Why Cricket is better than baseball

Discussion in 'Chelsea Off Topic Threads' started by BridgeMonkee, Jun 12, 2007.

  1. BridgeMonkee

    BridgeMonkee BigSoccer Supporter

    Jul 25, 2002
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    It is the summer and so it is that time to say that Cricket is better than baseball. . . :p

    Cricket is better than baseball.
    <o></o>
    It is not reasonable to host an event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>America</st1></st1:country-region>. If you have a ‘world’ series you really should invite the world to show up. I began asking around. Some fans noted that <st1:city w:st="on"><st1>Toronto</st1></st1:city> 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 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>Canada</st1></st1:country-region>, 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.
    <o></o>
    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.
    <o></o>
    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.
    <o></o>
    Cricketers look like athletes as opposed to the baseball players who look like slobs on steroids.
    <o></o>
    In cricket, the pitchers are called "bowlers."
    <o></o>
    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.
    <o></o>
    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 <st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>Pakistan</st1></st1:country-region> and how they can completely change the direction of the ball.
    <o></o>
    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 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>Jamaica</st1></st1:country-region>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.
    <o></o>
    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.
    <o></o>
    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.
    <o></o>
    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.
    <o></o>
    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.
    <o></o>
    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. . .
    <o></o>
    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.
    <o></o>
     
  2. Davva

    Davva Member

    Sep 23, 2005
    Riverside, CA
    I agree with everything you say except for the very last sentence. There are only 10 ways of getting out.
     
  3. BridgeMonkee

    BridgeMonkee BigSoccer Supporter

    Jul 25, 2002
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Cheers - y'know it is just summer fun winding up our yank cousins...:D


    Ah, yes 10 or perhaps eleven?

    The 5 well-known ones:

    1) Caught
    2) Bowled
    3) Leg Before Wicket
    4) Stumped
    5) Run Out

    And the 5 less-frequent ones. Generalized summaries only.

    6) Hit Wicket: Striker breaks the wicket while batting
    7) Handled The Ball: without consent of the opposite side.
    8) Obstructing The Field: - Duh.
    9) Hit The Ball Twice: unless he is protecting his wicket.
    10) Timed Out: Next batsman due takes longer than two minutes to appear on the field.

    Now the 11th out is pretty ambiguous. It is not listed with the other outs but can be found in the law dealing with substitions (Law 2)

    In general, any batsman who refuses to bat when he is able to do so or is refused permission to bat by the opposing captain (he had left the field when he was able to bat on) is for the purpose of the records deemed to be "retired, out".
     
  4. Bluto11

    Bluto11 The sky is falling!

    May 16, 2003
    Chicago, IL
    i'm trying to find a highlight of KP getting his helmet knocked off in the last test and hit knocking the bails off. know where to find one?

    last year it was Inzi falling over his own wicket while attempting a sweep (i think) and this year Pietersen's helmet gets knocked onto the bails. funny stuff.
     
  5. Bluto11

    Bluto11 The sky is falling!

    May 16, 2003
    Chicago, IL
    real atheltic..... :p

    [​IMG]
     
  6. BridgeMonkee

    BridgeMonkee BigSoccer Supporter

    Jul 25, 2002
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
  7. Davva

    Davva Member

    Sep 23, 2005
    Riverside, CA
    In general, any batsman who refuses to bat when he is able to do so


    Would have thought that he would be timed out in this case


    or is refused permission to bat by the opposing captain (he had left the field when he was able to bat on) is for the purpose of the records deemed to be "retired, out"

    I played cricket for 30 years and I have to admit I wasn't aware of this one. I guess it would be a tricky one for the Umpire to call. After all.....only the batsman will know for sure if he needs to leave the field.

    I played in a game a few years ago and was carrying a thigh strain. It was a limited over match and I was batting at 7. I took a quick single from the 2nd ball and my thigh went. I called for a runner and the opposition honked and moaned for about 15 minutes before they would allow it and then continued to complain as I knocked 35 in 4 overs. I reckon they would still be there now had we not retired to the bar and left them to it.
     
  8. Bluto11

    Bluto11 The sky is falling!

    May 16, 2003
    Chicago, IL
  9. thecastigador

    thecastigador Member

    Oct 31, 2006
    Boston (JP)
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think it would be fun to play cricket, but I think I'll stick to watching baseball.
     
  10. Dear_Claudio

    Dear_Claudio Member+

    Feb 6, 2005
    Buffalo, New York
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    The fact that this started with the stupid 'World Series' knock makes it pointless. Then, cricket is more of a global sport than baseball? LMAO! They only play cricket in England and the colonies it was spread to. Cricket is a game for rich folk, anyway.
     
  11. West 'am 'till I die

    West 'am 'till I die BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Mar 28, 2006
    London
    .............No "Septic" fans at Lord's shouting -WHOO-HAA
     
  12. West 'am 'till I die

    West 'am 'till I die BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Mar 28, 2006
    London


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nH7KsIMp_Q
     
  13. BuddhaBlue

    BuddhaBlue Red Card

    Jul 23, 2002
    Cricket is not only a game for rich folk - what an absurd suggestion - it is game played all over the world - it is a brilliant global sport - but you are an ameri-can and therefore your global ignorance is forgiven :D baseball is a fat lardy sport only played in america - world series ? LMAO

    Cricket has a world cup (just like soccer, y'know the concept right?) where (get this) lots of different countries participate not just one single country :)
     
  14. BridgeMonkee

    BridgeMonkee BigSoccer Supporter

    Jul 25, 2002
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    It does? I think its a pretty articulate argument and accurate explanation of 'how things are' me-self :)

    I await your intelligent and more considered response (if you have one).
     
  15. Dear_Claudio

    Dear_Claudio Member+

    Feb 6, 2005
    Buffalo, New York
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    The fact that it was long ago dubbed the World Series and the name stuck has absolutely no bearing on the game itself. At this point, baseball is much more of a world game than cricket is.

    Basically, who the ******** cares? You like cricket, most Americans would prefer baseball. Go back to merry old England if you don't enjoy McWorld.
     
  16. Walter3000

    Walter3000 Member+

    Apr 8, 2004
    gainesville, Florida
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Never ever expected this thread to go negative.
    I love baseball, and have seen little of cricket, but it interests me. Did some reading up on it, but unless I find a way to watch it on any regular basis dont think it will take.
     
  17. BridgeMonkee

    BridgeMonkee BigSoccer Supporter

    Jul 25, 2002
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Well actually it isn't, but you are free to continue with your delusion.

    You could always enlighten us all with your reasoned debate on the matter maybe? since you chose to respond to the thread.

    well, if you didn't care then you really didn't have to respond to the thread.

    You have a total lack of dignity and humour it seems. Oh, well, sucks to be you. :p
     
  18. j.fisher

    j.fisher So Much Better

    May 3, 2007
    Winston Salem, NC
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's a culturally based opinion.. but no, in my opinion baseball is MUCH better than cricket.
     
  19. BridgeMonkee

    BridgeMonkee BigSoccer Supporter

    Jul 25, 2002
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Of course it is. In an American culture baseball is king. In a global culture Cricket rules! ;):D
     
  20. West 'am 'till I die

    West 'am 'till I die BigSoccer Yellow Card

    Mar 28, 2006
    London

    GLOBAL (world beyond Arkansas) don't confuse 'em man.
     
  21. thecastigador

    thecastigador Member

    Oct 31, 2006
    Boston (JP)
    Club:
    New England Revolution
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I really don't care to get in an argument about this, but you all do know that baseball is incredibly popular in all of North America, Central America, the Caribbean, Japan, and parts of S. America, right? It's hardly just an American sport.
     
  22. Kerry Dixon's Boots

    Staff Member

    Jun 6, 2006
    77 degrees
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    England
    FYP
     
  23. BridgeMonkee

    BridgeMonkee BigSoccer Supporter

    Jul 25, 2002
    Club:
    Chelsea FC


    <o></o>I began asking around. Some fans noted that <st1:city w:st="on"><st1>Toronto</st1></st1:city> 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 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1>Canada</st1></st1:country-region>, 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.
     
  24. Rowdies4ever

    Rowdies4ever New Member

    Jun 11, 2006
    New England
    It's not that popular in Central America: Nicaragua is about it. Everywhere else in Central America, soccer is king. It's not that popular in the Caribbean, apart from Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Dominican Republic. Everywhere else in the Caribbean, cricket and/or soccer is king. It's not that popular in South America, except for Venezuela, and soccer is rapidly gaining on baseball there. Soccer is also gaining on baseball in Japan. On the other hand baseball does have strong amateur presence in countries where you would not expect it to be: Australia, Netherlands, etc.

    Cricket is popular all over the former British Empire, which is a huge area - if India, Pakistan, Australia, much of Africa, the Caribbean, etc isn't "global", nothing is. It's also growing in areas outside the former Empire. For instance the Dutch had a team at the recent ICC World Cup. Cricket is also far ahead of baseball in terms of international competition. Whereas cricket is huge in many populous nations besides England and England has long since ceased to be the center of the sport, baseball is still dominated by the USA and attempts to turn baseball into a serious international sport have been greatly hampered by MLB's disinterest in the concept of international competition.

    That's essentially the problem. Sure baseball has grown outside of the USA, but it hasn't outgrown the USA. Until that happens it's going to be something of an also-ran in the world of international competition. Which is too bad, because baseball has become a pretty widely played game, globally, just as much as cricket has.
     
  25. Rowdies4ever

    Rowdies4ever New Member

    Jun 11, 2006
    New England
    It's next to impossible to watch cricket in the USA unless you have a sat. dish and pay-per-view during the major test matches, world cup, or other competitions.

    If you get AZN (an Asian-American network) on your cable, they used to show ICC Cricket World, a weekly review of cricket news, similar to FIFA Futbol Mundial. Currently AZN is showing Cricket Classics, an hour show showing excerpts from classic matches from Sharjah stadium. If you know something about the basics of cricket and watch these games you can get a better feel for cricket. I've been TiVo'ing these recently.

    There's also something called Cricket Talk on one of the "ethnic" cable network channels that I don't pay for, so I've no idea what that is like.

    Anyway baseball and cricket are so different it's really a little silly to try to compare them.
     

Share This Page