Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeThis is the part that was conjecture. The implied statement in your earlier post, stated outright here.
Therefore it would also thrash...a modern baseball team,....
The FACTS are that whenever they have met, the baseballers have won and won easily. It is mere unfounded conjecture that the result would be different the next time.
1 edit
Originally posted by dan182I forgot you can hit the ball behind you in Cricket. So, you have more options, yet cricket is harder? In baseball, you can hit it behind you... quite often... it counts as a strike, towards getting you out.
We 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.
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 ...[text shortened]... use he EVEN hit one that bounced, happens all the time in cricket and it is not that big a deal.
You also don't have the option to 'do it over'.
How are more options making it harder? Do they have to call their shot "I want to hit it left behind me!" and if they don't they are out?
If so, I agree.
I also forgot to tell you that many MLB players will bat from the left or right side of the plate.
I'd like to see a cricket batter take his gear off and stand in the box as a 94 MPH ball whizzes by his chin for a ball. My guess is he's not going to handle the next curve at his face going in for a strike... or the next high-fastball... or that sinker that will leave him sitting there with 3 called strikes.
P-
Originally posted by dan182In baseball they measure the speed. Take a swing at Ugueth Urbina's 104 MPH fastball, if you dare. You can use your paddle if you like... but you won't even be able to get it around.
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.
P-
Originally posted by mtthwI would love some new info... I think we should start 'daring' our sports and write them some e-mail with our thoughts.
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"!
If USA can play MLB with Japan, I don't see why they can't take a chance with the Cricketers.
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitP: You'll love this rule:
I would love some new info... I think we should start 'daring' our sports and write them some e-mail with our thoughts.
If USA can play MLB with Japan, I don't see why they can't take a chance with the Cricketers.
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 NightWRONG AGAIN RED NIGHT.
This is the part that was conjecture. The implied statement in your earlier post, stated outright here.
Seems to becoming a catch phrase in this thread.
My statement:
'130 year old 'facts' are utterly irrelevant - both games have significantly developed from the bowling actions to the material used in the balls.'
Your statement:
'Conjecture'
How simple is this? I state 130 year old facts are irrelevant (and later why), which they are, you say that's conjecture. Now you're claiming what you actually THOUGHT I meant was conjecture, which shows how desperate your argument is becoming.
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeSo cricket changed, and you are now right.
WRONG AGAIN RED NIGHT.
Seems to becoming a catch phrase in this thread.
My statement:
'130 year old 'facts' are utterly irrelevant - both games have significantly developed from the bowling actions to the material used in the balls.'
Your statement:
'Conjecture'
How simple is this? I state 130 year old facts are irrelevant (and later wh ...[text shortened]... lly THOUGHT I meant was conjecture, which shows how desperate your argument is becoming.
Wow!
OK.
P-
1 edit
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveYou need a fastball high and inside with no face-gear.
The big difference between baseball and cricket is that any-old person can play baseball and probably do all right - whereas to play cricket and do well needs hard work, training and talent.
End of story - case proved!!!
Or
You got hit by one.
P-
Originally posted by PhlabibitHappy reading:
Well, prove it's been changed. Please do.
P-
1. http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2006/mar/07cinter.htm
2. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_cricket_team
In the first half century or so these contests were generally friendly but competitive with both sides enjoying the visit to another country, and getting to play against quality cricketers. The famous Bodyline series temporarily changed things. The series was marred by the tactics used by the English captain Douglas Jardine to control the batting of Don Bradman who completely destroyed the English bowling attack in the 1930 series. Jardine used his fast bowlers to bowl 6 bouncers an over at head height over leg stump with 6 or 7 fielders around the leg stump in a close catching position. Given the fact that there were no helmets around at the time the tactics were widely condemned by nearly all of Australia including many former Test cricketers and important politicians.
3.From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Cricket
In 1889 the immemorial four ball over was replaced by a five ball over and then this was changed to the current six balls an over in 1900. Subsequently, some countries experimented with eight balls an over. In 1922, the number of balls per over was changed from six to eight in Australia only. In 1924 the eight ball over was extended to New Zealand and in 1937 to South Africa. In England, the eight ball over was adopted experimentally for the 1939 season; the intention was to continue the experiment in 1940, but first-class cricket was suspended for the Second World War and when it resumed, English cricket reverted to the six ball over. The 1947 Laws of Cricket allowed six or eight balls depending on the conditions of play. Since the 1979/80 Australian and New Zealand seasons, the six ball over has been used worldwide and the most recent version of the Laws in 2000 only permits six ball overs.
There's a lot more but it's dinner time 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeSo, with these changes it becomes harder to hit a ball with a canoe oar traveling slower any place you like than a canoe handle in front of you traveling faster. Wow, I guess you're right!
Happy reading:
1. http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2006/mar/07cinter.htm
2. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_cricket_team
In the first half century or so these contests were generally friendly but competitive with both sides enjoying the visit to another country, and getting to play against quality cricketers. The famous Bodyline seri ...[text shortened]... he Laws in 2000 only permits six ball overs.
There's a lot more but it's dinner time 🙂
P-
Edit! Enjoy your dinner, I just finished the lunch.
Originally posted by PhlabibitSomeone else with weird shaped canoe paddles.
So, with these changes it becomes harder to hit a ball with a canoe oar traveling slower any place you like than a canoe handle in front of you traveling faster. Wow, I guess you're right!
You're still ignoring the bounce. In cricket you do get balls that don't bounce. They're called full-tosses, and they're generally considered poor bowling. Why? Because they're dead easy to hit. Even though they're travelling faster.
1 edit
Originally posted by mtthwHave you ever seen a split finger fastball drop? Have you ever seen a 2-seamer head towards a batter and break back out over the plate while that guy with a thin bat bends his knees wondering what just happened?
Someone else with weird shaped canoe paddles.
You're still ignoring the bounce. In cricket you do get balls that don't bounce. They're called full-tosses, and they're generally considered poor bowling. Why? Because they're dead easy to hit. Even though they're travelling faster.
I already told you Ichiro hit a ball on the bounce because he needed a hit, and he did it with a round small bat rather than an oar.
P-
2 edits
Originally posted by PhlabibitHave you seen a leg-spinner turn a ball through about 30 degrees? Or a googly (looks the same, turns the other way). Or an inswinger suddenly jag away from the batsman? Or a fast bowler on a wearing pitch who can bowl two identical looking balls, except one bounces about two feet higher?
Have you ever seen a split finger fastball drop? Have you ever seen a 2-seamer head towards a batter and break back out over the plate while that guy with a thin bat bends his knees wondering what just happened?
P-
Not to mention all those lovely bounders aimed at the throat (perfectly legal, no penalty incurred).
They're both bloody difficult once you've got a good pitcher/bowler. Personally, I'm not trying to claim cricket is harder (I'll leave that to others 🙂). But I'm not going to accept it's easier in a hurry either!