Just to expand on a couple of things
In the Test form of the game (i.e. the 5 day version) both teams have 2 innings
not strictly true
debatable. In order to win in the 5-day format you do need to bowl the opposition out twice (or have them declare their innings over), to win in the shorter form you don’t. a team scoring 200 for the loss of only one wicket is beaten by the team scoring 201 for the loss of nine wickets.
A little punctuation might be helpful here i.e.
There are no “balls” and “strikes” as in American baseball.
useful to be clear on that because there is such a thing as a “no ball” in cricket. The umpire might deem a delivery a “no ball” if the bowler oversteps the delivery crease with their front foot (other rules for no balls also exist). In that case the ball is dead, the batting team gets a free run added to their score and the ball has to be bowled again, in some forms of cricket the batsman may even be given a “free hit” which is exactly what it sounds like. They can hit the next ball without any fear of being given out.
So that’s how cricket handles illegal deliveries but you are absolutely allowed to aim for the batsman’s body and head, that’s all withing the rules and is considered an art in itself. A good “bouncer” is a thing of beauty, as is the balletic avoidance of it.
Note that the first of these is identical to baseball.
The second is quite similar to a force play in baseball.
The third also matches baseball: Check the “Ways of Making Outs” list on this Wiki page (which has over 30 entries).
Folks here have done a pretty good job of explaining the key differences in the rules and mechanisms of the game, but what these differences also lead to is a fundamental difference in the nature of the two games. Both are about hitting a ball with a stick, but the pressures of the game work in different ways.
In baseball, the immediate, play-by-play pressure is heavily weighted on the pitcher. That is, in any given at-bat, the pitcher is expected to succeed, and if he doesn’t it can have huge consequences for his team’s chances to win the game. By contrast, the hitter is baseball is, by simple dint of the way the game works, expected to fail. We all know the stats: even the best hitters in the world only get a base hit about once every three tries, and the best get on base less than half the time, on average. I’m not arguing that hitters feel no pressure, or that they don’t expect to succeed when they come to the plate, but they get multiple chances per game, and their performance is judged based on their aggregate performance rather than any single at-bat. If a hitter comes up in a big situation, and gets out, his team and fans are disappointed, but they also realize that this was, statistically, a likely outcome. By contrast, if a pitcher comes into a game and gives up a home run or a series of hit, this is viewed much more negatively because the pitcher is supposed to get the outs.
In cricket, by contrast, the constant pressure is on the batter. In a test match (the longer 5-day version of the game) each batter only gets (at most) two chances. Once you’re out, you don’t get to come back to the plate again in another 45 minutes. Also, the out itself is much more significant because a cricket batter’s opportunities for scoring are open-ended. That is, if he doesn’t get out he can stay out there all day and score tens or hundreds of runs. Even the best hitter in baseball can do no better than a home run on each at-bat; for a cricket player, the range of possibilities run the gamut from a first-ball out to a two-day appearance racking up 200+ runs. But one mistake, and that chance is gone.
Cricket bowlers, by contrast, are not expected to get a batter out on any given delivery, or even within any given over. While some weather conditions and pitches do benefit bowlers, the game as a whole is weighted towards the batters. Batters are not expected to fail in any given situation; they are expected to succeed, to stay in and to score runs. And a single mistake by a bowler, while it might allow the other team to hit the ball for 4 or 6 runs, isn’t likely to turn the game. For the bowlers in cricket, like for the hitters in baseball, the evaluation of success is based more on the longer run of the game than on any particular encounter. A bowler who bowls 20-30 overs (120-180 deliveries) and gets 3 or 4 people out might have had a very good day.
This was all summed up quite nicely by English cricketer and author E.T. Smith in his book Playing Hardball, in which he visits the United States and spends time with some MLB oranizations interviewing coaches and players, and taking some batting practice himself. Smith says:
Other aspects of the nature of the two games changes the way that bowlers and pitchers approach their tasks.
One of the most obvious is that, in cricket, the ball does not (unless the bowlers makes a mistake) arrive at the batter on the full. The cricket bowler is expected to make the ball bounce on the pitch, on its way to the batsman. And that bounce is part of the skill of bowling, and is also why sheer speed is not necessarily the main aim of the cricket bowler. In the same way that baseball pitchers vary things like velocity and curve to deceive the hitter, cricket bowlers use the pitch to make the ball move in ways intended to deceive the batter.
Connected with this issue is the question of exactly what the bowler wants to do, in terms of getting the batter out. Like the baseball pitcher, the cricket bowler seeks to deliver the ball in a way that maximizes the chance of an error by the batter, or puts the batter at some sort of disadvantage, especially through indecision. Just like some of the best baseball pitches are the ones on the outside corner, where a hitter might end up waving ineffectually at a pitch or grounding it gently to the infield, some of the best deliveries in cricket are often those that are placed right near the outside edge of the stumps, where it can be hard for a batsman to get properly behind the ball, but where he also feels obliged to try and get the bat in the way to prevent him being bowled out.
And this, in turn, leads us to another issue, which is the placement of the fielders. Field placement is far more flexible and varied in cricket than in baseball. One reason is that, in baseball there are 9 players in the field covering a field that describes an angle of 90 degrees. In cricket, there are 11 players in the field (i.e., two more than baseball), but they must cover a full 360 degree field of play. There is no “foul ground” in cricket, and the main playing area is smack in the middle of a large oval.
One place where it is very common to place fielders in cricket, especially in the early part of a inning, is in an area called the slips, which is essentially behind, and off to the side, of the batter. The bowler then tries to bowl the ball in such a way that the batter will try to hit it, but will not connect properly and will instead nick the ball lightly off the edge of the bat. Essentially, what the bowler is aiming for is similar to what we would call in baseball a “foul tip.” But in cricket, a foul tip does not just result in a strike, as it usually does in baseball; if it is caught by the slips, it results in a wicket, an out. Here’s a good example.
One final difference, alluded to in the previous paragraph when i said that slip fielders are used particularly in the early part of an inning, is that bowlers in cricket have to deal with inconsistencies that baseball pitchers never have to worry about, including in the ball itself. In baseball, the aim is to have the pitcher throw essentially an identical, new, clean, unmarked ball every time he pitches. In cricket, by contrast, the same ball is used for an extended period of time, and can only be replaced under very specific circumstances. In a test match, a ball is used for 80 overs (480 deliveries) before a new ball can be taken, and during that time the ball loses a considerable amount of its hardness and its shine, changing the way that it moves through the air and off the pitch. Bowlers have to adapt to these changes, which can (depending on the pitch, the weather conditions, and the type of bowlers on the team) quite dramatically shift the advantage between the batting and the bowling team.
[edit: that was basically copied and pasted from a post I made in a similar thread a few years back]
What is the most common way for a batter to get out? The wicket is knocked over, she hits a ball that is caught, or is thrown out when running to the other wicket?
Given the high penalty for getting out, do batters tend to ‘play it safe’ and avoid running, even if they could most likely get a run?
Can the bowler throw the equivalent of a breaking ball - alter the spin of the ball in order to make it curve in an unexpected way?
Marvelous game, really. You see, the bowler hurls the ball toward the batter who tries to play away a fine leg. He endeavors to score by dashing between the creases, provided the wicket keeper hasn’t whipped his bails off, of course.
Here’s my view (presented in a “baseball-centric” way) of the important differences between baseball & cricket:
[ul][li]In cricket, each base achieved score a run; in baseball, you must advance runners around the bases to home plate.[/li][li]In cricket, it’s “one strike and you’re out” - and the wicket does the job of deciding what’s a strike.[/li][li]In baseball, when you hit the ball into fair territory, you must run; in cricket, all territory is fair, but running is strictly optional.[/li][li]In cricket, the “pitcher” must release the ball with a (nearly) straight arm, but is allowed a running start; bouncing the ball is encouraged. [/li][/ul]
Often - but it depends on circumstances. Toward the end of a “One-day” match, a team may be facing the need to score a number of runs on a limited number of balls, which makes “playing it safe” look like poor strategy.
Yes. And the fact the a ball can be bounced leads to the idea of putting a lot of spin on the ball, causing it to change direction - perhaps sharply - after hitting the ground.
Being caught out is the most common form of dismissal in cricket, or at least in Test cricket, which is the longer version of the game.
Here’s the scorecard for the most recent test match between Australia and England, won in spectacular fashion by England, in one of the most exciting matches I’ve ever watched.
There were 39 batters who got out in this match, and the breakdown of dismissals was:
Caught: 25
Bowled: 7
Leg Before Wicket (LBW): 5
Run out: 2
A poster on Reddit a few years back put together a total of all dismissals in the history of test cricket, and his figures were:
Caught: 58.6 %
Bowled: 21.3 %
LBW: 14.4 %
Run out: 3.46 %
As you can see, the recent test wasn’t actually too far out of line with historical figures.
I believe “caught” would be the most common.
Certain circumstances absolutely demand such tactics. It is a critical thing to take into consideration. In the most recent Eng-Aus test match you had Ben Stokes and Jack Leach batting at the same time. Stokes is a top class batsman, Leach is not on his level. If either of them were out then England lose the game. Both batsmen were scrupulous in judging when to run and when not to so as to ensure that Stokes faced the majority of the deliveries and so give him the opportunity to score runs and lessen the exposure of Leach to the bowling.
Oh yes, in cricket there is the added complication of a greater range of speeds, variation in ball condition and movement before, during and after hitting the ground.
I believe baseball pitches are typically between 65 and 105 mph, Cricket bowling is more like 45-95 and movement is more highly prized and a greater weapon than pure speed. One highly regarded skill of bowling is a fastish ball that curves into the batsman at the last moment, forcing them to attempt to play at it but when the ball hits the pitch it either straightens or moves back away from them. That almost guarantees an edge and a potential catch.
Caught out by far.
Now this is where the game is at its peak. It… depends, on the situation, the conditions.
Whole books can and have been written on it.
Here is an explanation of the physics of the most common type.
Sure! That’s a game that your dad takes you to watch on the weekends in summer where you sit bored out of your fucking mind for hours and hours just wasting your god given time on this planet. But you try to act pleased because you know that’s what dad wants.
That’s cricket.
On run outs:
As Novelty Bobble alludes to, running between wickets is a co-ordination problem. Both batters have to safely get from one end to the other to both score a run and avoid losing a wicket. This is somewhat similar to baseball when there is a runner at first base (plus others), but at least in baseball it is very clear that a successful hit means you must run so (I imagine) both batter and runner are on the same page most of the time.
In cricket, when you don’t have to run and are taking a risk when doing so, there is much more potential for miscommunication and confusion. The best practice is this:
What often happens
*Which of the two calls? Ideally, whoever is running to the danger end - i.e. the end closest to where the ball will be fielded as that is the end the fielder will aim for. Their risk, their call.
Ignorant question…does the ball have stitches on it like an American baseball has? Leading to aerodynamic flora such as curve ball, slider, et al?
How a cricket ball swings, the physics.
Wear changes the dynamics of the ball, and new balls replace it at intervals. Picking at the stitching to raise a seam is semi-legal, on the basis of ‘dont-get-caught’.
Batsmen who stick in a ‘play it safe’ mode make for slow, dull-to-watch cricket; the one-day versions of the game are framed to make this unproductive for the batting team.
At the beginning the captains flip a coin to decide who chooses whether to bat or bowl first. Each captain will have made his preference based on light, weather, pitch condition, the composition of his team and his perceptions of the other team’s weaknesses.
The batting team may chose to end their innings early - to ‘declare’, which forces the other team to commence batting. The choice will be governed by a number of factors; if one side builds up an unassailable number of runs it makes for a predictable outcome but time remaining is also a factor, for if the second-batting team is not left with enough time for all their batsmen to play the match is deemed a draw.
My background: I know the rules of cricket, but not all the nuances. I grew up with baseball.
And I had the same impression as you, cricket is confusing but baseball is simple. Then I took an Indian visitor to a baseball game (his first ever). And as I was explaining the rules to him, it got more and more confusing. He was hopelessly lost after the first inning. You don’t realize how many rules there are in baseball until you have to explain it.
“Strike 3, right?” “No, it was a foul ball.” “But fouls are strikes, right?” “Not for strike 3.”
“The catcher caught the foul ball so he’s out, right?” “No, that’s a foul tip - the ball didn’t go high enough to count as an out.”
“Is the runner out? The 3rd baseman got the ball before the runner was there.” “No, it wasn’t a force out so he’s safe. If there had been a runner on 1st, he’d be out.”
“Why is he running? The ball was caught. I thought it was a double play if you run and the ball is caught.” “But he left after the catch so it’s OK.”
And this was just standard stuff - we didn’t get to less common things like infield flies, running out of the baseline, balks, etc.
Usually there will be a silly someone somewhat between the bowler and the batter but slightly off to the side, in hopes of getting hit by the ball and hanging on to it.
I see some of them are wearing a bit of face protection these days. That’s not how the war was won.
Had to laugh at this and the comment from AK84.
I am easily amused.
That also is cricket:
