[quote]swordthrower wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
Who’s the bozo?
The one taking the cheap shot.
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]
Of course it was a cheap shot.
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
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
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![/quote]
I suppose it is a little vague. I am not a Mets fan. I guess you have to either root for my team or have followed baseball since the 50’s to have a shot, so I’ll lay it out. I hate the Yankees because my team perennially finished 2nd to some of the best Yankees teams ever in the 50s (when there was only the AL and the NL and no wild cards). The one season they did beat them out with the best regular season (up until a few years ago) record ever 111-43, they choked in the only WS decided by a single play in game 1 (obviously an exaggeration, but only slightly) - Willie Mays famous Polo Grounds catch. They still haven’t won a WS in over 55 years, although they came very close not long ago. I hate the Red Sox because they like to poach from my team in order to try to beat the Yankees, but mostly because I live in the NYC area and I’m so sick of the over-hyping of the NY/BOS series. And I hate the White Sox because they are my team’s chief rival. And I’m also jealous that my team can no longer perennially compete with all three because of the revenue disparity in MLB that keeps my team’s payroll in the mid to low end of the league.
I am a lifelong suffering Cleveland Indians fan and I hate every team that wins the WS before them, unless they are playing the Yankees.
DB
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
…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![/quote]
I think Red Sox fans are the most bitter in sports.
The thing with cricket is that there are field placings based on the batsman. this in conjunction with the bowler, how he bowls, where and with what pace leave little traps, so it is not just the hitting that is difficult, but shot selection, and running judgment that compund the difficulty.
As far as hitting it far, that would be a 6 if over the boundry rope without it hitting the floor, a 4 if it does.
What a bowler may do is pitch balls in short (i.e.they hit the ground a bit further away from the batsman, therefore frear up), which will try to temt a batsan in for a slog. with effective field placment this will hopefully get an out.
The real problems come in when a wicket (the bit of grass they play on) is a few days old, may be breaking up. the with a fast bowler with a new ball, pitching it hort will hit a crack or bump and rear right up into the face gaurd or elbow (bowling at the person is essentially allowed)
What makes test cricket interesting is that cat and mouse of the tactics, where fast and spin bowlers work to frustrate or pressure specific batsmen. Shane warne, who made spin bowling cool and effective again, is one of the greatest competitors becuse of his amazing skill.
One last thing.
Rugby union…
In a scrum (international level) there is around 7 tons of force going through the front rows neck.
[quote]kroby wrote:
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.[/quote]
It is simply an inferiority complex
What about elephant football. Lets see beckham play them!
Having played both sports quite a bit I can’t say there is a significant difference in difficulty between the two. They are a lot different. Even though there is a lot of technique in baseball, there is more required in cricket. In baseball there is far more strategy. Also, in baseball you will find the professionals in general have far more developed overall physiques (not talking about steroids here).
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
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[/quote]
They werar some padding now in rugby.
As a result, injuries have gone up!
rugby is the greatest game ever. To think otherwise means you support terrorism and eating of babies.
You aren’t a terrorist-loving baby-eater are you?
[quote]miniross wrote:
They werar some padding now in rugby.
As a result, injuries have gone up!
[/quote]
That’s true with Am. FB too. With the evolution of the facemask from the original single bar to the now large, full-face mask has led to a higher incidence of concussions and spinal chord injuries. In the old days, when there were no facemasks, there weren’t too many head-on tackles and rarely a face-first tackle (by mistake).
DB
[quote]mikren wrote:
Having played both sports quite a bit I can’t say there is a significant difference in difficulty between the two. They are a lot different. Even though there is a lot of technique in baseball, there is more required in cricket. In baseball there is far more strategy. Also, in baseball you will find the professionals in general have far more developed overall physiques (not talking about steroids here). [/quote]
not so sure about the strategy thing, but physique wise, you are right. I think that it is a reflection of the systems in place in US sports, that you tend to be ahead of the game in physical preperation. Either that or the greater skill ompnent (practice) takes up that time.
Most cricketers drink fairly heavily, i am sure. Dont baseball players just take coke. they need to spend their money somehow.
LOL
“Babies, the other, other white meat!”
I don’t feel sorry for the Indians. Once upon a time, you had Manny, Thome, Belle… shall I continue? Those Indians are kryptonite to my Chisox, dammit! At least you lost Coco Crisp to… Boston! What a great talent! Face it, your market is fine. Your owner is f’ing cheap tightwad! You telling me Detroit can afford Mag Ordonez and Clev. couldn’t? Wouldn’t, rather.
Gawd, I love this sport! If I lived in merry old England, I’d probably be a freak cricket fan. Naw, I’d be rugby material. Elegant violence, and all that.
[quote]bg100 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Of course I could probably pick 15 random NFL players and whup Australia in rugby.
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]
Your joking right? Take some NFL defensive backs and linebackers, train them in Rugby for two years, and we would have the greatest Rugby team in the history of the sport. Case closed.
I’ve played both sports. I could hit the ball pretty meanly (or sweetly - depends how you look at it) in cricket and in baseball. I’d say, in cricket, there are more factors that a batter has to contend with. Not only do you need to judge the ball’s speed/direction, you’ve to gauge the movement in the air and off the pitch.
As for pitchers vs bowlers, don’t forget the bowlers in cricket can’t “chuck”. Putting it simply, you’ve to have a smooth motion of arms and you can’t bend your elbows as if you’re throwing the ball. Hard do describe it though.
But I’d play softball just for the babes…lol
[quote]miniross wrote:
mikren wrote:
Having played both sports quite a bit I can’t say there is a significant difference in difficulty between the two. They are a lot different. Even though there is a lot of technique in baseball, there is more required in cricket. In baseball there is far more strategy. Also, in baseball you will find the professionals in general have far more developed overall physiques (not talking about steroids here).
not so sure about the strategy thing, but physique wise, you are right. I think that it is a reflection of the systems in place in US sports, that you tend to be ahead of the game in physical preperation. Either that or the greater skill ompnent (practice) takes up that time.
Most cricketers drink fairly heavily, i am sure. Dont baseball players just take coke. they need to spend their money somehow.[/quote]
[quote]chints wrote:
I’ve played both sports. I could hit the ball pretty meanly (or sweetly - depends how you look at it) in cricket and in baseball. I’d say, in cricket, there are more factors that a batter has to contend with. Not only do you need to judge the ball’s speed/direction, you’ve to gauge the movement in the air and off the pitch.
As for pitchers vs bowlers, don’t forget the bowlers in cricket can’t “chuck”. Putting it simply, you’ve to have a smooth motion of arms and you can’t bend your elbows as if you’re throwing the ball. Hard do describe it though.
But I’d play softball just for the babes…lol
miniross wrote:
mikren wrote:
Having played both sports quite a bit I can’t say there is a significant difference in difficulty between the two. They are a lot different. Even though there is a lot of technique in baseball, there is more required in cricket. In baseball there is far more strategy. Also, in baseball you will find the professionals in general have far more developed overall physiques (not talking about steroids here).
not so sure about the strategy thing, but physique wise, you are right. I think that it is a reflection of the systems in place in US sports, that you tend to be ahead of the game in physical preperation. Either that or the greater skill ompnent (practice) takes up that time.
Most cricketers drink fairly heavily, i am sure. Dont baseball players just take coke. they need to spend their money somehow.
[/quote]
But also don’t forget that bowlers have a run up where pitchers start from a dead stop. I will grant you that the ball coming off the ground adds a dimension to hitting, but you can hit to more or less any direction you want as well.
DB
[quote]dollarbill44 wrote:
chints wrote:
I’ve played both sports. I could hit the ball pretty meanly (or sweetly - depends how you look at it) in cricket and in baseball. I’d say, in cricket, there are more factors that a batter has to contend with. Not only do you need to judge the ball’s speed/direction, you’ve to gauge the movement in the air and off the pitch.
As for pitchers vs bowlers, don’t forget the bowlers in cricket can’t “chuck”. Putting it simply, you’ve to have a smooth motion of arms and you can’t bend your elbows as if you’re throwing the ball. Hard do describe it though.
But I’d play softball just for the babes…lol
miniross wrote:
mikren wrote:
Having played both sports quite a bit I can’t say there is a significant difference in difficulty between the two. They are a lot different. Even though there is a lot of technique in baseball, there is more required in cricket. In baseball there is far more strategy. Also, in baseball you will find the professionals in general have far more developed overall physiques (not talking about steroids here).
not so sure about the strategy thing, but physique wise, you are right. I think that it is a reflection of the systems in place in US sports, that you tend to be ahead of the game in physical preperation. Either that or the greater skill ompnent (practice) takes up that time.
Most cricketers drink fairly heavily, i am sure. Dont baseball players just take coke. they need to spend their money somehow.
But also don’t forget that bowlers have a run up where pitchers start from a dead stop. I will grant you that the ball coming off the ground adds a dimension to hitting, but you can hit to more or less any direction you want as well.
DB[/quote]
those shots are governed by field settings and where the ball is pitched to. if it is pitched up on a leg side, cover drives and the like would be options.
the options to hit where you want are limited. take into accout reverse swing, where the ball move against the shiny side (certain age alls, certain conditions make it more likely, and bowling technique), and late revers, where it suddenly jinks in the air late, then thats a whole different kettle of fich, then play 4 differnet bowlers, maybe a spiinne (shane warne can spin the ball off line by up to 3 foot, all disguised) makes the prospect more daunting.
They do spit more in baseball
Dude, what you mentioned will be hard to appreciate if you haven’t played cricket 
Plus, forgot to mention but you can actually hit the batter when bowling Makes it fun to see some broken teeth!
[quote]miniross wrote:
dollarbill44 wrote:
chints wrote:
I’ve played both sports. I could hit the ball pretty meanly (or sweetly - depends how you look at it) in cricket and in baseball. I’d say, in cricket, there are more factors that a batter has to contend with. Not only do you need to judge the ball’s speed/direction, you’ve to gauge the movement in the air and off the pitch.
As for pitchers vs bowlers, don’t forget the bowlers in cricket can’t “chuck”. Putting it simply, you’ve to have a smooth motion of arms and you can’t bend your elbows as if you’re throwing the ball. Hard do describe it though.
But I’d play softball just for the babes…lol
miniross wrote:
mikren wrote:
Having played both sports quite a bit I can’t say there is a significant difference in difficulty between the two. They are a lot different. Even though there is a lot of technique in baseball, there is more required in cricket. In baseball there is far more strategy. Also, in baseball you will find the professionals in general have far more developed overall physiques (not talking about steroids here).
not so sure about the strategy thing, but physique wise, you are right. I think that it is a reflection of the systems in place in US sports, that you tend to be ahead of the game in physical preperation. Either that or the greater skill ompnent (practice) takes up that time.
Most cricketers drink fairly heavily, i am sure. Dont baseball players just take coke. they need to spend their money somehow.
But also don’t forget that bowlers have a run up where pitchers start from a dead stop. I will grant you that the ball coming off the ground adds a dimension to hitting, but you can hit to more or less any direction you want as well.
DB
those shots are governed by field settings and where the ball is pitched to. if it is pitched up on a leg side, cover drives and the like would be options.
the options to hit where you want are limited. take into accout reverse swing, where the ball move against the shiny side (certain age alls, certain conditions make it more likely, and bowling technique), and late revers, where it suddenly jinks in the air late, then thats a whole different kettle of fich, then play 4 differnet bowlers, maybe a spiinne (shane warne can spin the ball off line by up to 3 foot, all disguised) makes the prospect more daunting.
They do spit more in baseball
[/quote]