- 07:28 AM
- 04/20/24
| Name: | Noah |
|---|---|
| Member since: | March 30, 2011 |
| Last visit: | April 01, 2011 |
nados has posted 1 link and 0 comments to SportsFilter and 0 links and 2 comments to the Locker Room.
Cricket Question: I try to pride myself on understanding as many games as possible. From the ancient Chinese board game Wei-chi, which we know in the US as Go, to the advanced intricacies of Rugby, Hockey, American Football, and Baseball. I've even fashioned a crude rugby ball out of an old football, and can explain even the most complex Curling situations to my friends and family. Previously, after seeing a sports science where a baseball player took only 5 minutes to solve the puzzle of cricket batting, I was very negatively disposed to the game, thinking "if a baseball player can be hitting long bombs after a few minutes, then its obviously not that interesting to watch". But my curiosity got the best of me, and I found that cricket was considered a "Batter's game" rather than baseball's pitcher-centric style, and it made more sense to me. Although I don't see myself following Cricket as religiously as I picked up Rugby, I'd like to know a few more things about it; more specifically... 1) If a game has a limited number of overs, as many do today, and overs are based on pitches, as opposed to outs, then it seems possible that a game could have 40 overs without having an out. If this is true, why don't bowlers just bowl avoiding both the wickets and the batter, like a "pitch-out" in baseball? Is there some kind of rule as to what really constitutes a legal throw from the pitcher? 2) I've been led to believe that there are incredibly many ways to get a player out, but when I read into the sport, it seemed like it was very simple, either the bowler hits the wickets, you hit a pop-fly (i know thats not the term they use, s'all good), or they get to the base you're headed to before you. Is it really that simple? people made it sound so intimidatingly complicated. 3) Besides there being 20 overs in a Twenty20 game, are there any more significant differences. I heard a variation on this idea suggested for rugby, and thought it might have been the worst idea I've ever heard, which, knowing my friends, is surprising.
posted by nados to navel gazing at 07:44 PM on March 30, 2011 - 10 comments
thanks, I was reading a shorter article relating cricket to baseball, and they definitely left out many of the intricacies, such as wides and byes. I think I'll stick to my own, but at least I wont be sitting there drooling like an idiot if i ever watch any cricket. I wonder, do cricketers find it as ridiculous for a pitcher to have so much dominance in baseball as I do for the batter to have such an easy time in cricket?
posted by nados at 05:55 PM on March 31, 2011
Cricket Question
by an easy time, its meant that in cricket, the majority of successes occurs with the batsman. It you dont count being beaned, hitting a cricket ball well is considerably easier to pick up by and athlete than hitting a baseball. In baseball, pitching, while considerably difficult, is where most of the success lies. In cricket, it is the opposite, the batsman has the most success. The bowler is trying to beat him, rather than the batter trying to beat the pitcher, like in baseball.