Originally posted by Red NightAll of those little tid bits of information prove sweet **** all.
"Batting in cricket is TECHNICALLY harder than baseball."
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 t ...[text shortened]... g. (You don't see any Cricket consultants at spring training. I wonder why?)
Why not spend your time in finding out what makes a good cricket batter against that of a baseballer.
Maybe after that your eye's will open and you will see all the qualities it requires to make a good batsman in cricket.
Have you ever watched a game of cricket ?????
Have you played in a game of cricket ?????
My guess is NO on both counts, which means you are making a judgment call when you only have half the story. Very clever RN indeed.
Do you know why the Aussies hire the baseball coaches ?
It is to help with their fielding and not their batting - Numbskull
In case that is not clear enough it is the THROWING they are interested in.
Originally posted by Red NightWRONG AGAIN.
An 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.
In cricket he would be a legend.
In baseball he would be a popcorn salesman.
He would not score any runs which would make him pretty rubbish in cricket as well. Such is the nature of cricket (which I am sure you do not know) that if you defend against a decent bowler for long periods he will probably get you out.
1 edit
Originally posted by Red NightHow many ******* times do I have to explain this to you.
That's why Cap Anson and a team of Baseballers shellaqued the best English Cricketeers in 7 straight games in 1874.
1. You played against 6 English club sides and an Irish XI. You did not play against any of this country's best players, not by a long way.
2. You used 18 players against the 11 or 12 used by our teams.
Originally posted by Ian68Don't get worked up. He's leg pulling.
How many ******* times do I have to explain this to you.
1. You played against 6 English club sides and an Irish XI. You did not play against any of this country's best players, not by a long way.
2. You used 18 players against the 11 or 12 used by our teams.
1 edit
Originally posted by dan182I believe the backwards screamer would score plenty of runs in cricket.
WRONG AGAIN.
He would not score any runs which would make him pretty rubbish in cricket as well. Such is the nature of cricket (which I am sure you do not know) that if you defend against a decent bowler for long periods he will probably get you out.
Originally posted by Ian68The English attempted to down play the 7 straight losses with this 18 on 12 rubbish.
How many ******* times do I have to explain this to you.
1. You played against 6 English club sides and an Irish XI. You did not play against any of this country's best players, not by a long way.
2. You used 18 players against the 11 or 12 used by our teams.
But it just doesn't hold water.
First, maybe you would "break the laws of cricket" and allow an opposing team an extra fielder, but would you really keep doing it after they had beaten you 6 times in row?
And frankly, I don't think that the English Cricketeers would have given their Mother's that kind of advantage. "It just isn't cricket."
Second, why would the English cricketeers play with 12. Isn't a cricket team usually 11 with one reserve? Again, "it just isn't cricket." What really happened was that the American played with 11 and 7 on the bench and the English played with 11 and 1 on the bench. That was the American advantage. That and the fact that they proved to be the better players.
"Those damn Yanks are costing us a bloody fortune in cricket balls, Chancey."
Originally posted by Red NightThe backward screamer will in general be caught so it normally gets you out.
I believe the backwards screamer would score plenty or runs in cricket.
If you have some skill and play upper cuts they will get you runs until the bowler decides to place a 3rd man there or he justs stops bowling in that area.
However once again I really did not expect you to know that.
Originally posted by Red NightI like the people safe behind a net that still 'flinch' as that baseball comes screaming at them... They always nudge each other and laugh because they know there is no way the ball can hit them... but they still acted like they were going to get a broken nose.
I believe the backwards screamer would score plenty or runs in cricket.
P-
Originally posted by dan182Yes and yes.
Have you ever watched a game of cricket ?????
Have you played in a game of cricket ?????
Several years after we moved to the US, I was an ESU exchange student in Bristol. My "room mate" was a speed bowler from Trinidad. He was a rich kid with a mountain of hash.
Ask me sometime about watching the agonizing ritual of taping up the tennis ball and then my experiences getting yelled at for whacking the thing.
But, in all fairness, I never got the chance to try with a real cricket ball.
Originally posted by dan182Classic...strictly construe a general argument and then twist it around to suit your purposes.
The backward screamer will in general be caught so it normally gets you out.
If you have some skill and play upper cuts they will get you runs until the bowler decides to place a 3rd man there or he justs stops bowling in that area.
However once again I really did not expect you to know that.
Well done Dan90210.
So the perfect cricket player would bunt 9 out of 10 to the pitcher and then randomly foul-tip the 10th off in an unpredictable direction.
That same guy's equally talented American cousin is still selling peanuts in the stands over here after flunking out of little league.
Originally posted by Red NightActually, I got the impression that the games were just a bit of fun not taken to seriously by the English/Irish from reading Cap Anson's journal.
The English attempted to down play the 7 straight losses with this 18 on 12 rubbish.
But it just doesn't hold water.
First, maybe you would "break the laws of cricket" and allow an opposing team an extra fielder, but would you really keep doing it after they had beaten you 6 times in row?
And frankly, I don't think that the English Cricketeers wou ...[text shortened]... .
"Those damn Yanks are costing us a bloody fortune in cricket balls, Chancey."
Originally posted by Ian68My Patriots didn't take the Lions seriously, and it almost cost them the game Sunday. They got their act together.
Actually, I got the impression that the games were just a bit of fun not taken to seriously by the English/Irish from reading Cap Anson's journal.
How any national pride sport could let a bunch of noobs come in and beat them around is beyond my reasoning. It is more likely an excuse.
P-