Cricket vs Baseball

[Yorick]

Originally posted by johnny: Yes Yorick, i know they play cricket overhere, and i'm glad they never show it on TV, they show a lot of baseball though, must be becaue we're champions of Europe. Holland sucks at cricket, noone cares but the guys who play it. And baseball is the most popular sport in a lot of Asian countries like both Korea's, Japan, and is the fastest growing sport in China. Add all Latin countries to that and cricket comes nowhere near baseball. Especially not when it comes to broadcastingtime. The worldseries are being broadcasted in almost every corner of the globe, tell me if that's the same with the most important cricketmatch and i'll call it even. You can't deny the fact that besides the Commonwealth countries nobody cares for cricket. There isn't a soul on this planet that hasn't heard of the NY Yankees, what's the name of the best cricketteam ? I haven't got a clue, and i bet that goes for a whole lot more people than just me. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Is Holland a Commonwealth Country now? Regardless of what you say, you have a PROFESSIONAL division. So it's making money.

As far as Asia goes, football is the fastest growing sport, not baseball. Additionally as I stated, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are all Cricket mad. India in particular. In Africa, South AFrica, Zimbabwe and Kenya play, while tournaments are often staged to large crowds in the United Arab Emirates. In South/Central America, Guyana, Barbados, Trinidad, Jamaica, St Kitts, Nevis etc are all big cricket countries.

Finally, there are millions who have never heard of the NY Yankees. The most popular team in any sport is Manchester United.

As far as never hearing the name of the best cricket team, you've actually heard it several times. There isn't an educated soul on the planet that hasn't heard of Australia.

[wellard]

Gosh
and I thought the abortion debate was a "hot subject"! [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

[Lord Starshadow]

I laughed when I read the part about the bowlers being so great. If they were so great, why do the games last so long and so many runs get scored? And if it's because "the batters are really good", how can do many be good if it's supposed to be hard? And when's the last time a cricket batter had a 100 mile an hour pitch thrown at him, followed by an 85 mile/hour pitch that drops a foot and a half before reaching the batter? Doesn't happen.

And the field makes a lot of difference on a baseball field as well. A rock on the infield dirt and cause a ball to take a bad bounce past a fielder and lumps in the outfield can cause a ground ball to suddenly turn on the outfielder, causing him to miss it. Temperature makes a difference in a baseball game as well: the ball flies differently depending on the weather. And elevation makes a lot of difference too. Balls fly further and curveballs don't break as much at high altitude.

I'm thinking someone didn't do their homework.

[Callum Kerr]

Originally posted by Lord Starshadow: I laughed when I read the part about the bowlers being so great. If they were so great, why do the games last so long and so many runs get scored? And if it's because "the batters are really good", how can do many be good if it's supposed to be hard? And when's the last time a cricket batter had a 100 mile an hour pitch thrown at him, followed by an 85 mile/hour pitch that drops a foot and a half before reaching the batter? Doesn't happen. And the field makes a lot of difference on a baseball field as well. A rock on the infield dirt and cause a ball to take a bad bounce past a fielder and lumps in the outfield can cause a ground ball to suddenly turn on the outfielder, causing him to miss it. Temperature makes a difference in a baseball game as well: the ball flies differently depending on the weather. And elevation makes a lot of difference too. Balls fly further and curveballs don't break as much at high altitude. I'm thinking someone didn't do their homework.

Granted... but cricket has all that too... and they don't have oversized gloves... Also... the ground has no effect on the batter whatsoever (unless it causes the bowler (pitcher?) or batter to trip over )

[Callum Kerr]

Originally posted by Davros: quote: Originally posted by Donut: I've always thought that the major difference between the two sports is that we understand baseball!

LOL - gotta love those subtitles - I always thought that you couldn't really call it a World Cup of cricket with so few nations playing, whereas in baseball .......[/QUOTE]... you have the world series... with only one nation... and two Canadian teams...

To all the NY Yankees sub-debate... of course everyone knows of 'em... Fred Durst wears one of their caps... but does everyone know what they DO?

[Donut]

Originally posted by Lord Starshadow: I'm thinking someone didn't do their homework.

I agree LS. But I think it's you.

The fastest bowlers bowl at about 98 mph. It is far more difficult to play a ball that bounces than one that comes straight at you, simply because you bring another variable (the bounce)into the equation. In cricket, if the ball doesn't bounce it's called a "full toss" and is usually dispatched to the boundary. It's one of the easiest balls to play.

Your comment about why are there so many runs just shows that you don't understand the difference between cricket and baseball. In cricket you are not out if you miss the ball three times and you can score more than one run each time. You can also score runs all around the field rather than just in a V in front of you. Plus you don't 'have' to run every time you hit the ball.

Now where's that abortion thread?

[ 01-30-2003, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

[Donut]

Originally posted by AzRaeL StoRmBlaDe: I'm not saying cricket doesn't have history. I'm simply saying, that it doesn't currently, nor will it ever, have the history that baseball has. Therefore in my opinion, I will always pass on it.

I can understand that you have no interest in cricket but you are looking at it from a US viewpoint. Cricket has a far longer history that baseball. You just don't know about it that's all!

Cricket is far too complex for Americans to appreciate.

(I know that tin hat is around here somewhere, perhaps this should be moved to the war forum)

[johnny]

If Australia is so dominant, then why does South Africa lead the tables ? And i know that baseball is American Yorick, and the Yankees are an American team. But i don't let it dictate my life as was assumed earlier. It's just a sport, not a religeon.
Ans what do you mean with "we have a division" ? It's only one team, that's not a competition. But you didn't answer me why the worldseries are being broadcast all over the globe, and the most important cricketmatch isn't. Could it be that there are not enough interrested cablecompanies, because not much people will watch it anyway ? I know that's exactly the case in Holland, and with the exeption of Britain, the same goes for the rest of Europe.
And who told you Man U is the most popular footballteam in the world ? Juventus has the most fanclubs worldwide, and it has been like that for a long time.

[ 01-30-2003, 06:37 AM: Message edited by: johnny ]

[Callum Kerr]

Originally posted by johnny: If Australia is so dominant, then why does South Africa lead the tables ? And i know that baseball is American Yorick, and the Yankees are an American team. But i don't let it dictate my life as was assumed earlier. It's just a sport, not a religeon. Ans what do you mean with "we have a division" ? It's only one team, that's not a competition. But you didn't answer me why the worldseries are being broadcast all over the globe, and the most important cricketmatch isn't. Could it be that there are not enough interrested cablecompanies, because not much people will watch it anyway ? I know that's exactly the case in Holland, and with the exeption of Britain, the same goes for the rest of Europe. And who told you Man U is the most popular footballteam in the world ? Juventus has the most fanclubs worldwide, and it has been like that for a long time.

I'm pretty sure that Man U has the most "registered" fans in the world... plus many more "unregistered" fans.

We get the World series shown here in Malaysia occasionally... and never live... and never in "prime time"... always during working hours... There is a special channel own for the cricket...

[Davros]

Originally posted by johnny: If Australia is so dominant, then why does South Africa lead the tables ?

I will field this one if I may - there are very few rankings systems that have no flaws. The cricket system (on the whole) has a good one (or it will have) whereby you earn and retain points for the last home and the last away series of matches (usually 3-5) that you play against each country. Australia have accrued their home and away points against India, New Zealand, England, the West Indies, South Africa, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. There are two more test playing nations - Zimbabwe and Bangladesh - of the 4 possible points opportunities against these two weakest of nations, Australia has only played one of the 4 series.

The matches in Zimbabwe last year were cancelled because of the Mugabe thing, and we are still trying to arrange matches against Bangladesh (the issues are they won't make money in OZ and pull crowds, and we have regular agreements with other nations that have taken up the prime spots).

So we haven't played all the matches is the main reason. We played 2 series against South Africa eary last year - we won 3-0 in Australia, and 2-1 in South Africa. The rankings say that SA is the best side in the world - whatever - we know which is the better team.

Cue Donut for rebuttal