Originally posted by mtthwYup. Especially people out of their teens. If you didn't learn some of the basics as a kid, bowling is a very difficult action to master.
It would be interesting, but I'm not sure the results would be what you're expecting.
I play pretty low level cricket. So I've played with quite a few people who have never played cricket before.
I've seen a number of people who have natural athletic skills and hand-eye coordination, who have turned out to be pretty good with a bat and/or fielders.
B ...[text shortened]... ium you have to be bowling over 80mph. 90mph is the usual boundary for "fast" bowling).
Red Night seems to believe baseball players are shrouded in magic.
Originally posted by CrowleyThere is no point arguing with these peeps Crowley.
Yup. Especially people out of their teens. If you didn't learn some of the basics as a kid, bowling is a very difficult action to master.
Red Night seems to believe baseball players are shrouded in magic.
I disagree with you though because batting in cricket is technically more difficult than baseball.
Baseball - Basically 1 type of shot to master, cricket far more.
Baseball - Hit a ball that deviates in the air, cricket pitch and air.
Baseball - You basically stand still, cricket have to move front & back feet.
Baseball - Ball will be in a small hitting area, cricket the ball can come in a much bigger area.
Baseball - Attack, attack, attack - cricket both defend & attack, if you have no patience then you will not succeed.
So technically FOR ME batting in cricket is far more difficult.
Though if you believe Red Night batting in baseball is like trying to hit an acorn traveling at 1000mph with a stick of rhubarb.
Originally posted by dan182No, baseball you also have different swings.
There is no point arguing with these peeps Crowley.
I disagree with you though because batting in cricket is technically more difficult than baseball.
Baseball - Basically 1 type of shot to master, cricket far more.
Baseball - Hit a ball that deviates in the air, cricket pitch and air.
Baseball - You basically stand still, cricket have to move front & ...[text shortened]... batting in baseball is like trying to hit an acorn traveling at 1000mph with a stick of rhubarb.
There are slaps, opposite field, power hitting, bunts, chops... and anything you can do to get a base hit depending how the outfield is hitting. Ichiro has even hit a ball off a bounce bacause he needed to advance a runner.
Feel free to PM me in the future before you say something silly about baseball if you don't know anything about it.
P-
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitWe will exclude a bunt where you are not trying to hit it out the park but just to block it into an open area where there are no fielders.
No, baseball you also have different swings.
There are slaps, opposite field, power hitting, bunts, chops... and anything you can do to get a base hit depending how the outfield is hitting. Ichiro has even hit a ball off a bounce bacause he needed to advance a runner.
Feel free to PM me in the future before you say something silly about baseball if you don't know anything about it.
P-
However when I say basically (keyword there) 1 type of shot it is the way you swing at a ball. You basically swing from the hips with the bat coming from behind you to play the ball more or less in front of you.
I am sure there are varieties to this but the mechanics are MORE OR LESS the same.
However in cricket there are many different types of shots so lets compare 2.
1. Reverse sweep - Effectively you will be playing the shot with the bat in front of you trying to hit the ball almost behind you.
2. Slog - Very baseball like where the bat comes from behind you to hit the ball in front of you.
Now maybe I was doing BB a disservice with 1 type of shot but there are no where near as many as there are in cricket.
Ichiro must just be the absolute legend because he EVEN hit one that bounced, happens all the time in cricket and it is not that big a deal.
An American view point of batting in cricket.
"Cricket bats have a flat edge (well, it's slightly rounded) so that the batsman can direct the ball in a preferred direction. Batting in
cricket is way more involved than in baseball. "
http://www.cricinfo.com/link_to_database/ABOUT_CRICKET/EXPLANATION/CRICKET_EXPLAINED_AMERICAN.html
Originally posted by dan182What a load of rubbish.
There is no point arguing with these peeps Crowley.
I disagree with you though because batting in cricket is technically more difficult than baseball.
Baseball - Basically 1 type of shot to master, cricket far more.
Baseball - Hit a ball that deviates in the air, cricket pitch and air.
Baseball - You basically stand still, cricket have to move front & ...[text shortened]... batting in baseball is like trying to hit an acorn traveling at 1000mph with a stick of rhubarb.
Two balls, about the same size and weight. Both balls have varying degrees of spin.
Ball 1 comes in at 50-80 mph and bounces before it gets to you and you need to deflect it with a canoe paddle.
Ball 2 comes in at 80-100 mph in the air and you need to drive it with a round stick about as big a round as the handle (not the blade) of an oar.
Which is harder?
If you want to say that the sports are modestly different, fine. If you want to make the claim that cricket is difficult, interesting to some people, or important to you personally, fine.
But saying that it is more difficult than baseball is pure rubbish and flies in the face of 140 years of historical evidence. The simple fact is that in every game or match, baseball players performed better at cricket than cricket players performed at baseball.
Originally posted by PhlabibitP: You'll love this rule:
No, baseball you also have different swings.
There are slaps, opposite field, power hitting, bunts, chops... and anything you can do to get a base hit depending how the outfield is hitting. Ichiro has even hit a ball off a bounce bacause he needed to advance a runner.
Feel free to PM me in the future before you say something silly about baseball if you don't know anything about it.
P-
If a cricket match is not completely finished when time runs
out, the match is a draw, no matter how lopsided the score
may be. This has strategic consequences. Supposing in a
test match the first side has their first innings, and they
are so good they bat and bat and bat and bat for five days,
they've scored over a thousand runs and the other side
hasn't batted yet. Guess what! The game's a draw! You
didn't win!
Originally posted by Red NightStrange paddle you've got there.
Two balls, about the same size and weight. Both balls have varying degrees of spin.
Ball 1 comes in at 50-100 mph and bounces before it gets to you and you need to deflect it with a canoe paddle.
Ball 2 comes in at 80-100 mph in the air and you need to drive it with a round stick about as big a round as the handle (not the blade) of an oar.
Which is harder?
Baseball bat: 70mm diameter
Cricket bat: 108mm width
Oh, and I corrected the speed for you again.
Originally posted by Red NightWrong again Red Night.
What a load of rubbish.
Two balls, about the same size and weight. Both balls have varying degrees of spin.
Ball 1 comes in at 50-80 mph and bounces before it gets to you and you need to deflect it with a canoe paddle.
Ball 2 comes in at 80-100 mph in the air and you need to drive it with a round stick about as big a round as the handle (not the blade) of an oar.
Ball 1 comes off the surface of the ground at around 80-90mph 2 feet away from the batsman at often an unpredictable direction.
Ball 2 has a path that can be seen by the batsman for the entire length of the throw.
Ball 1 is therefore clearly harder to hit.
Originally posted by Red NightYep. Which is why they won't do that. They'll declare.
P: You'll love this rule:
If a cricket match is not completely finished when time runs
out, the match is a draw, no matter how lopsided the score
may be. This has strategic consequences. Supposing in a
test match the first side has their first innings, and they
are so good they bat and bat and bat and bat for five days,
they've sc ...[text shortened]... d the other side
hasn't batted yet. Guess what! The game's a draw! You
didn't win!
Of course, you're talking about test cricket . There's limited overs cricket out there as well, where each team has a limited number of balls in which to score as much as possible. Those games are played on a single day (and the shorter versions can be played in an evening). Many people consider test cricket to be the "purer" form of the game, but it's not all there is.
Just to add something to the discussion, without wanting to big up either of the two sports:
I read something by a player who'd played both sports to the effect that (in his opinion) there was a big psychological difference between the two games. In fact, he thought that batting in cricket had more in common with pitching in baseball from that point of view. They are the ones the pressure is most on, because they are the ones expected to succeed. On any given pitch a pitcher is not expected to give up a run, and on any given ball a cricket batsman is not expected to get out. Whereas (except for close finishes to a game) it's not a big thing for a baseball hitter to be out or a cricket bowler to concede a few runs.
That points to the big difference in the batting. A cricket batsman is expected to try and stay around for a long time and score lots of runs, not to occasionally hit a home run.
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeYou do realize that the path of a baseball alters in flight, don't you?
Wrong again Red Night.
Ball 1 comes off the surface of the ground at around 80-90mph 2 feet away from the batsman at often an unpredictable direction.
Ball 2 has a path that can be seen by the batsman for the entire length of the throw.
Ball 1 is therefore clearly harder to hit.
Curve balls, sliders, fork balls, palm balls, fast balls, knuckle balls, change-ups,...
Pitchers change their arm angle.
And i'm not sure you are right about the measurement of the speed. From what I've seend and read that measure the speed of a cricket ball with a radar gun before it bounces.
And there are a lot of bowls that come in at speeds less than 80 mph
Originally posted by mtthwThat is an interesting observation. Sounds true to me.
Just to add something to the discussion, without wanting to big up either of the two sports:
I read something by a player who'd played both sports to the effect that (in his opinion) there was a big psychological difference between the two games. In fact, he thought that batting in cricket had more in common with pitching in baseball from that point ...[text shortened]... ry and stay around for a long time and score lots of runs, not to occasionally hit a home run.
And I am all for any statement that say's the games are different and/or interesting in different ways.
Originally posted by Red NightI fully realise the first point, as I am sure you fully realise the same happens with a cricket ball, termed 'swing', after all the many posts on the subject on this very thread.
You do realize that the path of a baseball alters in flight, don't you?
And i'm not sure you are right about the measurement of the speed. From what I've seend and read that measure the speed of a cricket ball with a radar gun before it bounces.
And there are a lot of bowls that come in at speeds less than 80 mph
I am sure I'm right about the second point; slower balls around the 50-60mph range are produced by spin bowlers and are even more unpredictable coming off the surface right in front of the batsman.