• News
• Sport
• Comment
• Culture
• Business
• Money
• Life & style
• Travel
• Environment
• Blogs
• Video
• Jobs
• A-Z

Beijing, baseball

Bottom of the ninth for baseball? Goddamn!

It's a shame that baseball is being kicked out of the Olympics after today, but let's consider which sport should replace it

The Japanese baseball player Tsuyoshi Nishioka of Japan, during the bronze medal match of the last ever Olympic baseball competition. Photograph: Danny Moloshok/Reuters

"Jus' whaddya mean by that?" spat the fat man in the Hawaiian shirt, spittle flicking off his lips on to the barmaid's blouse. "It's the fourth inning and you're sold out of beer? Goddamn."

He wrapped his fat fingers around the sausage roll he'd bought under the illusion he was ordering a hot dog. Squeezing it in his meaty palm, forcing the cocktail sausage inside, considerably more slender than his own little finger, to slide out through the cellophane wrapping, he said again "Goddamn."

The Chinese may not have got the peanuts and crackerjacks part quite right, but Wukesong ballpark has still been one of my favourite venues of the Games. Baseball is a great sport to watch, and has the added appeal for me that I don't know enough about it to be distracted by the myriad intricacies that bother the mind of any proper fan. I've been sneaking down here when I can, furtively sliding in among the experts in the small press tribune, clutching a beer (when you can get it) and a tub of popcorn in either hand.

It's a glorious game, one that's inspired the best sports movies (Eight Men Out, Cobb, and, ah, Brewster's Millions), the finest and funniest novel written about sport (Phillip Roth's Great American Novel), some brilliant music (Buck 65's 4-6-3) and a lot of the best sports journalism. In short, if I was from the US rather than Britain, I'm sure I'd be into baseball rather than cricket. As much scorn as they sometimes pour on it, I imagine the same would be true for most cricket fans. During his stint as a Washington correspondent, Matthew Engel, editor of the Wisden Almanack, fell in love with it to the extent that he now has to think hard when asked which game he prefers.

So it's a shame that it is being kicked out of the Olympics, today being the last ever day of the competition. From what I understand this is largely in reaction to the Major League's refusal to release players to take part in the Olympics. No doubt that limits the TV audience and the dollar potential of the event, but, unrealistic as it is in practice, there are other, better reasons for keeping it on the Olympic roster. The US team, plucked from the Minor Leagues, are a story in themselves: a bunch of second-raters taking on the world. Their limitations just make the tournament more competitive.

The US television audience seems to be the only factor being taken into consideration. The game is equally huge in Cuba, Japan and Korea, the three other semi-finalists, and matches between any of those four are as entertaining as any other team sport in the Games. The Japanese in particular gather an unceasingly raucous and lunatic band of fans whenever they play. Of course now there is the World Baseball Classic, which will feature all these teams and their MLB stars, but it's not going to get huge coverage across the rest of the world. American devotees may be indifferent to who wins the medals at Wukesong this weekend, but what about everyone else?

Ah well, the decision is made and is unlikely to be reversed. With baseball out, the obvious and interesting question is what should come in. Both golf and cricket have been making a lot of noise about winning inclusion in recent weeks. Neither, for me, would be a good addition, even if they did both appear in the Games in the early 20th century.

Golf would work as an amateur competition, but will never win inclusion without promising the presence of its major stars, for most of whom winning a gold medal would mean significantly less than a major. Then the story would become about whether or not Tiger Woods et al could be bothered to play, and if they chose not to the organisers and broadcasters would be in a funk about the event being devalued.

Cricket would be even worse. It would have appeal for the moneymen in that it would increase the Olympic audience in India, but there is little else to recommend it. The rules are baffling for the uninitiated (anyone who thinks otherwise, feel free to provide an idiot-proof summary of the ways in which a batsman can get out, concise enough to be flashed up on a big screen), and, with the West Indies being split into its constituent parts, there would be an even smaller pool of potential medallists.

The best players would struggle to fit the competition into their calendars, and we would no doubt be treated to a near-interminable round-robin competition that would drag on for the whole two weeks at the end of which Australia would win. Again.

Squash has a case, certainly, but instead I'd like to see rugby sevens - turned down in its recent application to join - be included.

The game is simple enough to be played and learned anywhere in the world, and with it already established in Africa, North America and across the Pacific islands there is a large and diverse range of competing nations. It is also fast and great fun to watch, even if you know little about it, and the tournament can be squeezed into days rather than weeks. Crucially, it doesn't depend on superstars turning up to play. Oh, and as long as they don't run out of beer by lunchtime, the organisers' barmaids won't have to worry about the fat man's reaction when they get the snacks wrong.

Close