Babayaro

[Guest Brian M]

Celestine Babayaro has agreed a three-year deal with Los Angeles Galaxy after being released by Newcastle United. The left back, 29, will play under Ruud Gullit, who signed him for Chelsea in 1997.

[Maksimov]

Baba should do well in MLS. Go Baba!

[Plavi26]

We should make Galaxy an offer...Sheva for Gullit

But it's nice to see class players coming into the ranks of the MLS. Hope Savo Milosevic signs for Toronto FC, would add a great player to a great ambiance. I still don't get why they rate Danny Dichio so much.

[Kornblume]

I agree. I'd like to go to BMO field next summer. Looked awesome. And with the prospect of Montréal joining the MLS, the Montréal-Toronto rivalry could grow in a second sport!

[Guest]

Hard to beleive he is still only 29. Seems like his been around forever............

[Makelele]

still not a half bad player, should be seeing many of these types of signings in the MLS

[BLUENUT]

You may not know, but Baba featured at the start of our unbeaten home league record.

[Plavi26]

I agree. I'd like to go to BMO field next summer. Looked awesome. And with the prospect of Montréal joining the MLS, the Montréal-Toronto rivalry could grow in a second sport!

I don't see why Saputo dosen't make the transfer. He has a new field for the team, great ambiance, and I don't why the non-profit club management idea that the Impact has should affect their entrance. I would love to see that Montreal v Toronto match-up in footy and hope it would be as lively as it is in hockey.

And Montreal entering MLS would mean that I could finaly watch a pro footy team and not having to drive for 6 hours to get to the city (or flying over sea).

[geezer]

You may not know, but Baba featured at the start of our unbeaten home league record.

Not quite right at the start which began against Foolham but he did play in the next game when we beat Wolves 5-2. He then started in the 0-0 draw with Middlesborough and came on as a sub against Man Utd in a 1-1 draw. Hard to belive the unbeaten run actually started back in season 2003/04.

[JT26CFC]

ugh another player to LA.....i want a signing at new york

BTW i heard that Toronto may be falling apart financially so we'll see how long they last in the league.

[Plavi26]

I haven't heard no news about that. Last time I checked, they wanted to spend "big money" for Angel and I don't see how they could be in financial trouble as they have the biggest bank in Canada as primary sponsor.

[JT26CFC]

i think i was watching fox soccer channel and they said that Toronto can't sign any big names and compete with the other MLS clubs. but they have great fan support (for an MLS team) so they'll proablly stay int he league.

[Makelele]

i live in Toronto, and TFC are owned by the same group who owns the Maple Leafs hockey team, a very very very wealthy organization but they do not like spending money...its not that they don't have the money, just cheap owners..also i suggest anyone in the toronto area go to a match, it is the best atmosphere in the MLS by far, the support is unreal it is almost like home...almost...

[loz]

Makelele

I notice that Toronto FC have oficially only been around since 2006 but I was sure there was a football team in Toronto when I was living there which was way back in 1993 and 1995 - is that not the case?

Also when did the Skydome get renamed the Rogers Centre?

And how are the Argonauts doing these days? Never really liked the sport all that much (although much prefer it to NFL) however taking in a game when I was there was a must purely on the basis that it was John Candy's team!

[Kornblume]

You're refering to the Toronto Lynx. They used to play in the United Soccer League, or A-League. It changed name almost every year. It's a lower caliber than MLS. It's the league the Montréal team is currently playing in, altho they are considering a switch to the MLS.

I'd say Rogers Center.. that was 2 or 3 years ago. When Rogers put a lot of money in the Blue Jays, the baseball team.

The Argos won the East division this year, but failed to reach the championship game. They lost in the playoffs to Winnipeg in the East final.

[loz]

Cheers Korn

I went to the Skydome to see the Bluejays play ..errr...err.. Chicago White SOx (? does that sound right?) - a poor mans cricket!!

[Scott]

At least it doesn't take three days to find out who wins the game (match).

[Kornblume]

Cheers Korn

I went to the Skydome to see the Bluejays play ..errr...err.. Chicago White SOx (? does that sound right?) - a poor mans cricket!!

White Sox are a Chicago team, yes.

I, for one, am a big baseball fan (rare thing outside the US). Never saw a cricket match, but an Aussie taught me the rules once in Boston, and I later managed to see some highlights. I was surprised that, despite what I tought at first, baseball rules are a lot more complicated than cricket. Would be curious to see it live. I might not last the whole 5 days of a test match, thought.

Think I'll stick to baseball.

[loz]

BAseball rules more complicated than cricket? No way. To be honest the rules of neither game are actually that complicated but there is far more strategy and skill in cricket than in baseball.

[Kornblume]

Well, the rules he taught me were simple. Out if the ball touches the wickets, if they bring the ball at center before you reach the base, if the ball is caught in the air. Seems easier to me than the whole force/non force out possibilities baseball has.

How can it be less complicated in baseball with the baserunning when the offensive team in cricket only has one player playing at a time? (Unless I am missing something, which is for sure possible.)

The strategy is different. Baseball does not limit you with overs, but you have less outs, so you need to manufacture run quick in the late innings, which also brings strategy into whether or not run the player standing at 2nd base, etc.

As for the skills.. I don't know really. Batting seems even, fielding I cannot comment, haven't seen enough cricket. But pitching? I believe the edge has to be in baseball, with the curveball, changeup, slider, 2 or 4 seem fastball, cut fastball, sinker, knuckelball.

I do not want to seem over-arrongant either, since I'm certain that the bawlers? ballers? (sorry don't know how to spell it) also put effect when they throw the ball.

(Bottom line, I don't know the first "real" thing about cricket, and (no offense really, I'm saying with all due respect and more), we'd need to watch a baseball game togheter so I can explain things, then we flight to England and you do the same with me for cricket.

Just to say, no need really to argue, both sports are related in an obvious way, one coming from the other, but they certainly evolved to be 2 very different games! Probably more a question of different skills than more or less.)

[loz]

I would say the bowling skills are quite possibly comparable but the batting and fielding skills in cricket are far superior to baseball.

[TomP]

Batting seems even, fielding I cannot comment, haven't seen enough cricket. But pitching? I believe the edge has to be in baseball, with the curveball, changeup, slider, 2 or 4 seem fastball, cut fastball, sinker, knuckelball.

I do not want to seem over-arrongant either, since I'm certain that the bawlers? ballers? (sorry don't know how to spell it) also put effect when they throw the ball.

Having played both sports at a dectent level, my experience is that:

Fielding is probably even (although it is about 10000 times easier to catch a ball with a glove)

Batting requires much more technique and concentration in cricket. In baseball, there are only really two shots - hitting as hard as you can to try and hit a home run, or punching along the ground between 1st and 2nd, or 2nd and 3rd for a base hit. Maybe three if you count bunting. Cricket shots are all about finesse, timing and perfect placement - much less about power, and about picking the right ball to attack, defend or leave alone.

Bowling/Pitching is roughly the same - although I would suggest that you watch a highlights video of Shane Warne's career, and you will see him do things with a cricket ball that the best baseball pitchers could only dream of. Again though, in cricket, not every ball is designed to take a wicket. For example it is not uncommon for a bowler to spend 2 or 3 overs setting up a batsmen with outswingers, then nailing him with an inswinger.

Having said that - baseball is a great sport, and probably more fun to play as an amatuer than cricket. My worst memories of my cricket career were opening the batting, getting out in the first over, then playing no further part in the game for the next day.