***Official*** India in Australia 2011/12

[Spikey]

batsmen don't really need sightscreens except for sachin because he's a big whip

 

[sachin200]

Seems like he's using a wide bat because he's so good is my bet without reading the context.

Tendulkar is the only in-form Indian batsman: Warner - Indian Express

 

[benchmark00]

Yes indeed.

 

[uvelocity]

makes more sense in the Indian Express article, thanks.

 

[honestbharani]

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.

I am here at the US and one of the guys I work with spent about 7 and a half years in the UK and he says he tried to learn so much about cricket by correlating with baseball. And then he said he understood just how difficult it is to succeed in cricket and how different it is to baseball. His point was that in baseball, the batter is an offensive player but in cricket, he is also a defensive player.. He used those exact words.






PS: He also felt it is a matter of time before England slide back down the ratings.

 

[benchmark00]

Pitchers use defensive tactics in baseball all the time.

 

[Spark]

They're such different sports in reality though. Cricket is sooooo much more reliant on concentration and endurance than baseball.

 

[weldone]

PS: He also felt it is a matter of time before England slide back down the ratings.

I agree with him.

 

[honestbharani]

Pitchers use defensive tactics in baseball all the time.

which is what he said. The batter is the offensive player and the pitcher is the defensive one..

 

[stephen]

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.

I played both sports as a junior. I would define "hitting" a baseball to be hitting a shot that ends up in the field of play or over the fence (i.e. not a foul or fly ball). I would define "hitting" in cricket to be playing a shot that you score runs off.

It is much more difficult to hit a baseball successfully. It is much more dependent on hand-eye coordination than cricket is. The key difference though is that baseball has very limited shot selection (basically you get to play a front foot cut shot with poor technique and that's it). Technique is far less important in baseball and therefore it *would* be an easier sport to pick up for a quality batsman than cricket would be for a quality batter.

Cricket is a harder sport to play than baseball. Cricket requires concentration and good technique to become a successful batsman. Baseball is much more about hand-eye coordination. The ball comes a lot faster than a cricket ball does.

Where, I think, baseballers would have the most difficulty adjusting would be in playing against spinners. There is no equivalent in baseball. They have swing (curveballs), "flat" style pitches (sliders), "looping" pitches that drop unexpectedly (knuckleballs) and fastballs. Cricket has swing, seam, pace, legspin, offspin and variations on all these.

I do enjoy baseball and I'm still kicking myself for not going to a game when I was there in 2010, but cricket is the sport of kings. It is a sport that rewards natural talent only when combined with application. It's like life really. It is the grand theatre of the sporting world. A test match is the pinnacle of human sporting invention. It is a drama played out over five days in which each moment can be enthralling. It's the only sport in the world that could give us the drama of the '05 Ashes or the beauty of the '07 Ashes. It's such a good sport that we play it in three entirely different ways. In short, cricket is the sport that they play in heaven (Rugby is really played in purgatory).

 

[Daemon]

You have obviously never heard of Crazy Japanese Capture the flag - YouTube

 

[Jayzamann]

I think one thing we can glean from all this is that someone who appreciates one sport would have an easier time appreciating the other as opposed to someone who doesn't follow either.

 

[Burgey]

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.

I was only trying to pass on coaching tips for India's benefit ftr.

 

[Furball]

I suspect you're one of India's coaches after reading what you posted on the thread.

 

[social]

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.

I used to play grade cricket with an Australian baseballer and if the ball was in his hitting zone (say thighs to waist), he could absolutely smoke it but struggled pretty much everywhere else

Fact is that batting in baseball is very different to batting in cricket and visa versa

 

[social]

Agree with the comments re Haddin being shot from the BBL thread

One would've thought that Adelaide and 3-0 up would've been a perfect time to blood a new keeper/batsman

 

[Sylvester]

It brings Nevill into consideration as a good second half of Shield cricket could see him jump above Wade.

 

[Spikey]

nev would have to hit a century in the shield final








so yeah poor wade.

 

[Doctor]

Haddin 'drained' by Indian summer

With all that workload consisting of ~434 overs spread over 10 days behind the stumps, 33 runs in three innings, and several dropped catches. I hope he fails in Adelaide, to make way for a new keeper.

That said, I do feel sorry for the bloke. Although form has been woeful, one must say that he has multitudes of weight on his shoulders right now on him right now, especially with his leadership position in the XI, he will be struggling to find runs. So, in another mind, I hope he plays well in Adelaide.

 

[Daemon]

Tbf he probably meant he feels mentally drained, not physically tired.