This is totally disingenuous. First, the term “World Series” by far predates the internationalization of modern baseball team players. Second, we all know that such a championship is not a celebration of international diversity but a battle between North American (but mostly USA) regions. Third, Indonesia is an odd strawman. Pick a baseball playing country and the answer could very possibly be yes. But we don’t know because they aren’t invited, which is the point of the criticism.
A story that I’ve heard, is that the New York “World” newspaper donated a trophy to the winners of the baseball series.
Quick explanation of cricket to baseball fans: put home plate in the centre of the field, and all balls are in play - no foul balls.
(my last visit to London - I just happened to be walking past “Lord’s” cricket ground, where there was a sign posted announcing 5 pound tickets for a junior match that day. The Yankee Stadium or Wimbledon of cricket - I had to go in. An enjoyable 2 or 3 hours in the sun with the other 20 or 30 spectators. 
)
Baseball is a fine game but you’d be hard pressed to say it is more complex than test cricket.
The range of shots in cricket is more complex, as are the variety in deliveries, as are the pitch conditions, ball conditions and fielding positions.
I’m not sure what additional complexity baseball has that cricket does not. Care to enlighten?
I have no doubt that most Americans are ignorant of cricket. Unless you live in an area with a significant Indian population like I do (or from some of the other areas where it’s popular) you probably have never seen it live.
I don’t agree that most Americans are ignorant of soccer. I grew up in the 70s and 80s and I played organized soccer my entire life. It is much more popular as a participation sport now and continues to grow. A significant number of American children grow up playing the sport.
Having played soccer more than any other sport I still say it is much more simple than football and extremely boring to watch. Fun to play hate to watch.
Stolen bases. Suicide bunts. Squeeze plays. Sacrifice flies. Hit and run plays.
most of those have equivalents in cricket.
Does baseball have the complexity of 360 degree fielding positions? the variety of batting strokes? the variety of deliveries? the changing pitch? the changing condition and manipulation of the ball? In baseball the ball doesn’t even bounce on the ground.
Baseball has elements that cricket does not, cricket has elements that baseball does not. However the variables in cricket are greater than in baseball.
Complexity does not mean that a sport is automatically better. American football is more complex than football but I prefer the latter over ther former. Pool is much simpler than snooker but I prefer the latter for watching and the former for playing.
Baseball has equivalents to all those. Batters absolutely do change their swings depending on the situation. And pitchers have dozens of variations on the three basic pitches (cut, two-seam, four-seam, splitfinger fastball; curve, slider, knuckleball, slurve; change up,circle change, palmball, etc. Each major league pitcher has his own version of at least two or three of these pitches).
Do cricket groundskeepers consult with the manager of the home team on how firm to make the pitcher’s mound, or whether to lay down the foul lines canting in, so grounders down the line stay fair, or out, so they roll foul? Do batsmen have to contend with with cricket grounds that have different power alleys, foul areas, and distance to the outfield walls, depending on the stadium in which they’re playing? Are batsmen only able to score runs by successfully hitting into a field defined by a 90 degree angle at whose apex they stand, which is patrolled by fielders who are free to position themselves wherever they think the hitter is most likely to hit the ball? Most significantly, must they make those successful hits with a round bat, that has an area of only about two inches where the ball can be hit with enough power to fall fair?
I won’t pretend I understand cricket as well as I do baseball, but I understand the basics. I spent an evening once with a co-worker who’d played high-level amateur cricket in Barbados who, at my request, explained the game in depth, and watched an innings while in New Zealand. I was able to follow along pretty well; indeed, the only fundamental difference I saw between the two games was this: in cricket, the rules make batsman is the dominant player (flat bat, gloveless fielders, 360 deg fair territory); in baseball, it’s the pitcher (elevated pitcher’s mound, round bat, 90 deg fair territory, gloved fielders).
Cricket is a fine game, and I enjoyed watching it. I wouldn’t hesitate to rank Donald Bradman equally with Hank Aaron or Pete Rose in the sports pantheon. But absent an objective definition of “complexity” in regard to baseball/cricket, I don’t think one can be deemed more complex than the other. The two games are complex in different ways.
For many sports fans, which sports and teams you like comes down to what you grew up watching. In my case I grew up watching Dallas Cowboys football, Houston Astros baseball, and San Antonio Spurs basketball with my father, so those are my sports and teams. Of course I wasn’t alone in this, and many of my peers grew up the same way. Because of that, we didn’t have to argue with each other about which sport is better. Becoming a fan of a new team, much less a completely different sport, takes effort, but with most people supporting the same teams, that isn’t an issue.
Cue those who want to expand the range of their sport of choice, for whatever reason. In order to do so, they have to put forth arguments of some sort in favor of their preferred sport. They can’t rely on “everyone is a Cowboys fan” or whatever. For some people, they take these arguments as somehow meaning that their preferred sport is somehow not as good as the sport someone is trying to argue in favor of. In addition, “conversos”, someone who came to like a particular sport as an adult, will probably have thought out reasons, not just the “it’s what I grew up with” argument. They may argue these reasons more passionately, and thus piss off people who don’t want to be persuaded.
The issue with this is that generally those same kids that played soccer in the 70s and 80s didn’t really have a chance of watching the top quality of soccer at the time. And therefore didn’t really learn any of the tactics. I played soccer as a kid in the 80s/90s and every team played a 1-3-3-3 sweeper system (which was hopelessly outdated at the time). I had no idea of the different formations until I starting watching the World Cup. That was an eye opener.
I think access to higher quality soccer on TV these days (in addition to a domestic league which is pretty good, even if not on the same level with the Big 5 leagues) allows kids to have a better appreciation for the game.
I know that living in Atlanta that has translated to MASSIVE support for the local MLS team.
The variety of shots of in cricket is far greater than in baseball. There is a whole element of defensive play that cannot exist is baseball because of the need to run when the ball is hit.
And cricket bowlers have the same but there is even greater variety of speed and direction. The legal area for bowling is much bigger than in baseball, a single ball is used for 480 consecutive deliveries and its condition changes dramatically at different stages (and the ball can be legally manipulated over that life to enhance such traits) which is not to even to mention the state of the surface itself which changes dramatically over the course of five days and which requires different approaches from batsmen and bowlers. Baseball does not have that as you are not allowed to bounce the pitches. Bowlers also can be switched in and out and in and out without restriction and of course they have a choice of ends from which to bowl and whether to bowl “round” or “over” the wicket.
A thousands times yes, the groundsman is one of the most important people at the club. The square of turf in the centre of the pitch is the holiest of holies. Getting that surface to play in the way you want for both batters and bowlers is a huge benefit and as a visiting team, being able to adapt to such conditions is a big bonus. And yes, the boundary changes size and shape ground to ground. Also the wicket being used can vary in position by dozens of yards game to game so the short boundary you could utilise in your last visit will no longer exist.
Those aspects talk to restrictions and difficulty, not complexity. It is more difficult to hit a home run than a run in cricket but it is more difficult to make a catch in cricket. It is more difficult to score a goal in football than a goal in hockey but that doesn’t make football a more complex game. I think there is greater complexity in having to attack and defend the full 360 degrees, The range of shots required and variety of field placements offers far greater complexity for cricket.
And it is true that a cricket bat is about 55% wider than a baseball bat and flat but that just adds to the complexity as it becomes possible to play a wider variety of shots to a larger area of the ground and thus place that burden back on the fielding team to react or mitigate.
Image if baseball were played with a cricket bat and more careful placement of shots were possible, would that make the game simpler for both sides?
I’d disagree, The balance of dominance in cricket changes from game to game and, due to weather and pitch conditions, day to day and session to session. A morning session on a new pitch with bright conditions and new ball may be good for batsmen. Four days in with a worn and cracking pitch, a reverse swinging ball and overcast conditions it is a different matter. And yes the cricket captain will be paying close attention to the weather forecast for the next 5 days and the starting conditions and likely deterioration of the playng surface before considering whether to choose to bat or bowl first.
For me, I look at Checkers v Chess. Both have outward similarities and both have complexities. Chess however has a greater complexity due to the additional ways in which the individual parts are free to move. It has more variables and more ways in which the game can be played.
I think cricket has a greater number of variables and wider room within those variables, than does baseball.
None of that speaks to a qualitative judgement of either sport. That is the bit that is completely subjective.
Likewise, there’s a whole element of offensive strategy that cannot exist in cricket because the batsman need not run on every safe hit.
[quote=“Novelty_Bobble, post:50, topic:918570, full:true”]
Those aspects talk to restrictions and difficulty, not complexity. It is more difficult to hit a home run than a run in cricket but it is more difficult to make a catch in cricket. It is more difficult to score a goal in football than a goal in hockey but that doesn’t make football a more complex game. I think there is greater complexity in having to attack and defend the full 360 degrees, The range of shots required and variety of field placements offers far greater complexity for cricket.
And it is true that a cricket bat is about 55% wider than a baseball bat and flat but that just adds to the complexity as it becomes possible to play a wider variety of shots to a larger area of the ground and thus place that burden back on the fielding team to react or mitigate.[/quote]
What you call “aspects [that] talk to restriction and difficulty” are what I argue adds complexity to baseball; albeit in a different area than in cricket. Just as the forward pass adds a level of strategy to American football that is not present in rugby, baserunning and the plays built around it – stealing, hit and runs, and such – add an element to baseball that cricket either doesn’t have, or not to the same extent (I defer to your superior knowledge in this). Again, not “better”; but certainly not “worse”. I’ll concede that using one ball through the entire game is a wrinkle that makes a more complex game; but the practice of using multiple balls is a later development of baseball.
For both sides? No. But it would make it simpler for the batter, I think so, just as a baseball glove makes fielding simpler for a shortstop. This is what I meant when I said that cricket favors the batsman where baseball favors the pitcher. Although I should perhaps rephrase that as cricket favors the offense, where baseball favors the defense. Which is why it’s possible for a batsman to score a hundred runs at one “at-bat”, whereas a batter can score, at the most, four in a single trip to the plate.
The condition of the field is important to baseball, as well. But you’re comparing apples to oranges, if you’re measuring an ordinary nine-inning baseball game to a five-day cricket Test match. A Test is more comparable to a five-game divisional series, or a seven-game championship.
In summary, you make a good argument, but I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree. But I do think I’ve fairly shown that baseball isn’t merely a “simpler form of cricket”.
All fair points, and ones that are fun to bat around ( 
) and agreeing to disagree is ultimately the best option for any sport debate.
And I’d agree, baseball is not merely a simpler form of cricket, it has some superficial similarities but deserves to be judged on its own merits.
That’s not it though; in order to enjoy watching soccer, you have to get into the mindset that the actual ebb and flow of the game is the part worth watching, not just the scoring plays. In other words, you have to enjoy watching the midfielders pass the ball around and try to set up scoring plays, and the defenders trying to take the ball, and all the free/corner kick strategy and drama.
In other words, you have to get over the idea that it’s about scoring plays, and enjoy the game play for itself. The closest US equivalent would be baseball, where there’s a whole game to be watched with pitching/defense, and another with offensive strategy. A pitcher throwing a no-hitter is likely to be unsufferably boring if you’re wanting to see a lot of scoring, but if you’re into the pitching and defensive game, then it’s really cool. Hockey is also a lot like a really fast-paced, very small area version of soccer played on ice, so it’s a fair bit more scoring-oriented.
Soccer is a lot like that. The problem is that other major US sports are either scoring-centric (basketball), or have a sort of mini-game component in lieu of constant scoring (i.e. getting first downs in football), as well as significant strategic/tactical components that keep people interested when there’s not an imminent scoring play.
Right, and that skill is more apparent when watching high quality soccer. Because you can see it come together better - especially the passing to open up a scoring chance. Or high quality players being able to execute a tactical strategy well.
Then you realize it isn’t just about hoofing it or one person dribbling through everyone and trying to score.
I think that’s a major reason why soccer is far more popular today than it was back then. When folks can easily watch the Premier League or Champions League, and even have more Major League Soccer teams popping up near them, they “get it” easier.
While I agree that it helps people “get it”, I think the real reason for popularity is that those of us born in the 1970s played it as kids, even if there was no televised soccer until the late 1990s. But our children, and our peers maybe 10 years younger than us watched it growing up on TV, and there’s been an explosion of soccer exposure to younger people.
I mean, my younger brother watched it on TV from when he was in high school, and has been able to keep up ever since, and watch it both on TV, and live for MLS games. I couldn’t really do that until I was in my late 20s/early 30s, as there just wasn’t any televised soccer on TV except on Spanish channels until probably 1998 or so. The internet hasn’t hurt either- we can now keep up with league tables, etc… for all the foreign leagues without having to scour newspapers or soccer-specific publications.
I’d be willing to bet that soccer is particularly big among Millennials and Gen-Z, and much less so among Gen-X and Boomers.
That is a valid point, and it’s why so many Americans - including me - find soccer boring. Although, to be fair, that’s a problem with all continuous-flow games, including basketball and ice hockey (and yes, those bore me as well). Sports like baseball, American football, or rugby, which I suppose you could call “advance to a goal” games, have a built-in tension (third-and-two on the 15-yard line; can they score? Can the batter get the runner on second home on a 3-1 count with two outs?) that is present in continuous-flow games, but not to the same extent.
My $0.02.
I don’t think you are actually disagreeing with me here. The exposure to quality soccer in the US didn’t really happen until the late 90s. The 1994 World Cup helped propel viewership so that every following WC has had each match televised.
And then you had MLS televised with the Premier League following in the 2000s (and then when NBC bought the rights to the Prem in 2013 it really took off). Granted you could always get Fox Soccer Channel and BeIn to get other leagues, but it’s a bit different when you don’t have to sub to a separate sports channel.
I’m curious which ones those would be. The only really uniquely American sport is football, which is famously complicated. The other major American team sports - baseball, basketball, and hockey - are global sports and played the same way everywhere.
This is really little more than a guess (it also wouldn’t support the idea that American sports are less complex; baseball is more complex than rounders.)
Baseball is not wholly original, but it’s not super clear what sport led to what. As your own link notes, the name “Base ball” predates “rounders,” and we do not know for sure if the sport that is recognizably baseball came from what is now called rounders, or if the sports evolved in parallel, slowly evolving and becoming increasingly different, like a species splitting into two species through natural selection.
There were a lot of regional base ball and rounders variants in the 18th and early 19th centuries and it’s possible the names “base ball” (it did not standardize as one word until the 20th century) and “rounders” were used, to some degree, interchangeably, up to the mid 1800s.
It also seems kinda likely to me that some game preceded base ball/rounders. Hitting a ball with a bat is a pretty obvious central mechanic in a game; I don’t think that just sprang from nothing in the 18th century.
Incidentally, by “unique” I meant now basically just played in the USA (and Canada, in the case of football) with very little play outside of those countries. Of course I know football is a descendant of British games.
And, of course basketball (and volleyball, invented around the same time and for many of the same reasons) was actually invented in the USA, but those are now wildly popular sports around the globe.