And Germany will win ;)

...erm... hopefully! :)

And Germany will win ;)

...erm... hopefully! :)

I cannot agree more. :p

It should have been Portugal vs Spain. :(

I'll be cheering for Germany!

Ummm... Go Bengals?

Is nothing sacred anymore ?
Are we nowhere safe from King Football ??
:zoiks:
(I've always wanted to use this smiley even though I don't grasp it's meaning)

I want Germany to win just so i can make fun of the guy from Spain at work :rofl:

semms there are not too many spanish guys around here

I'll watch the game at Heiligengeistfeld (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themanuel/2586558477/), Hamburg. Guess its one of the biggest public viewing places in germany. Great vibes during the last games there.

"Superdeutschland, Superdeutschland, Superdeutschland, óle óle"

Hi!

I'm from Spain!!!

Did you see, my german friends, how we won Italy and Russia?

I know is hard to accept it, but Germany is going to loose!!

Regards,

L.

[Offensive comment deleted by moderator]

Did you see, my german friends, how we won Italy and Russia?
If you play like you played against Italy you will loose 0:3. That game was booooorrriiinnng. You know that you dont stand a chance against Germany in penalties ;)

I know is hard to accept it, but Germany is going to loose!!If Germany plays liked they played against Portugal - Germany will win. If Germany plays like they played against Turkey - Spain will win (as long as they dont play like they played against Italy, see above).

But I agree to WDecraene. Soccer is ... getting annoying. You cant read a single board or watch a single news-report without seeing / reading "Soccer soccer soccer".

You cant read a single board or watch a single news-report without seeing / reading "Soccer soccer soccer".
and don't bother turning on the radio either. :rolleyes:

It's strange they haven't invented a smiley in the form of a football yet :eek:

You mean http://www.ben-newman.de/smilie/sports/014.gif (http://www.ben-newman.de)?

Or http://www.ben-newman.de/smilie/sports/roja.gif (http://www.ben-newman.de)?

Oh well ... http://www.ben-newman.de/smilie/sports/national.gif (http://www.ben-newman.de)

Moderator ! Moderator !!!!! MODERAAAAATOORRRRRRRRR !!!!
Please close this thread !! This is beyond obscene .... ;)

Oh well - its not that Spain has won ... Germany has lost because they played like they played against Turkey.

--edit: Spain has played well, dont get me wrong. But the German Team has played .. bad.
At least now we can restart looking the news or listening to the radio ;) without getting soccer-annoyed.

Germany shuoldn't even have passed the quarter finals. :P

Although it makes me sad, i have to say, the Spanish were really good and won well deserved. Congrats.

But do not forget, Germany still has the second best soccer team in europe :D

Although it makes me sad, i have to say, the Spanish were really good and won well deserved. Congrats.

But do not forget, Germany still has the second best soccer team in europe :D

There is not a real correlation with being in 2nd place in the Euro and being the 2nd best team in Europe. :P

@over: No, Germany played better then Portugal and won well deserved.

yeah, we didnt play good today. Congratulations to spain...

have a good party there

Agreed. I was supporting Germany, but Spain deserved to win without a doubt. Congratulations to them.

Thank you, thank you

Don't say I didn't warn you ;)

Now seriously, I didn't see Germany playing except in the final... and I'm sure that Germany can play better that they did. You know.. they always are one of the favorites, no matter the competition.

But Spain .... I think that we played very, very well. And I think that if the score were 2-0 or 3-1 it wouldn't be strange.

If you play like you played against Italy you will loose 0:3. That game was booooorrriiinnng. You know that you dont stand a chance against Germany in penalties ;)

Well... the game was boring because there were no goals, but I the match was quite good.

And concerning the penalties... we have Casillas!! The best goalkeeper in the world!!!

Ok... the football is over... now let's read

:iloveyou:

And what bets would you take for the forthcoming Spain v Scotland match?

(Switching quickly to a smaller ball!!)

I'll watch the game at Heiligengeistfeld (http://www.flickr.com/photos/themanuel/2586558477/), Hamburg. Guess its one of the biggest public viewing places in germany. Great vibes during the last games there.

I think Berlin was the biggest... they had to close the Brandenburger Platz because it was full. Something like 600'000 fans there.

It was a great tournament - well done Austria / Switzerland for hosting it; and congratulations Spain for winning it. :goodjob:
I even enjoyed the France - Romania game!

Hope the English team makes it to the next one (not too sure about our 'fans' though :rolleyes: - it seems to go better when they're not there).

It's a pity the Swiss or Austrians didn't somewhat longer. It's undeniable that at least here in Switzerland there was some kind of anti-climax after they lost their captain, Alexander Frei, to injury in their first game and after losing their first two matches.

The Euro 2008 was the first European Championship not to have one of the host nations present in the knockout stage...

And what bets would you take for the forthcoming Spain v Scotland match?

(Switching quickly to a smaller ball!!)

Uppss... I don't know!!! What sport are we talking about? :blink:

It doesn't matter!!. If we won the European Championship again after 44 years, we can win everything!! Even cricket, baseball or bobsleigh!! :D

By the way, Adidas made a nice ad with images of the spanish team. It's here:
http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2008/07/02/videos/1214996820.html

I liked specially the references to "volar" (flying), "atravesar muros" (breaching walls) or "leer la mente" (mind-reading)

L.

Uppss... I don't know!!! What sport are we talking about? :blink:

It doesn't matter!!. If we won the European Championship again after 44 years, we can win everything!! Even cricket, baseball or bobsleigh!! :D


L.

A clue...

A MURRAY (GB) 12 v R NADAL (Spa) 2*

3-6 1-2

A clue...

A MURRAY (GB) 12 v R NADAL (Spa) 2*

3-6 1-2


R NADAL (Spa) beat A MURRAY (SCO ;))
6-3 6-2 6-4

Mmmm.... Nadal

That was easy!

:D:D:D:D:D

R NADAL (Spa) beat A MURRAY (SCO ;))
6-3 6-2 6-4

Mmmm.... Nadal

That was easy!

:D:D:D:D:D


yah, rub it it why don't yah... :chinscratch:

yah, rub it it why don't yah... :chinscratch:

:alright: Chin Up.

A Murray could still make it to the Wimbledon final this year ;).

yah, rub it it why don't yah... :chinscratch:

Ups! In english, please? :D

Wait!... I'm going to use my Collins Dictionary!

No use! Too much BBC english course and too few real english! ;)

Thank heavens that you aren't trying to follow cricket. That is really mystifying, chronophageous, and a very eccentric game altogether.

:alright: Chin Up.

A Murray could still make it to the Wimbledon final this year ;).

pffft...

Thank heavens that you aren't trying to follow cricket. That is really mystifying, chronophageous, and a very eccentric game altogether.

oh tell me about it !!! i'm reading the mike and psmith stories by PG Wodehouse right now, and he keeps going on about the cricket games, and it's just like gibberish !!! rattling on about a "century" here and "wickets" there and posts and batting and runs and who knows what else... mystifying is the LEAST you can say. i'm hoping cricket is a little less important in the next books (i'm still in the first one of this series). i love wodehouse but i had to give up on "the oldest member" series because even he can't make golf interesting, and i fear the same may be true of cricket. although at least this book isn't principally about that.

oh tell me about it !!! i'm reading the mike and psmith stories by PG Wodehouse right now, and he keeps going on about the cricket games, and it's just like gibberish !!! rattling on about a "century" here and "wickets" there and posts and batting and runs and who knows what else... mystifying is the LEAST you can say. i'm hoping cricket is a little less important in the next books (i'm still in the first one of this series). i love wodehouse but i had to give up on "the oldest member" series because even he can't make golf interesting, and i fear the same may be true of cricket. although at least this book isn't principally about that.

I feel a "locust" coming on....:)

oh tell me about it !!! i'm reading the mike and psmith stories by PG Wodehouse right now, and he keeps going on about the cricket games, and it's just like gibberish !!! rattling on about a "century" here and "wickets" there and posts and batting and runs and who knows what else... mystifying is the LEAST you can say. i'm hoping cricket is a little less important in the next books ....

But, but, but ... cricket is a glorious game (even the versions that take less than 5 days to reach a draw :) ).

But, but, but ... cricket is a glorious game (even the versions that take less than 5 days to reach a draw :)).
glorious, possibly ; "glorious" and "mystifying" not being mutually exclusive (far from it) i believe i can let me original comment stand.

edit : sparrow, if you can explain cricket to me in 500 words or less and preferably in basic english, it would be a great help to me. i admit to a mild fascination for any game that opaque, my utter indifference towards organised sports notwithstanding.

A good explanation here:

http://members.tripod.com/~scienceofcricket/description.html

a good example of why reading about cricket is like reading jabberwocky translated into japanese and back again :
INNINGS - An innings has actually several term usages in cricket. (1) It is a turn of a batsman to bat, (2) a turn of a team to bat, or (3) when results are being given, it is when one team still has a turn to bat but has scored more runs than the opposing team (which has completed its two innings.)

another good example :
WICKET - The word "wicket" has four meanings in cricket. First, it is the goal, consisting of three stakes, which two sticks lay on top of. The batsman defends them and the bowler attempts to hit. Secondly, it is a turn to bat. Thirdly, a wicket is, in scoring, if a side is batting last, it is the number of batsmen who have to be put out (dismissed) when the opponent's score is passed. And lastly, it is the area between two sets of stumps (also known as pitch.)

The technical vocabulary of any subject is baffling to those who have no knowledge of the subject.

Cricket is basically a very simple game. You have two teams of 11 players. One side bats, the other side tries to get the batsmen out. The main method of scoring is to either run between the wickets (a length of 22 yards - one "chain"), or to hit the ball over the boundary of the field. The main methods of getting a batsman out are either that he hits the ball and the ball is caught before touching the ground, or that the bowler hits the wicket with the ball (there are various other methods, but they are less common). A team bats until all their men are out, and then they swap over, and the other team bats. The side which ends up with the highest score wins.

Questions?

...sparrow, if you can explain cricket to me in 500 words or less and preferably in basic english, it would be a great help to me. i admit to a mild fascination for any game that opaque, my utter indifference towards organised sports notwithstanding.

I've had a crack, it wouldn't stand up in a court of law - but here goes (495 words according to MS Word):

Cricket -
2 teams of 11 players.
1 team 'fields' while the other 'bats'.
A coin toss gives one team’s captain the right to choose whether to bat or field first.
The fielding team's captain arranges his side around the field of play.
The batting team send in two men to bat, they stand 22 yards apart in front of 'wickets' - three wooden sticks (stumps) topped with two wooden pieces (bails), their area is called the 'batsman's crease'.
One of the fielding team - the ‘wicket keeper’ will - generally be behind the batsman’s wicket, since this is a productive fielding position for catches and run outs (see below).
One of the fielding team 'bowls' at one of the batsmen, by throwing the cricket ball from one wicket towards the other. It must get within hittable distance of the batsman. The bowler must not step over the crease before releasing the ball. The delivery must be from a straight arm. If an unfair ball is bowled, the batting team are awarded an extra run, and the bowler has to try again.
The batsman attempts to hit the ball away from the wickets, and score ‘runs’ by running from one wicket to the other - one ‘run’ for each length completed. His partner likewise runs so they are always at opposite ends. Both batsmen must make it to the far crease to score one run, which is credited to the one who hit the ball.
If the ball travels to the field boundary it scores 4, if it flies over the boundary it scores 6.
After an 'over' - 6 fair balls bowled - the fielding side bowl from the other wicket.
Batsmen can be ‘out’ if a fair ball breaks the wicket (bowled), if they are caught by a fielder, if the ball would have broken the wicket but was impeded by the batsman's leg (out - leg before wicket), or if they are out of their crease when the wicket is broken (run out). (There are a few more obscure ways to be out.) The batsman leaves the field of play and is replaced by a team-mate.
A team is out when ten of their batsmen have been dismissed; their 'innings' is over.
A team can also 'declare' if they think they have scored enough runs, and want to leave enough time to dismiss the other team. They forfeit their remaining batsmen.
(In short forms of the game, an innings will not exceed a certain number of overs.)
The team that scores the most runs wins.
A draw results if time runs out before the final innings has been completed, or if the runs scored are equal.
A ‘test’ match is played by two countries over 5 days – the longest form of the game. Each team is allowed two innings – side 1, side 2, side 1, side 2.

thanks sparrow, there's still plenty to wonder about but i think i'll be slightly less mystified by the adventures of mike and psmith now. :smiley:

thanks sparrow, there's still plenty to wonder about but i think i'll be slightly less mystified by the adventures of mike and psmith now. :smiley:

It's more the culture of cricket, rather than the intricacies of its laws that matters. Wodehouse came from a public (fee paying) school background which saw sport as a way of moulding boys' characters for later life. He always followed his old school's sporting results; - his characters' proficiency, and conduct, at sport says a lot about them.

Henry Newbolt's poem "Vitai Lampada" shows how ingrained this view was at the time, especially with regard to cricket.
http://net.lib.byu.edu/english/wwi/influences/vitai.html

As indeed does the Duke of Wellington's comment that "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton".

It's more the culture of cricket, rather than the intricacies of its laws that matters. Wodehouse came from a public (fee paying) school background which saw sport as a way of moulding boys' characters for later life. He always followed his old school's sporting results; - his characters' proficiency, and conduct, at sport says a lot about them.

Henry Newbolt's poem "Vitai Lampada" shows how ingrained this view was at the time, especially with regard to cricket.
http://net.lib.byu.edu/english/wwi/influences/vitai.html

As indeed does the Duke of Wellington's comment that "The Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton".

thanks for the poem, sparrow. i do know that cricket has (had ?) a huge cultural importance in english culture, to the point for example of using the expression "it's not cricket" to express strong condemnation, and i admit to being somewhat awed (and mystified...) by this strange transcendent aura that the sport takes on. i suspect that i'll never quite grasp it, not having grown up with it, but i try to understand it to the extent that it's possible from the outside, when i'm reading about it...

OK - that's cricket done, now could someone explain baseball to me please...