What about England, we are the WORLD CHAMPIONS, and on our way back up too.
[quote]deanosumo wrote:
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]
there was some sort of study i read an article about where they looked at the torque mechanics on elbow ligaments and pretty much determined that the most elite long arm power pitchers (Randy Johnson) and the most elite short arm power pitchers throw at virtually the same speed, bc the strain on the ligaments cancels any lever advantage of having long arms. This is why Tommy John patients get an appreciable gain in speed, as well.
I wouldnt be surprise if the same finding held true for bowlers as well.
[quote]alstan90 wrote:
What about England, we are the WORLD CHAMPIONS, and on our way back up too.[/quote]
We let you win the ashes. Dont go thinking that you will do it again in Australia this year.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Of course I could probably pick 15 random NFL players and whup Australia in rugby.[/quote]
Lol, you don’t get two teams in rugby. I always thought it was funny that in NFL you have one team for ‘aahfense’ and one for ‘deeefense’. Or can’t you find players that are coordinated enough to run with a ball AND tackle?
Only joking, they are different sports and there’s no point in comparing them.
[quote]helga wrote:
alstan90 wrote:
What about England, we are the WORLD CHAMPIONS, and on our way back up too.
We let you win the ashes. Dont go thinking that you will do it again in Australia this year.[/quote]
I wrote this thread ages ago!!
The aussies are so desperate about cricket. putting one over the superior parental race is understandable, the yanks have been obsessed about it for years.
They couldnt do it in cricket or rugby so made up their own girl versions instead.
deansumo - The fastest baseball pitchers actually pitch about 50kmph faster than the fastest bowlers in cricket. The whipping action of the arm in a throw generates a lot more power than in a straight-arm bowl. This is why many of the top fast bowlers in the world often have their action scrutinised to determine whether their elbows bend more than is permissable at the point of delivery
Don’t want to start into a pissing contest here, but I still think that batting in cricket is slightly more of a challenge than in baseball; mainly because the ball is allowed to bounce and generally does. After it bounces, it can spin in either direction, move off the seam, bounce high, keep low, hit a crack in the pitch, etc. In fact, the full toss is considered the easiest delivery to face in cricket. Also the ball can be directed anywhere, not just in a ‘hitting zone’ for the batter
Still, I must admit being amazed at baseball batters consistently being able to whack 200kmh fastballs into the stands with a round bat
Incidentally, Adam Gilchrist is the greatest wicketkeeper/batsman in the history of the game - literally a once in a millenium type player who has changed the role forever. Previously, a wicketkeeper who averages 25 with the bat is considered decent; Gilchrist averages 50+ - and he scores them at a rate almost no one else in the world can match. On his day, he bats like a god - with almost imhuman power and timing. Also, one of the nicest guys going around
At 33 I doubt we’re going to lose him to baseball - but I don’t think he’d even consider the idea anyway
[quote]justrob wrote:
deansumo - The fastest baseball pitchers actually pitch about 50kmph faster than the fastest bowlers in cricket. The whipping action of the arm in a throw generates a lot more power than in a straight-arm bowl. This is why many of the top fast bowlers in the world often have their action scrutinised to determine whether their elbows bend more than is permissable at the point of delivery
Don’t want to start into a pissing contest here, but I still think that batting in cricket is slightly more of a challenge than in baseball; mainly because the ball is allowed to bounce and generally does. After it bounces, it can spin in either direction, move off the seam, bounce high, keep low, hit a crack in the pitch, etc. In fact, the full toss is considered the easiest delivery to face in cricket. Also the ball can be directed anywhere, not just in a ‘hitting zone’ for the batter
Still, I must admit being amazed at baseball batters consistently being able to whack 200kmh fastballs into the stands with a round bat
Incidentally, Adam Gilchrist is the greatest wicketkeeper/batsman in the history of the game - literally a once in a millenium type player who has changed the role forever. Previously, a wicketkeeper who averages 25 with the bat is considered decent; Gilchrist averages 50+ - and he scores them at a rate almost no one else in the world can match. On his day, he bats like a god - with almost imhuman power and timing. Also, one of the nicest guys going around
At 33 I doubt we’re going to lose him to baseball - but I don’t think he’d even consider the idea anyway
[/quote]
200 kph…are you sure?
I would be amazed is someone could throw a ball at 125 miles an hour.
I am willing to be informed here!
also, fast fast bowlers will be around 90 mph plus. shoiab achtar (sic) bowls at around 100mph.
[quote]aussie_jono wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Of course I could probably pick 15 random NFL players and whup Australia in rugby.
Lol, you don’t get two teams in rugby. I always thought it was funny that in NFL you have one team for ‘aahfense’ and one for ‘deeefense’. Or can’t you find players that are coordinated enough to run with a ball AND tackle?
Only joking, they are different sports and there’s no point in comparing them.
[/quote]
Exactly. I played 18 years of rugby. They are both great sports but are very different.
[quote]miniross wrote:
…
200 kph…are you sure?
I would be amazed is someone could throw a ball at 125 miles an hour.
I am willing to be informed here!
also, fast fast bowlers will be around 90 mph plus. shoiab achtar (sic) bowls at around 100mph.
[/quote]
There are plenty of baseball pitchers that throw 90+ MPH on a regular basis.
It is rare when someone throws 100 MPH.
No one throws 125 MPH.
I think the skill set needed to excell at cricket and baseball are very similar. With this in mind, I think that if professionals of either sport had concentrated on the other that both could succeed. However, I think that the chances of doing so as mature adults is virtually impossible in this day and age.
It’s pointless (although fun) to debate which is more difficult to do: hit a baseball or hit a cricket ball. I know how hard it is to hit a baseball well and I’ve no doubt that hitting a cricket ball is probably just as hard.
As for american football vs rugby debate:
Ruggers always like to bring up how easy it is to play for just a few seconds and take breaks, only play offense or defense, etc. The fact is that until the 1960’s, american football players did play both offense and defense. But the game evolved (for better or worse) where this no longer became possible due to the increasing size of the linemen. you just don’t see 6’7", 350 lb rugby players. No one should ever question the aerobic conditioning of LBs and DBs on defense or RBs and WRs on offense. The major difference is that in American FB, there is more flat out sprinting involved, necessitating the breaks between plays. There is also a lot more running involved than the casual observer sees. It’s not real exciting for the cameras to focus on a WR sprinting 40 yards downfield, then turning around and running 45 yards back to the huddle for 3-5 seconds then doing it over again. The other argument that often comes up is the padding vs no padding. Am. FB has a much greater frequency of extreme impacts than any other sport, hence the need for the protective equipment. This is not to say that there aren’t bone-jarring hits in rugby - certainly there are. But the closeness of the combatants in rugby tends to lead to less high speed impact head-on hits than Am FB.
Rugby and American FB are both brutally tough, physically demanding sports and again, the top players in each sport could likely play at the top level of the other, given the specificity of training.
This is a very long post, but I have one more point to make. Working with a lot of Europeans, we argue frequently about what sport features the best athletes, with most of my colleagues stating emphatically that it’s international FB (soccer to us Yanks). I always counter that competing at the highest level in ANY sport requires talent that only a select few posess, combined with exhaustive training and even luck. That means that a lot of the best of the best, the truly elite players, Michael Jordan, Zinedine Zidane, Hines Ward, Mario Lemieux, etc, could play professionally in whatever sport they chose to focus on.
DB
they dont actually run for 80 minutes in rugby…well maybe in the sevens.
When i was down in NZ last year i was watching all the all black/lions and tri nation games. It is very dishonest to say that you guys are running all the time. Most of the time there is very little running…a lot of the time there is almost no movement by half the team. Half the team is pushing it forward an inch…the other half is waiting to have the ball kicked out to them…and even when it does…they usually go no more than 10-15 meters before they get stopped…then you repeat the above.
I enjoyed sevens a lot more…now THAT is all running.
imagine hockey without pads…now that would be one brutal fucking sport.
Oh, forgot to add this about the cricketer trying out for the Bozos, Garth Brooks tried out for the San Diego Padres as well. It doesn’t mean he stood a chance in hell of making the team. Spring Training is the time when every-so-often a team will bring in a “curiosity case” to boost ticket sales and interest in their spring training. With the overhyped World Baseball Classic this March, there will be extra slots available for a few weeks for extra players.
And the physical demands of a catcher go far beyond squatting behind home plate and acting as a ball return for the pitcher. Catchers have to sprint to backup throws to 1st base, make accurate throws to put out base runners, seal off home plate as a 230 lb man is sprinting towards him, as well as handle the cerebral side of being the QB of the defense. It is the most physically and mentally demanding position on a baseball team. Before any counters that, I’ve played every position extensively and know this to be true. I’ve never been so wiped after a game as I have been after catching a full game in 100+ degrees at 95% humidity.
DB
Since I’m not sure how cricket works, I’m wondering if hitting the ball FAR is the object. Because most of the arguments so far suggesting that cricket is harder have only concentrated on contact. How about the fact that in baseball, you have to be able to hit the ball either a long way, or at least consistently to all fields. You can put your bat on the ball every time you are up and still hit .100, so I think the argument needs to take that into consideration.
Is there an equivalent to a home run in cricket? Forgive my ignorance…
Aw, here we go again. Once every two months. Cricket v. Baseball. American Football v. Rugby. England v. the World. Give it a rest. They are all great sport!
DB, since you’ve stated that the bosox are actually called the “Bozos,” you’re “aiight” in my book.
Who’s the bozo?
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
Who’s the bozo?[/quote]
The one taking the cheap shot.
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
Who’s the bozo?[/quote]
This is a trick question right? I hate any team that can’t spell socks correctly. I also hate the Yankees with a passion equal to any Boston fan. If you TRULY know baseball and its history, that should be about enough clues to figure out who I root for. Any guesses?
DB
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
Who’s the bozo?
The one taking the cheap shot.[/quote]
Arod says “C’mon.” Jason does. That’s cheap?
If I walk up to you and say “Fuck you, c’mon let’s go,” and you swing at me, are you taking a cheap shot? Or, am I getting what I deserve?
Hmmm…
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
Who’s the bozo?
This is a trick question right? I hate any team that can’t spell socks correctly. I also hate the Yankees with a passion equal to any Boston fan. If you TRULY know baseball and its history, that should be about enough clues to figure out who I root for. Any guesses?
DB[/quote]
Brother, I love baseball and am a student of its history, but how the hell am I supposed to know what team you root for? (If I had to guess, I would guess that since you live near NY and hate the Yanks, that you are a Mets fan).
And, I am not your typical, “Hey its cool to be a Red Sox fan now” Red Sox fan. I was born and raised to love the Sox. But, I love the game above my team, and that’s why I hate the Yankees! Here’s to Johnny hitting .250 and barely getting the ball to the cutoff man!