A-cricketing we will go

 And here you thought the U.S. hockey team beating the Soviets in Lake Placid was the greatest upset in the history of sports.

Not even close, BUD.

No, that happened last week, when the U.S. national cricket team (yes, we have a national cricket team) upset the No. 1 team in the world, Pakistan. Understand, Pakistan has been a world power forever, and it doesn't lose to anyone, except occasionally to fellow world power India. And it sure as hell doesn't lose to a bunch of Americans, most of whom think cricket is what you put on your hook when there's bluegill to be caught.

And yet, the Americans beat 'em. And without Jim Craig or Mike Eruzione, even.

Now, you might be asking why I'm bringing this up a week late, and my answer is "Because it's not hockey or basketball or soccer." If it were any of those, see, I wouldn't have forgotten about it. But because it's cricket, and I'm an American, I did.

Provincialism in the first degree. Guilty on all counts, your honor.

I know this is an affront to cricket aficionados everywhere, but cricket is pretty provincial itself. It's played in England and in all those places the empire once stole blind, er, touched. Aside from that, it's not really anyone's cup o' tea, if you catch my drift.

Mostly this is because no one understands it, even the people who profess to understand it. The scoring, to begin with, would have stumped Alan Turing. (Look him up. I can't do all the work around here.) And in America's case, it's especially hard to grasp because our eyes are used to baseball, and even though cricket looks like baseball, it's not.

Therefore we get confused when a batter whacks the ball and it goes directly behind him, and it's not a near-whiff foul ball but perfectly placed because the area behind him is in play. Pretty much everywhere is in play.

I learned this more than 20 years ago when I was in Ireland, and it seemed every time I turned on the telly, there was a cricket match being broadcast. I got to the point, watching it for awhile, that I could almost tell what was going on 10 percent of the time. I also learned that cricket has every other sport in the world beat in terminology.

 In baseball, for example, a snappy curveball is just a snappy curveball. In cricket, however, they call it a "wicked googly." How fun is that?

Also, in cricket they don't name positions boring stuff like first baseman or third or left fielder. No, sir. Instead, there's a "silly midoff." Also, as night follows day, a "silly mid-on." Also a "gully", a "square leg" and a "bowler", which is what the pitcher is called in cricket.

I learned all this a few years back, when I discovered that a group of Sri Lankans in Fort Wayne had hacked a cricket pitch out of an empty field at Kreager Park and were playing host to the Midwest Sri Lankan Annual Cricket Tournament. I also learned cricket actually has a rabid following in the U.S., albeit one largely comprised of immigrants from cricket-playing countries.

I'm thinking they were over the moon when the U.S. took down the Pakistanis last week.

I'm thinking the Americans, in doing so, didn't make a lot of "hoiks", which is cricket for swinging wildly for the fences and missing. I'm also thinking they avoided the "agricultural shot", which is cricket for playing a shot awkwardly.

For context, I committed a lot of hoiks and agricultural shots in my thoroughly undistinguished Wildcat youth baseball days. If that helps.

And if it doesn't?

Just think of Eruzione swinging a bat that looks liked a fraternity paddle and smacking the ball past the silly mid-off for, I don't know, some sort of points. And raise a pint to our brave lads for kicking some Pakistani butt.

Now there was a wicked googly for ya.