Cricket [modified]
-
wizardzz wrote:
watching the 10 greatest cricket plays on youtube again, I didn't see how it could be hard
If you really think it is easy, you don't have to go to Cricket playing nation. Just take out your car and come to Iowa (4 hrs drive from Chicago), play with us, we are a bunch of ametuers playing Cricket, and we will show you how easy it is.
Where are you in Iowa?
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
-
Where are you in Iowa?
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
Cedar Rapids. You will be most welcome. :thumbsup:
-
In baseball, the pitcher's mound is 60 feet (2 feet closer) and fastballs are in the upper 100's, while an 85mph pitch is considered a change-up (slow enough to mess up your timing as batter). The bat is round, and not flat, so making any contact in cricket is more likely to lead to an actual good hit of the ball. As for variance in pitches, here is a list of baseball pitches, this don't necessarily include where the pitcher is throwing the ball, just how. I will admit though, bouncing the ball throws a new element into it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baseball_pitches[^]
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
wizardzz wrote:
In baseball, the pitcher's mound is 60 feet (2 feet closer)
Only if you take the distance between the stumps, not the popping crease which is where the bowler releases from and the batsman stands. That takes another 8 feet at least out of the distance.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
wizardzz wrote:
In baseball, the pitcher's mound is 60 feet (2 feet closer)
Only if you take the distance between the stumps, not the popping crease which is where the bowler releases from and the batsman stands. That takes another 8 feet at least out of the distance.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
It's 66 feet between the stumps, so 58 feet for cricket from pitching to hitting area, in baseball from the front of the strike zone to the mound is 59'1", though the batters box goes in front of the plate, meaning you stand with your leading leg closer to the mound than the front of the plate, so I guess the distance could be considered the same.
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
-
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
I can definitely say that baseball hitters cannot hit using the cricket bat in the same way as using the baseball bat.
You're right the cricket bat is flat making it easier to hit with, while the baseball bat is rounded, making it much more difficult (the sweet spot on a baseball bat is tiny).
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Cricket requires far more technique than just swinging the bat (more often blindly swinging).
That is your assumption that hitters are swinging the bat blindly, perhaps you did when you tried the game, but swinging blindly is no way to get a >.350 hitting average.
Rama Krishna Vavilala wrote:
Even bowling is not just throwing the ball, it requires lot of technique. For instance there is swing bowling, seam bowling, spin bowling and lot of other variations which far exceed the variation in baseball pitching.
I believe there are as many techniques in baseball pitching. You should research the position.
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
wizardzz wrote:
You're right the cricket bat is flat making it easier to hit with, while the baseball bat is rounded, making it much more difficult (the sweet spot on a baseball bat is tiny).
But making contact with the ball in cricket if you can't direct it is worse than missing it at times. That is why you have a little line of fielders behind the bat hoping to catch a ball that comes off the edge or that isn't controlled properly. Control of the ball is far more important than in baseball, and getting out can have a greater impact on the team score. Standing there and making contact with a ball coming at you is probably equally hard for both sports (with a competent pitcher / bowler), but in a game situation what you are trying to do is very, very different there is little point trying to compare.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
It's 66 feet between the stumps, so 58 feet for cricket from pitching to hitting area, in baseball from the front of the strike zone to the mound is 59'1", though the batters box goes in front of the plate, meaning you stand with your leading leg closer to the mound than the front of the plate, so I guess the distance could be considered the same.
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
Yes, distance is roughly the same. Although of course with the bounce the ball travels further in cricket. The bounce makes a big difference to how you play the shot. Is it going to bounce short and come up at your head, is it going to bounce on your toes. This makes a difference to whether you should stop into the ball or step away from it. You cannot just stand with legs planted and swing through your stance. Is it going to be spinning and turn into you, turn away from you, is it going to have top spin and run on off the pitch. Is it going to hit the seam and again move into you or away from you. And the movement of the ball through the air, the swing, could be there or not, and could be moving in either direction. Where the ball is coming from and how it is coming at you, going away from you can change greatly, and you find out at differing points on its way to you. A slower ball does not make it easier to strike, as a slower ball has more ability to move around and deceive you.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
wizardzz wrote:
You're right the cricket bat is flat making it easier to hit with, while the baseball bat is rounded, making it much more difficult (the sweet spot on a baseball bat is tiny).
But making contact with the ball in cricket if you can't direct it is worse than missing it at times. That is why you have a little line of fielders behind the bat hoping to catch a ball that comes off the edge or that isn't controlled properly. Control of the ball is far more important than in baseball, and getting out can have a greater impact on the team score. Standing there and making contact with a ball coming at you is probably equally hard for both sports (with a competent pitcher / bowler), but in a game situation what you are trying to do is very, very different there is little point trying to compare.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
I'm trying to learn and debate, not argue, just want to make that clear right away.
ChrisElston wrote:
But making contact with the ball in cricket if you can't direct it is worse than missing it at times.
That is why you have a little line of fielders behind the bat hoping to catch a ball that comes off the edge or that isn't controlled properly.
You are out if a foul ball is caught in baseball, or it is counted as a strike if was not field-able (you only get 3 of those per at bat).ChrisElston wrote:
Control of the ball is far more important than in baseball, and getting out can have a greater impact on the team score.
Honest question, is this because there are less outs in cricket? 27 vs 20?
ChrisElston wrote:
Standing there and making contact with a ball coming at you is probably equally hard for both sports (with a competent pitcher / bowler),
I agree to some extent, bouncing the ball would make it much more difficult.
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
-
I'm trying to learn and debate, not argue, just want to make that clear right away.
ChrisElston wrote:
But making contact with the ball in cricket if you can't direct it is worse than missing it at times.
That is why you have a little line of fielders behind the bat hoping to catch a ball that comes off the edge or that isn't controlled properly.
You are out if a foul ball is caught in baseball, or it is counted as a strike if was not field-able (you only get 3 of those per at bat).ChrisElston wrote:
Control of the ball is far more important than in baseball, and getting out can have a greater impact on the team score.
Honest question, is this because there are less outs in cricket? 27 vs 20?
ChrisElston wrote:
Standing there and making contact with a ball coming at you is probably equally hard for both sports (with a competent pitcher / bowler),
I agree to some extent, bouncing the ball would make it much more difficult.
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
wizardzz wrote:
I'm trying to learn and debate, not argue, just want to make that clear right away.
I realise that, I'm not arguing either, it is an interesting point (I think).
wizardzz wrote:
Honest question, is this because there are less outs in cricket? 27 vs 20?
Because it is (much) easier to score in cricket, scores are much higher, so a lost batsman removes more runs from the score.
wizardzz wrote:
I agree to some extent, bouncing the ball would make it much more difficult.
See above. If you have someone (or a machine) throwing the ball at you then it is probably easier to hit it with a cricket bat than a baseball bat. With someone who knows how to make it more difficult for you then I would imagine just as hard with both.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
There's much more than meets the eye.
wizardzz wrote:
After giving it a chance, I can't comprehend how the sport is even remotely difficult to be good at playing. I would suggest taking an all-star roster of baseball players from MLB and having them enter a tourney and destroy every single professional cricket team
I have the same view of baseball. Having watched a few games and one professional game live in a baseball park, it seemed so childish and easy.
wizardzz wrote:
If so, I should go on vacation to a cricket supporting country and try out for the national team while I'm there
You are welcome to try. Go on a trip to India or Sri Lanka or Bangladesh and see if you can at least win a match of gully cricket. I take no offense to your post and am not a cricket fanatic to get worked up when someone downplays the sport, but there are several aspects to the game that only a true fan or a player will understand. It's not a game that will make every player on the field sweat it out, as the main parley is between the batter and the bowler. It used to be called the gentleman's game because of this. But modern day cricket is much more intensive and needs speed, strength and strategy. Unlike baseball though, 10 major countries have professional teams. I think that after soccer, cricket is the most widely played field game internationally. Yes, professional cricket players are paid really well, certainly not in the league of baseball or soccer players, but enough to make them rich.
SG Aham Brahmasmi!
SimulationofSai wrote:
I have the same view of baseball. Having watched a few games and one professional game live in a baseball park, it seemed so childish and easy.
You'd also be just as wrong as he is. Stand in against a 95mph fastball with some action on it, it'll be in the catcher's mitt before you've even decided if you should swing. And on the flip side, try throwing a ball 95mph with some action on it. You'd end up in the hospital (with a seriously f'd up elbow and/or shoulder) before you even approached that speed.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
-
Most American sports are games for girls in the UK. Baseball = rounders Basketball = netball Ice Hockey = hockey The only sport they have based on a man's sport is American Football which is rugby with added padding so they don't hurt themselves.
Every man can tell how many goats or sheep he possesses, but not how many friends.
-
SimulationofSai wrote:
I have the same view of baseball. Having watched a few games and one professional game live in a baseball park, it seemed so childish and easy.
You'd also be just as wrong as he is. Stand in against a 95mph fastball with some action on it, it'll be in the catcher's mitt before you've even decided if you should swing. And on the flip side, try throwing a ball 95mph with some action on it. You'd end up in the hospital (with a seriously f'd up elbow and/or shoulder) before you even approached that speed.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
That's why I said it seemed easy. I'm not in the business of talking down any sport. If professional sports is as easy as all of the skeptics think, the world will be overflowing with professional sportsmen/women. Not only is the game difficult, but in any kind of physical sport, you'd need to have outstanding physical and mental toughness to survive the rigors.
SG Aham Brahmasmi!
-
SimulationofSai wrote:
I have the same view of baseball. Having watched a few games and one professional game live in a baseball park, it seemed so childish and easy.
You'd also be just as wrong as he is. Stand in against a 95mph fastball with some action on it, it'll be in the catcher's mitt before you've even decided if you should swing. And on the flip side, try throwing a ball 95mph with some action on it. You'd end up in the hospital (with a seriously f'd up elbow and/or shoulder) before you even approached that speed.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
David Kentley wrote:
You'd also be just as wrong as he is. Stand in against a 95mph fastball with some action on it, it'll be in the catcher's mitt before you've even decided if you should swing
We have bowlers in cricket that bowl that fast and are legally allowed to try and hit the batsmen, be it foot, nuts or head. Not alowed to do that in baseball. So I'm happy to stand at home plate knowing I have a great chance of getting struck out and not hurt, you try that at cricket, unless the bowlers in a god mood, he'll happily break a couple of ibs.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
-
In baseball, the pitcher's mound is 60 feet (2 feet closer) and fastballs are in the upper 100's, while an 85mph pitch is considered a change-up (slow enough to mess up your timing as batter). The bat is round, and not flat, so making any contact in cricket is more likely to lead to an actual good hit of the ball. As for variance in pitches, here is a list of baseball pitches, this don't necessarily include where the pitcher is throwing the ball, just how. I will admit though, bouncing the ball throws a new element into it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baseball_pitches[^]
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming "Wow! What a Ride!" — Hunter S. Thompson
wizardzz wrote:
In baseball, the pitcher's mound is 60 feet (2 feet closer) and fastballs are in the upper 100's, while an 85mph pitch is considered a change-up (slow enough to mess up your timing as batter). The bat is round, and not flat, so making any contact in cricket is more likely to lead to an actual good hit of the ball.
As in cricket, only a couple of bowlers/pitchers have actually cracked the 100 MPH limit.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004