Anyone else hear about the wicket keeper that may be getting a red sox try out?
[quote]miniross wrote:
Anyone else hear about the wicket keeper that may be getting a red sox try out?[/quote]
I think his name is Sidd Finch.
http://www.bostonbaseball.com/whitesox/baseball_extras/sidd.html
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
miniross wrote:
Anyone else hear about the wicket keeper that may be getting a red sox try out?
I think his name is Sidd Finch.
http://www.bostonbaseball.com/whitesox/baseball_extras/sidd.html
[/quote]
LMAO! Good one. That was quite the hoax when it came out back in the 80’s, but hilarious nonetheless.
In all seriousness, I did find an article about this. Adam Gilchrist:
What I find odd is that Boston.com (which is the Boston Globe’s Web site) does not have anything about this, so I wonder how serious this is, especially given the fact that Gilchrist is 33. Plus, I am no cricket expert, but the swing mechanics are pretty different from a baseball swing… not even taking into account a baseball bat being round and a cricket bat having a flat surface.
Kuz
I would almost say cricket is harder to master, given that the ball is played off of the surface which adds in a degree of probable erreor. but i know JS of BBall anc Cricket.
Gilchrist is a wicket keeper (catcher) and even though 33, they have to be increadibly athletic “cold” so his conditioning is likely to be enough for a catcher.
Its interesting, and maybe good publicity
[quote]miniross wrote:
I would almost say cricket is harder to master, given that the ball is played off of the surface which adds in a degree of probable erreor. but i know JS of BBall anc Cricket.
[/quote]
This could spark a verrrry long debate. lol Personally, I don’t think there are many athletic-skill activities much harder than hitting a baseball well.
I mean, you have pitchers throwing a sphere 90+ MPH and the guy standing 60’ 6" away who has to hit that sphere with a round object within a zone of approximately 1 square yard (or so). That’s pretty damn hard, not to take anything away from cricket. But I’ve always been a firm believer in this one.
Let the debate begin…
Kuz
as one of the few brits, ( i need ozy/kiwi help here) fast bowlers pitch the ball in the range of 75 - 99 mph (shoib achtar (sic)). As the ball is travelling in they have to shift weight, judge speed, direction and trajectory, what it will do off the ground, make shot selection, of which there are dozens, then make a decision whether to run.
Coupled with the longevity of innings (bit boring, admitedly), and the variation of bowlers (5 in a game) with fast being followed by spinner, maybe. This variation and adaptation makes batting in cricket much more challanging overall than baseball. they swing it about for a few balls and walk around. Now, i can appreciate the specialisation required in baseball and agree whole heartedly with what you say, its just that a cricketer will face more challenges in an innings than a baseball batter.
also, the “athletic bit” was for a catcher. a wicket keeper has to explode ready to catch a nicked ball (off bat) when it takes .4 second from bowler, .1 from the batters position.
Seriously underrated for how bloody challeging it is.
Yeah id have to agree with minross on this one.
Baseball while taking great skill has nothing on cricket.
First of all the distance from ball to batter is shorter and some of the bowlers bowl faster than most baseball throwers,so not as much time to react.plus baseball batters have only a small area to hit in where as cricketers can get bowled(hitting the stumps) with balls bowled into their feet,get hit in the head from “bouncers” and hitting the ball anywhere u can not in an arc like baseball.
Now i know most of u would not have even seen a game of cricket,but i advise u to just to see the skill of these sumbitches.
Now dont take this as me bagging baseball im just a bit bias toward cricket since i am australian 
Peace
HHH
It’s interesting that the top fast bowlers in the world can bowl 150-160 kmph. The top pitchers? The same speed. It seems to be some kind of physiological limit or near limit, as the balls are roughly the same size and weight.
Having played both sports they both have their areas of difficulty. To make contact with a baseball? Easy. To hit a baseball well? Very difficult. Why? You are hitting a round ball with a round surface. The sweet spot is tiny. With a cricket bat, the sweet spot is much bigger. HOWEVER in cricket the ball deviates off the pitch as well as in the air.
Defence is easier in baseball. No question. Barehanding a rock hit at you at 100+ kmph an hour in cricket isn’t fun if don’t catch it perfectly.
Baseball players have great arms though. The level of throwing in baseball is higher.
Could Adam Gilchrist succeed in baseball? Maybe. He has superb hand-eye coordination. But he is too old for a MLB team to invest in.
[quote]miniross wrote:
as one of the few brits, ( i need ozy/kiwi help here) fast bowlers pitch the ball in the range of 75 - 99 mph (shoib achtar (sic)). As the ball is travelling in they have to shift weight, judge speed, direction and trajectory, what it will do off the ground, make shot selection, of which there are dozens, then make a decision whether to run.
Coupled with the longevity of innings (bit boring, admitedly), and the variation of bowlers (5 in a game) with fast being followed by spinner, maybe. This variation and adaptation makes batting in cricket much more challanging overall than baseball. they swing it about for a few balls and walk around. Now, i can appreciate the specialisation required in baseball and agree whole heartedly with what you say, its just that a cricketer will face more challenges in an innings than a baseball batter.
also, the “athletic bit” was for a catcher. a wicket keeper has to explode ready to catch a nicked ball (off bat) when it takes .4 second from bowler, .1 from the batters position.
Seriously underrated for how bloody challeging it is.[/quote]
Help from OZ is here mate! I agree with you, the distance is shorter between the batter and bowler is shorter, therefore demanding faster reaction times when the batsmen is facing a fast bowler. I would also suggest (with no disrespect intended against the difficulty of hitting a baseball) that the cricketer has to deal with a lot more swing and movement than say a baseball curveball. (Although I am definitely not a baseball expert)
The cricketer HAS to hit the ball when it is in the vincinity of the stumps, while the baseballer only has to hit if the ball is in the strike zone, which is a much smaller area. Therefore the cricketer has to deal with deliveries such as a 150 km/h inswinging yorker (a delivery that is aimed at the batsmen’s toes to try and get under the bat and hit the stumps) or a bouncer where the short pitched delivery rears up and will take his head off if he isn’t careful!
For those concerned about Gilchrist’s age, his batting has been getting even better over the past few seasons, the only thing that would slow him down is his wicketkeeping, which as Miniross said is very athletically demanding. If he went to baseball catcher this would actually be a lot less demanding than wicketkeeper due to less moving around required and frequent breaks each innings, compared to the three 2 hour sessions each day in Test cricket. Also, the running required in baseball is significantly less than cricket. A batsman who has a long innings in cricket will run a few kilometres, all in short bursts each time a run is scored. The baseball diamond would not be a challenge to his endurance.
Finally, you just have to see his hitting to believe it, especially when he seemingly hits a bowler for six over the boundary fence at will.
For all baseball fans please don’t take offence at any of the above, I’m just a biased Aussie who loves watching Gilchrist play, and would be vey interested in seeing how he would perform in baseball.
I cannot imagine anyone who can start playing baseball after 30 and make it in the majors.
I’ll bet Barry Bonds couldn’t play cricket at its top level either.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I cannot imagine anyone who can start playing baseball after 30 and make it in the majors.
I’ll bet Barry Bonds couldn’t play cricket at its top level either.
[/quote]
He couldn’t - they test for drugs over here. (joking)
Of course I could probably pick 15 random NFL players and whup Australia in rugby.
Before you start blasing me, my crack about 15 random NFL players beating Australia in rugby was a joke.
I meant to say 15 Div 1 college players.
Time for bed.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Before you start blasing me, my crack about 15 random NFL players beating Australia in rugby was a joke.
I meant to say 15 Div 1 college players.
Time for bed.[/quote]
No run for 3 seconds, go to the bench and get on the oxygen in rugby mate! We run for 80 minutes.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Of course I could probably pick 15 random NFL players and whup Australia in rugby.[/quote]
True, but they’d never beat the All Blacks.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Of course I could probably pick 15 random NFL players and whup Australia in rugby.[/quote]
Put them in the US world cup team for 2007 and we’ll see…
I think the US would definitely have the talent pool to become a world rugby force one day, what you need is the right administration, viable competition, top level coaches and most importantly a rugby culture that will build interest and get more people playing. With all of Australia’s cricketers I’m sure we could turn out great baseball teams due to the same sort of hand-eye skills required(we did win silver at the Olympics after all), however the general public interest is not there and as a result the funds and competitions aren’t there also.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Of course I could probably pick 15 random NFL players and whup Australia in rugby.
True, but they’d never beat the All Blacks.
[/quote]
If they can’t beat the All Blacks then how will they beat Australia? After all, don’t we usually beat the All Blacks? LOL (J/K)
ill agree that baseball “throwing” is better, as is the accuracy. some of these skills are now being used in coaching.
what i would say is that the sweet spot in top level cricket is tiny, as the error margin is small. the way the field, bowler combine, getting it wrong leads to an out. thats you done for the 1st half of the test, or whatever.
Anyway, american footballers and rugby… they only have the concentration span to pass the ball once!
What about rugby league. it is simpler to understand for you yanks. have you seen it.
[quote]miniross wrote:
ill agree that baseball “throwing” is better, as is the accuracy. some of these skills are now being used in coaching.
what i would say is that the sweet spot in top level cricket is tiny, as the error margin is small. the way the field, bowler combine, getting it wrong leads to an out. thats you done for the 1st half of the test, or whatever.
Anyway, american footballers and rugby… they only have the concentration span to pass the ball once!
What about rugby league. it is simpler to understand for you yanks. have you seen it.[/quote]
I just wanted to hijack the thread to a better sport!
We have Rugby League in the US too, but 90% of our rugby is Union.
better than baseball. that cant be that hard.
what about rounders (quaint english game like baseball, but for girls.)