An American tweeter whom I follow described a recent European championship game which ended in a 2-1 win for Germany over Austria stating that Austria played well enough for the game to have been a tie. I gently (and with humour) pointed out that if it had finished 1-1 it would have been a 'draw', and not a tie as far as we on this side of the pond are concerned. He, typically, took my comment in good faith with a smile but it got me thinking. Nothing new to see differences in the same language depending upon where one lives, but actually, if you think about it, the game was a tie. A cup tie. If it had finished with scores level it would have been a draw and if it had been in a knockout competition, this would have meant that both teams would then have gone forward into the 'draw' for the next round. And the replay, given added importance, would then have been an even greater 'draw' for the fans to watch. Then one of the teams would need to have won the replay in order to win the 'tie' and progress into the next round of the competition. So they would have won the 'tie' and gone on into the draw for the next round, arguably 'drawing' even bigger crowds as the competition increases.
In test cricket, you can play a match for five whole days and end up with neither team winning - and the result could either be a draw or a tie, but not both. A draw would be if they ran out of time for one team to win. A tie would be if both teams finished on the same scores, in this case it would be a tie rather than a draw. And, perhaps surprisingly to many on the other side of the pond, whilst the draw could certainly provide a more exiting game than if one team had won, a 'tie' almost certainly would be much more exciting than either a win or a draw.
I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions on winners, losers and drawers, although the latter tends to be where one keeps one's socks.
No comments:
Post a Comment