucrative position as one of Milord's retinue, to stop him being tempted by a neighbouring ambitious village. And the aristos weren't mere spectators - they played; introduced to it at those posh schools. A young Prince, fielding a ball, was killed in an accidental collision with the batsman. This also had the effect of softening the class barriers; English sporting aristos were far less removed from the general population than their French counterparts. Your Lord might charge too much rent and persecute poachers, but if he was a first-class bat or could bowl a quick left-arm delivery, he wasn't all bad....now, you couldn't send a teammate to the guillotine, could you?
So that's the theory; village cricket softened the class barriers just enough to prevent the class warfare that occurred in France.
A couple of other things; to this day, the headquarters of cricket in England and revered worldwide is Lord's Cricket Ground in London. Nothing to do with Aristo's....it was founded and built by Thomas Lord, one of those southern counties tavernkeepers aforementioned. I believe Lord's Tavern still sits in one corner of the ground.
The other is that, in the accounts book of Hambledon, the most famous of the village teams of that time, is a report of its annual meeting that year, late 1780's. Attending the meeting is one "Thom. Paine, Author of The Rights Of Man"....though quite why he was attending a cricketing AGM when he was officially a wanted man, is not known. Nice to think that he was a cricketing fan though, he should have approved of the egalitarianism it could have represented at the time.....

[David Brent]

Well played the Pool.

Another great result in Italy. Gerrard and Torres are on absolute fire at the moment.

Now there are four English teams in the Champions League QF's - first time any country has done that.

Any bets on an all English final?

Dave.

[batman]

Originally Posted by David Brent Well played the Pool. Another great result in Italy. Gerrard and Torres are on absolute fire at the moment. Now there are four English teams in the Champions League QF's - first time any country has done that. Any bets on an all English final? Dave.

That would be good .... as long as Chelski are in it!

I reckon if only two get through another all English semi-final will 'miraculously' come out of the draw.

[DB7]

Looks like it might be Avram's last chance to prove he can match Mourinho as a winner of big games. Lose, and he's toast.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by David Brent Well played the Pool. Another great result in Italy. Gerrard and Torres are on absolute fire at the moment. Now there are four English teams in the Champions League QF's - first time any country has done that. Any bets on an all English final? Dave.

Liverpool's victory does seem to have put their other problems on the back boiler for a moment.

With ownership of the club seemingly open to offers, a good European Cup run will do wonders for the sale price.

Is this Gerrards last season at Liverpool, the only medal he lacks is the Premier League championship. Can anybody here see Liverpool achieving the League championship in the near future?
How much money would they get for him and what would they do with it?

Freddy

[DB7]

Originally Posted by Freddy With ownership of the club seemingly open to offers, a good European Cup run will do wonders for the sale price.

I think in Ms Staveley I've found the ideal future wife. A lovely blonde, loaded, and I can twist her arm into getting shot of Riise.

[Dame Starry]

Originally Posted by DB7 I think in Ms Staveley I've found the ideal future wife. A lovely blonde, loaded, and I can twist her arm into getting shot of Riise.

She'll never be able to resist you, DB7 - you're obviously an incurable romantic.

DS x.

[Rob Compton]

Originally Posted by penfold Okay. In the 18thC cricket was still at an early stage in its development; no overarching rulebook had been formulated, teams could vary in size, local variations existed. At this time, the game was most popular in London, some Army regiments, some public (posh) schools like Winchester, and the southern counties such as Hampshire and Surrey. Early inter-village games - the travelling, pre-rail links, must have been hard for player and spectators - were sponsored by local tavernkeepers keen for the extra trade a cricket-viewing public brought. Prize money was huge - one cutting advertises a game being played for £1000 - two years income for Jane Austen's Mr Darcy, IIRC, 20 years later. Inevitably betting occurred, and rivalries between local aristos vying to have a better team than the neighbouring aristos - and so two things happened; a local smith with a talent for the game would find himself offered a far more lucrative position as one of Milord's retinue, to stop him being tempted by a neighbouring ambitious village. And the aristos weren't mere spectators - they played; introduced to it at those posh schools. A young Prince, fielding a ball, was killed in an accidental collision with the batsman. This also had the effect of softening the class barriers; English sporting aristos were far less removed from the general population than their French counterparts. Your Lord might charge too much rent and persecute poachers, but if he was a first-class bat or could bowl a quick left-arm delivery, he wasn't all bad....now, you couldn't send a teammate to the guillotine, could you? So that's the theory; village cricket softened the class barriers just enough to prevent the class warfare that occurred in France. A couple of other things; to this day, the headquarters of cricket in England and revered worldwide is Lord's Cricket Ground in London. Nothing to do with Aristo's....it was founded and built by Thomas Lord, one of those southern counties tavernkeepers aforementioned. I believe Lord's Tavern still sits in one corner of the ground. The other is that, in the accounts book of Hambledon, the most famous of the village teams of that time, is a report of its annual meeting that year, late 1780's. Attending the meeting is one "Thom. Paine, Author of The Rights Of Man"....though quite why he was attending a cricketing AGM when he was officially a wanted man, is not known. Nice to think that he was a cricketing fan though, he should have approved of the egalitarianism it could have represented at the time.....

That's one theory, at least, Penfold. And an interesting one at that. The "Thomas Lord" pub still stands in one of those Hampshire villages, East Meon. And yes, the Lords Tavern is still at Lords, and has of course given it's name to the Lord's Taverners, see The Lords Taverners which does so much good work.

rgds
Rob

[TimR]

Originally Posted by penfold Okay. In the 18thC cricket was still at an early stage in its development; no overarching rulebook had been formulated, teams could vary in size, local variations existed. At this time, the game was most popular in London, some Army regiments, some public (posh) schools like Winchester, and the southern counties such as Hampshire and Surrey. Early inter-village games - the travelling, pre-rail links, must have been hard for player and spectators - were sponsored by local tavernkeepers keen for the extra trade a cricket-viewing public brought. Prize money was huge - one cutting advertises a game being played for £1000 - two years income for Jane Austen's Mr Darcy, IIRC, 20 years later. Inevitably betting occurred, and rivalries between local aristos vying to have a better team than the neighbouring aristos - and so two things happened; a local smith with a talent for the game would find himself offered a far more lucrative position as one of Milord's retinue, to stop him being tempted by a neighbouring ambitious village. And the aristos weren't mere spectators - they played; introduced to it at those posh schools. A young Prince, fielding a ball, was killed in an accidental collision with the batsman. This also had the effect of softening the class barriers; English sporting aristos were far less removed from the general population than their French counterparts. Your Lord might charge too much rent and persecute poachers, but if he was a first-class bat or could bowl a quick left-arm delivery, he wasn't all bad....now, you couldn't send a teammate to the guillotine, could you? So that's the theory; village cricket softened the class barriers just enough to prevent the class warfare that occurred in France. A couple of other things; to this day, the headquarters of cricket in England and revered worldwide is Lord's Cricket Ground in London. Nothing to do with Aristo's....it was founded and built by Thomas Lord, one of those southern counties tavernkeepers aforementioned. I believe Lord's Tavern still sits in one corner of the ground. The other is that, in the accounts book of Hambledon, the most famous of the village teams of that time, is a report of its annual meeting that year, late 1780's. Attending the meeting is one "Thom. Paine, Author of The Rights Of Man"....though quite why he was attending a cricketing AGM when he was officially a wanted man, is not known. Nice to think that he was a cricketing fan though, he should have approved of the egalitarianism it could have represented at the time.....

Very interesting and entirely new to me - thanks.

It is interesting that Britain never went the way of France.

It should have been a film, with Robert Donat in the 30s or maybe Michael Redgrave in the 40s.

There should be a role for Eric Portman. Maybe a cameo as Paine? But Paine seems a bit more robust. Who would play the local smith? Robert Newton would be a good choice. And there would have to be a woman as well: Vivien Leigh or maybe Jean Simmons.

Cricket doesn't seem to work up the excitement that football does. I suppose it doesn't really have a place outside of Britain and (some) of its former colonies?

[Rob Compton]

Originally Posted by TimR Cricket doesn't seem to work up the excitement that football does

The Test series against Australia in 2005 for The Ashes was extremely exciting, Tim - see The Ashes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have the honour to admit that I was at Lords for the first day of the first Test of that Series, and some of the Australian supporters were very excited!

rgds
Rob

PS ...but we don't talk much about the 2006/7 series!

[DB7]

Originally Posted by Dame Starry She'll never be able to resist you, DB7 - you're obviously an incurable romantic. DS x.

Yep, inspired by all the great love films;' 9 1/2 Weeks, Wild Things, Basic Instinct...

[penfold]

Originally Posted by TimR Very interesting and entirely new to me - thanks. Cricket doesn't seem to work up the excitement that football does. I suppose it doesn't really have a place outside of Britain and (some) of its former colonies?

You're welcome.

It has been said that cricket is less immediate and exciting, but there can be dreadfully boring football matches, and cricket matches that are edge of the seat stuff for days on end...such as the aforementioned Ashes series.
Test Cricket really was England's gift to the Empire...how more English could a sport be? Played in impractical gear, over five days with breaks for lunch, and naturally, tea; and yet could still end in a draw. At least the 'Timeless Tests' of the 30's have stopped, whereby a game took as long as it took....one, IIRC, the final test of a South African tour, was abandoned on the eleventh day as the England team were booked on the steamer home, and the ship was sailing with them on board or not.....
As for only being popular in the colonies, that's pretty well true, apart from Holland, Switzerland, Argentina and wherever a missionary with a bat and ball in his luggage could get. Even California.....Hollywood had a decent team in the 20's and 30's, founded and run by C.Aubrey Smith, Ex-England, captain of the 1896 tour of South Africa...

[Jackdaw]

Originally Posted by penfold It has been said that cricket is less immediate and exciting, but there can be dreadfully boring football matches, and cricket matches that are edge of the seat stuff for days on end...such as the aforementioned Ashes series.

Quite agree, Penfold!

I recall Trevor Bailey once saying that cricket is a "situation game", meaning that a seemingly pointless draw can be an exhilarating spectacle should, for instance, the last pair be at the wicket with five overs left, and nine fielders crowding the bat.
The Great Game, indeed.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by Jackdaw Quite agree, Penfold! I recall Trevor Bailey once saying that cricket is a "situation game", meaning that a seemingly pointless draw can be an exhilarating spectacle should, for instance, the last pair be at the wicket with five overs left, and nine fielders crowding the bat. The Great Game, indeed.

Yes, but you have to go through three (or more) days of not particularly exciting events to get to that last exciting hour. And that's only when it is looking like it'll be a draw

Steve