Defending/justifying rule changes, especially MLB’
Cricket bowling averages are not balls bowled per wicket taken, but runs conceded per wicket. In his test career Denis Lillee took 355 wickets with 18,467 balls which is a wicket every 52 balls. He conceded 8,493 runs making his bowling average 23.92 runs per wicket.
Shit! You’re completely right, of course. I was mixing up Strike Rate with Average. Can you tell it’s been 20 years since I lived in a cricket-playing country?
None of this really changes the argument I was making in my previous post, but it’s a bit embarrassing for someone who spent his whole childhood obsessed with cricket. Thanks for the correction.
And even then I was getting it wrong, because Strike Rate is about runs per 100 balls, not per wicket. 
My dear @mhendo
I fear you need a Bex and a good lie down.
Batting strike rate is runs per hundred balls faced
Bowling strike rate is wickets per hundred balls delivered.
I will take the point of order that T20 somewhat muddies the water. 
It is a bit interesting to read posters’ defense of their choices. The referee choices are very interesting. Related questions that might get some posters to re-think is ‘Which sport demands the most of its athletes?’ or ‘What sport is hardest to play?’
I bring this up because 15 years ago, I bookmarked this study: ESPN.com: Page 2 - Sport Skills Difficulty Rankings The title seems to no longer appear, but it was something like the two questions I posed. I suppose it does have a North American bent, though, as Cricket doesn’t appear on the list at all.
An interesting study - although factors such as “Strength” and “Power” in (US) football are needed for very short periods of time - whereas they are needed continually for (e.g.) wrestling and water polo (perhaps “Endurance” takes that into account(. I was a bit surprised to see water polo not further up in the list.
Yeah, I just completely fucked all of that up. I can’t even use the T20 defense, as that form of cricket was not even on the radar when I left Australia to live in the US. And anyway, in those pre-T20 days, I was always much more of a test-match follower than a ODI follower, although I do like a good one-day game. No excuse except brain-fart and a long absence from consistent cricket watching.
My vote goes for the horse racing jockeys. They must maintain a very low body weight so they diet/starve themselves constantly. They are riding in a saddle that is roughly the size of a small bed pillow and has virtually no padding (which is “okay” because they are up in the “two-point” – that is, holding themselves up above the saddle with the strength of their thighs – 99% of the time). They are perched on top of a 900-lb animal with a mind of its own and tendencies to be flighty and unpredictable, that has only been taught to turn left and not taught how to stop, running at high speed in a pack of other unpredictable animals. Whips are flailing, mud is flying, horses are bumping into each other. It is pandemonium. If they don’t win, they scarcely get paid. And then they get on another horse for another race that same day and do it all over again. Jockeys are some of the toughest people on earth.
Toughest job in sports? Easy—Official Scorekeeper at the local Coach Pitch baseball league for little kids. Final line is something like 37-33, no hits on either side, 147 errors.
My first thought is hockey ref.
The game is lightning fast, the “ball” is tiny and constantly changing speed and direction, the game is very physical often violent, and you have to manage it all while on ice skates.
mmm
Re: the hockey comment, it depends on how you judge the difficulty of scoring. NHL games tend to be low-scoring compared to many other sports because of the defenses in front of the goalie. But when those defenses aren’t there, as in a breakaway, penalty shot, or the infamous tie-breaking shootouts, the chances of a single player scoring against an undefended goalie are – very roughly – on the order of around 50%.
And, semi-seriously, the hardest job in sports has to be head coach of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Despite being arguably the wealthiest and most profitable club in the NHL (depending on how and when you measure it – the New York Rangers are the other contender) the team sucks due to extreme suckage at the management level, and coaches are constantly being fired. They haven’t won the Stanley Cup since 1967, at which time there were a total of 6 teams in the NHL – the Original Six; the first expansion wasn’t until the 67-68 season.
Case in point: in 2015, the Leafs hired legendary coach Mike Babcock for the extraordinary sum of USD $50 million over eight years, more than twice as much as any NHL coach had ever been paid. Last November, he was fired after a generally disappointing tenure topped off by a six-game losing streak. Hey Leafs, maybe it’s not the coach. And it’s not the GM either – they rotate through those, too, though not as quickly. It’s because MLSE management right from the top down doesn’t give a shit because the money keeps rolling in through constantly-full arenas and privileged high-priced TV rights, and the complacency filters down to the players.
I think you could make a case for hockey goalie. They wear heavy equipment, get run over by players all the time, and face 100 mph pucks fired at them many times during a game.
Other players can make lots of mistakes during a game and get away with it. A goalie has to be focused all the time, and just a couple of small lapses can get you pulled from the game.
Goalies get injured all time, and some of them have their careers cut short due to back, groin, and knee injuries. Bernie Parent had his career ended when a stick took out his eye.
Javelin judge.
Insulted waiter at the Annual Twit of The Year Contest.
Petula Wilcox whenever she has to take on boxer Ken Clean-Air System.
Mrs. Colyer, who gets thrown into rubgy scrums to become, essentially, the ball.
Soon-to-be-decapitated cricket batsmen who have to face machete-wielding Pasolini bowlers.
In theory, NBA referee should be the hardest. It’s just not humanly possible for three referees to watch 10 players (many of whom are the best in the world at sneakily initiating contact, faking receiving contact, and otherwise fooling referees) moving at NBA speeds, and determine who hit whom and whether it was afoul, while also keeping track of who touched the ball last were they in bounds, and were feet behind the three-point line. Let alone accurately counting three-second violations. While your decisions are scrutinized with milli-second slow-motion by millions of people.
In practice, of course, you just have to get things mostly right, use whatever formal or informal actions you need to keep complaints down, and keep track of how many fouls Giannis and LeBron have so you don’t accidentally call their sixth. I guess the job of keeping a straight face while you explain how replay revealed that really wasn’t Giannis’ sixth foul isn’t easy, though.
Not even in theory.
At every level a cricket Test umpire officiating in a Test between India and Pakistan risks starting nuclear Armageddon even if they get every decision right.
But on the other hand, soccer referees have already started a war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_War
[Actually not really a referee issue, and of course not really even about football, but I couldn’t resist]
That’s an awfully long time. Who’s volunteering to check back here on July 12, 2120 to see if the post was actually deleted?