Well, baseball players don’t get to wear huge shin pads, baseball starting pitchers are expected to throw 90-100 times (plus warmups), cricketers aren’t expected to have home-plate collisions (which baseball is actually trying to get rid of, because too many players get seriously hurt), and cricketers rarely opposing players sliding into them (with or without sharp metal spikes up). Just ask Ruben Tejada whether baseball players have to be tough and brave [in the 2015 playoffs, he had his leg broken by an opposing player sliding into him].
Not saying cricketers aren’t tough, and I’m not even saying cricketers are less tough than baseball players; but couldn’t let the absolute challenge stand.
They don’t need them, you aren’t allowed to aim at the batsmen, unlike in cricket where the legs are used as an extension of the bat and the body and head are legitimate targets. If you are batting, you will get hit, you will have a delivery aimed at your head. And lets not forget, all your fielders wear gloves.
but then they don’t have a 30 yard sprint before each delivery and most top line bowlers will be putting in at least 150 deliveries of that type in a day. (and they are expected to field as well)
Less frequent certainly, but collisions happen
Fair enough, the sliding is alien to cricket but the broken bones are commonplace (but more often noses, fingers, wrists, cheekbones and arms.)
No, you are right to challenge it. Professional sportsmen and women will be as tough as the opposition demands and the rules allow. All will push their bodies to the point of breakdown, only the manner of the breakdown and the severity of the outcome will vary.
[QUOTE=Quercus;]
t
Well, baseball players don’t get to wear huge shin pads
[/QUOTE]
+1
Not only are chances of getting hit by any delivery/pitch much higher in cricket, players face orders of magnitude more deliveries.
Joe Burns faced almost 500 deliveries/pitches in his two at-bats in the recent Test, and that wouldn’t be anyway near to a record.* [There have been 9 instances where a batsmen faced more than 600 deliveries in a single innings, headed by Len Hutton’s innings of 847 deliveries in making 364.]*
In the same Test match Australian captain Steve Smith got struck on the head by NZ’s Neil Wagner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILlWfP93S4w
Steve Smith (or any other batsmen hit) doesn’t get a free base or a couple of runs as restitution. He has to face the next delivery, or leave the field. (They can return . Rick McCosker with a broken jaw facing Bob Willis in the Centenary Test, Colin Cowdrey with a broken arm, batting left handed against Wes Hall, Bert Sutcliffe returning to face Neil Adcock on a green top at Ellis Park etc.)
It’s a meme that the US tends to favour explosive sports while much of the rest of the sporting world favours endurance.
The 3 hour NFL game with 11 minutes of titanic action vs the concentration of Hanif Mohammad who batted for 970 minutes and scored 337 to save a Test for his country.
There is nothing in baseball remotely equivalent to the mental endurance of standing at 1st slip for a day (6 hours, min 540 deliveries), maybe longer waiting for a catch that may never come … but if it does come in the last over of the day and you drop the bloody thing, you are a goose on TV in front of the whole nation.
Not really. It places the most scrutiny on a player’s technique ***as those techniques have developed over more than a century of non-limited over cricket ***(whether One-day or T20). We have been conditioned to admire the techniques applicable to test cricket as somehow ‘more worthy’.
It’s a bit like the 3-point line when that was introduced into basketball - old farts (like me) grumbled ‘Airy-Fairy chucking! Just get inside to the big guys’, and it took some time to be accepted. Now it is used as an integral tactic in the game, and it’s best proponents are feted.
We are now seeing the effect of skills developed in limited-over cricket - particularly batting and fielding - being used in Test cricket to advantage.
I often think what would have happened if limited-over cricket had been invented first (exactly as it is played today), and then someone came up with an ‘Unlimited Marathon’ form of the game - ie Test cricket. I don’t think too many people would be all that interested, and at best it would be regarded as a gimmick.
Unfortunately, the direction you hit the ball will have a big bearing upon which side of the wicket you run on. If you play a cut shot (for example, right-handed), you bodyweight will move towards your left (usually) and so you will run down the left side of the pitch (crossing over the pitch after a few strides is - not exactly forbidden, but frowned upon). Other shots will push you to the right side.
The non-striker (runner) will line up on different sides of the pitch, depending on which side the bowler is bowling from. Collisions happen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H1HOmafj20
There are supposedly only 3 calls in cricket between running partners: ‘Yes!’ (let’s run), ‘No!’ (let’s not run), ‘Wait!’ (see if the ball gets past the fielder).
And this is where I would have otherwise kept my big mouth shut.
It seems Cricket fans cant seem to get into a discussion of cricket v baseball without pointing out that baseball players have to use a “pussy” glove, while ignoring the reasons why it is needed in baseball and not cricket in order to denigrate baseball unfairly. You don’t see me calling crickets batsmen “pussy” for dressing up like all but a Galactic Empire Stormtrooper when they come up to the wicket.
Same with Rugby fans, who have to bring up American football players wear “pussy” helmets and pads, well, if its so much safer then, and theres NFL players who make 15-20x more a year than the highest Rugger in the world for playing only 16 games a year wearing “pussy” padding and helmets, why isn’t there an influx of all these Rugby players trying to get into the NFL?
I’d have a hard time believing that test cricket was invented first. The game as originally played by the public is far more likely to have been one-day affairs (what working man can afford to take multiple days off to play cricket?) with the extended version being developed from that.
And certainly techniques continue to be developed in the limited overs form and transfer to the test arena but the test remains the bigger test. Ask any player which is worth more, a century in an ODI or in a test?
I’m not aware of a true cricketing great, with bat or ball, that has built their reputation only playing the one day game.
yes russian heel why are gloves needed for all fielders? The ball is harder and heavier in cricket, the forces involved are much the same when hit…do tell
that has already been addressed. A batsman is a legitimate target in cricket. You can bowl and hit, legally, any part of them. Baseball backstops wear protection for much the same reason, the risk of dangerous impact.
no-one in this thread has made that point, trying defending what has actually been said
There were many forms of cricket played in the 1700s and 1800s, true. However when professional cricket started to be played between professional teams in England, due to the travel limitations, it settled onto the 2-innings, 3-day game as being the standard. If games finished in less than 3 days (many did), it was common for the teams to play some form of one-innings, or single-wicket game for the crowds on the 3rd day.
However as pitches improved, and batting standards in particular improved, it became necessary for the top-level games (Test matches) to be scheduled for 4, and later 5 days. Over time, this led to Test cricket being seen as slower, more defensive than any other form.
I will say this - I have watched (conservatively) one billion different cricket matches:), and have no doubt that an extremely close Test Match finish provides THE most tense atmosphere at any sporting event.
In 1982/83, Australia v England test match, Australia were 9 wickets down at the end of Day 4, needing 37 more runs to win. Advantage England. The MCG threw the gates open, and 18,000 people turned up to watch what could have been one ball only.
An hour and a half later, Australia had scored 34 of the 37 needed, and then…I don’t want to talk about it.
It’s fun watching Voges hang around Bradman’s average. As I point out to the young guys at work he has had a blessed start to his career; he only scored 200 runs against England but around that was dismissed once by the West Indies while scoring 500+ runs, on two flat tracks v New Zealand where Australia scored 550+ he got another 400. At one stage he went over 500 runs between dismissals. And still he hasn’t got to Bradman and probably won’t. Assuming he is dismissed next time he bats he needs 161. Mind you a Burns failure today and a not out would have done the trick.
It is as many people point out one simply one of the most stunning personal sporting averages (probably the most stunning) in history. Voges situation is a bit of an anomaly and won’t mean much till he’s played a lot more matches. Bradman had a long career and his average is so far beyond the standard deviation its mind boggling.
Bradman’s average is the greatest statistic in all sport, to have someone approach it is incredible. I’m sure Voges’ average will regress a lot (a number 5 batsman can’t continue to enjoy a not out every three innings forever - can he?), but for now it’s amazing.
I’m looking forward to see how he does in Sri Lanka in July.
Actually at the end of Australia’s innings both Voges and Smith are in the top 6 averages in all of Test match history using the standard minimum of 20 innings. Smith has scored a hundred every second match on average since August 2013 and still only averaged 75 during that period.
Seriously, Kiwis seem to have never gotten over that…everytime I meant a New Zealander and they find out I am Pakistani, thats literally the first thing they mention.
The announcers seem to make a pretty big deal about a new ball. What determines when and how frequently a new ball is put into play? I can’t discern who it favors. Does is fly faster, bend more, or something else? Do the pitch conditions determine if it favors the bowler or batter?
