England vs. the USA

[Cole Parker]

I have a question for any etymologists we have among us.

In the US, boys play on athletic teams. In England, they seem, for some nonsensical reason, to play in sides.

Does anyone have any idea why either of theese terms is used? Both the 'in' and the 'sides' bother me, only because we say it differently. It sounds so natural to me to say someone is 'on a team'. I'm sure it sounds just the same to anyone growing up in England to hear 'in a side.' I be delighted to know why that usage, both words in fact, is different in the two countries.

Anyone have any ideas?

C

[Bruin Fisher]

Hmm, I wouldn't dream of claiming to be an ety.... etm... one of those.

But, I'm interested that you see this as a transatlantic thing. Here in the UK we do talk about being on a team, or in a team. A team is a container for the players, so the players can be said to be in that team. Being on a team carries connotations of having one's name written down, on the sheet of paper that lists the team. Being in a team carries connotations of comradeship, being in cahoots with the other players (or even being in the communal bath after the match with them!)

The UK term 'in a side' is purely used in context of friendly knockabout games, where the two sides of the pitch define the teams which may only exist for that one game. Established teams do not refer to themselves as 'sides' - Manchester United, for instance, is not a 'side', it's a team. Some people would claim it's a franchise but we'll call it a team.

These terms are predominantly used in Football (Soccer to you foreigners), but can also be used to describe other team sports, such as Rugby, but I'm not aware that it would be appropriate to describe a Cricket team as a side.

I hope this helps?

Bruin

[Cole Parker]

I wasn't expecting a definitive answer, simply a discussion, and so yes, it's just what I was looking for.

You obviously know this stuff and I don't, but most public school stories I read speak of rugby and football sides at school. Of house sides. These are obviously not casual pickup games, but scheduled matches between opposing houses, so there must be some formality to the term 'sides' if they're used in that manner.

That's an interesting conjecture, that the term 'sides' originated from the teams standing on opposite sides of the pitch. I hadn't thought of that. You could well be right.

I've read quite a few tales about cricket but simply cannot remember if the combatants were called sides or not. I'm sure someone will know.

Thanks, Bruin.

C

[Bruin Fisher]

IYou obviously know this stuff and I don't, but most public school stories I read speak of rugby and football sides at school. Of house sides. These are obviously not casual pickup games, but scheduled matches between opposing houses, so there must be some formality to the term 'sides' if they're used in that manner.

There will be other public school alumni who will have something to say on this subject, but I think the notices on the pinboards in the quad announcing matches and the lists of those chosen to play would be headed 'Team' not 'Side'. The boys in their informal (and often ungrammatical) conversation would refer to 'sides' because they've been playing football since they could walk and they've always called the teams sides. But in school they're expected to use proper terminology and the 'official' term is team. The English teacher would probably upbraid them for poor usage, but the P.E. teacher wouldn't, since his own grasp of English is tenuous at best. It's a linguistic failing in the same order of heinous crime as saying 'couldn't of' instead of 'couldn't have', or 'pacifically' instead of 'specifically'.

[Cole Parker]

Aha! You seem to have the same problem with lazy and recalcitrant youth there that we do here.

If you try to understand what our kids are saying when they speak to each other, furgetaboutit. You won't have a clue.

C

[Trab]

One has to wonder if the old military systems of fighting had something to do with it, with each "side" lining up and then charging each other. Not only were they very much on one side of the field and the other, but each person on your side was actually AT your side, to defend you.

I hesitate to mention it, but the other day I was horrified to hear, "I went over to him to conversate", in lieu of, "I went over to talk."

[Cole Parker]

At least, Trab, you didn't read that.

You didn't say you heard a kid say it, however.

Perhaps you should have run over the person. We really don't need that type cluttering up our gene pool.

C

[Trab]

About twenty years old, and hopefully not going to add to the gene pool.

[Graeme]

I just wanted to say that in the context of the thread heading and the first post, this entire thread is nonsensical.

When using "vs" in the context of England and sport, it has to be one of Cricket, Rugby or Soccer (Football for those in the European Union). The USA doesn't really play any of these.

Sadly, given the recent events here in Melbourne, I'm not sure Australia plays cricket any more, either We'll find out for sure later in the year when we play England again in the next Ashes series.

Otherwise, I agree with Bruin's analysis because it matches what happens here in Australia. Teams is the formal term, and used for any organised sports. Sides is used as an alternative when talking about informal games. Hence the phrase "Choosing sides" which comes from when two captains take it in turns to pick their team from the pool of available players.

[Cole Parker]

I will certainly accept 'sides' as being informal because you gentlemen are immersed in the culture there and I'm not, and the term 'sides' is rarely used here in that context.

But this changes my perspective in that I thought house sides in public schools were more than informal, casual gatherings. I only know what I read in stories, but I read about members of sides being appointed by prefects, about the honor of playing on a house side, about boys giving their all in tryouts to be named into house sides, and so it seems more than what we'd term pickup games.

My reference to England vs. the US was about competing uses of the language. I'm fascinated by the differences that occur. Our language is a polyglot showing the influence of the many nationalities of our citizenry, but English was and remains its basis. Why then the divergence that is manifest in saying common things. Why, for instance, do we say, "I agree," or "I don't agree," and Brit's can say "Fair do's" and mean either? And how, for cripes sake, does one know which is meant?

C

[Graeme]

But this changes my perspective in that I thought house sides in public schools were more than informal, casual gatherings. I only know what I read in stories, but I read about members of sides being appointed by prefects, about the honor of playing on a house side, about boys giving their all in tryouts to be named into house sides, and so it seems more than what we'd term pickup games.

I'll have to defer to our UK friends on this one, because it seems to be a much more formal-style school than I know of in Australia. Our schools have houses, too, but that's generally only for intra school sporting competitions. I don't think I've ever heard the phrase "house side".

My reference to England vs. the US was about competing uses of the language. I'm fascinated by the differences that occur. Our language is a polyglot showing the influence of the many nationalities of our citizenry, but English was and remains its basis. Why then the divergence that is manifest in saying common things. Why, for instance, do we say, "I agree," or "I don't agree," and Brit's can say "Fair do's" and mean either? And how, for cripes sake, does one know which is meant?

Australia is in the position where we have a strong UK background along with a heavy USA influence via TV. That means we often mix and match our phrases, and that they are often all recognisable to a local. There are exceptions, of course, but an Australian could use the UK or USA version of a phrase, depending on personal preference.

[DesDownunder]

I think Graeme is on the right track when he says we pick and choose.

Locally in Adelaide, we choose to refer to a sporting event that has sides made up of teams, usually two but can be more.

So in cricket we have a test match say, between England and Australia. The teams of eleven members each (plus reserve players) represents the Australian or English sides respectively. The English Eleven being the team that represents the English side.

This has been common practice here for as long as I can remember.

Coincidentally a news paper report spoke about teams making up sides recently, but there is no reference on the net for that article.

Another division can be local football sides (Aussie Rules), which has similar attitude to sides being made up of teams, These sides can refer to particular football clubs or their locale.

But the most common reference is in everyday speech, when people are faced with an individual's seemingly paradoxical attitudes, on any subject, that causes them to ask, "Whose side are you on anyway?"

The current use of the word team in the work place, is merely a management tool to manipulate and control the worker into forsaking his individuality for the benefit of company profit and managerial power over the said individuals.

A parody of team effort in the creative arts, let alone the work place, is long overdue. Where is John Cleese when you need him?

[Richard Norway]

This may be totally off topic, but the game 'cricket' has came up a couple of times. Okay. I'm from the good old US of A and have absolutely no clue what cricket is or even how it's played. Please tell me how it's played. Although Gen Doubleday is credited for inventing baseball, it was actually Alexandre Cartwright, a bookstore owner. who wrote the first rules which became the way we play the game. But what about cricket? It's similar, right? Does our baseball have roots in cricket?

Stupid American here.

[Graeme]

Here's a link to an article that isn't actually too bad. It's an American trying to explain cricket in terms that another American may understand Interestingly, it calls the two teams "sides" not teams....

Personally, because I can sometimes be cruel, I prefer the following explanation:

You have 2 sides; a team that's in and a team that's out.. Two men in the team that's in go out and when one of the men who's in is out; the next man goes in until he's out. When they are all out; the side that's out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.

When a man goes out to go in; the men who are out are trying to get him out; and when he is out he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who stay out all the time and they decided when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out; and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game.

That's the wonderful game of cricket

[Bruin Fisher]

Please tell me how it's played.

Thanks to Graeme for the link, and also for the humorous explanation quote.

Richard, Cricket is in the blood of your average Brit or Indian or Aussie but somehow it got left out of my genetic handout. And it is a bewildering game to understand, and unless you have an in-depth understanding of it, it's deathly boring to watch, especially since major games, known as test matches, go on for days.

Why I'm not a cricketer is almost as difficult to explain since I'm a dyed-in-the-wool Brit, public school reared and with home counties roots. My father lives in a village with a cricket pitch on the central village green, beside the duck pond and the village pub. I live my life surrounded by people who follow it enthusiastically. Otherwise rational men will sit up all night to watch a match that's taking place on the other side of the world. Inexplicable.

It's a bit like being gay - you come to realise everyone else is wired a little differently than you are.

[DesDownunder]

... Otherwise rational men will sit up all night to watch a match that's taking place on the other side of the world. Inexplicable.

It's a bit like being gay - you come to realise everyone else is wired a little differently than you are.

To me, preoccupation with watching sport is not a matter of being wired differently but a matter of social indoctrination to keep the masses under control of the ruling class by diverting them with (trivial) sporting events, (from which a lot of money is made and a lot of hot-dogs and other junk foods sold.)

Does that sound a little cynical? A touch paranoid, perhaps?

The only worthwhile reason for watching sport that I can think of is to ogle the bodies of the players or try to sneak a peek up the legs of their shorts (in Aussie rules football.)

[Cole Parker]

Richard, do NOT, EVER, ask for an explanation of cricket. Like Hindu mysticism and tantric sex, some things can't be explained. Cricket is a perfect example. Besides which, you don't WANT to understand. Believe me.

The players all dress in white. Now, when Americans play a team sport, we're at least smart enough to wear different colored costumes. Not so cricketers: they all dress alike. So you get a number of these chaps all running round in white, perhaps specifically so you CAN'T tell them apart and they can save some embarrassment that way, but the general effect is someone has escaped from the loony bin and the attendants are having a field day try to catch him.

And then there's the language. One great reason not to ask about cricket is you won't be belabored with the language. You won't hear about overs and unders and ins and outs and googlies and such, much the betterment of your sanity. Perhaps that's the reason they all wear white. The words, accumulatively, probably drive the participants made. Then, when the men come with the nets, they won't know whom to catch as the catchers and catchees will all be dressed similarly.

Richard, just leave it. It's best not to know. I've had the game explained to me by someone I asked. A light turned on in his eyes, he started in, and the longer he talked, the more befuddled I became, and the more enchanted he got with the talk, and his memories.

Of course, even that was better than actually watching the sport. I think they have a spot of tea during the match because setting the cups in the saucers after taking a sip is more exciting than playing the game.

C

[Trab]

The only worthwhile reason for watching sport that I can think of is to ogle the bodies of the players or try to sneak a peek up the legs of their shorts (in Aussie rules football.)

Do they go 'commando', then?

Hmm. Scottish rules (if kilts are worn) might be great fun.

[DesDownunder]

To sum up the cricket: "Jolly good show, old chap."

To sum up Aussie rules football, "you bewdy, mate."

I'll leave the Americans to sum up their grid iron and baseball.

Tennis anyone?

[Graeme]

Cole, they only wear white for test cricket. One day cricket they were coloured uniforms (which is why detractors originally called it pajama cricket). And you left off "short leg" and "silly mid off" in your collection of unusual terms used in cricket.

Actually, I'm not a great fan of watching sport on TV. I'll do so from time to time if there's a good game on, but since I don't know it's going to be a good game before it starts, I rarely watch them. I just keep up to date via radio and the Internet as to the scores.

[Cole Parker]

One of the fascinating things to do is try to read about a match. Once they get into the details of the strategy and action, I get entirely lost. It's like trying to read advanced quantum physics or most anything at that level. The jargon makes no sense to us lay people. I can read several long paragraphs and have absolutely no clue to what is being said.

Just like Englishmen looking at a baseball game and saying, "That's really boring," we don't understand the fine points of cricket, and it's easy to dismiss it. My view is, if so many people can get so thoroughly involved in it, there has to be something there, but it's a lot more than you can absorb with a cursory inspection. I can watch a baseball game and see all sorts of things going on that one not attuned to the game wouldn't notice. I see an outfielder taking three steps in just as the ball is being pitched. I see players positioning themselves to make a relay throw, and that throw being made such that the relay will be as quick as a wink. I see the ball being pitched inside and high in a bunt situation. I see a runner bluffing a steal to try to encourage a balk. All this stuff is constantly going on, and it's great to watch and anticipate, but it's all lost on someone who doesn't know the game. I'm sure this sort of game within the game goes on in cricket, too.

C

[sumbloke]

Cole, they only wear white for test cricket. One day cricket they were coloured uniforms (which is why detractors originally called it pajama cricket). And you left off "short leg" and "silly mid off" in your collection of unusual terms used in cricket.

Actually, I'm not a great fan of watching sport on TV. I'll do so from time to time if there's a good game on, but since I don't know it's going to be a good game before it starts, I rarely watch them. I just keep up to date via radio and the Internet as to the scores.

Radio cricket! Only in England (and (ex)-dominions...)!

When I was a kid there was no Greek at school (I know this is odd but it's background, honest). The rental units arranged some private lessons for me with a local Anglican Cleric. He was a great bloke and I actually enjoyed myself. But he had one habit that threw me completely. During the season he would listen to cricket on the radio while we read Thrasymachus (the text book). Not the scores but blow by blow commentary and live sound. Every so often he'd start excitedly out of his chair and shout "Did you see that? Oh well played!" The odd thing is that cricket's relatively relaxed tempo makes the live commentary much less silly than it is for some sports. (Having said that it's not very relaxing being the target of fast bodyline bowling...)

Yak

[Cole Parker]

Quoted directly from a recent issue of Sports Illustrated:

Until is was changed in November, the test of Australian citizenship included questions about cricket.

C

[DesDownunder]

Quoted directly from a recent issue of Sports Illustrated:

Until is was changed in November, the test of Australian citizenship included questions about cricket.

C

It probably comes as no surprise that the citizenship test has caused a great deal of concern in Australia.

The test is regarded by many people as being un-Australian and not in keeping with our general live and let live lifestyle.

That such a test should even have the questions that it does, brings to mind thoughts of immaturity, if not irrational fears that play on a false sense of patriotism.

Many objectors have accused the citizenship test as being a substitute for the old White Australia Policy of a previous conservative era.

For all those who are interested here is the link to the official preparation for the test. If you scroll down to the bottom of that page you can take the practice test.

However, this test should illustrate just how seriously we Aussies regard the test. Translation is not available.

[Cole Parker]

I just took the practice test, and believe it or not, got 5 of 5 correct.

You guys'll have to start calling me 'mate!'

I will admit to guessing at a couple. I mean, I don't even know what a golden wattle is. Isn't that something can comes on the neck of a turkey? Do they even have turkeys in Australia?

But I'm ready for citizenship. They even gave me a phone number to call to arrange my real test. However, if it's only five questions long, maybe I can do it over the phone. Or not. Just another thing I don't know about how things are done there.

Uh, they did have a cricket question on the practice test!

C