Originally posted by Red NightGeesh you did not know that.
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!
Actually it is clear you KNOW NOTHING about cricket.
I think I might have to check all your baseball facts because I suppose there is a possibility you know nothing about that to.
At least I have played both and have minimal knowledge of baseball.
Originally posted by mtthwYes, but the bat is round. So, you don't have 70 mm of hitting surface. You have maybe 2-5 mm of hitting surface vs 108mm of hitting surface. And, you have to hit the ball in front of you. And, you have to run if you put the ball in play.
Strange paddle you've got there.
Baseball bat: 70mm diameter
Cricket bat: 108mm width
Oh, and I corrected the speed for you again.
Originally posted by dan182I knew that. But, I figured Phlabs didn't.
Geesh you did not know that.
Actually it is clear you KNOW NOTHING about cricket.
I think I might have to check all your baseball facts because I suppose there is a possibility you know nothing about that to.
At least I have played both and have minimal knowledge of baseball.
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeThere are actually 2 measurements for speed. 1 before it bounces and 1 after it bounces.
I 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.
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.
The 90 mph of Brett Lee is before it bounces and that is what they say he is bowling at. However there will be another measurement after it bounces and that will vary from pitch to pitch.
The speed of the ball will always drop after it bounces so it will hit the batter at say 85mph.
I don't know how it is measured in baseball.
Bowling versus Pitching: FACT. (Although I'm sure most of you will continue to respond with conjecture, bias, and hyperbole.)
In 1874 when the Americans Baseballers toured England and went undefeated against the best Cricketeers of England and Ireland, they bowled for themselves.
In 1868, a group of English Cricketeers came to Boston to play a match. While there, they played a baseball game against a weak American team that included several amateurs and at least one American Cricket player. They lost 20-4.
What was interesting was that the English Cricketeers didn't pitch for themselves.
Instead, they employed an American named George Wright. Normally, George was a shortstop, not a pitcher; and judging from the results against a weak American lineup he was not a very good pitcher. Depite that fact, the English Cricketeers obviously saw George as their best pitching option.
Originally posted by Red Night130 year old 'facts' are utterly irrelevant - both games have significantly developed from the bowling actions to the material used in the balls.
Bowling versus Pitching: FACT. (Although I'm sure most of you will continue to respond with conjecture, bias, and hyperbole.)
In 1874 when the Americans Baseballers toured England and went undefeated against the best Cricketeers of England and Ireland, they bowled for themselves.
In 1868, a group of English Cricketeers came to Boston to play a match ...[text shortened]... Depite that fact, the English Cricketeers obviously saw George as their best pitching option.
Originally posted by dan182They use a radar gun in baseball as well. In both sports, a curve or change in direction can cause a false report on the Gun by 1-3 mph.
There are actually 2 measurements for speed. 1 before it bounces and 1 after it bounces.
The 90 mph of Brett Lee is before it bounces and that is what they say he is bowling at. However there will be another measurement after it bounces and that will vary from pitch to pitch.
The speed of the ball will always drop after it bounces so it will hit the batter at say 85mph.
I don't know how it is measured in baseball.
But, since the ball doesn't bounce in baseball the only change in speed would be from air resistance.
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightOn other other hand, you've got a better idea where the ball is going to be. And you're not trying to defend a wicket.
Yes, but the bat is round. So, you don't have 70 mm of hitting surface. You have maybe 2-5 mm of hitting surface vs 108mm of hitting surface. And, you have to hit the ball in front of you. And, you have to run if you put the ball in play.
I suspect you're underestimating the effective hitting surface. There may be a smaller area for a perfect contact, but that exists in cricket as well.
Originally posted by Red NightThat's something to bear in mind. Chances are that all the cricketers that played in the matches you've mentioned were amateurs. Cricket went professional much later than baseball. And professional players are always going to be better than the same players who stayed amateur.
In 1868, a group of English Cricketeers came to Boston to play a match. While there, they played a baseball game against a weak American team that included several amateurs and at least one American Cricket player. They lost 20-4.
We really need some recent evidence for this sort of comparison to be meaningful.
Oh, and it's "cricketErs"!
1 edit
Originally posted by mtthwI'm not sure that is true. The ball can move around a lot in baseball.
On other other hand, you've got a better idea where the ball is going to be. And you're not trying to depend a wicket.
I suspect you're underestimating the effective hitting surface. There may be a smaller area for a perfect contact, but that exists in cricket as well.
Another way to look at this is averages. If hitting a baseball is easier, how come the greatest average hitter of all time only did so successfully slightly more often than 1 in 3 times. (Today slightly less than 1 in 3 times is still excellent.)
What is a good cricketers success rate?
Originally posted by mtthwSorry mtthw. From now on, when I respond to your reasonable and sensible comments I will use the term cricketers.
That's something to bear in mind. Chances are that all the cricketers that played in the matches you've mentioned were amateurs. Cricket went professional much later than baseball. And professional players are always going to be better than the same players who stayed amateur.
We really need some recent evidence for this sort of comparison to be meaningful.
Oh, and it's "cricketErs"!
I think you make a great point about professional athletes. I have always been amazed at how quickly a professional athlete in one sport will pick up on another.
Originally posted by Red NightIt's quite simple - by saying 'conjecture' you are saying you don't agree that both sports have evolved over 130 years. Maybe that is true for baseball and that sport has been stagnant for this amount of time. However I can promise you that cricket most definitely has evolved - a modern day team would put a team from 130 years ago to the sword. Therefore it would also thrash a baseball team from 130 years ago, and also a modern baseball team, seeing as you argue that game hasn't changed.
Bias.