I wonder how many of these 110 nations for baseball or 83 nations for cricket actually have regulation-sized fields for these sports (i'm not even talkinga bout stadiums).
I wonder how many of these 110 nations for baseball or 83 nations for cricket actually have regulation-sized fields for these sports (i'm not even talkinga bout stadiums).
That doesn't bother me. There is certainly a reasonable argument to be made that cricket is "more international" than baseball. However, there is also a very reasonable argument to be made that baseball is "more international" than cricket. And yes, it does bother me when people dismiss that out of hand without bothering to look at the evidence, and make blanket statements like, "In no way does baseball approach cricket in popularity around the world," or whatever the previous poster wrote. That was a ridiculous thing to say.
the cricket one is http://www.cricket.org and boy is it slow. the other is http://www.baseball.ch as to your comment in the last post... "And yes, it does bother me when people dismiss that out of hand without bothering to look at the evidence, and make blanket statements..." I would only have to say "dude, it's bigsoccer. That's about ALL you get here." (and I'd add a winky smiley face, if I could get the damn icon to work).
The one thing that makes less sense than having baseball in the olympics would be having cricket in the olympics. But who cares? To me the olympics is about swimming, track, weight lifting and stuff like that. Team sports, even soccer, seem to me to be out of place at the games. But if somebody wants to put in baseball to keep the US, Japan and Cuba happy, it is fine with me. And if they want to put cricket to keep England, India and the West Indies happy, well... I guess there is something for everybody at the olympic games.