01 Dec 06
Originally posted by PhlabibitYes. They don't have to run.
They get 'do overs'? We don't even get them in wiffleball!
ðŸ˜
P-
That's why they spend a lot of time just bunting the ball waiting for a pitch than can deflect past a fielder AND then they run.
That's why the games last so long...days.
01 Dec 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeWhat are all of the ways to get someone out?
Lots of strategy! What's more there are now 3 versions of the international game: a 3 hour 20 over each match slog-fest, a One Day International (ODI) 50 over each game, and a 'test', which each team has two innings and the only limit is the time - 5 days. So you can see that the longer version of the game requires a lot more patience and subtle tactics, ...[text shortened]... eady be exhausted.
Loads and loads more that you see as you get more in to the game.
AND, can you throw someone out? I have some recollection of throwing the ball so that it knocks over the wicket before the batter can touch it with his paddle.
01 Dec 06
Originally posted by Red NightI think there are nine ways of getting someone out. Here are ones I remember:
What are all of the ways to get someone out?
AND, can you throw someone out? I have some recollection of throwing the ball so that it knocks over the wicket before the batter can touch it with his paddle.
1. Bowled - the bowler hits the stumps behind the bowler AND the 2 bails resting on the 3 stumps fall off.
2. Leg Before Wicket - when the bowler bowls, the ball hits the pads on the legs of the batsman first, and the umpire adjudges that the ball would have gone on to hit the stumps (i.e. the batsman blocked a 'bowled', so he's out).
3. Caught - batsman hits the ball and a fielder catches it before it hits the ground.
4. Run out - the batsman runs but does not get to the other end before a fielder manages to throw the ball at the stumps (at the end he's running to) and knock the bails off (very important).
5. Hit wicket - say if the bowler bowls a nasty delivery and the batsman jumps back and knocks the stumps himself, knocking the bails off, he's out.
6. Not sure what it's called but if the batsman deliberatly punches (and maybe kicks) the ball as it's active, he's out.
7. Ummmmm...
01 Dec 06
Originally posted by ElleEffSeeeDo both "balls" have to be knocked off? or just one?
I think there are nine ways of getting someone out. Here are ones I remember:
1. Bowled - the bowler hits the stumps behind the bowler AND the 2 bails resting on the 3 stumps fall off.
2. Leg Before Wicket - when the bowler bowls, the ball hits the pads on the legs of the batsman first, and the umpire adjudges that the ball would have gone on to hi ...[text shortened]... deliberatly punches (and maybe kicks) the ball as it's active, he's out.
7. Ummmmm...
Did they used to be called something other than balls?
01 Dec 06
Originally posted by dan182This from a UK website:
What is clear though is that cricket is by far the more skilled game.
Cricket batsmen would make decent baseball batters.
Cricket bowlers would make decent pitchers.
Cricket fielders would make decent baseball fielders.
Could baseball and cricket players succeed at each other’s sport? Who would be better?
History offers some perspective to this debate.
In 1874, a group of American baseball professionals toured England in an effort to sell baseball to the British public. Along with baseball exhibitions, the tourists, in a show of goodwill, agreed to play a number of cricket matches. The Americans, who took on the likes of Prince’s Cricket Club, All Ireland XI, and Surrey, won all the competitions.... the Americans, who included future Hall of Famer Adrian “Cap” Anson, must have mastered cricket batting to a certain degree as they amassed more than 200 runs on at least two occasions during the tour. That’s nowhere near earth shattering, but not bad against some top British and Irish bowlers of the time.
A more recent example of a Major Leaguer trying out cricket occurred in 2000, when Sammy Sosa came to the Oval in London to provide a baseball exhibition. During the exhibition, he also hit a number of massive shots with a cricket bat. The former Chicago Cubs slugger said at the time that “if I would have practiced all my life in cricket, I would have made it as a professional.”
This spring, I spoke to a number of Big Leaguers about cricket. The consensus among the likes of Oakland’s Eric Chavez and Arizona’s Luis Gonzalez is they’d really like to swing at any ball with the flat part of a cricket bat compared to the round baseball stick. Gonzalez said after flying out during one Spring Training game: “I should take that [cricket] paddle to bat next time.”
Interestingly, like Sosa with cricket, English county and international cricketers who have tried their hand at baseball have been equally confident about their ability to cross over. In 1986 and 1987, Ian Pont, who competed as a fast bowler for Essex, took a shot at baseball. He attended Spring Training with the New York Yankees in 1986 and the Philadelphia Phillies in 1987. He claimed in a Spin magazine article in May 2005 that he was tentatively offered a contract at the Minor League’s lowest level (Rookie League) by the Phillies. (At one point, the New York Mets offered Garth Brooks, the erstwhile country musician, a contract at a higher level than Pont.) Ed Smith, a batsman for Middlesex and England, used his connections to give baseball a go with the Mets during 2001 Spring Training. Chronicled in his book Playing Hard Ball – A Kent County Cricketer’s Journey Into Big League Baseball, Smith suggested that with practice he could also reach a respectable level of baseball. Deference should be given to an athlete of his stature, but judging from pictures of his swing in the book, he would have needed a lot of work to play at a decent amateur level of the sport.
Another example of cricket crossover came in 1988 when cricket great Graham Gooch battled Hall of Famer Ernie Banks in a home run derby at the Oval as part of the festivities surrounding that year’s British baseball national championship. Banks, 57 at the time, was well past his prime but he beat Gooch three home runs to nil. (One report actually had the score at 5-0.) Gooch, who was 33-years-old at the time, said after the contest: “I hit a number of balls right … [on] the screws but the wind was against me and they just fell short.” Banks blamed Gooch’s failure on technique. “It came down to swings,” Banks told The Boston Globe following the competition. “I tried to teach him to swing up and get the ball in the air. He was used to a low, straight swing of cricket, and every time he tried to swing up, he’d pop the ball up.”
01 Dec 06
Originally posted by Red NightInteresting...
This from a UK website:
Could baseball and cricket players succeed at each other’s sport? Who would be better?
History offers some perspective to this debate.
In 1874, a group of American baseball professionals toured England in an effort to sell baseball to the British public. Along with baseball exhibitions, the tourists, in a show of goodwill ...[text shortened]... to a low, straight swing of cricket, and every time he tried to swing up, he’d pop the ball up.”
P-
01 Dec 06
This whole 'debate' about which sport is better or harder is stupid.
Just because both sports use a bat and ball doesn't mean they can be compared.
Breaking it down to it's simplest form:
Bowling is more difficult than pitching.
The bowler needs to keep his arm straight when delivering the ball AND the batsmen have 'bigger' bats and a wider scoring area.
Batting is easier than baseball hitting.
BUT, the batsmen can't just hit one shot - they need to concentrate and stay in as long as possible, all the whille trying to get as many runs as possible from as little as possible deliveries.
So, different sets of skills are needed in both sports.
The end.
01 Dec 06
Originally posted by CrowleyI agree with your first statement that the debate is, on many levels, stupid. But, most sports debates are.
This whole 'debate' about which sport is better or harder is stupid.
Just because both sports use a bat and ball doesn't mean they can be compared.
Breaking it down to it's simplest form:
Bowling is more difficult than pitching.
The bowler needs to keep his arm straight when delivering the ball AND the batsmen have 'bigger' bats and a wider scoring a ...[text shortened]... ible deliveries.
So, different sets of skills are needed in both sports.
The end.
I disagree with your second statement that bowling is more difficult. To your argument I would retort Bowler's get a running start and have to throw the ball a lot shorter distance to an undefined target area.
I agree with your third statement that batting is probably harder in baseball.
HOWEVER; I think it is great that there are people out there who like and enjoy each game. I got draw into this argument by people saying how stupid baseball and American's were. I don't want to get sucked down to there level by appearing to attack cricket. Cricket is a great game and those of you who love it should enjoy it as much as you can. Just don't try and tell me that it is superiour to, more difficult than, or more entertaining than BASEBALL.
01 Dec 06
Originally posted by CrowleyWho cares if you keep your arm straight in cricket? If anything you probably avoid injuries common to baseball pitchers.
This whole 'debate' about which sport is better or harder is stupid.
Just because both sports use a bat and ball doesn't mean they can be compared.
Breaking it down to it's simplest form:
Bowling is more difficult than pitching.
The bowler needs to keep his arm straight when delivering the ball AND the batsmen have 'bigger' bats and a wider scoring a ...[text shortened]... ible deliveries.
So, different sets of skills are needed in both sports.
The end.
You also get a running start in cricket, baseball pitchers need to get all their power from their arm and body motion... and hope their arm doesn't fall off doing it.
P-
01 Dec 06
Originally posted by Red NightI can't believe I'm doing this - but here goes:
I agree with your first statement that the debate is, on many levels, stupid. But, most sports debates are.
I disagree with your second statement that bowling is more difficult. To your argument I would retort Bowler's get a running start and have to throw the ball a lot shorter distance to an undefined target area.
I agree with your third statemen ...[text shortened]... nd tell me that it is superiour to, more difficult than, or more entertaining than BASEBALL.
(Some) good points (although we'll get to a finer point in a moment).
Everybody enjoys aspects of the game they love. Two sports can never be compared in my view. Ever.
Even something like volleyball and beach volleyball can't, because they are two different sports which need different skills to be competitve in.
But I digress....
Bowling IS more difficult in cricket. The bowler needs a runup because otherwise he won't be able to get the pace needed to produce a good delivery. It's just plain fact that you can get more pace by throwing from a standing position than you can by bowling with a straight arm.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'undefined target area'? If a bowler strays too far away from the batsman, the delivery is called wide. He has to re-bowl it and the batting team gets an extra run.
Also, the bowler needs to aim at the stumps in order to bowl out or trap the batsman Leg Before Wicket.