Basic questions

[a massive zebra]

Hello rodk. In British English, the word burglar means someone who burgles. To burgle. I burgle. You burgle. The house was burgled. I've always wondered, why did Americans invent the verb 'to burglarize' when the word burglar had already been derived from the verb 'to burgle'? Does that mean there is such a thing as a burglarizer? Is there a crime of burglarization? Instead of, you know, burgling? Does a burglarizer burglarize houses?

Compare a closely-related term: a ‘robber’ is so-called because they rob – do robbers ‘robberize’? When I find myself in Orlando on 30th December, will I see policemen policarizing? Painters paintarizing? Rapists raparizing? Fishermen fisharizing? Drivers drivarizing? Murderers murderizing? Cyclists cyclarizing? Judges judgarizing? Shoppers shoparizing?

Thanks in advance for your valued explanation.

 

[Victor Ian]

Kohli Bowlerized! Sounds awesome.

 

[Second Spitter]

There's some talk about baseball banning defensive shifts, which make it even more artificial.

 

[AndrewB]

Hello rodk. In British English, the word burglar means someone who burgles. To burgle. I burgle. You burgle. The house was burgled. I've always wondered, why did Americans invent the verb 'to burglarize' when the word burglar had already been derived from the verb 'to burgle'? Does that mean there is such a thing as a burglarizer? Is there a crime of burglarization? Instead of, you know, burgling? Does a burglarizer burglarize houses?

Compare a closely-related term: a ‘robber’ is so-called because they rob – do robbers ‘robberize’? When I find myself in Orlando on 30th December, will I see policemen policarizing? Painters paintarizing? Rapists raparizing? Fishermen fisharizing? Drivers drivarizing? Murderers murderizing? Cyclists cyclarizing? Judges judgarizing? Shoppers shoparizing?

Thanks in advance for your valued explanation.

Apologies if this is a joke I’m missing, but the verb “burgle” was derived from the noun “burglar”, not vice versa.

 

[stephen]

Back to what I think rodk doesn't really grasp about cricket.

Cricket and baseball differ in many ways but one of the major ways in which they differ is the ability to deliver a ball to the batter.

In baseball the pitcher must throw the ball on the full to the batter. In cricket the bowler may choose to bounce the ball to the batter.

This subtlety makes a world of difference to the games. The bounce of the ball off a cricket pitch is crucial to understanding the game and why it is played (particularly in tests) the way it is played.

Cricketers hit the ball in one of two methods generally - with a straight bat and with a horizontal bat. There are a number of differences between the way these two actions work but the main difference is that generally speaking, horizontal bat shots are more powerful and straight bat shots are less risky.

Straight bat shots are less risky because when the ball bounces, by the time it gets to the batsman the ball will have risen by a certain amount. That amount will have natural variation. That variation could easily be up to a bowler of inches. In addition to this the pitch will slow the ball down a fraction. The fraction that the ball slows down is not consistent and can be manipulated by the bowler somewhat.

If a batsman plays a straight bat shot and the ball hits the bat a couple of inches higher or a few milliseconds later on the bat they are probably not going to get out (unless they misread the line, length or timing entirely).

If a batsman makes the same mistake on a horizontal bat shot the ball is likely to hit one of the edges and either deflect onto the stumps or into the air at a catchable height. Or to a location they were not trying to hit it to which may have a fielder.

As a test match wears on, the natural up and down variability and timing differential increases. By the fifth day it's not uncommon for a ball on roughly the same length to vary by up to a foot or more in height. And the ball usually slows up a lot more the longer the game goes on.

So naturally batsmen play straight batted shots to try and survive longer and therefore make more runs.

Note that the harder the ball, the more likely the ball is to bounce higher.

In addition to this, all bowlers are subtly trying to work the ball so that it moves sideways on its approach to the batsman. There are two ways of doing this - in the air or off the pitch.

Largely movement in the air is more simplistic (though it's the same approaches) then baseballers use.

Movement off the pitch can happen in a number of ways, most of which have to do with either the bowler imparting spin on the ball or getting the ball to land on the prominent seam and deviate left or right (or frequently, up or down).

The amount a ball will move through the air due to swing can usually be predicted with some practice and will lessen as the ball wears (until it starts reversing, which is a much more difficult fast bowling skill). This is why playing straight batted shots hard early in your innings is risky - if you misjudge how much the ball moves left or right you can edge it to the slips or wicket keeper. As you read the swing better and the swing does down playing these shots gets easier.

The amount a ball will move off the seam is much harder to predict and is much more dangerous. But as the ball loses its hardness this type of movement is harder and harder to get. Which is generally why batting gets easier as the ball softens.

The amount a ball will spin (fast bowlers spin the ball too - they're called "cutters") is variable but generally gets greater the more that the pitch wears out. This is because the crumbling surface provides better traction for the ball to grip on to.

On a day 5 pitch the ball is bouncing irregularly. The height of each ball differs due to imperfections in the pitch, the ball grips the surface more, which causes additional delays in the ball arriving at the batsman (often this is said as "the ball is not coming onto the bat"), which makes it harder to time and therefore control your shots. The grip also means that fast bowlers can benefit from bowling cutters and (more commonly) spinners can go from being fodder to being extremely dangerous due to the extra spin and variable bounce.

In these conditions attacking is almost impossible to do without planning yourself at extreme risk of getting out. You in fact become likely to get out of you try and play aggressively in the conditions. It's much better to score 20 runs than 2 runs, which means it's better to play defensively and hope you can get a few bad balls away than to play aggressively and get out.

If you started playing t20 cricket on such pitches you'd often see scores of less than 100.

So what Pakistan attempted to do was the best percentage play - be cautious and only attack the truly bad balls. This helps them in two ways - they are more likely to score more and they are more likely to bat longer. If they bat long enough they may be able to hold out for a draw if they can't get the runs. If they were aggressive they are more likely to collapse and are less likely to make any runs.

 

[Spark]

It's not so relevant to what happened to Pakistan, but the completely legitimate threat of physical hurt and injury for the batsman is an enormous difference between the two sports. Imagine how different cricket would be if getting hit on the body was a penalty run (on top of any leg byes).

 

[cnerd123]

It's also mostly because the risk/reward is so tilted in Test cricket. One bad ball means very little in the point run, but one bad shot can be massively game changing most of the time. When the margins are so fine - literal millimetres - it means your decision making has to be exceptional at top level cricket.

To elaborate on that - in baseball if a batter gets out, it's not a big deal. Their turn at bat can come again, and all they can really do when they do bat is just get a good hit in and hope the bases are loaded. So the pressure on them isn't as significant with every pitch.

Batsmen in cricket only get one turn to bat in an innings, and can accumulate as many runs while they are out there.

Very different dynamic between the two.

 

[stephen]

To elaborate on that - in baseball if a batter gets out, it's not a big deal. Their turn at bat can come again, and all they can really do when they do bat is just get a good hit in and hope the bases are loaded. So the pressure on them isn't as significant with every pitch.

Batsmen in cricket only get one turn to bat in an innings, and can accumulate as many runs while they are out there.

Very different dynamic between the two.

In baseball you get 27 outs in a day (3 outs × 9 innings) vs 20 wickets in 2.5 days of a test. And some outs are worth more than others in baseball. The first out in an inning might not mean much at all but the third could potentially cost a side 3 runs (which is huge in baseball).

 

[cnerd123]

Also in baseball an out is more of a forced inevitability - there is only so long you can delay it. Either you're out within 3 strikes, or you're out if you don't hit it clean. You can't bat a long time, get your eye in, and then start scoring runs. It makes sense to just focus on each pitch as an isolated incident and look to execute your skill. It's not like you can pick a variety of strokes to play to one delivery to hit it into different areas of the field either. It's just eye on ball, swing, reset. That thought process doesn't translate to cricket at all.

 

[rodk]

1. You don't want me talking baseball here and that's fair enough. But the comments above are the blind leading the blind.

As an exchange student 40 years ago, I watched a county match at Trentbridge. On the bus back to the dorm, I came across an American classmate and started explaining what I saw. A Brit seated behind us started laughing out loud. Imagine one American trying to explain cricket to another! Hilarious.

Needless to say, were I to discuss baseball, I would address the thousands of things you either misapprehend or haven't gathered from your experience of watching a few random innings from some random games hosted by announcers who might or might not have more information than you do.

I won't get into which ball is harder to hit, but I can say the job of hitting a baseball is very nuanced by being very, very situation specific, especially in as much as a set batting rotation means anyone at bat faces 5 or 6 different variables at work, such as who and how many on on base where they are, how many outs there are, the ball and strike count, who is left on the other team's bench, if there is an uncovered area of the field, and so on. Each hitter has to handle that and have the mindset to handle the thousands of permutations that can come up to exploit or defend that particular circumstance. Situations are so complex and variable from pitch to pitch that teams typically signal varying strategy into the batters and runners on every pitch.

The defense does likewise. Defensive positioning is at least as complex as cricket, and perhaps more so because the distances require coordinated relays on throws and backups that are case specific to the number of outs, the score, and the location of any runners, and it is further complicated by players on each side intentionally and inadvertently crashing into each other. Obviously the complexity of 125 foot throws around the infield to get outs as multiple runners bear down on multiple bases is extraordinary.

Not to mention the burden on pitchers to get guys out though they have been trained in 5,000 and 10,000 plate appearances since they were 8 years old to hit 95 mph pitches and anticipate everything else.

Cricket, not so much.

There's the condition of the pitch, the ball, the outs, the score and so on, but I've yet to see anyone say how X batting or bowling with 3 outs in the innings is really, really different than X batting or bowling with 4 or 5 outs, other things being equal. Is it just pressure?. If so, why should a pro feel pressure? There isn't any sacrificing yourself for the team. There's taking risks, but no productive use for being out otherwise. If there's some different dynamic at work, the announcers have not discussed it. I can tell you why baseball batter Y has a completely different mindset and is looking to do something different when there is a runner on 3rd with one out as opposed to two outs as opposed to no one on base, or why pitcher Z has thrown a specific type of pitch if he is in specific danger of walking an opposing batter, or why he might want to walk a specific batter.

So far, if the issue of varying mindsets determined by a huge array of variables at work is also true for cricket, it has not presented itself to me.

2. How rigorously is the 450 per match and 90 per day over limitation followed? In the India vs. Australia match overnight, Day 4 was halted before there was a total fo 360 overs played. If Australia is limited to 90 today anyway, it has a better chance of a draw if it can stall, but a reduced chance of a win if it doesn't have enough overs to play the match to a finish.

3. I understand that bowlers are limited in the sense they have to conform to a single speed and style during an over. But do they have the precise nature of the ball called by the team so the wicket keeper and other fielders can anticipate what comes off the bat? Typically a pitcher's exact pitch for speed, break and location will be directed by the team, especially if a defensive shift is going to be employed or if the defense anticipate attempts to steal bases.

 

[trundler]

Haha so now you're saying there aren't enough variables in cricket. That can only be topped by saying there aren't enough stats.

 

[SillyCowCorner1]

"I won't get into which ball is harder to hit, but I can say the job of hitting a baseball is very nuanced by being very, very situation specific, especially in as much as a set batting rotation means anyone at bat faces 5 or 6 different variables at work, such as who and how many on on base where they are, how many outs there are, the ball and strike count, who is left on the other team's bench, if there is an uncovered area of the field, and so on. Each hitter has to handle that and have the mindset to handle the thousands of permutations that can come up to exploit or defend that particular circumstance. Situations are so complex and variable from pitch to pitch that teams typically signal varying strategy into the batters and runners on every pitch.

The defense does likewise. Defensive positioning is at least as complex as cricket, and perhaps more so because the distances require coordinated relays on throws and backups that are case specific to the number of outs, the score, and the location of any runners, and it is further complicated by players on each side intentionally and inadvertently crashing into each other. Obviously the complexity of 125 foot throws around the infield to get outs as multiple runners bear down on multiple bases is extraordinary."

Sabermetrics in a nutshell. The old baseball fans really hate this.

 

[trundler]

Playing within different formats is almost like playing 2 different sports. You are vastly underestimating the variation in pitch conditions. It's not as simple as fast, slow, or batting friendly. There are too many variables involved here. Sometimes a pitch will be bowling friendly for a session or 2 and then flatten out. It affects the game to a much, much greater extent since the ball has to bounce off the surface. And pressure isn't as simple as you're making it out to be. A batsman obviously has to make enough runs to keep his team in front and if he's out there, missing everything for an hour he'll obviously try to fix that in any way possible. Don't tell me a batter isn't under pressure when on 2 strikes. Don't tell me there has never been a dropped catch in a final because of nerves. Pressure in cricket is hard to explain. You need to watch the proceedings - the gradual buildup.

 

[trundler]

Hell the toss and even weather make a huge difference.

 

[cnerd123]

I would address the thousands of things you either misapprehend or haven't gathered from your experience of watching a few random innings from some random games hosted by announcers who might or might not have more information than you do.

lol irony

 

[stephen]

Rodk, the main difference between baseball and cricket batting and fielding strategies is that baseball is reductive while cricket is creative.

What I mean by that is that in baseball everything is scripted, planned and rehearsed for. There's only so many permutations of situations a batter can face in baseball. There's only 2 strikes and 3 balls to work with. There's only left arm fast and right arm fast pitchers.

In cricket everything is far more fluid.

As a batter batting 3 you could come in after 1 ball, 100 balls or 300 balls. You could face left or right arm pace or left or right arm spin, which can spin the ball in any one of four ways. Facing each is a different and potentially difficult proposition.

The pitch conditions can cause wild variations in how the ball behaves. The pitch can be fast or slow, can cause differing amounts of swing or seam movement and can offer anything from no spin to lots of spin. And these conditions can vary from hour to hour, session to session or day to day.

The field positions are far more varied than in baseball as well. You can't plug every gap in the field and you need to take into account how aggressively to set the field - do you go fully defensive and cut off all the runs or do you put 4 slips in place and try to get the batter edging the ball? It's massively variable.

Yep, the decision to set a fielder 25 yards away vs 30 yards away is a major decision in baseball but that decision has largely been planned for by both teams. You can't do that in cricket because field placements are far more flexible.

Cricket offers far more creatively and adaptability than baseball and although the players are generally quite athletic it rewards pure athleticism far less than baseball.

I've played both and the skills used in the games are different. It's harder to hit a baseball than a cricket ball. But it's harder to construct an innings successfully in cricket than it is to get a run in baseball.

 

[ankitj]

OK. You want what makes cricket different. In cricket the day ends, you talk about all the stuff that happened and then what might still happen. You check updated stats and play around with how much a player needs to reach a new milestone. Then you go to sleep. If you wake up you read news articles or you might leave that for your morning coffee. Then you wake up and it's day two.
During a game you might have a BBQ, you might go to the beach. You'll most likely do shopping. You'll meet your mates at the bar. You might even go to the game live. You'll watch it on TV, at times, the radio at other times or follow it on the internet when out and about. You'll even play the game yourself in the backyard or the beach. And still the game goes on.

Cricket is slowly digested. Baseball doesn't have a thing on test cricket.

Yeah, a cricket match (even a 50 over game) unfolds like a plot in a novel. If you don't get why cricket is a special sport, that's fine.

 

[rodk]

How much of the difference in batting aggressiveness in t20 vs test comes from the absence (except in extraordinary circumstances) of draws or ties in limited over play?

 

[trundler]

Very little.

 

[Curmudgeon]

This thread was almost physically painful to read through - you guys have to be really patient for it to go on for as long as it has. No one with even the slightest bit of sporting aptitude or experience would post questions as dumb as these, doesn't matter what sport you follow. If you're really having so much difficulty respecting/understanding the fundamental and finer points of Cricket, maybe try some other sport. Personally I'd recommend a sport that is significantly less complex like basketball or something. There's no point putting in so much effort to show why you think baseball is the superior sport (which is one hell of a lolworthy statement even from an objective angle) to Cricket fans on a Cricket forum just because you're too accustomed to simpler sports to understand it.