-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
***Official*** India in Australia 2011/12
- Thread starter Spark
- Start date
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Yes.
Spikey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
got a bone to pick with you **** - wear your floppy hat instead of the baggygreen unless you want more melanomas you ****
#SteveWaughWillBeResponsibleForABillionCasesOfSkinCancer
adub
International Captain
Different argument. They are clearly very different games. Concentrating for 10 hours to score a big double/triple ton is something as foreign to baseball as back to back mountain stages of Le Tour is to sprint track cycling.
The argument is whether or not it is easier to hit a baseball pitch or a cricket delivery. You've added in the qualifier of 'meaningful' and I accept that is reasonable even though plenty of edges in cricket will run away for runs. Essentially the question as I see it is which is the harder discipline to 'middle' a shot.
Baseballers have the disadvantage of a considerably smaller 'middle', but that is balanced against a much smaller 'target zone' for where the pitches are going. Four balls outside the strikezone, you get a walk, take one on the body, you get a walk. They also only face the variables of pace, swing and drop from the pitcher. The distance from pitcher's plate to home plate is a little longer than popping crease to popping crease, but obviously the pitcher's release reduces that a few feet so reaction times are comparable. Along with reduced area of 'good' balls, they have the advantage of a very limited shot repertoire. You have a much larger scope for premeditation in baseball than cricket because you are not looking to play shots through 360deg or to a large range of areas. I'm certainly not trying to denigrate the skill of baseball pitchers or hitters because it is considerable. But I don't think the smaller bat is such an enormous disadvantage to getting a good 'middled' hit away considering the other factors of the game.
Adding in the deviations and variety that comes from bouncing the ball on the pitch, and the ability of a cricket ball to swing further than a baseball, not to mention the fact that each ball could be coming at you anywhere between your toes and your head, directed at the body, at the stumps, or outside the line means on each individual ball a batsman has much more to worry about than in baseball. Obviously a pie chucker on a road isn't much of a challenge, but equally straight pitches at 120k are pretty simple to get a piece of. At the pinnacle of the game I'd consider it much harder for a cricketer than a baseballer to get a shot away on any given ball. Having a bigger bat doesn't prevent the very best batsmen playing and missing good bowling. It's the nature of the game.
If you say put up a cricketer with an eye like a dead fish (say Warner) against a top MLB pitcher, and a top MLB hitter against say Steyn on a greentop (or even just a pitch with a little for the bowler) I know who'd adapt the quickest and would be making the most regular solid connections. Just trying to adjust to length would be a nightmare for the baseballer so long as Dale mixed it up a bit and gave him a bit of chin music. Add a bit of late swing or seam and the poor guy wouldn't know what to think. I don't doubt he'd send a few over the long on boundary, but he'd pick up some nasty bruises on the way. On the other hand Davey might take a while to pick the change ups, but he'd be making plenty of good hits pretty soon.
The discussion came out of that US show which in no way replicated the real world conditions of top cricket. My test would be a much fairer demonstration of the difficulties of just middling a top class bowler no matter how good your eye and swing.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
There's no way I'm reading that post.
But you're crazy if you think it's harder to hit a cricket ball than a baseball. It might be harder to succeed at cricket than baseball, but that's totally different to simply hitting it.
But you're crazy if you think it's harder to hit a cricket ball than a baseball. It might be harder to succeed at cricket than baseball, but that's totally different to simply hitting it.
Spikey
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Jayzamann
International Regular
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I think Warner would get struck out a lot more times than the MLB bat would get bowled tbh. A baseball is a lot harder to hit than a cricket ball, you just need to play both games to know.
Debris
International 12th Man
The question was which would make a better go of the switch, though. You have to hit the ball a lot less often in baseball to be a success. I think it would be easier to go from cricket to baseball than from baseball to cricket.
adharcric
International Coach
Can't believe there's actually a discussion about this, it's far more difficult to make contact in baseball than in cricket (not that it's a meaningful comparison). Cricket's probably more difficult to learn/master, but technique can make up for lack of athleticism (including hand-eye coordination, etc.) to a greater extent than in baseball. One more thing, comparing how professionals in different sports would fare when switched around doesn't mean much.
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
I hate you for bringing this up, Daemon.
This thread in the last couple of days: Ashes debate, omg I hate coaching young kids, personal experiences of people dropping catches, baseball vs cricket.
weldone
Hall of Fame Member
I don't necessarily disagree, but in cricket 'hitting' a ball is not of much importance. Bowl a good-length outswinger outside off-stump - Tendulkar might play a superb cover drive with good timing and placing perfectly between 2 fielders, Dravid might leave the ball completely, and Dhoni may 'hit' it directly to give the gully fielder a chance. How will the baseball spectator differentiate between the three shots? Do they even realise how many different shots can be played to the same delivery?
I don't know if I have been able to drive across the point perfectly. I remember two US baseball spectators describing the WC semi-final between India and Pakistan (somewhere in CW, there was a thread created about it) - they realised this point (because they saw the whole match) and presented in a much better way the difference between the two.
In essence, after the bowler/pitcher bowls/throws a delivery, a batsman has many more decisions to take before he hits the ball than a batter.
Last edited:
uvelocity
International Coach
I chat about cricket on a non cricket board a bit too, yesterday we had beer talk
This thread in the last couple of days: Ashes debate, omg I hate coaching young kids, personal experiences of people dropping catches, baseball vs cricket.
Not much point talking about the cricket, given that india suck so hard
ganeshran
International Debutant
Wait till we get back homeI chat about cricket on a non cricket board a bit too, yesterday we had beer talk
Not much point talking about the cricket, given that india suck so hard
Daemon
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Is that you Srinivasan?Wait till we get back home
G.I.Joe
International Coach
So that Kaley Cuoco, what a babe eh?
This thread in the last couple of days: Ashes debate, omg I hate coaching young kids, personal experiences of people dropping catches, baseball vs cricket.
benchmark00
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Seems like he's using a wide bat because he's so good is my bet without reading the context.