Are there any other countries allowed 3 participants per event like the USA? Why are they allowed this advantage? It seems most unfair.
The only time I can watch cricket is a 20 over game, when it's reached the stage when 4s and 6s are needed with the possibility of being all bowled out.
I did a bit of reading on that possible medal count. A lot of people, including Seb Coe, are of the opinion that China will take the top spot, followed by the USA and Russia. But as stated previously on this thread, research in the England suggests that GB might be able to take that 3rd place. But it seems that Japan expect big things too. They probably won't take third or fourth but might get themselves into a fight with Australia, and Germany for fifth, sixth and seventh. I wonder what the betting will be in the lead up to the games?
The odds I seen on oddschecker where 4/6 the yanks, and 6/4 china. China did lead the medal table in Beijing, but that's to be expected in China. It won't be as easy for them in London
And now we have what looks like the possible deployment of an anti aircraft missile battery on a roof top in London. Would you like to live in that building?
The whole world is going insane Cyc. I'd certainly want my council tax lowered for an anti-aircraft missile battery on the roof
Two of the big guns of athletics, Usain Bolt and Yohan Blake step out today in the Jamaican Invitational. Bolt will run the 100m and Blake the 200m. Both are trained by the great Glen Mills who has the habit of turning out the odd champion or two. Neither Bolt nor Blake are too sure what Olympic program they will follow. It seems the the last word is down to Mills. Bolt didn't know until a couple of weeks out from the Beijing games that he was to do the double. Blake, the world 100m champion might have to concentrate on the 200m where he seems best suited. Bolt will almost certainly contest the 100m, but it hasn't been confirmed that he'll also take a crack at the 200m this time. Blake negative split a 19:26 in Brussels which has left experts scratching their heads. Even though it's still marginally slower than the effort of Bolt, he's looked on as a real chance if the two clash in the 200m. A mouth watering prospect.
Bolt bolted. He won in 9:82. As expected, Blake won the 200 in 19:91. The best run of the day probably went to the US sprint queen Carmelita Jeta who blasted over the 100m in 10:81 to record the fastest time of the season.
If hes selected then I hope it's for footballing reasons, not because he's David Beckham. Though what sane coach would select a 38 year old who's about 8 years past his prime for footballing reasons? However it still wouldn't suprise me if Becks managed to worm his way in
Shergar: Don't get so upset. I mean, if you don't like Test Cricket then don't watch it, i.e. totally ignore it. For myself, I love the Ashes tournament. Of course, don't have the time or inclination to watch each and every ball over five days, but I do enjoy the comprehensive highlights every day. It is a great game, and very much part of our heritage, and, you know, it's just a nice little secret that just a few countries share - there are so so many who haven't the slightest clue about the game and what's going on. Holland are trying to unravel it, however, and are having a go at the one-day version. The one problem I have is trying to explain aspects of it to, for example, Americans, Germans, Lithuanians, et al. It's impossible, forget it.
Brilliant post. Needless to say I absolutely love test matches and try to watch whenever i get the chance - I also love reading about the history of the game. I have to go to a lot of meetings where there's people from loads of other countries and i keep using cricketing references by mistake and have to explain them - as you say it's not easy
Keep throwing a few googlies at 'em Dan - that'll keep 'em on their toes (or is it called a doosra these days?)
Love cricket, but as only a handful of countries play the game, it can't be an Olympic sport I suppose.
I'm reminded of the commentary in a test between England and the W.Indies "The bowler's Holding - the batsman's Willey"
Great stuff! I reckon lbw has got to be the most difficult one to explain (if a discussion with a non-believer ever gets that far). "What leg?", "what's a wicket", "is he supposed to get his leg behind the wicket then?", and so on and soforth. It's just bloody impossible, and a cricket lover should never get tricked into conversations like this!..............
