This thread has taken a life of its own.
My statements were
Cricketers would adapt to baseball quicker than he other way round.
True on the basis that cricketers already have the skill set required for baseball, where as baseball players do not have the skill set required to play cricket.
Batting in cricket is TECHNICALLY harder than baseball. This again has to ring true on account of the fact cricketers have to have a wider variety of strokes + the ability to hit both balls in the air and off the ground.
The argument for me has never been it is harder to hit a cricket ball than a baseball.
Personally I watch and play both and I think they are good games although I prefer cricket by some way.
I am sure after posting this the -P will tell me I making this things up and RN will go and find some article published in 1230 BC about how some Americans beat the best of British at cricket.
Personally I think they are both good games and I just wish I had played more baseball but as kids where I come from baseball is played only girls and cricket by the boys.
Originally posted by dan182"Batting in cricket is TECHNICALLY harder than baseball."
This thread has taken a life of its own.
My statements were
Cricketers would adapt to baseball quicker than he other way round.
True on the basis that cricketers already have the skill set required for baseball, where as baseball players do not have the skill set required to play cricket.
Batting in cricket is TECHNICALLY harder than baseball. This ag ...[text shortened]... re baseball but as kids where I come from baseball is played only girls and cricket by the boys.
LMAO.
That is hilarious. That's why Dan Bardman wouldn't even try it in 1934. He "begged" not to be put into the batters box at Yankee stadium. He didn't mind dressing up in a "real" baseball uniform and having his picture taken, after all he was "keen on the game," but he was too scared to try it.
That's why Cap Anson and a team of Baseballers shellaqued the best English Cricketeers in 7 straight games in 1874.
That's why a team of Amateur baseball players spanked the English Cricketeers in 1868 20-4.
That's why Ian Point was offered a baseball contract at a lower level than Country singer Garth Brooks.
That's why Graham Gooch was annihilated in a hitting competition in London by a 57 year old Ernie Banks.
That's why Australian Cricket teams REGULARLY hire American Baseball Consultants to help them with their training. (You don't see any Cricket consultants at spring training. I wonder why?)
Let me take something mtthw said a little while ago and spin it around. He said that batting in cricket was more in tune with pitching in baseball, in that the pressure is on the batter to succeed. He's not expected to make an out. In baseball, if a batter is hitiing .300 (which is a very good average), he still makes an out 7 out of every 10 at bats. So how can hitting be harder in cricket than it is in baseball?
Originally posted by Natural ScienceBecause you have to stand in front of your "plate" or "base". These we call wickets.
Let me take something mtthw said a little while ago and spin it around. He said that batting in cricket was more in tune with pitching in baseball, in that the pressure is on the batter to succeed. He's not expected to make an out. In baseball, if a batter is hitiing .300 (which is a very good average), he still makes an out 7 out of every 10 at bats. So how can hitting be harder in cricket than it is in baseball?
The wicket consists of three wooden stumps that are 28 inches (71.1cm) tall. The stumps are placed along the batting crease with equal distances between each stump. They are positioned so they are 9 inches (22.86cm) wide. Two wooden bails are placed on top of the stumps. The bails must not project more than 0.5 inches (1.27cm) above the stumps, and must, for men's cricket, be 4.3125 inches (10.95cm) long. There are also specified lengths for the barrel and spigots of the bail. There are different specifications for the wickets and bails for junior cricket. The umpires may dispense with the bails if conditions are unfit (ie it is windy so they might fall off by themselves).
They have to stay there until they are out. Some of the great innings go for nearly two days, not for three strikes.
Originally posted by lordhighgusOkay, fine. I'm not slagging the sport, to each his own. But I'm not too keen on the prospect of watching something that could theoretically never end. That's why I don't play MMORPG's.
Because you have to stand in front of your "plate" or "base". These we call wickets.
The wicket consists of three wooden stumps that are 28 inches (71.1cm) tall. The stumps are placed along the batting crease with equal distances between each stump. They are positioned so they are 9 inches (22.86cm) wide. Two wooden bails are placed on top of the stumps ...[text shortened]... ntil they are out. Some of the great innings go for nearly two days, not for three strikes.
Originally posted by Natural ScienceYou see, this is why there's not a lot of point comparing them. Superficially they're both hitting a ball with a bat, but you're trying to achieve different things. Cricket is all about hanging around and scoring big runs, which you don't have to do in baseball. So it may be the case that it's easier to hit a single ball in cricket. But you have to hit it and control it in a risk free way, over and over again.
Let me take something mtthw said a little while ago and spin it around. He said that batting in cricket was more in tune with pitching in baseball, in that the pressure is on the batter to succeed. He's not expected to make an out. In baseball, if a batter is hitiing .300 (which is a very good average), he still makes an out 7 out of every 10 at bats. So how can hitting be harder in cricket than it is in baseball?
Imagine a hypothetical player who can hit a home run every other ball, but is caught out the other times. In baseball he'd be a legend - the greatest player in the history of the game by miles. In cricket he'd average 6 - poor even for a number 11 bat. You could probably construct an equivalent player the other way round.
Originally posted by Red NightI read about that. Ernie Banks put it down to Gooch hitting too flat - his cricket technique kicking in where you try and keep the ball down.
That's why Graham Gooch was annihilated in a hitting competition in London by a 57 year old Ernie Banks.
Originally posted by Natural ScienceExcellent, excellent point
Let me take something mtthw said a little while ago and spin it around. He said that batting in cricket was more in tune with pitching in baseball, in that the pressure is on the batter to succeed. He's not expected to make an out. In baseball, if a batter is hitiing .300 (which is a very good average), he still makes an out 7 out of every 10 at bats. So how can hitting be harder in cricket than it is in baseball?
Originally posted by mtthwAn equivalent player in Baseball would be someone who bunted the ball to the pitcher 1 out of 2 times. On the other he hit a foul tip that went screaming backwards into the screen.
You see, this is why there's not a lot of point comparing them. Superficially they're both hitting a ball with a bat, but you're trying to achieve different things. Cricket is all about hanging around and scoring big runs, which you don't have to do in baseball. So it may be the case that it's easier to hit a single ball in cricket. But you have to hit it ...[text shortened]... a number 11 bat. You could probably construct an equivalent player the other way round.
In cricket he would be a legend.
In baseball he would be a popcorn salesman.
Originally posted by mtthw"Bingo" Banks tried to help Gooch, but Gooch wouldn't listen.
I read about that. Ernie Banks put it down to Gooch hitting too flat - his cricket technique kicking in where you try and keep the ball down.
Apparently he was filled with the same self-righteousness of many others in this forum.