1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettThe two sports can be compared.
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.
Cricket players do wear protective equipment.
Batsmen wear pads on their legs because the ball is bowled at a downward angle, aimed to hit the stumps. There is also a protective cup for the jewels, pads for the thigh, forearm and ribcage and usually a helmet is worn.
The wicket keeper (like the catcher in BB) has gloves, pads and usually also wears (the very important) ball box.
Sometimes fielders are placed less than 10 feet away from the batsmen and they then use ball boxes and something similar to hockey (not ice hockey) pads to protect their shins and helmets to stop the cracking of the head.
The big difference is that baseball is played in the 90 degrees (I think it's 90) in front of the hitter. All the fielders know that this is where the ball is going to come at them and this is where they get the hitters out.
Cricket is played in the full 360 degrees that the ball can travel in from when the batsmen hit it. Fielders in cricket are usually closer to the batsmen than the fielders are in baseball, although these close fielders are then usually in the slips next to the keeper and don't face the full force of balls that are hammered by the batsmen, but even then the ball is travelling at almost the same speed it was bowled at.
The ball is probably pitched faster than it is bowled in cricket, but the balls definately have more pace off the face of the bat when hit by a big heavy piece of willow than the ash or maple used in baseball bats.
Bottom line - Baseball players are wussies. Take off your gloves and catch the ball like a man!
Originally posted by StarrmanI wonder why the girls are'nt playing football then? Perhaps it's funnier to watch the guys beat each other up.
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 🙂 😛
I do like watching australian rules football, and the referees look kinda cool.
Originally posted by CrowleyThis simply isn't true, first of all anyone that does woodwork will tell you that ash or maple are much harder than willow. And anyone that studies physics will tell you that a bat swung from over the shoulder, oh never mind....
The two sports can be compared.
The ball is probably pitched faster than it is bowled in cricket, but the balls definately have more pace off the face of the bat when hit by a big heavy piece of willow than the ash or maple used in baseball bats.
Bottom line - Baseball players are wussies. Take off your gloves and catch the ball like a man!
Maybe you should go to a batting cage an take a shot from a baseball at 70mph and then tell me that baseball players are wusses. Then increase the speed to something comperable to a Major League pitcher, somewhere in the nineties. Last year Sammy Sosa's batting helmet was shattered by a pitch, has that happened in cricket?
And your little sissy bats are flat on one side. Try hitting a ball coming at you at 100mph into play with a round bat!
My point is this, even if you have played a little baseball, I seriously doubt that you have played at a level that is even comperable to high school baseball. Until you have stood in the batters box or fielded a hard hit baseball, you can't call a baseball player a wussy.
I don't know how far a cricket ball is hit, I have watched the Jaimacans in Miami play a little and have never seen a ball hit more than a couple of hundred feet. I certainly can't vouch for the skill of these players but a hit like that would barely make it to the outfielder in baseball. In most big league parks the outfield wall is over 370 feet. A well hit home run can travel upwards of 400 feet, somewhere in the range of 120 meters.
Next we will be comparing apples to oranges, fencing to tennis and boules to bowling. Be sure to tune in.
Originally posted by CliffLandinCricket boundaries range from 69m upwards. In old fashioned measurements that's at least 225 feet and often a lot further. There have been occurances of batsmen clearing the boundaries by a long way. Often reaching the street behind two story stands.
This simply isn't true, first of all anyone that does woodwork will tell you that ash or maple are much harder than willow. And anyone that studies physics will tell you that a bat swung from over the shoulder, oh never mind....
Maybe you should go to a batting cage an take a shot from a baseball at 70mph and then tell me that baseball players are wu ...[text shortened]... ill be comparing apples to oranges, fencing to tennis and boules to bowling. Be sure to tune in.
Cricket fielders sometimes are very close to the bat (silly mid on comes to mind). If they are fielding here they have to wear protective equipment.
While cricket and baseball have similarities they are very different overall but neither is a wimpy sport. Both have their danger.
Originally posted by XanthosNZGood god man! Keep your rational liberalism to yourself, this is sport we're talking about!! 🙂 😛
Cricket boundaries range from 69m upwards. In old fashioned measurements that's at least 225 feet and often a lot further. There have been occurances of batsmen clearing the boundaries by a long way. Often reaching the street behind two story stands.
Cricket fielders sometimes are very close to the bat (silly mid on comes to mind). If they are fielding ...[text shortened]... milarities they are very different overall but neither is a wimpy sport. Both have their danger.
1 edit
Originally posted by NyxieIt's the short shorts, isn't it?
I do like watching australian rules football, and the referees look kinda cool.
Anyway, Aussie rules is a wussy sport too. 1,000 times better than Grid Iron, of course, but nowhere near Rugby League.
In Rugby League I’ve seen players stay on the field with broken fingers, arms, necks*, and all sorts of other niggling injuries. Last year there was a bloke with a twisted ankle desperately hopping around trying to tackle. I remember seeing another fella getting a head gash quickly stapled up on the sideline so he could get back on.
So to sum up: you're all girl's blouses - the lot of you!
* This may be untrue.
Originally posted by dylWhat on earth are you on about man, Rugby League is for wimps, now Crown Green bowls, thats a mans game, no protective equipment at all....
It's the short shorts, isn't it?
Anyway, Aussie rules is a wussy sport too. 1,000 times better than Grid Iron, of course, but nowhere near Rugby League.
In Rugby League I’ve seen players stay on the field with broken fingers, arms, necks*, and all sorts of other niggling injuries. Last year there was a bloke with a twisted ankle desperately hopping ar ...[text shortened]... .
So to sum up: you're all girl's blouses - the lot of you!
* This may be untrue.
Originally posted by dylThere are stories in many sports of players playing on injured. Brett Farve hasn't missed a game in god knows how long. There was the college quarterback who's lineman carried him to the line of scrummage as he couldn't walk fast enough.
It's the short shorts, isn't it?
Anyway, Aussie rules is a wussy sport too. 1,000 times better than Grid Iron, of course, but nowhere near Rugby League.
In Rugby League I’ve seen players stay on the field with broken fingers, arms, necks*, and all sorts of other niggling injuries. Last year there was a bloke with a twisted ankle desperately hopping ar ...[text shortened]... .
So to sum up: you're all girl's blouses - the lot of you!
* This may be untrue.
Just recently a NZ cricket player came out to bat after dislocating his shoulder earlier while fielding.
From rugby there is the tear-inducing and infamous scrotum incident.
All sports have their toughmen.
Sorry I'll try to stop being rational in the future.
2 edits
Originally posted by squaccerman1>I play Rugby League. I weigh sixteen stone and have 14% body fat (not too brill, but hey it's just been Xmas)
What on earth are you on about man, Rugby League is for wimps, now Crown Green bowls, thats a mans game, no protective equipment at all....
Are you saying I'm soft squaccerman? Nottingham is not that far from Leeds you know.........
2> Someone mentioned earlier about NFL players hitting each other with the same amount of force as a car crash, urmmmm R.L. is a contact sport as well you know, and believe me, I've both been in a car crash and on the Rugby field, and sometimes you feel as though you'd have been better off in the car.
P.S. - the edits are because I got my percentage wrong - I checked on a website, and technically I'm dead!
Originally posted by FavsHow many huge head on hits would a player face in a RL match?
1>I play Rugby League. I weigh sixteen stone and have 3% body fat (not too brill, but hey it's just been Xmas)
Are you saying I'm soft squaccerman? Nottingham is not that far from Leeds you know.........
2> Someone mentioned earlier about NFL players hitting each other with the same amount of force as a car crash, urmmmm R.L. is a contact sport as ...[text shortened]... on the Rugby field, and sometimes you feel as though you'd have been better off in the car.
In the NFL an Offensive Lineman faces one every single snap. And the people they hit are huge, take Warren Sapp (DT for the Raiders) who is 6'2 and 300 pounds (for those who wish to use sensible units that's 188cm and 135kg). He's big. And he wants to go through you to the quarterback.
Remember also the NFL has none of these let-them-touch-the-ground-before-you-knock-the-stuffing-out-of-them rules. If they've got the ball hit them.
(RL players are by no means soft. Just neither are NFL players)
Originally posted by XanthosNZA LOT of head-on hits, mate. And in RL, people frequently get knocked out cold.
How many huge head on hits would a player face in a RL match?
In the NFL an Offensive Lineman faces one every single snap. And the people they hit are huge, take Warren Sapp (DT for the Raiders) who is 6'2 and 300 pounds (for those who wish to use sensible units that's 188cm and 135kg). He's big. And he wants to go through you to the quarterback.
R ...[text shortened]... y've got the ball hit them.
(RL players are by no means soft. Just neither are NFL players)
Aren't you a Kiwi??
Also, how many stoppages are there in NFL allowing the players to take a break in between hits? Fist the offense is on the field, then they go off for a cup of tea and a biscuit whilst the defense does their bit for five minutes, before they then go off......
In RL the only break is at half-time, where even then you have to make sure you stay warmed up for the second half. Plus most of the rugby I play is on freezing cold, open to the elements kind of pitches that are rock hard. When you get hit, you get hit, mate and you don't have any kind of protection at my level - no helmets or pads...
Originally posted by dylI am a Kiwi. I realise lots of concussion happen in RL. However is that really a good thing? Less concussions in the NFL thanks to helmets. That way you don't have ex-players with severe brain damage.
A LOT of head-on hits, mate. And in RL, people frequently get knocked out cold.
Aren't you a Kiwi??