A lot of this debate would be moot if you have ever seen an offensive lineman up close. This position, the most underrated but hardest to play, has a collision much like a car wreck on every single play that they are in the game. It is not a game of stamina for running it is a game of stamina for long term pounding. There have been studies on the force of the collision in open field tackles from, say, a linebacker to a running back and there is no other collision that is as powerful in any non-motorized sport. I will have to dig for a link to some sites with some more information to back that up, but I can barely keep up with the chess these days much less searching for info for threads. I am an avid sports fan, not just an American football fan. I live in a town that holds a rubgy festival each fall that is internationally attended. I will watch any US football game and will wake at any hour to watch the US in the World Cup (thank god it's in Germany this time, Korea/Japan games were at Midnight, 3 a.m. and 5 a.m. for me). I will watch any sport before a reality t.v. show. I have played football, American football, lacrosse, baseball, basketball, waterpolo and dozens of other sports aswell as what one might call extreme sports, so I am not sport biased. However, I have watched American football all my life and have seen players become increasingly larger and faster. The average linebacker in the NFL is 245lbs and runs a 4.6 40 yard dash. Offensive linemen average 295lbs and on each play they crash into a guy that averages 280lbs. I imagine that there are quite a few rugby players or Australian rules football players that could play in the NFL, but I also bet that if there were that many they would be there already as the NFL pays a ton of money for talent. But who really cares about that, the winter X-Games are here.
As for baseball, well it is widely regarded that the most difficult action in sports is hitting a baseball fairly. By fairly I mean in between the left field line and the right field line, not averagely. The difference between hitting a ball over first base and third base is something like a tenth of a second. The pitcher stands 66 feet away and an average pitcher can throw in the nineties, a good one in the hundreds. The ball is hard as hell and compresses to half it's size when hit with a wood bat made of ash. It comes off of the bat at over two times the speed of the pitch, which is why third base is call the hot corner, because most batters are righties and if the ball is hit at them it is coming in hot, real hot. Just throw a baseball, say from center field to second base and try to catch it with your bare hands and you will know why they use gloves.
As far as pads and sport, why do you think it is that they use them? Do you think that these increadibly strong, increadibly macho, young men use pads and equipment because they are moist? It is because if they didn't they wouldn't play for very long. What is the average salary for a cricket player? In Major Leage Baseball the league minimum is something like $500,000.00. That is for the worst player on the team, the worst on a team of twenty something. Alex Rodriquez of the New York Yankees signed a contract with the last team he was with for $250,000,000.00 for ten years play. The league average is something like $1,500,000.00 for one year. If your cricketeers are so tough, why wouldn't say an average cricket player, say someone not quite good enough to make the big bucks back in the UK come over and dominate baseball?
You really have to realize that
Originally posted by CliffLandinThe biggest difference between the two is that a baseball player steps up to the plate, hits the ball and runs away.
As for baseball, well it is widely regarded that the most difficult action in sports is hitting a baseball fairly. By fairly I mean in between the left field line and the right field line, not averagely. The difference between hitting ...[text shortened]... me over and dominate baseball?
You really have to realize that
Batsmen in cricket need to concentrate for hours on end (if he can stay in that long) facing up to about 250 deliveries if he makes a century (100 runs - which is basically what every batsman aims for when he goes in to bat). This usually includes mostly pace bowling in modern cricket (except for the likes of Sri Lanka and India who have lots of spin bowlers) meaning the batsmen faces delivery after delivery coming at him at between 75 and 90 mph (although there have been 100mph deliveries bowled: The highest electronically measured speed for a ball bowled by any bowler is 100.23mph (161.3km/h) by Shoaib Akhtar of Pakistan).
The cricket ball bounces on the pitch meaning there can be swing through the air and then movement off the pitch and indifferent bounce (sometimes in different directions, making some deliveries virtually impossible to play).
About money, most international and most first class cricketers are millionaires. The only reason baseball players are paid more is because baseball has more and bigger sponsors, stadiums and individual investors (club owners).
Not because baseball players are tougher or more talented.
Originally posted by Moldy CrowI stand corrected, I have a baseball bat and it is steel, hence my assumption that they were made this way.
Baseball bats are not 'steel of some sort' - They are made of wood , like your head . But unlike your head are solid , not cork filled .
Your discription of fielding cricket balls does explain the tooth thing though .
As to Cliff's point about pay, I think that you'll find there is a certain amount of love and pride a cricketer takes in his game and this is probably more important than money. Why would anyone want to go to America to play a game they don't know too well and leave their beloved willow and leather behind? I don't think the two sports are interchangeable. Also those cricketers that are attracted by money can join the American 20/20 leagues as many an ailing West Indian cricketer has done of late, so why change sports when cricket is available?
I was being flippant before, as this is the general forum. If anyone wishes to open this in the debates forum, I would be happy to take part on a less carefree level 🙂
Originally posted by ianpickeringCricket has gone soft. Batsmen wear pads and helmets now.
2 examples to say it is
1. American Football players wear more padding than Dustin Hoffman did in Tootsie, whilst rugby players wear little if any.
2. Fielders in baseball wear gloves, whilsts cricket fielders don't.
Originally posted by CliffLandinThe pitcher is 60' 6" from home plate, not 66'.
As for baseball, well it is widely regarded that the most difficult action in sports is hitting a baseball fairly. By fairly I mean in between the left field line and the right field line, not averagely. The difference between hitting a ball over first base and third base is something like a tenth of a second. The pitcher stands 66 feet away and an av ...[text shortened]... he big bucks back in the UK come over and dominate baseball?
You really have to realize that
Originally posted by CrowleyGood post except..... very few international cricketers are millionaires and no non-international cricketers earn such riches. The English first class game has as much money in it as any (the Australian first class set up in semi-pro) and I think you'll find that very few earn in excess of £50,000 or £60,000. Money in sport comes from crowds and TV, and English first class games are only occasionally shown live, and attract crowds more typically in the hundreds than thousands.
The biggest difference between the two is that a baseball player steps up to the plate, hits the ball and runs away.
Batsmen in cricket need to concentrate for hours on end (if he can stay in that long) facing up to about 250 deliveries if he makes a century (100 runs - which is basically what every batsman aims for when he goes in to bat). This usually in ...[text shortened]... individual investors (club owners).
Not because baseball players are tougher or more talented.
I say this in no way to dettract from cricket which is without doubt (sic) the greatest game that has ever been played, and much tougher than baseball, physically, mentally and indeed financially.
Starrman - The bat you have is a softball bat , or college bat . College baseball still allows aluminium bats I believe , but only wooden bats are allowed in Major League BB . Softball is a very similar game as baseball , but played with a much larger and softer ball . You may have seen a softball and mistaken it for a baseball .(I think you commented in an earlier post about it being 'softer' than a cricket ball .) There is no way one would refer to a baseball as 'soft' . Imagine a piece of solid wood covered by paper thin leather - that's how 'soft' a MLB baseball is . (That's not how they're made , but just what they feel like). I don't know how hard a cricket ball is , but baseballs are not soft .
Originally posted by StarrmanStarrman - the distance between two wickets is 22 yards...the distance between the mound and home plate is 60'6", which makes the baseball distance 5'6" shorter, which means the batter has less time to react than the cricket batsman...
Absolute nonsense to this and the precious post on baseball.
1) The cricket wicket is 2.5 feet shorter than the distance between a baseball pitcher and the hitter. At a speed of 90mph (quite achievable in a first class cricket game) this means that the ball reaches the batsmen in 0.03 of a second quicker than in baseball.
2) The baseball bat is ste ...[text shortened]... is heavier and moving at similar speeds.
I rest my case, American sports are for girls 🙂 😛
absolute nonsense 😉
Originally posted by CliffLandinBravo!! Very combative answers! I agree with your points about American football and it would be interesting to see these guys play rugby league against the Aussies, who have been known to carry on playing with a broken arm. However I'm still not convinced about baseball. Are you saying that it would be impossible to play without gloves? Or just that it would be more difficult.
As for baseball, well it is widely regarded that the most difficult action in sports is hitting a baseball fairly. By fairly I mean in between the left field line and the right field line, not averagely. The difference between hitting a ball over first base and third base is something like a tenth of a second. The pitcher stands 66 feet away and an av ...[text shortened]... he big bucks back in the UK come over and dominate baseball?
You really have to realize that
BTW - The point about money is irrelevant to whether the game is 'soft' or not .
Moldy Crow - Cool, I was talking about a baseball not a softball, but it appears you are correct about the bat 🙂 Cricket balls are basically cork and rubber in layers, bound with wet thread and tightened at tension to make an almost rock solid core, this is then covered with seasoned leather, stitched and lacquered to give it a solid exterior with bounce and resistance. Imagine how much of a beating a ball takes from both ground and bat during 480 repetitions and you'll get an idea of how resistant they have to be. I thought a baseball would be slightly softer purely because they are designed to withstand less punishment over a game's length, although I could be wrong about this.
Originally posted by kyngjActually, at the point of release, the distance between batsman and bolwer is around 56 feet because the neither does the batsman stand on the stumps, (but around 4 ft away) from them, but the bowler's hand can (depending on his height and action) get around 6 feet in from the stumps at the opposite end, shortening the distance between them considerably.
Starrman - the distance between two wickets is 22 yards...the distance between the mound and home plate is 60'6", which makes the baseball distance 5'6" shorter, which means the batter has [b]less time to react than the cricket batsman...
absolute nonsense 😉[/b]
Absolute nonsense was perhaps extreme, I hope no-one took offense 🙂
Originally posted by ianpickeringIn the early days of baseball (mid to late 1800s) baseball was played without gloves. The ball was not wound nearly as tightly as it is now, which meant it was softer. At first, pitchers thew underhand, the objest being to throw a ball the batter could hit. The catcher played back from the plate and fielded the pitch on the bounce. So the game could be played without gloves then. But there were still plenty of broken fingers and various other injuries as a result.
Bravo!! Very combative answers! I agree with your points about American football and it would be interesting to see these guys play rugby league against the Aussies, who have been known to carry on playing with a broken arm. However I'm still not convinced about baseball. Are you saying that it would be impossible to play without gloves? Or just that ...[text shortened]... ifficult.
BTW - The point about money is irrelevant to whether the game is 'soft' or not .
However, the game evolved as the years went by. The dead ball era went away with Ty Cobb, and the baseballs were wound much tighter and became much harder as a result. The pitchers, instead of obligingly throwing balls the batter liked, started trying to throw balls the batter couldn't hit (hopefully). And they began to throw much harder. Cleveland shortstop, Ray Chapman, was killed in 1924 after being hit in the head with a pitch. Even so, batting helmets didn't become mandatory until 1955. The catchers began playing directly behind the batter and catching the pitch in the air.
Needless to say, gloves and protective equipment are a prerequisite now. If you've ever seen a batter hit a foul tip which slams into the catcher's mask, you'd know what I mean. Every catcher playing the game today would either be dead or comatose if he didn't use a mask. Every fielder would have multiple broken fingers all the time if he didn't use a glove.
If cricket players don't wear gloves or other equipment, it's because the two games simply not comparable, and not because cricket players are any tougher.