(Responding to Cheesesteak) Nearly right, but the line the bowler must stand behind is about 4’ further forward (formerly, he had to have one foot behind the line of the stumps, which allowed a little more leeway for a fast bowler at full stretch) and the batsman is typically about the same distance further forward from his own stumps. That puts them about 58’ apart.
One difference is that any fast ball passing the batsman above waist height must have bounced first - otherwise it trangresses Law 42, Unfair Play. This gives the batsman an extra fraction of a second to pick it up. But I think the main difference is the size and shape of the bat, and the requirement to hit. Isn’t a “bunt” much easier to pull off than a hit in baseball?
We’re getting a little off topic, but I’m struggling to figure out why anyone WOULDN’T understand why it’s easier to hit a cricket ball; because you don’t have to hit it as well.
In baseball, the batter must hit the ball inside two lines that describe a 90-degree arc in front of him. Anything that is hit outside of that arc is foul, and a strike.
In cricket, you can tip the ball, hit it out to the side of you, hit in in any direction you please. You have four times as much ground you can hit the ball into. If baseball allowed that, plus allowed bigger bats, teams would score eighty runs a game.
Judging by the England team’s most recent feat of cravenly snatching defeat from the jaws of a hard-fought draw, it’s not all that easy to hit a cricket ball after all. :smack:
Daniel Vettori has no problem hitting the ball.
Most of the rest of the Kiwis seem to have had, though. Nice to see Anderson doing some good again!