Which is the Greatest sport of the two. I personally do not like ethier but if i was forced to watch between the two I would pick baseball. Why? Because variety is possible. While cricket has 6 things that can atcually happen.
My point is thier is more variety then in cricket i.e 1 man on 3rd 1 on 1st. I'll admit thiers not alot but more then in cricket.
Cricket's an English game. Baseball is American. Obviously, Baseball is better. We drink beer at basebal games. They drink Pimms at cricket matches. Obviously, Baseball is better. They have two bases. We have four. Obviously, Baseball is better. You can go to a baseball game and enjoy a nice evening out with the family and be home by 11:00. You can go to a Cricket match, sit in the scorching sun from sun up to sun down, and return home five days later. Obviously, Baseball is better.
Cricket for me of course!! Some of the things I like in cricket are that once you get out, that's it - you don't get another chance in half an hour or so, but on the flip side, if you hit the ball straight to a fieldsman, you don't have to run, so if you are good enough you can keep batting all day. Also I like that the bowler can deliberately try and hit the batsman and hurt him, and that the batsman can hit the ball in any direction. I had an American sports teacher at school who tried to get us to play baseball. None of us could get into it, but we compromised by taking away the having to run rule and banning gloves except for the catcher (not too hard as our school didn't own baseball gloves and nobody knew anyone who had one) This really changes the game. PS Aussies drink beer at cricket matches (usually while playing)
You've never been to a cricket match have you? Most of the people that go to Old Trafford (Lancashire's cricket ground) can't even spell Pimms. Alternatively you can leave the family at home - pick up a few mates and go and watch the cricket - get drunk for five days - then go back home. Obviously cricket is better. Anyway as per original question - they are 2 different sports. But at least cricket doesn't try to fool the masses into thinking it's a really exciting game. The US has been brought up on the baseball myth. Which is better - lacrosse or kabaddi?
Baseball is an exciting game. Ironically, the biggest knock against soccer in the USA is how "boring" it is.
You folks are so defensive about Fosters. You drink it. Admit it! Seriously, the domestic sales figures for Fosters aren't bad at all. p.s. In a couple of years, Australia's richest athlete will be:
Nah. Haven't drunk Fosters since I was 14. Most pubs don't stock it - certainly not on tap, and definitely not outside Victoria. The stuff sold in the US is Canadian anyway. The chief "mainstream" beers are VB - Victoria Bitter, which is by far the biggest seller, CArlton Draught, Tooheys New and Fourex (which are also all dreadful). Best non boutique beers are Coopers from South Australia and James Boags from Tasmania. Not really fussed about how much money athletes make - I don't get any of it. Personally I don't think there is one athlete in the world in any sport (or one business person either) that is worthy of over $2 million per year.
No one finds baseball that exciting. That likely explains why baseball is on a sort of decline in Canada.
button your lip ,mongrel. You aussies cant handle your beer anyway.. a couple of pints and your wasted. The chants heard from aussies are also poor.. best you can manage is the ocasional "aussie aussie aussie oi oi oi" lol pathetic
You're confusing causation with correlation. The strike certainly didn't help baseball in Canada and all of baseball suffered as a result of the strike, but the main reason for the decline, and also the strike, was the shift in baseball economy. The rich have always been rich in baseball, but before the mid-90's, the gap between the haves and the have-nots wasn't as pronounced as it is now. With the weak Canadian dollar and small TV markets, combined with the emergence of regional cable sports networks and new ballparks, it was always going to be more difficult for Toronto and Montreal to be competitive. The 1994 stirke simply accelerated the decline.
Not to mention Montreal was in first place at that time before the strike. Fans haven't forgiven the MLB since. It's interesting to see them 2 games behind first in the NL East this year though. I don't know if it has brought anymore fans into Olympic Stadium, up from there average 3,000. Last year the Twins gave a big F U to Selig. Maybe the 'Spos can do it this year. Another vital thing is that they keep Vladdy Guerrero. He is the team.
The Canadian dollar at the time of the strike was at the same level as it is today (above $.70/US). The Expos and Blue Jays at one point both had national network and cable TV contracts. Radio was also invested deeply into the baseball teams. The Expos had coverage from the Great Lakes to New England. It wasn't hard to find Expos fans in the US Northeast. The strike may have dmaged the Expos, but the antics of Jeffry Loria did the team in. The Jays don't have a national TV contract this season. That has been compensated by the fact that the Jays owner also owns Sportsnet hasn't been a bad thing. Jays fans are just annoyed that all the money that has been spent produced little. Cricket is gaining popularity largely through immigration as recently arrived peoples bring the sports they loved with them. Much as the reason why soccer is one the rise here as well.
Just to clarify my point since I don't think we are in disagreement here; I mentioned the local TV deals because while pretty much every team had one, not every team make the same amount of money. Simply because of pure market size, the Yankees' deal with MSG (and now their own network, YES) was always going to be more lucrative than anything Montreal or Kansas City could get in their local markets.
Cricket Is a great Sport. No better excuse to get pissed for 5 days. I'm not that intrested in cricket but I've been to test matches just to sit out in the sun and get bladderd. I think we should compare Baseball and Rounders. Rounders Wins it every time for me because the games arnt currupt.
Baseball has the great advantage over cricket of being ended sooner - George Bernard Shaw "Cricket - a game which the English, not being a spiritual people, have invented to give themselves some conception of eternity." - Lord Mancroft.
I don't doubt the economic factors, but Canadians had a much stronger reaction to the strike than Americans.
Internationals apart, cricket really isn't very popular at all in England. I've never seen a county league match on TV in my life (I mean literally never even seen one, not just not watched it) and most newspapers don't carry any more than the results in the sports section. Only the cup finals tend to get any coverage. Cricket, though, is a game where anything can happen, and usually doesn't. It can be exciting, especially limited overs games, which is probably why they draw bigger (for bigger read 'any') crowds. There is also from the playing aspect, the true joy of sadism that can be derived from being able to bowl fast direct at some poor scared-shitless individual. The inswinger towards the bollocks was my speciality, as it had the distinct advantage of not only hitting the guy in the bollocks, but would often bounce onto the stumps afterwards as well. I've been to one cricket match and three baseball games in my life and although I ended up getting bored at all four, it took me longer to get bored at the cricket. One thing you really appreciate being at a cricket match is the skill of the outfielders. The ball travels a heck of a lot faster off a cricket bat than it does off a baseball bat, and cricketers don't have those giant comedy gloves to make catching easy. Cricketers looked fitter too, as I was amazed at how many baseball players really struggled to make that run to first base. Baseball fans don't really get behind their teams. The moment a pitcher concedes a run, regardless of how well he'd played before, hundreds of his own fans feel the need to stand up and shout "you suck" at him. Possibly because those oversized gloves make catching easy, anyone who doesn't catch a ball is greeted with the same derision. I went to Seattle to see a game and by far the most animated the crowd got was for a cartoon speedboat race on the scoreboard. Wrigley Field was pleasant though, almost pleasant enough to take my mind off the fact that the game looked all but over with probably and hour and a bit of the contest remaining. Toronto was surprising, as I'd heard that the Blue Jays regularly sold out the 50,000 seat skydome. The crowd was given as 23,000, but the expanse of empty blue seats makes me suspect it probably wasn't even half of that figure. Attendances at baseball are amazing though. I still can't see how a team can pack in a minumum of 80 odd home games in half a year. Are there people who go to every game? And if so who are they, especially for games played midweek in the daytime?
thats interesting, one would think the French (French Canadians) would be pretty understanding of people striking. I believe there's one going on today in France to fight for worker's god given right of a 3.5 hour lunch break.