Why cricket is boring
Tunku Varadarajan penned a column in the WSJ yesterday about why cricket is manly. He says cricket is more than just ’sticky wickets’ between afternoon tea (via Amitava Kumar):
… cricket isn’t played by a bunch of petunias… a virile, even brutal game in which a rock-hard ball is bowled at speeds that can approach 100 miles per hour at batsmen who stand no more than 22 yards away… Scorching hits must be stopped with a wall of nothing more than flesh, bone and epidermis, and fingers are often broken, and webbing split, in the process…. there is an almost primitive grace to the unadorned way in which the ball is fielded that sets cricket on a higher plane, as a game, than its American cousin… [Link]
And that’s it. That’s his defense: ball speed and no gloves. Now I’ll be the first to admit that after a few months of living in India, being force-fed cricket nationalism on every channel (why the focus on the national team and not, say, Delhi vs. Bombay? Why do MPs waste taxpayer money debating the national team’s performance on the Parliament floor?), after seeing kids batting and bowling on hot sand beaches and shabby streets, you start to get the idea that hey, this actually looks like fun.
Fun though it may be to play, it’s less interesting to watch than its later refinement, baseball:
- Long matches. Those interminable overs are brought to you by the nation which invented modern red tape. Don’t trust any sporting event which lasts longer than a Bollywood movie.
- Bunting, not hitting. Bunting is the wussiest thing you can do in baseball, yet you rarely see cricketers taking full swings at the ball. It’s all about bunting. And those aren’t bats, those are dhobi sticks. Hey genius, if I wanted you to show me a framed picture I’d have asked you. No, I want to see you take a crack at the ball as hard as you can.
- No gloves. Gloves are bionic enhancements which let players do dazzling, diving catches of balls batted at high speed.
- Less emphasis on catchers. A pitcher and a catcher are a conspiracy against the batter, a human drama. A wicket is just a badly-leveled table.
- Balls usually bounce. On the bounce, the ball loses speed. The result is that the ball is hit shorter distances. When was the last time you saw a steroid-pumped Barry Bonds type loft a cricket ball 450 feet to hit the top of an upper deck light tower before exiting the stadium?
- No hurling. In cricket, you’re not allowed to bend your elbow to throw with spring-loaded force. That’s why bowlers need to run, while pitchers make do with a standing windup. (Though maximum speeds end up about the same: Shoaib Akhtar and Nolan Ryan were both clocked at around 100 mph.)
- Pokey runners. Batters neither run flat-out nor slide dramatically into wickets. The bouncing ball makes them wear thick shinguards, and having two batters mean each has to carry his bat as he waddles between wickets.
- Those ridiculous dress whites. White V-neck sweaters and blazers — what is this, Eton? Is cricket just a slower, shorter version of golf? Are you being ragged in your Oxbridge chambers while reading history for your trials, or are you playing a sport?
I think I just figured out why Lagaan moved so slowly. Taxes and cricket, what a combination. There’s a reason why basketball is so popular worldwide. So do what the ‘muricans did to rugby: shorten the matches, goose the speeds, add aerial maneuvers, sex up the uniforms, sign cheerleaders and watch the rupees roll in.
Baseball isn’t actually all that interesting to watch either. As this brilliant cricket ad says, just turn off the TV, get out there and play.
on Thursday, March 8th, 2007, 8:27 pm in Humor, Religion, Sports, Video clips › 
Email this
› 
Facebook this
› 
Reddit this
› Link
› Reader links
Outrageous! I fear for your soul.
Actually, I don’t. You deserve it!
You’re asking for it.
I am not liking you very much today only.
Alright Manish, i would have disagree with you on several things here…
(
Of course there is a Delhi vs Bombay. Ranji Trophy
.
Just like the catcher there is a wicket keeper in cricket, who stands behind the batsman/hitter.
and its not bunting in cricket, its called placment. You need a lot of skill and knowledge of physics/geometry to precisely hit a ball between two fielders.
have you seen the new outfits they wear in the One day internationals…
You see, cricket has class and baseball does not. ;-) Really, cricket is a much more refined sport than either baseball or American football. Yes, it’s a really complicated game to follow (just the terminology will make you feel dizzy). The fact that the ball bounces before it reaches the batsman makes it harder to predict how the ball will come on to the bat.
Hey. I saw McGwire hit his 62nd home run and felt nothing more than “feh”.
Gavaskar scoring 29th century. Now that was something.
Must be the IBD genes.
Manisha Bhaiya,
You really need to learn quite a bit. I can go on and on…….
Less emphasis on catchers. A pitcher and a catcher are a conspiracy against the batter, a human drama. A wicket is just a badly-leveled table.
The wicket keeper (equivalent of catcher) often advises the bowler on changing strategies, plays with the mind of the batsman to stump him or pretend to stump him.
Ball must bounce. On the bounce, the ball loses speed. The result is that the ball is hit shorter distances. When was the last time you saw a steroid-pumped Barry Bonds type loft a cricket ball 450 feet to hit the top of an upper deck light tower before exiting the stadium?
You cannot be more wrong.
Some of the West Indian bowlers and batsman would make Barry Bonds look like a little child. Let me point out to 4 people from West Indies: Clive Lloyd who was known to hit balls outside the stadium often, Vivian Richards, an extremely strong physically batsman could do anything he wanted, Joel Garner who was 6 feet 7 seven inches - a fast bowler in cricket is faster than baseball pitcher - for a simple reason, momentum = mass X velocity. A cricket bowler generates velocity by running up to the pitch, sometimes as fast as a decent 100 meter sprinter. Michael Holding, who switched to cricket but one of the fastest 100 meters runner in Trinidad and Tobaggo, and won medals in Commonwealth games, and also had Olympic aspirations.
A beamer is delivery when the ball does not bounce before it reaches the wicket. Australians are known for it, example, infamous body-line series between England and Australia.
Don’t get me wrong, I like baseball too.
Time to move on from simplistic sophomoric, snarks, brother.
being force-fed cricket nationalism on every channel (why the focus on the national team and not, say, Delhi vs. Bombay?
Two words: Ranji trophy and Duleep trophy
Local/ state cricket is full of drama, and that is where national cricketers get selected from.
On Joel Garner:
and
Body line series
and bouncer
and, last Clive lloyd and his famous sixes
I’ve watched a bit of baseball and it looks like dumbed down cricket to me.
I know that’s an ignorant generalization, but after you made so many of them, I am entitled to one :).
I have a feeling this thread is going to be longer than…um…a cricket match?
ok, my last comment:
beamer
bouner
Amit: I’m a software guy, I don’t have a soul :)
Ashvin: Actually, I’m gagging for it, so give it to me in the comments, eh?
MG: Thanks, I’ve never seen the city teams covered on TV. The focus remains national. There is of course a wicket keeper but the focus remains on knocking down the bails. Placement is bunting- in baseball you bunt so you get finer control over the velocity of the ball. Yup, I’ve even blogged the outfits (twice), but I’m referring to the dress whites.
EnnaHesaruAni: But not having a bounce enhances the pitcher’s control and enables curves, sliders, spitballs and such. The bounce introduces a random element into any tricky delivery.
Kush: Kush, you’re arguing exceptions, not day-to-day cricket. Again, with wicket keepers the emphasis is on the wicket not the glove. Most of what you gain from the runup you lose from not being able to use the torque (f×r) of a whiplash action. A beamer sans bounce is an illegal delivery.
Sakshi: It may very well be dumbed down, but it’s also bigger and faster- a metaphor for the American method? ;)
“Ball must bounce.”
Er, didn’t mean to return, but couldn’t help commenting on this: there’s no rule that balls must bounce, but if they don’t, they’re generally hit out of the park because full-tosses, as balls that don’t bounce are called, are the easiest to hit. India’s lowest moment in cricket came because a certain Mr Chetan Sharma bowled a ball to a certain Mr Javed Miandad that didn’t bounce. The bouncing, and the variations in line and bounce that result, add to the subtleties that go into getting a batsman out. Really, baseball seems ridiculously simple in comparison, all hand-eye co-ordination and relatively little technique.
I think you need to watch a little more cricket, so I hereby invite you over to my place for a World Cup game featuring India. Snacks and beer will be provided. If I succeed in changing your mind about the game, you must promise to post about it, and eat immense quantities of humble pie. Deal?
“A beamer sans bounce is an illegal delivery.”
Full tosses aren’t illegal. They’re just stupid!
Amit: thanks, fixed. Hitting the batter gets you a warning, but sans bounce does not. I still think a tricky, spinning baseball pitch is more likely to do what you want than a tricky, spinning cricket delivery that also has the randomizing factor of the bounce. But I’ll definitely come over for that World Cup game as long as it ends before 3 am :)
I still think a tricky, spinning baseball pitch is more likely to do what you want than a tricky, spinning cricket delivery that also has the randomizing factor of the bounce.
Please don’t get me wrong, I like baseball quite a bit, and have enjoyed some great major league games. However, as everyone is pointing out regarding cricket, you are “babe in the woods” right now.
Even cricket fast bowlers also spin bowl in the air, often by cross arm (left hand bowler diagonally throwing arm toward the right before delivery or vice versa or they place the fingers on the bowl) or in English winter, they use the dense air, to aid their spin (swing or seam). Check out info on seam and seam and swing bowling. Slow spinners take this to an art form.
Some links, here. How to hold a ball in cricket with finger placement to control the bowl is as complex, if not more than baseball.
You should check out some cricket great bowlers like, Michael Holding, Imran Khan, Kapil Dev, Dennis Lillee for their techniques.
Kush: The argument is that the control required for spin bowling gets randomized on the bounce. And you don’t need to know leg-before-wicket or sacrifice flies to grasp the essence of a sport.
“The argument is that the control required for spin bowling gets randomized on the bounce.”
Manish, my man, there’s nothing randomised about it. Except on badly prepared pitches with variable bounce — where the batsman needs far greater skill to survive — the bowler knows exactly how the ball behave after pitching. But the batsman doesn’t know, in the case of a spinner, which way the ball will spin and how much and at what speed (all of which are controlled by the spinner, with nothing randomised about it), and in the case of a fast bowler, whether the ball will seam or not, and if so, which way it will go. And often, a swing bowler will make the ball swing one way in the air and them seam another way after pitching, which can get fiendishly difficult for a batsman. Nothing in baseball even compares!
Don’t take it amiss, my friend, but you really need to watch some cricket pronto!
Amit: The exact same principle applies in baseball with curves, knuckleballs, spitballs and sliders. But there’s no variable bounce to deal with. I’ll come over for cricket if you join me for the World Series :)
Manish, the bounce is only unpredictable (if that is what you mean by variable) on deteriorating pitches, and are the exception. Even there, they do not negate a bowler’s skill, but add to the difficulty the batsman faces, and therefore the skill he requires.
Also, in cricket the bowler has at his disposal not just what he can make the ball do in the air (which baseball also provides) but also what he can make it do off the pitch (which baseball does not provide). Thus, cricket has an extra dimension that baseball doesn’t. That extra dimension adds drama and subtlety to the game. Of course, if you prefer it simple… :)
And it’s a deal about the World Series. I hope it’s at night our time, so I’ll have an excuse if I fall asleep!
Though I’m based in the U.S. I do subscribe to NDTV and Star News at home, and I have to agree with Manish on at least one point — you never see references to matches played between urban teams within India. It’s always the national team…
I might agree with Manish on other points relating to the entertainment value of watching cricket, but I’m afraid some sarkari reading this would then get me on the “persona non grata” list the next time I try to go to India — for making anti-cricket (and therefore anti-Indian) statements.
Amit: Good point, I can see the analogy from tennis. Perhaps the bounce sacrifices speed in favor of spin-created unpredictability (for the batter).
Amardeep: Yes, perhaps they’d argue it injures religious sentiments :)
Though I’m based in the U.S. I do subscribe to NDTV and Star News at home, and I have to agree with Manish on at least one point — you never see references to matches played between urban teams within India. It’s always the national team…
Amardeep,
That is because you get an abridged version of Indian media in US.
Ranji and Duleep trophy is maha-drama. There is also club/ city cricket, and that is where often players start their career. Some Bombay clubs have produced legendary players. If you do not get noticed there, you will never get selected to the national team or sent to Australian coaching schools for further training.
True, seldom people get emotional about those teams but Indian national team is another matter……..same for Pakistan or Sri Lanka or Banglades team. You might get declared in “persona non-grata” in all South Asian countries for dissing any of them.
Amardeep, your first point is one I made here as well, but that has more to do with the following of the game, and its coverage, than with its intrinsic merits. Also, the way the media covers cricket is quite enough to put one off it entirely.
Manish, religion and me? :) I’m actually quite off cricket now, and the best argument against it is the time it takes to play or watch the game: the opportunity cost of being a cricket fan is just too high. Nevertheless, I couldn’t help reacting when you presented a caricature of it. The game has far more drama and subtlety than you make it out to have in your post, and I am certain you will admit as much after sitting through one whole game with me!
And the tennis analogy is completely off, the bounce in cricket is not about “odd hops and squirreliness.” Oof!
I will have to give it to baseball on one thing though…its easier to hit with a flat bat than a round one.
In all my life, I have met only three people who are knowledgeable & passionate about cricket. These guys not only follow Ranji matches with same passion & only people not surprised when Srilanka won ‘96 world cup.
I am no fan of cricket, but it needs to be pointed out that people who understand american football are also very few compared to those who watch it. Football is just an excuse to get drunk,eat and have fun.
Interesting blog entry Manish..
I enjoyed cricket better than baseball.. I was a big cricket fan in my school and teens in India when kapil Dev, Gavaskar and Ravi shastri played…India, pakistan world cup one day matches are so much fun..they are not that long..I watched baseball after I came to US and I found it boring compared to cricket..May be its the Indian in me,Cricket is the Indian thing u get addicted to players and the whole game and the festivity around that game when u are in India…
Manish Sir,
Check this out - Michael Holding in action - look at the way he accelerates, his finger positioning, the way he bends his wrist, and follow-through on the pitch.
Carefully, check the way, Imran Khan bends his wrt and the way he holds the ball
Some of the greatest moments
baseball: AWESOME
cricket: sucks.
Manish, I think touched some nerves here and there.
chick pea
I disagree..:); both are awesome…esp. for big games like -
Baseball - “Yanks vs Red Sox”
Cricket - “India vs Pakistan”
I don’t have much to add to the comments above except
- Because cricket matches are higher scoring than baseball games, one-day games are quite well-paced in comparison to baseball (and certainly much faster paced at the end of the innings). Consider runs/time rather than just 1/time.
-There are more options available to the bowler and batsman than in baseball so there’s more potential artistry. It’s not just how high you aim the ball. It’s more beautiful to watch (like Basketball).
- I’ve been to precisely one baseball game (Oakland A’s .vs. the WhiteSox) and the biggest impression was how scripted the experience seemed. Orchestrated music and flashing lights and singing — not spontaneous like in a world cup cricket match. Also I can’t stand the fake radio-voices of baseball announcers unlike the much more natural voices of cricket commentators [and varied accents — from a Yorkshire to Bombay to wherever Harsha Bhogle’s accent is from :) ].
- I’ll grant you that strategy in baseball might be more sophisticated because there are 4 bases to worry about (especially if you have runners on them).
I disagree..:); both are awesome…esp. for big games like -
Baseball - “Yanks vs Red Soxâ€
Cricket - “India vs Pakistanâ€
i must disagree with your disagreement.
i’d rather have a root canal sans anesthesia before ever sitting down to watch cricket. hell i’d even watch curling before cricket..
Manish,
Muddying the waters..stirring the pot..messing with sacred cows and all that.
I guess you’ve figured that your time in India is up. Pls get back home before somebody goes all fatwa on your a$$ :-)
-N
Manish,
The bounced ball can be very dangerous. I had the misfortune of being hit with one. The cricket ball not a tennis ball. My jaw hurt like hell and I had to go in for an X-ray and popped viocodins.
I dont have much disagreements about the entertainment value for spectators. The games are longer but one think they are not, for wusses. If you play with a tennis ball than that is a different thing. But playing with the cricket ball does require toughness. In my view if the format of 20 overs catches on, then the games would be 4 hours and it would be perfect.
I COMPLETELY agree with your point about the hyper nationalism about Cricket. Its absolutely ridiculous. Even worse is people protesting exclusion of Sourav Ganguly from Indian team on streets of Calcutta. WTF??
Man, my last comment had several horrible grammer errors. Whenever I try to go fancy with writing, it back fires :-)
Anyways I was trying to say that Cricket games are long, but they require certain amount of toughness.
See what Rabindra Mehta from NASA has to say about “the science of swing bowling“. They are papers published in Nature on cricket bowling. I may link them tomorrow if I get time.
Manish, I know baseball quite a bit at many levels (more than you can guess): major, minor, and school. At LSU, where I did my PhD, they were 2-3 times national champions while I was there. At LSU, my office mate’s girlfriend and later wife was cheer leader for the team. I spent many afternoons at the field watching the game. Currently, I work at OSU, and they are the national champions right now.
You need to take Amit Varma’s offer pronto. It will do you good.
Amardeep,
Kush is right. You get an abridged version of the Indian media here. Further the Indian media itself is only gradually becoming more local in character. Club level cricket and sub-club level is a huge thing in India and comparable to the Minors in hte US minus of course the money (big, big minus). In Bangalore, for e.g., tennis ball (or cover ball as we called it) cricket is a huge thing with day-night games, and prize money. The great Gundappa Vishwanath cut his teeth in tennis-ball cricket and held the record for the highest score and fastest 200 for decades. Day-night games are a big thing is Maharashtra too and now in many parts of small town India. There was a time when less test cricket was played, when the Ranji and Duleep trophy games were very big. Now there is more money in them but less crowds. I am sure 20-20 will fill the gap. I am all praise for pitching in baseball - it’s a genuine art. But bowling in cricket is a different thing entirely. Way more demanding. If you have seen Japanese and Korean pitchers in the International series (the one that Canada won recently) you will know what I mean. Speed isn’t everything. Quite a few star sluggers struggled with the slower (60-70 mph) floaters thrown by the Asian pitchers. Now Kumble being a mechanical engineer I am sure will have a thing or two to say about that! And for catching fly balls with mitts - baskets actually - what’s that compared to fielding in the covers or at forward short leg, silly point, gully and the slips? Have you watched Venkatraghavan literally pluck the ball out of thin air at gully? Or have you seen Solkar snap up snicks at f.s.leg? And what about stumpings? It’s blindingly fast. Facing the new ball without pads and getting slammed in the shins over after over isn’t easy. A lot of cricket in India is played on dusty fields not green fields and you shd see middle aged types diving to save boundaries and getting scraped time and again.
And momentum = mass x velocity; kinetic energy = 1/2mv^2
Kush: Nah, man, I’ve seen plenty of cricket- you can’t avoid it here. The athleticism and flash seem much higher in baseball. But I’ll keep watching. Check out the physics of a curve ball.
Shiva: Thanks, fixed. Suitably mortified. Good thing I’m not building missiles.
You said something about “dazzling, diving catches of balls batted at high speed.”
Cricket for its part has tonnes of spectular diving catches
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nsqlx3CRv0M
http://youtube.com/watch?v=-mLHOylW5z8
Cricket - the game is not boring. But the platitudes and cliches thrown out by the commentators is enough to make you want to rips your ears out.
bit late to the party - but reading that baseball is a “refinement” of cricket made me spill my coffee. baseball lacks all the factors that make cricket so interesting: various weather conditions affecting the pitch and who should bowl at a given moment, changing pitch conditions during a match, cloud cover, required run rate (where players have to think about what they’re doing), duckworth-lewis machinations, more variation in bowling than pitching, more variation in batting shots than baseball, no gloves used to catch (and there are some spectacular catches in cricket, where players fall to a really hard ground ) a really dangerous and hard ball etc. to me, baseball is rather simple - a glorified softball. as for athleticism, you’re being unfair (:)) in posting that above photo. most of today’s professional cricketers (barring a few) don’t look anything as ungainly as the above photo. you’ve posted some english village green cricket scenario.
test cricket is for those with patience who love intrigue and strategy (yes sometimes it can be tedious) and planning over several days and where a draw is a worthy goal at times. it’s a campaign. i see cricket as more like chess (with one day internationals as speed chess) and baseball as more like checkers.
and, although you have some sledging and verbals in cricket and intimidating stares and bouncers, you will generally never see (at least at the highest level) cricket umpires being spat upon, or cricket managers and coaches rushing out of the “dugout” to throw punches at the umpires or the likes of lara, tendulkar, ponting indulging in spitting or fistfights or the wicket keeper and the batsman rushing up to the bowler and picking a fight after being hit by the ball. players may not agree with the umpire’s decision but they usually walk with dignity.
having said that, i think cricket can benefit from more baseball-style throwing and catching and baseball can benefit from cricket’s greater emphasis on strategy and diversity and complexity.
” rather have a root canal sans anesthesia before ever sitting down to watch cricket. hell i’d even watch curling before cricket..”
that’s how i feel about baseball and american football :) i guess it all just boils down to personal tastes.
Baseball I can understand. But “American” Football??!!! Sacrilege!!! :-)
brown_fob: Thanks, cool vids. I see your cricket catches and raise you The Play (must-see). This is Cal-Stanford ‘82, but not the long-range version that’s hard to see — this is a rarer zoomed-in version.
“But “American†Football??!!! Sacrilege!!! :-)”
more like american running handball :) i prefer the “real” football:) don’t know why, but just can’t get into american football and i like more sports than not. guess, like cricket, it’s an acquired taste.
and at least cricket’s world cup has more than one country participating, unlike the hubristically-named “world” series where you’re lucky if two countries are represented (apparently they had grandiose plans in the late 1800s to eventually include Australia and Great Britain and then the rest of the world, but they haven’t progressed beyond prematurely labelling themselves world champions). ok. enough sacrilege :)
WGiia: Yes, the ‘World Series’ is a misnomer.
Have a look at this comparison between baseball and cricket. Why baseball is faster and more athletic:
You can steal bases in baseball, which adds drama.
Sensei Manish,
I have been promising not to leave comments after comments, but you leave huge holes in your understanding of cricket.
As I have said many times on this thread, I really enjoy baseball, it’s nuances and all, but it seems you need Amit Sirji’s serious help. I thought baseball is mostly about stealing runs too with grounders, and home runs are not dime a dozen, as you have been claiming all along.
Yes, you can steal runs in cricket too if the wicket keeper is clumsy, or even some batsman start running (in some situations) before even the bowler has even delivered the bowl.
Defensive, my foot. In limited over cricket, an average of 6-7 runs/ an over is quite common. Running between wickets becomes very agressive in last few overs in limited over cricekt, and even in 5 day crickets toward the end.
Often 30-40 runs are scored in last few overs, average sometime 20-30 runs an over towards the end in limited over cricket.
Well, Manish bhai, this is your space, and your opinions, and no one can force feed you either.
If in India, you want to really get know to the likes Mandira Bedis, then this all will not “hawa hawai” approach to cricket will not cut it. My last 2 paisas. Please think about it. Not for us, but for future Mandira Bedis in your life.
Pitchers are more dominant in baseball than are bowlers in cricket– but because of multiple bases, the consequences of a single bad pitch are much worse. Again, more drama.
Bhai, please google = Jeff Thomson, Dennis Lillee, Harold Larwood, Kapil Dev, Imran Khan, Joel Garner, Michael Holding, Richard Hadlee
West Indies, Pakistan, and Australia had supreme leadership in different parts of cricket history - and it was in large part due to bowlers - since you have to get the opposing team out twice in 5 day cricket. For that reason, India till Kapil Dev and all arrived - had a serious weakness, inspite of some of the best spinners even though it had one of the best batsman in the world, Sunil Gavaskar.
Amit, please, please invite him for a game of cricket on TV.
20-20 cricket (20 overs a side) is what you’re looking for.
It usually finishes in 3 hrs, has mostly big shots and offensive mindset and a treat for the impatitent spectators.
Here are some more great catches for you:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=g_PfSdm3ZnU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMTSQa_8CZc
You won’t be able to beat this :)
Kush maharaj, how often are bases stolen in cricket vs. baseball, where it’s an everyday tactic? How often do batters take power swings in cricket vs. baseball? How many points are scored in cricket off these dominant bowlers vs. runs in baseball off dominant pitchers? How often do batters run at high speed in cricket vs. baseball? Are those high scores in cricket coming from a small number of risky swings or a large number of placement ones defending the wicket?
You are arguing the corner cases, not the average match, and in doing so you’re denigrating cricket as it is. And I’ve been reliably informed that Mandira Bedi has a high cleavage-to-gyaan ratio.
i can’t resist the temptation of posting some more spectacular catches: :)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VH32JlqHqu8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ObMVIQq7Nao
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Nsqlx3CRv0M
and
http://youtube.com/watch?v=18yfbXueods
http://youtube.com/watch?v=tMHpZpwvPdM
I guess that the cricket boundary is much farther from the pitch as compared to the baseball boundary.
Have a look at this: http://youtube.com/watch?v=DGQyYqHJl2U
and http://youtube.com/watch?v=5_7lcALdXfk
and even Canadians can hit :)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gpMLK6wQJ20
Now you are trying to compare apples and oranges.
Both the games have different requirements and thus different tactics. In one-day cricket, a batsman is out and done for the day unlike baseball. There are 300 balls to face and that explains the defensive and offensive battle that goes on during the phase of the innings. Usually these 300 balls are played with a specific plan (say x runs in first y overs, play out the tough balls and start hitting on some loose ones). Baseball is mostly hit or miss unlike cricket which has a plethora of options for the batsmen.
hi manish, thanks for the link. ( i see that weather and altitude and watering of baseball paths etc. can also offer more variations, like cricket, but still think cricket has more drama in that respect and more complexity).
i’d like to respond to the points you cited buy i think my post will be quite long. is it ok to post it?
Manish,
Running a bye, or a cheeky single (base steals) is much more difficult in cricket since you have agile and snappy close-in-fielders. And these days batsmen are expected to have both running and slugging skills. Bowlers have become smarter and it’s not easy to slug except late in the (1-day) game and almost everyone has a great yorker these days. Quite a few games are decided in the last over. On average a cricket fielder has more area to cover than his baseball counterpart (check the wikipedia article you are refering to). And run-outs area little more complicated in cricket - fielder catches a scorcher in the covers barehanded, throws back to the bowler or wicket-keeper who simply can’t stand on base to ‘ground’ the ball for an out but must whip off the bails. And of course there are those gifted fielders who can throw in from the deep fine leg and knock out the stumps - a direct hit of 80-100 meters - Brijesh Patel and Derek Randall were great at that sort of thing. And of course catching in the deep without that basket tied to your wrist is way more difficult - any idea how the ball bounces out of your hands?
Long matches. Those interminable overs are brought to you by the nation which invented modern red tape. Don’t trust any sporting event which lasts longer than a Bollywood movie.
You would be describing baseball as well. The average game duration has been creeping up over the past twenty years. Four hours is not uncommon; that is asking much on a Tuesday night. Cricket fans know that the matches are long; its an alternative reality, only demanding complete attention at times, and throuoghly integrated into the daily routine or a party.
Bunting, not hitting. Bunting is the wussiest thing you can do in baseball, yet you rarely see cricketers taking full swings at the ball.
Patently wrong. They do take big swings at the ball. And bunting is actually one of the most exciting possibilities in baseball, what, with steroid fed behemoths striking out fifty percent of the time, its one of the few good things.
It’s all about bunting. And those aren’t bats, those are dhobi sticks. Hey genius, if I wanted you to show me a framed picture I’d have asked you. No, I want to see you take a crack at the ball as hard as you can.
If you believe inverted phalluses are aesthetically pleasing, then sure, a baseball bat does look pretty.
No gloves. Gloves are bionic enhancements which let players do dazzling, diving catches of balls batted at high speed.
They are prophylactics - life support for the big men easily winded. There is no less poetic display in all sports.
Less emphasis on catchers. A pitcher and a catcher are a conspiracy against the batter, a human drama. A wicket is just a badly-leveled table.
Catchers remind me of midwives; one can imagine much better things to do than being forced to stare at a large, squatting man getting comfy by shifting the weight on his thighs.
Balls usually bounce. On the bounce, the ball loses speed. The result is that the ball is hit shorter distances. When was the last time you saw a steroid-pumped Barry Bonds type loft a cricket ball 450 feet to hit the top of an upper deck light tower before exiting the stadium?
The bounce is genuinely surprising. For those retentive types who want certainty in the world, the confounding bounce is bound to rankle :-)
Go right ahead.
Shiva: I’m looking for what’s fun to watch, not intrinsic difficulty. It’s more difficult to mow grass with a pair of scissors, but that doesn’t make it interesting to watch.
Vikram: Valiant effort, my friend, but a 3,000 word caption doesn’t make a photo of paint drying into the Mona Lisa.
Vikram: Valiant effort, my friend, but a 3,000 word caption doesn’t make a photo of paint drying into the Mona Lisa.
I predict by the end of the World Cup, you will be a fan. You will be the man back in Brooklyn (or at least in Jackson Heights)strutting about with your Nike India jersey. :-)
lol ITS FUNNY to see that only those who loves criket compares it with baseball. people who loves baseball don’t give a rat ass about criket.
the facts are baseball players makes 100x more money than criket players, matter of facts baseball players makes some of the most money of any sports in the world. A-rod makes 250 millions US 10 years contract.
If criket players have more skills they shoudl come take jobs away from baseball players because you make a hell alot of money doing so.
bOND: That’s essentially because Americans are like frogs in a well. They have no knowledge of the world beyond the Atlantic or the Pacific. Most Americans cannot place Iraq on a world map even though their armed forces have been there for 4+ years.
manish: I’d like to offer a counter-point to each and every one of your arguments.
* Long matches: Haven’t heard of Twenty20 cricket, I guess. Welcome to the 21st century.
* Bunting, not hitting: Obvious demonstration of a total lack of understanding of the game. It’s called prudently placing the ball between fielders with the aim of scoring runs.
* No gloves. Obviously, you haven’t seen some of the catches that cricket players have taken without the aid of wussy gloves.
* Less emphasis on catchers. It’s a challenge unique to the ground that the batsmen have to overcome. Instead of each and every match being played on the same kind of pitch/diamond (like baseball).
* Balls usually bounce. On the bounce, the ball loses speed: Yes, but they also turn or cut off the pitch very close to the batsman and that’s way more challenging than any ball that Randy Johnson or Cy Young could have thrown.
* No hurling. I don’t see a point being made here.
* Pokey runners. You need to really drag yourselves into the 21st century. Haven’t you seen the Aussies and South Africans run between the wickets?
* Those ridiculous dress whites. You dress for the type of sport you play. Wearing knee high pin-striped trousers with your socks pulled over your pants is not exactly sexy.
i can take all the points that manish pointed out in the other direction.
long matches — yes yes, cricket players are still playing hard for their country while baseball game is over and mr steriods is sitting down chugging 2 beers at a time.
bunting, not hitting: yes yes, in baseball u go on the plate and swing like a fool and cross ur fingers that u make contact, but if u don’t then that ok too, u still have 2 more chances and 8 innings giving u a total of 26 chances. in cricket u get JUST ONE chance and since your making a team out of a whole nation that chance to play for ur country may never come again.
no gloves: yes i am stitting here with my nails and the webbing split and wishing i had taken that baseball scolarship.
balls usually bounce :: and sometimes very awkewardly and let me tell u that helmet only looks safe, it doesn’t really help that much
No hurling: thats cause u weren’t resting in the dugout for 15 mins before going on for 10 and resting again, humans can only be human, unless pumped with steroids.
Pokey runners:: are u telling me that baseball runners can run faster then cricket runners, sorry were not talking about sumo wrestling here. so take that 600 lbs body somewhere else.
and yes that white dress: its called tridation, something u wouldn’t have heard of.
and BOND the reason cricketers don’t come there and take the jobs away is cause there is a lot of pride in playing for your country, and besides are u telling me that A-HOLE guy who makes 25 million (250 million in 10 years)makes more then sachin tendulkar???, and if ur talking about money then no baseball franchise is richer then the BCCI (the cricket board of india)
anyways enjoy your world series and drinking till the game becomes intresting. haha, i’ll sit back and watching sachin tendulkar facing brett lee.
What do you call a critic that has never played the game? An uneducated opinion which means it’s worthless.
Living in Australia, I watch both baseball and cricket, play baseball as a team sport and play cricket casually with mates.
They’re both awesome fun to play, and to watch, I’d say baseball takes the boring cake. Most probably because I don’t get to see Australia play, and it’s not that interesting watching american teams for me.
Oh jesus you’re retarded BOnd
lol ITS FUNNY to see that only those who loves criket compares it with baseball. people who loves baseball don’t give a rat ass about criket.
I love baseball and cricket. Awesome generalisation for the planet.
the facts are baseball players makes 100x more money than criket players, matter of facts baseball players makes some of the most money of any sports in the world. A-rod makes 250 millions US 10 years contract.
And soccer makes even more than baseball. Does that mean it’s better?
If criket players have more skills they shoudl come take jobs away from baseball players because you make a hell alot of money doing so.
wtf are you talking about