Yankees win 27th World Series

[Topdog]

Re: Yankees win 27th World Series

so does Dave Nielsen (sp?) still own the rights to the league.

[anfo27]

Re: Yankees win 27th World Series

Why does the comp have to change the name of it's finals series just because no other sports have the same deal? I don't get that..."oh they don't do it this way or that way" so that makes it wrong? I believe THAT is a cop out.

The one thing that i like with Baseball, is the tradition they seem to carry through, and they are as big on that as any sport.

The fact that the sport can stay relevant and not have to change with the times is brilliant for mine, alot of sports having to move with the times, not just with names but rule changes etc etc.

I think baseball needs to change with the times but more in terms of the schedule of games. Prime example was the start times of the World Series, their games start at 9:30 and don't finish till at least 11:30 and then when they go into extras they can go to 12:30.

I think baseball relies to much on tradition to win fans over. When in reality kids can't stay up and watch these games so baseball are losing the next generation of fans.

For the NFL fans what time do they show their Monday night games? Is the superbowl during the day?

[Happy Days]

Re: Yankees win 27th World Series

That is the story that is told every year and I have no reason not to believe it.

But please tell me one other competion in the world that still names it's competition after a sponser who hasn't sponsered the competition for 100 years.

I think it's a cop out.

Even if it is a cop out, name one other team that isn't from the MLB that could now beat the Yankees.

Arrogant or not, its still the best two teams in the world playing each other.

[Remi Moses]

Re: Yankees win 27th World Series

games are going to b e played in Geelong apparently. Might get down to have a look at a game or two.

[Remi Moses]

Re: Yankees win 27th World Series

Aaaah, remember the good old days of the Waverley Reds & the Melbourne Monarchs? I used to love going out to VFL Park & watching the Reds play. Something to do in the footy off season.

Yuck the dirty stinkin' Waverley reds

[LostDoggy]

Re: Yankees win 27th World Series

Yuck the dirty stinkin' Waverley reds

You were obviously a Monarchs fan?!

[The Coon Dog]

Re: Yankees win 27th World Series

You were obviously a Monarchs fan?!

Easy to be when they were owned by the Western Bulldogs!

[LostDoggy]

Re: Yankees win 27th World Series

Easy to be when they were owned by the Western Bulldogs!

Yes, I probably should've followed them, but it was all about location back when I didn't have a licence/car!!

[LostDoggy]

Re: Yankees win 27th World Series

Cricket has sold its soul and bastardised itself repeatedly and is likely to be dead as a top level sport outside of India within our lifetimes.
Baseball hasn't had to resort to parlour tricks to stay relevant.

I love baseball too, but these sentences don't make sense.

Your argument is that cricket will decline into a one-nation sport, but baseball, on the other hand, which is already a (largely) one-nation sport, is "relevant".

I would suggest that both sports are passionately but not universally followed.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Yankees win 27th World Series

Even if it is a cop out, name one other team that isn't from the MLB that could now beat the Yankees.

Arrogant or not, its still the best two teams in the world playing each other.

We should thus call Geelong the World Champions of AFL, but of course we won't because in our heart of hearts we know that while we all love our footy, it is a largely provincial concern, and that we are only another country (albeit a 'lucky' one) in the big scheme of things.

The US, on the other hand, truly believe in their heart of hearts in the 'exceptionalism' of Americanism, ie. that they are unique and special in historical terms. I truly doubt that history will remember them this way -- they will be one of a series of dominant countries since the Industrial Revolution (albeit a very influential one), but 50-80 years of international leadership is like a drop in the ocean in the vast sweep of history. Contrast the Roman Empire, which lasted the best part of a millenia.

Of course the MLB have the best two teams, no one else cares enough to compete.

I do think that the NBA should stop using the World Champion tag as the US having the world's best basketball team isn't fait accompli these days.

[Topdog]

Re: Yankees win 27th World Series

I love baseball too, but these sentences don't make sense.

Your argument is that cricket will decline into a one-nation sport, but baseball, on the other hand, which is already a (largely) one-nation sport, is "relevant".

I would suggest that both sports are passionately but not universally followed.

His argument was more about cricket constantly having to re-invent itself. Baseball is still very popular in a number of countries and hasn't really had any major changes to it. I have loved watching the World Champs which they recently made.

BTW the US having the best basketball team is a given. They have just bastardised the NBA so much that when they play with real rules (travelling, 3 point line, etc.) they struggle to adapt. They won the last tournament fairly convincingly because they had their best players playing. And again for club basketball no clubs from overseas get close to an NBA team.

[The Underdog]

Re: Yankees win 27th World Series

I love baseball too, but these sentences don't make sense.

Your argument is that cricket will decline into a one-nation sport, but baseball, on the other hand, which is already a (largely) one-nation sport, is "relevant".

I would suggest that both sports are passionately but not universally followed.

Sorry I should have been more specific in that Baseball remains relevant to its audience by staying essentially the same, cricket has been changing its "product" to try and keep people interested in the game.

Baseball's popularity in Japan and Latin America means while it's largely a one nation sport it does have very strong representation in other parts of the world. It's strength will always be the US but the number of players who come from Latin America in the game nowadays is massive. The game has stayed essentially the same in format and most rules (despite interpretations of the strike zone) and while not growing exponentially it has ridden out tough times and is fairly healthy.

Cricket has had a greater spread across the globe having obviously taken root in colonial outposts and continues to be strong through the sub-continent but it has also tried to re-invent itself twice and the most recent incarnation is one that lacks any soul whatsoever. Twenty20 is entertainment before it's sport which may be all good for 10 year olds but does anyone really care at the end of a game. One day cricket seems to have outlived its usefulness. Test cricket, while still a beautiful thing is a more arduous process as the talent pool seemingly evaporates. This summer's test series will be a huge test of audience patience.
Of the 7 nations where it has been popular, cricket is dying in the West Indies and New Zealand and Pakistan is a joke for its own political reasons. Despite all efforts to grow the game in Bangladesh, it is still a long way off coming to fruition and lets not even mention Zimbabwe.
I was probably a bit harsh in that it will probably always maintain itself as a 2nd or 3rd choice sport in England, Australia and South Africa and keep its popularity in Sri Lanka and India but while baseball has stayed true to the essence of itself, cricket's future is seemingly declining in at least 3 of its 7 major markets.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Yankees win 27th World Series

Sorry I should have been more specific in that Baseball remains relevant to its audience by staying essentially the same, cricket has been changing its "product" to try and keep people interested in the game.

Baseball's popularity in Japan and Latin America means while it's largely a one nation sport it does have very strong representation in other parts of the world. It's strength will always be the US but the number of players who come from Latin America in the game nowadays is massive. The game has stayed essentially the same in format and most rules (despite interpretations of the strike zone) and while not growing exponentially it has ridden out tough times and is fairly healthy.

Cricket has had a greater spread across the globe having obviously taken root in colonial outposts and continues to be strong through the sub-continent but it has also tried to re-invent itself twice and the most recent incarnation is one that lacks any soul whatsoever. Twenty20 is entertainment before it's sport which may be all good for 10 year olds but does anyone really care at the end of a game. One day cricket seems to have outlived its usefulness. Test cricket, while still a beautiful thing is a more arduous process as the talent pool seemingly evaporates. This summer's test series will be a huge test of audience patience.
Of the 7 nations where it has been popular, cricket is dying in the West Indies and New Zealand and Pakistan is a joke for its own political reasons. Despite all efforts to grow the game in Bangladesh, it is still a long way off coming to fruition and lets not even mention Zimbabwe.
I was probably a bit harsh in that it will probably always maintain itself as a 2nd or 3rd choice sport in England, Australia and South Africa and keep its popularity in Sri Lanka and India but while baseball has stayed true to the essence of itself, cricket's future is seemingly declining in at least 3 of its 7 major markets.

Great post.

I would suggest that these things are cyclical too -- baseball went through a pretty down period itself around the time of the '94 strike (with Sports Illustrated and the like trumpeting professional baseball's impending death as it struggled to deal with the growth of the NBA and NFL), and some suggesting that it has only fully recovered very recently (television rights and audiences have returned to pre-strike levels only in the last five years or so). For all the romanticism of the game, the steroid debate, too, has certainly stolen a lot of its lustre, with plenty of discussions recently about the integrity of the Hall of Fame itself.

Baseball fans with long memories will also remember plenty of 'reinventions', perhaps not so much in the format of the game itself, but baseball suffered its own upheavals in the social arenas of race (the acceptance and assimilation of black, then Latino, then more recently Asian players) and also the advent of professionalism ("franchises"?!).

I still know old Brooklyn Dodgers fans who have never gotten over losing their team.

--

Just as there are too many baseball lovers in the US to ever let baseball 'die' completely, there are far too many cricket lovers to ever let Test cricket die -- the fact that there is the amount of angst now about its condition suggests that there will be a reaction sooner or later to 'save' it.

As I said in my previous post, the reality is that both sports have great traditions and are passionately followed, but are largely provincially specific when compared to more universal sports, and will likely always remain that way, so it's hard to compare the two as they have very different and very specific sets of conditions and influences.

[LostDoggy]

Re: Yankees win 27th World Series

BTW the US having the best basketball team is a given. They have just bastardised the NBA so much that when they play with real rules (travelling, 3 point line, etc.) they struggle to adapt. They won the last tournament fairly convincingly because they had their best players playing. And again for club basketball no clubs from overseas get close to an NBA team.

Be that as it may, it's still immodest to claim as such. We sometimes laugh at the Rugby League (or even the Rugby Union) World Cup, even though they are legitimate international competitions, because of the paucity of real competitors. (especially the League one). Well, when a provincial competition claims 'World Championship' status, especially when it's in a sport you invented yourself, it's just silly.

It would be similar to me inventing a sport in my office of paper-clip fencing and calling whoever wins it during lunchbreak the 'World Champion of Paper-Clip Fencing', which may be technically true, but essentially meaningless, which I feel the NBA 'World Championship' wording is. NBA Champion, which is what the winners are, sounds more authentic and meaningful in every way.

What if, for example, in the next 30 years, another national league in another country emerges to challenge the NBA's dominance? (unlikely, but possible) What happens then?

Well, we don't have to speculate -- these things have happened before in the US itself, when rival leagues sprang up and started claiming that they were the dominant league(this is actually why it became called the World Championships, because it a hyperbolic name given to the contest to determine the 'champion' between rival leagues). It all becomes a little bit silly.

The funny thing is, of course, that the NBA actually agrees with me, and I have indulged in hypothetical speculating for the heck of it. It is no longer officially called the World Championships and hasn't been since the 1980s (I think since the US team lost the Olympic final to Russia in '84), and the term 'world champion' is only used unofficially these days.

[Ozza]

Re: Yankees win 27th World Series

What if, for example, in the next 30 years, another national league in another country emerges to challenge the NBA's dominance? (unlikely, but possible) What happens then?

.

The way the Euroleague is going - its looking more and more possible. Its not beyond the realms of possibility that someone like LeBron James may end up playing for one of the big teams there - at some stage - as the money in Euro basketball is huge.