So, I was thinking, what’s the perfect comparison of sport between Merry Old England and Stupidly Huge America? I had a think. And by think, I mean to say that I looked on Wikipedia at a list of sports. Having spent over eight seconds looking at words I hadn’t even seen before, I certainly knew two things: firstly, that it’d have to be mainstream; secondly, that it had to have similar basics.

Sadly, all of our good ones - and by good, I mean in the eyes of the masses -  are completely different to yours. You have football. So do we. Obviously the main difference between the definitions is that our description of football is actually accurate. I’m even happy to carry that definition joke over to comparing your MLS with our Premiership. I mean, REALLY, did you guys learn nothing from the NASL? The former is a thoroughly bastardized form of the latter.

Anyway, before you all start frantically pushing Alt + F4 to close your browser because of some Limey know-it-all who seemingly doesn’t know that America would kick our arses in everything but soccer, yet still incessantly talks and talks in over-long sentences, wait. I have found the finest comparison of Trans-Atlantic sports. It will show you that we’re not two countries separated by a common language as Oscar Wilde once said, but by a common sport as well.

In looking for the link, I found something common. In true American fashion, you’ve taken out the unnecessary parts of original British blueprints, done away with any form of tradition and made it as flashy and exciting as possible. Sadly, it’s still regarded by the masses as one of your most boring sports - the very link that brought the link to my attention.

So what were widely regarded as the boring sports of the world by those young go-getting Internet types on their forums and LAN games, listening to their hippety-hop music? I did a quick check around a few message boards and the same answers came up.

“Anything to do with horses” - but horse racing, the most viewed of them all, isn’t sport, everyone knows that: it’s a thinly-veiled platform for gambling.

“Basketball. You score and then you concede. Whoever scores last wins” - valid point. I don’t even watch until the fourth quarter. Still, we got “Space Jam” out of it. That was a good film, apart from the shameless Michael Jordan montage after he went into Looney Tune Land. Then again, when the TuneSquad beat the Monstars I cried with joy. But I digress.

“Snooker, because it only has one camera angle” - true, but there’s sometimes nothing better than having no commitments, a six-pack of beer and a couch with it on the TV for hours. Besides, it’s hardly a team game and they don’t build stadiums for it.

“Golf.” - see above.

But then…

“Cricket because it’s on for five days, i.e. forever”

“Baseball, I hate it, apart from when balls bounce off of Jose Canseco’s head and out of the park for a homer”

And there we have it.

I’m surprised the link hadn’t come to me sooner in light of the World Series (I’m too busy watching the Steelers fall apart at Denver to pay much attention) and cricket’s Twenty 20 World Cup (I was preoccupied with seeing England lose in everything this week to even remember that tournament).

I’ve broken the comparisons down into handy bite-sized pieces. I would have said fun-sized, but I feel that is, and always has been, a lie. I expect a fun-sized Mars or Snickers to be at least 5 pounds, but the description does not deliver - something I aim to do. I digress.

1) Wood, balls and running

One guy throws the ball, the other hits it. Fantastic. When you hit it nicely enough, you can grant yourself a light jog in order to score points.

2) Boundaries

If you hit the ball far enough, you score more. In baseball, the home run gains you one point. In cricket, if you hit it to the boundary, you gain either 4 or 6 runs, depending on whether the ball bounces before the boundary or not.

3) Heights of athleticism

Don’t get me wrong. I’m hardly in a place to criticize other people’s athletic ability. However, one does not have to be a string bean to compete. Compared to football, soccer, ice hockey and basketball - which are generally more movement-based and potentially damaging, if a contact sport - both cricketers and baseball players alike don’t need huge muscles and 36-inch waists and below to enter.

4) No need to retire at 30

My own father, who captained the local cricket team, played until he was 49. With such low intensity play, it’s easy to do so - although obviously, playing at local level contributed to that. However, players at the top level have regularly gone on to play at 40 years old, and beyond. Sir Donald Bradman, regarded as the greatest batsman of all time in cricket, racked up a batting average of 99.94 by age 40. Even now, in the wake of the World Series, Curt Schilling, Mike Timlin and Tim Wakefield - all 40 or over – played key rolls in the success of the champion Red Sox.