Originally posted by Red NightIf the best players from MLB played cricket against an international cricket team tomorrow, they would lose miserably.
This from a UK website:
Could baseball and cricket players succeed at each other’s sport? Who would be better?
History offers some perspective to this debate.
In 1874, a group of American baseball professionals toured England in an effort to sell baseball to the British public. Along with baseball exhibitions, the tourists, in a show of goodwill ...[text shortened]... to a low, straight swing of cricket, and every time he tried to swing up, he’d pop the ball up.”
And vice versa.
2 edits
Originally posted by CrowleyGive them both 2 seasons to practice each sport, and MLB players would do better.
If the best players from MLB played cricket against an international cricket team tomorrow, they would lose miserably.
And vice versa.
Cricket players would be lucky to even ever get a hit, I'm sure.
I'm also willing to bet they'd be lucky to ever get an out!
P-
Some people crossing over might make an impact, sure:
Fielders from both sports could easily adapt.
Big hitters from baseball might make big hitters in cricket, but if a baseball player walks in the bowlers would just bowl yorkers at him (a yorker is a quick delivery right to the base of the stumps) and the guy wouldn't be able to do anything.
Bowlers wouldn't make good pitchers and the same would be true for the opposite.
Some cricket outfielders might make good pitchers, because these guys have good arms, but the technical side of pitching curve balls would probably be hard to learn quickly.
1 edit
Originally posted by CrowleyI guess you missed my earlier post.
If the best players from MLB played cricket against an international cricket team tomorrow, they would lose miserably.
And vice versa.
This has been done already and the Baseballers won EVERY game:
In 1874, a group of American baseball professionals toured England in an effort to sell baseball to the British public. Along with baseball exhibitions, the tourists, in a show of goodwill, agreed to play a number of cricket matches. The Americans, who took on the likes of Prince’s Cricket Club, All Ireland XI, and Surrey, won all the competitions.... the Americans, who included future Hall of Famer Adrian “Cap” Anson, must have mastered cricket batting to a certain degree as they amassed more than 200 runs on at least two occasions during the tour. That’s nowhere near earth shattering, but not bad against some top British and Irish bowlers of the time.
Originally posted by Red NightPerhaps he's saying 'times have changed'... we better call Bud about getting back over the pond and put these guys in their place.
I guess you missed my earlier post.
This has been done already and the [b]Baseballers won EVERY game:
In 1874, a group of American baseball professionals toured England in an effort to sell baseball to the British public. Along with baseball exhibitions, the tourists, in a show of goodwill, agreed to play a number of cricket matches. The American ...[text shortened]... where near earth shattering, but not bad against some top British and Irish bowlers of the time.[/b]
ðŸ˜
Now I'm mad again!
P-
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitI think these guys want to believe that Cricket is more interesting, more difficult, and more complex, than Baseball.
Perhaps he's saying 'times have changed'... we better call Bud about getting back over the pond and put these guys in their place.
ðŸ˜
Now I'm mad again!
P-
No amount of facts are going to dissaude them.
I do think Crowley made one interesting point: the pitching motions are different. I'd love to see a good oufielder with a straight-armed throwing motion like Ichiro or Clemente try his hand at bowling. In a world where a good speed bowler rarely exceeds a dismal 75 mph, Ichiro's greased lightning would probably appear as a blur to most cricketeers.
Originally posted by Red NightFacts?
I think these guys [b]want to believe that Cricket is more interesting, more difficult, and more complex, than Baseball.
No amount of facts are going to dissaude them.
I do think Crowley made one interesting point: the pitching motions are different. I'd love to see a good oufielder with a straight-armed throwing motion like Ichiro or Cle ...[text shortened]... dismal 75 mph, Ichiro's greased lightning would probably appear as a blur to most cricketeers.[/b]
"The American ballplayers will play in 7 cricket matches during the tour and will win all 7. However, the Americans field 18 players while their opponents use 12. "
Source: http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/chronology/1874Year.stm
You seem to deliberately edit your "facts" to give a misleading impression.
5 edits
Originally posted by Ian68That seems to be a bit of English propaganda after the fact to explain away the humiliating defeats at the hands of the upstarts.
Facts?
"The American ballplayers will play in 7 cricket matches during the tour and will win all 7. [b]However, the Americans field 18 players while their opponents use 12. "
Source: http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/chronology/1874Year.stm
You seem to deliberately edit your "facts" to give a misleading impression.[/b]
Wouldn't have mattered. You can't catch 'em when they're hit out of the park.
Spalding had also arranged for the Americans to play cricket matches which the Americans won handily, astonishing the English with their hitting and fielding prowess. What the American players did wasn't "quite cricket"—whaling away at pitches and driving the ball incredible distances compared to the more scientific strategy of cricket play favored by the English—but it was successful. The Americans won all their cricket matches but one. Wright worried that the American brand of play would alienate the English by its ungentlemanly roughness, especially as he concerned to show them that America had developed a game worth imitating.
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightWright and Spalding were not new to cricket, they had played it for several years and in fact had more cricket experience than baseball experience. As far as I can ascertain this is also true of many of the other American players, hardly surprising considering that prior to the civil war (which ended just 9 years earlier) cricket was more popular than baseball in America.
That seems to be a bit of English propaganda after the fact to explain away the humiliating defeats at the hands of the upstarts.
Wouldn't have mattered. You can't catch 'em when they're hit out of the park.
Spalding had also arranged for the Americans to play cricket matches which the Americans won handily, astonishing the English with their hit specially as he concerned to show them that America had developed a game worth imitating.
2 edits
Originally posted by Ian68Cricket was too slow for the fast-paced american life style.
Wright and Spalding were not new to cricket, they had played it for several years and in fact had more cricket experience than baseball experience. As far as I can ascertain this is also true of many of the other American players, hardly surprising considering that prior to the civil war (which ended just 9 years earlier) cricket was more popular than baseball in America.