I mean, it’s not far off, it’s the number of runs divided by how many times out. But in Baseball, you an only make one scoring shot off each at-bat, so it is a percentage of how many of those at-bats are successful. It’s actually the same stat - runs divided by innings - but in Cricket you can score a lot more runs.
I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think it makes sense to call someone’s 51.3 cricket average in percentage form. Unless you call it a 5130% average. Also, isn’t the cricket average runs divided by outs?
Oh it’s completely wrong, I’m just saying I can understand how the mistake was made
If Braddles had made a handful more runs in ‘48 you’d have somebody with a career average of 100%
I agree, I’m not sure that a percentage makes any real sense for a cricket batting average. The more comparable stat is “strike rate” which is the number of runs scored per 100 balls faced, however, Even that is only important in certain circumstances and certain forms of cricket (i.e. there are situations where someone with a strike rate of 100+ might not be preferred over someone with a SR of 50)
The reason a 0.513 batting average would be unfathomable in baseball is because it’s so stupidly high. Sure, in individual games going 2 for 4 or better is perfectly common but not over a season. There’s a reason every baseball fan knows the number 0.406, as it’s the average that Ted Williams put up in 1941 and the last time anyone has got above 0.400. Frankly, at this point I think it’s one of the records that will never fall again, like DiMaggio’s hitting streak, Rose’s total hits, Ryan’s slew of pitching records, or Ripken’s consecutive games total.
Just have to ask, so all of the Cricket True Believer please don’t jump my carcass, but…
Would the game be better if you did have to run everything out? How did the no-run rule evolve?
Defense is a vitally important part of batting (whatever the current England side may tell you). As things are, fielders are allowed to be very close to the batter, so if you had to run, then a deadbat to stop the ball in defence wouldn’t be an option.
Having said that, we play ‘tip and run’ in home games, where if you hit it you have to run, but that’s just to keep every ball exciting. Without further rule changes, International Tip and Run games would be very short.
I suppose one consequence of a “batter must run on a hit” rule is that players have one less decision to make. Actually, two less
The first decision is shot selection. The option available to a cricketer that isn’t available to a batter is to block/defend instead of hitting for runs. A baseball player always goes to the plate knowing they have to get a legit hit, and - sacrifice bunts excluded - one that gets them on base. A cricketer can be a lot more choosy - and this wider set of responses to a given delivery or set of deliveries in turn puts more pressure on bowlers to respond in turn, finding a way to get through their defense. It absolutely advantages the batter, but it does add a dimension.
The second choice is whether to run or not. Mostly it is clear whether a run is viable or not, but there are a decent number of marginal balls where getting the call wrong will see you either miss out on a run or, much more catastrophically, get out. When the score is tight, the ability to judge when you will be 1cm over the line rather than 1cm short is vital. Add to this the fact that both batters have to run, and suddenly there is a whole game within a game: do they both share the same judgement? If one calls and one says no, will they sort themselves out in time? Even professionals can make a complete mess of this, which produces excitement, spectacle and occasional hilarity.
This is all just one instance of the well observed fact that baseball is a pitcher’s game, and cricket a batter’s.
(I write in part as a kids coach who just watched his team utterly fail at this co-ordination problem, to both my frustration and amusement. “Yes”, “No”, “Run!” “Go back…no, run!” “Wait…” And out. )
Tho that isn’t quite true. The ability to hit foul balls at will is an analogous skill in baseball, and some batters got really good at it, such as Luke Appling or Wade Boggs. Boggs was my fave AL’er when he played, and it was amusing seeing him just flick ball after ball into the crowd-since he was usually late, the announcers once pointed out that he was almost literally whacking it out of the catcher’s mitt.
No. Because of the sense of balance in the game.
I expect that all the cricket followers in this thread have played “tip & run”. I used it as a coaching technique in training my U16s when I thought they hadn’t been busy enough looking for singles when batting or shutting down singles in the field.
But IMHO the biggest change between cricket and baseball is that the ball is allowed to bounce.
Both games derived from rounders where pitches were made underarm and needed to arrive at the batter on the full. Given that early cricket pitches were no more than a field where the grass had been cut with a scythe, the amount of lateral movement and variation in bounce would have been disconcerting to modern eyes. Hence the mechanics changed from swinging the bat horizontally to vertically to hit/defend a low bouncing ball and also the notion of defending your wicket. You can bat until you lose your wicket and your success is measured by the number of runs scored. To include the requirement of “tip and run” when the responsive pitch conditions made it difficult to tip would give far too much advantage to the bowler. Games would be over in express rate of a bare handful of overs.
Hence also while cricket allows for runs to be scored (for the team) for deliveries which are missed by the batter (byes) or hit the batters body (leg byes).
The point by @John_DiFool on fouling off to run up the pitch count is on the money. At the start of a cricket game the advantage lies more with the bowling team. Fresh bowlers, new ball, greener grass, more responsive pitch etc. So seeing off this period until they are more conducive to batting is the strategy of the top of your batting order at all levels of the game.
You left out “sorry”.
The calling for runs in cricket is a skill that has to be learned, and many players are notoriously poor at it. Both batsmen have to be alert, on the same page.
There was a pair of twins who played Test cricket for Australia - Steve and Mark Waugh - who always elicited the same commentary cliches - ‘Having grown up together, they will have great understanding’, ‘Almost telepathic communication’ etc.
In fact, when batting together, they were truly terrible runners between the wickets.
And with the mention of the Waugh brothers it is obligatory to post the following classic sledge
They don’t make them like Jimmy Ormond anymore. The portly but consistent county performer earned a place in the England team for the final Test of the 2001 Ashes series.
Arriving at the crease for his first ever England innings, he was met by the incredulous Mark Waugh, brother of Steve Waugh, who took one look at him and said:
“Look who it is. Mate, what are you doing out here? There’s no way you’re good enough to play for England.”
Ormond responded:
“Maybe not, but at least I’m the best player in my family.”
We didn’t get as far as “Sorry”, less because of rudeness and more because of a genuine failure to grasp what had just happened.
Damn. How do you say, “Sick burn, bro!” in RP?
and that’s just one of the family friendly ones!
my own favourite involves sturdy Zimbabwean cricketer Eddo Brandes in a match against Australia
Glenn McGrath, the Australian pacer, casually asked Eddo, ”Why are you so fat?”
Eddo Brandes, the Zimbabwean bowler, didn’t miss the opportunity and quickly replied, “Because every time I make love to your wife, she gives me a biscuit.”
Again, that is the family friendly version, the actual language was somewhat fruitier.
Not for much longer. McDonalds has or is in the process of pulling out of Russia.
I’ll add my two cents as someone who came to enjoy cricket as an adult living in England and following the game to this day. It’s got an interesting history with the English class system and colloquially known as the “Gentleman’s Game”. Bu it was also popular among the masses with huge crowds turning out to watch and play among themselves. The barriers to entry when the sport was amateur was elitist and even in the professional era there remains a gate-keeping element of the administration of the game. In that respect cricket is perhaps the best sporting expression of English life of the 19th and 20th century as baseball was a sporting expression of American life more than other sports of that time period too.
Cricket’s beauty in my opinion is the five-day long game. I enjoy T20 matches that can be over in three or four hours. However if you ask me I’d rather watch one five day long test match than five separate T20 matches across the same period of days. The reason is test matches that are five days long demands the most skill physically, technically and mentally. It is as much a game of chess where one mistake can upend all your long hard work leading up to it but also a game that ebbs and flows. For example the Ashes series between England and Australia just gone finished 2-2 and had two distinct and totally opposite styles of play. England played a tactic of trying to attack everything. Which meant they wanted to tear into the Australian bowling and score runs quickly and with no slowing down. That brought about the risk of being kamikaze and throwing away wickets. Australia batted a more conventional manner willing to be more steady and take as much time as they needed. In the end over the course of the series they scored about the same total runs but the amount of time taken was twice as quick for England essentially. And yet they found themselves 2-0 down on home conditions which should have made bowling easier for them since the conditions of the pitches and weather impact are things they deal with every year. For Australia they play in England once every four years.
That’s the beauty of the long form of cricket.
Will that catch on in the USA? I don’t think it ever will. The attention span for baseball which is at least on the periphery of everyone’s lives from childhood and a total constant of sporting culture is declining. America’s past time is now probably too long to be a past time in a faster world with more options to choose. So test match cricket is a non-starter I’m confident to say.
T20 can be an option however and building the infrastructure for that is obviously the idea of MLC. They are trying to make the most of the South Asian and Caribbean diasporas where cricket has a heritage to build up a fan base among people who don’t necessrily need an introduction to the sport. Then try to build it outwards. Will it work? Well T20 is no longer the unsophisticated slog fest it was in the beginning ten years ago. It’s now become a proper skillset where professional players are becoming specialists in so I can see that being transferred in new nations.