Cricket is (still) vastly superior to baseball

Cricket is better than baseball.

It is not reasonable to host an event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of America. If you have a ‘world’ series you really should invite the world to show up. I began asking around. Some fans noted that Toronto has a team. Others mentioned the ever-increasing influx of non-American players on Major League Baseball rosters.
Yet the Toronto Blue Jays do not really represent Canada, and those international players aren't playing for their native countries when they put on the jerseys of the Baltimore Orioles or the Kansas City Royals or the San Francisco Giants. At the end of the day, when the American League champion takes on the National League champion in the fall, there is little "worldly" about it. It's just an all-American ball game. Globally speaking it is a minor occasion for an irrelevant sport.

Now Cricket that is a real sport. A GLOBAL sport with a proper World Cup. Creag has been around since the middle ages. Which is long before America was a gleam in some British bloke’s eye.

Cricket in played with the batsmen in the middle of an oval shaped field (the "cricket ground"). There is no foul territory in cricket. You can hit the ball in any direction, including directly behind you. Cricket bats have a flat edge (well, it's slightly rounded) so that the batsman can direct the ball in a preferred direction. Batting in cricket is way more involved than in baseball. There are several different "strokes" (not "swings"), and batsmen are often known for being good at particular ones rather than others. Cricket is the game that gave us the saying "different strokes for different blokes". So, in Cricket there are greater variables in batting, greater skills and strategies. Baseball ‘slugging’ has a very limited repertoire. Cricket has more timing, tactics, skill and grace.

Cricketers look like athletes as opposed to the baseball players who look like slobs on steroids.

In cricket, the pitchers are called "bowlers."

Bowlers cannot *throw* the ball. They must bowl it. The crucial difference is: when you throw a ball, at the end of the motion you are straightening your elbow. When you bowl, your elbow is straight almost the whole time (except at the very beginning) so you're making this wide circular arc with your arm.

When you bowl the ball toward the batsman, it's OK for the ball to bounce off the ground before it reaches him. In fact, 99.9% of the time, this is exactly what happens. What this means is that there are many more variables [and strategies]. The bowler can do more things with the ball... not only move it in the air, like baseball pitchers do, but also "break", i.e. change directions after bouncing off the ground. By combining movement in the air with "breaks" off the ground, and also varying his length at the same time, he can throw some very complicated pitches. Think about the spin bowlers from India and Pakistan and how they can completely change the direction of the ball.

In cricket, unlike baseball, the bowler can take a running start. In fact, the "fast bowlers," as they're called, are running at a flat-out sprint when they release the ball. Think of the 6ft 8” fast bowler like Joel Garner from Jamaica and then release the ball at speed. Fast bowling is a truly awesome, scary and dangerous business. A cricket ball can come at you with spin at 40mph or fast at 100 mph and all the variables between.

It should be noted that short pitched balls aimed at the batsmen are not and have never been illegal and are in widespread use as a tactic. So, yes the bowler is aiming for your head. This is an aggressive game. Stand your ground in front of the wicket.

One of the biggest differences that both the games have is the pitch. I am talking about those 22 yards of clay that cricket has and baseball doesn't. You may argue that what's the big deal about that? The big deal is, that it is these 22 yards or what is commonly called 'the pitch', which makes cricket the great game that baseball isn't. The pitch adds so many dimensions to the game that a baseball fan cannot even imagine.

The absence of these 22 yards makes baseball far too predictable. Since the ball has to be bowled waist high to the batter, it makes the batters task that much simpler. On the other hand in cricket, the batsman has to judge the line and the bounce of the ball correctly and in a fraction of second has to decide the most suitable shot for that particular ball. As for baseball, the batter can just set himself for the shot in advance because he knows that the ball can only be pitched in a very limited area and he doesn't has to worry about the bounce and the line of the ball. The shot which most of the baseball batters play is called a slog in cricketing terms and even the worst of cricket batsmen would fancy himself playing such a shot. This can not be said about the baseball batters. I am sure, that a baseball batter would struggle to even make contact with the ball if he bats on a cricket pitch and against a cricket bowler. Batting in cricket is all about the right footwork, technique and timing which unfortunately is missing in cricket's poorer cousin.

If you think that baseball players are tougher than their cricket counterparts, then think again. I mean to say that if they are so tough then why do they need those big gloves to take the catches? At the end of the day it's no big deal to stop the ball with a thick glove. On the contrary, the cricketers use bare hands to stop the hard leather ball, which can be coming at you like a bullet. If you don't believe me try it yourself and if you are still not satisfied then try the same on a chilly day. I can tell you that once you try this out you would definitely know who is tougher.

Cricket has better fans. Simple as that. Compare the Aussies or the English Barmy-Army with American baseball fans who have to leave early so as to get out of the parking lot. Watching Test Match cricket is a carnival whereas watching baseball is a sedate and passive pastime, an opportunity to eat a hot dog or two or three. . .

Ever since the development of baseball, the ubiquitous and simplified version of the sport, Americans have been lost to the more demanding challenges — and pleasures — of cricket . . . In any event, nothing about cricket seems suited to the American national character: its rich complexity, the infinite possibilities that could occur with each delivery of the ball, the dozen different ways of getting out, are all patterned for a society of endless forms and varieties, not of a homogenized McWorld.

 

Oh, come now surely the yanks can construct a better argument than that? I mean I am all in favour of visual literacy but if you are incapable of constructing an intelligent argument as to why your stupid baseball is better than cricket surely you can do better than 'clip art'?


I repeat [for the hard of hearing and the fundamentally retarded] : . . . In any event, nothing about cricket seems suited to the American national character: its rich complexity, the infinite possibilities that could occur with each delivery of the ball, the dozen different ways of getting out, are all patterned for a society of endless forms and varieties, not of a homogenized McWorld.

baseball is for wankers, retarded wankers