Bush tries to play cricket, sucks.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
AH is your Dad?

Yes indeed.

And Dis is my motocycle mama (but don't tell anyone OK?)

Nice to meet you

The pleasures all mine, I assure you.

:takes_ a_bow:

Now, back to a gentlemans club discussion

Oh lord no!

Really, I don't need to see your,.. attachments.

[Terra Nullius]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Like to see you try it .

He shoots... he scores!!!

The crowd goes wild.

You have a wierd look on baseball. Though I guess from someone not familiar, it would look that way.

Generally I'd say cricket players are more familiar with baseball than vice versa, but fair enough.

it isn't that simple at all.

I'm not disparaging baseball. The basic physics of the game are more simplistic, that's all.

To get an idea of what I mean, try comparing mexican basketball (aka Aussie rules football) to gaelic/ international rules football. One is played with a thinned out sort of rugby ball. The other uses a round ball (like soccer). The rules are almost identical, in both codes, but that one simple physical change produces huge difference in how the game plays out.

In bb, you can't bounce the ball off the pitch, you can't hit a full range of shots. ie, baseball is quite a bit like a simplified version of cricket.

You only have to see the volumes of statistics on baseball

Oh come on...

Americans and statistics???

like 2-seam fastballs and 4-seam fastballs, split fingered fastballs, sliders, screwballs, changeups, knuckleballs, etc, etc.

I'll look it up. But my point stands.

a) baseball is more simplistic (not intrinsically better or worse)
b) gimme a T gimme an R gimme an,.. oh, you know the rest, Baby.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll

It looks great and I thought the excellent strategy of hitting what would be a foul ball in baseball is a good hit in Cricket

Thanks for the clips AH

No problem I've had a fun trip down memory lane, stayed up late last night watching the clips.

I never thought about it but yes a big difference is in baseball you have to hit the good balls.

[Frozzy]

The thing with baseball is you can just ignore a good ball because you've still got 2 more chances after that. With cricket, if you misread a good ball you're gone, and that's that until next week.

FAR less margin for error.

[Frozzy]

like 2-seam fastballs and 4-seam fastballs, split fingered fastballs, sliders, screwballs, changeups, knuckleballs, etc, etc.

Inswinger, outswinger, yorker, good length, half-volley, bouncer, beamer, off-cutter, leg-cutter, slower ball, reverse swing, off-spin, leg-spin, topspin, doosra, wrong-un, flipper, arm ball, straight, floater... etc.

For shots?

On-drive, off-drive, cover drive, square drive, square cut, late cut, sweep, reverse sweep, forward defense, backfoot defence, bacfoot cover drive, backfoot off-drive, backfoot on-drive, pull shot, hook shot, glide, edge, straight drive, flick, opening the face, lofted drive, flick over the keeper, french cut, inside out, leg glance... and the you get the REALLY creative ones like flicking it over the keeper, pushing it to point, slog sweep, cow corner, reverse cut...

Now, imagine a leather ball coming at 90 mph, moving in the air and bouncing off rough dirt and having to choose between THAT lot of completely different shots, and get it completely right

[Drake Tungsten]

I find this argument about which is "simpler", baseball or cricket, to be pretty silly. The two games have completely different dynamics.

Cricket is a batter-favored, high scoring game. The bowler is restricted in terms of arm motion and having to bounce the ball off the ground. The batter (with a larger bat than in baseball) can hit the ball anywhere in a field that is sparsely covered with fielders. If he gets a hit, he's almost assured of scoring and continuing to play.

Baseball, however, is a game that favors the pitcher and the defense. The pitcher isn't limited in terms of arm motion, although he isn't allowed to throw into the dirt. The batter is the one who is limited, having to hit with a small bat into a confined field full of fielders. Even if he does get a hit, his work isn't done yet. He has to advance to up to three more bases before he can score. And if he does score, he doesn't get to bat again for a while.

Much of the strategy in baseball comes into play when runners are on base, an element that doesn't really exist in cricket. Also, the low amount of runs scored in baseball makes viable tactics involving the sacrifice of batters to advance or score a runner, something that would never be considered in cricket. So, while it could be argued that cricket is more complex in the relationship between the bowler/pitcher and the batter than baseball (which I don't take as a given, btw), baseball still has another, strategy-filled aspect of its game that cricket doesn't share. It's really like comparing apples and oranges, but you guys are free to continue doing that if you wish...

[Alexander's Horse]

I think both games have huge amounts of strategy and that is why fans would easily crossover if they knew more about each game.

Just about everything you said there applies to cricket. Even the stuff about runners and sacraficing players - nightwatchman, declaring innings, hitting out - applies in cricket. Its just expressed in a different way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kalius
Now, imagine a leather ball coming at 90 mph, moving in the air and bouncing off rough dirt and having to choose between THAT lot of completely different shots, and get it completely right

Imagine a 90-100 mph pitch, which is not required to bounce off the ground, moving all of over the place (especially a 2 seam fastball or knuckleball), having a much smaller bat, and having to get it absolutely correct. Even though you have 2 strikes, a player who successfully hits 30%, or gets on base 35% of the time, is considered a good player. And then, as Drake pointed out, you gotta get around the basepaths. It is most definetly not a less complex game.

Then, of course, managers have to wade through the mountain stacks of statistics to see where they can get an edge (does X player hit better against lefties or righties, what are his power zones and how does that match up with the opposing pitcher's pitches, etc.)

[Alexander's Horse]

Actually the fastest speed of a fast bowler and baseball pitcher is almost identical at 90 - 100 mph and a ball that doesn't bounce, or "full toss", is allowed but regarded as a bad ball and an easy hit in cricket, even if it moves in the air. The exception is a full toss aimed at the toes, which is called a Yorker and is a very nasty ball to play - but also very hard to deliver accurately.

How far is the pitcher from the batter in baseball?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The pitcher is 60 feet and 6 inches away from the batter.

[Alexander's Horse]

what's that in yards? A cricket pitch is 22 yards.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A yard is 3 feet, so about 20 yards?

More or less the same, I gather.

[Frozzy]

You could argue that the ball bouncing makes it more difficult, having to take into account the sudden change in trajectory when the ball is 3/4 of the way to your body.

[Alexander's Horse]

especially when the ball is leaping sharply and bounce is unpredictable

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kalius
You could argue that the ball bouncing makes it more difficult, having to take into account the sudden change in trajectory when the ball is 3/4 of the way to your body.

You could argue that having such a wide bat makes it easier