British People Are Crazy

Evan and I went to Pickwick's last night. At one point in the evening -- while Evan used my phone to call his girlfriend -- I picked up a copy of some "British-American" newspaper. It's basically just a free hand-out at British restaurants and pubs, and covers the Anglo world for Americans still loyal to the Queen.

I was thoroughly fascinated by the Sport page (they don't call it a "Sports Page"... sport is a singular word in Britain, while we reserve its singularlity for occasions when it's preceded by "good" or "bad" on this side of the Pond). First, I don't get newspaper coverage of soccer. How does a writer come up with 25 inches on a soccer game that ended 1-0? I mean, after the lead, where you announce who scored the only goal and how, what else can you say?

Joe Nobody led the Lickchester United attack in the twenty-sixth minute, but was stopped short when the goalkeeper was standing right where his shot went.

"It wasn't a very good shot," said Nobody.

Makes for fascinating reading, huh? I mean, all a writer can do is write about how -- for the better part of an hour and a half -- the teams unsuccessfully moved the ball around the field.

Even more interesting to me was the cricket coverage. It should be made clear -- before I explain how strange newspaper stories about cricket are -- that I don't understand cricket at all. The point, though, is that every cricket story I've ever read uses a totally different set of language (not just cricket jargon) than any other sports (or "sport") story I've ever read. In the last hour I've read four newspaper accounts of cricket matches (do they even call them "matches"?), and every one uses adjectives like "sluggish" and "steely" and nouns like "fortnight."

Here's an example from today's Guardian:

Headline: Nixon leads successful Foxes chase

Subhed: Glamorgan 226 - 7; Leicestershire 227 - 7; Leicestershire won by three wickets

One day, someone will explain how, based on scores of 226-7 and 227-7, one team one by three wickets. What kind of math is this? Not to mention the fact that no American paper would ever use the word "Successful" in a headline. Anyway, here's more:

Leicestershire lifted themselves out of the relegation area in the National League First Division after a nail-biting, three-wicket victory over Glamorgan at Sophia Gardens last night.

The Foxes reached their victory target off the last ball of the match thanks to a steely, undefeated 67 from Paul Nixon.

First, what the fuck is a "relegation area"? Second, no real sporting event -- no matter how exciting -- is ever called "nail-biting." Call it a close victory. Call it a real humdinger. Call it a race-to-the-finish. But "nail-biting" makes it sound like you just watched Scream, not a sporting event. Anyway, to continue...

The opening batsman Trevor Ward had earlier laid the foundations for the Leicestershire run chase, smashing 11 fours and a six in his 104 before being caught by David Hemp off the bowling of the off-spinner Robert Croft.

The visitors were floundering at 177 for six before Nixon and Jeremy Snape added 43 for the seventh wicket. Snape fell in the final over of the chase for 22 but Nixon was still around to complete the successful pursuit of Glamorgan's 226.

Glamorgan won the toss and chose to bat but they got off to a slow start and their first boundary off the bat did not come until the eighth over. But they more than made amends for that sluggish beginning and eventually set the visitors a challenging target.

OK, this guy Ward smashed 11 fours and a six... That's more like it. "Smash" is a real sports word, as in, "Sosa smashed Rivera's 1-2 offering into the right field bleachers."

But then... we get, "The vistors were floundering..." What the hell is that? To make things worse, it turns out Glamorgan (side note: what kind of sports team has the word "glamor" in it's name?) got off to a "sluggish" start. Can you imagine it?

The visitors were floundering, having completed only three of their first 17 passes. But Stewart overcame his sluggish start and connected with Booker on four of the next five plays.

My guess is the Brits would laugh at your average football (I mean American football) or baseball story and tell us that we're overconcerned with statistics and underconcerned with what actually happened in the game. They'd probably also say that our sports coverage has devolved into ridiculously simple language marked by short phrases and words that belong in a pub, not in print.

Comments

[Mark]

I come from England! Leave us alone! And we spell glamor glamour, so it's not got glamor in the name. We can spell it how we like, because it's our ruddy language! And it's a PLACE name, not a sportS name. And don't criticise ruddy either.

[chris]

ruddy...heh heh heh

[Dave]

Ahhhhh........cricket, one sport that the Yanks will never take from us!!

I can just imagine the Fox Sports guys trying to get their heads round a match that can last for a full 5 days and still end in a draw!!

Warm beer, green fields, cucumber sandwiches, "more tea vicar?", sound of leather upon willow, a punch up outside the pub after closing time - just somethings that are forever England!!