Cricket Vs. Baseball

Yeah iceaura I was exaggerating about the marshmallow bit, I was more referencing that to it bouncing where it would certainly spoon up like a blancmange off the unprepared ground.
I do think you are coming around to the fact that cricket does indeed have many complexities and is a fascinating sport( I've never doubted this of baseball).
I was thinking about cricket's excitement level and it can be huge, especially at the tight conclusion of a long match but generally the interest level is more like an intriguing novel with twists, turns and surprise endings.
Cricket has strange ability to change its context in a whisker and has the greatest propensity of any sport I know for the potential outcome to appear headed in only one direction yet end up the reverse. Things are not always what they seem and seemingly impregnable positions of dominance can be reversed, it may take four days for that eventuate or it might happen like a house of cards tumbling.
For anyone who's interested, Australia and India are in the first day of their test series (4 tests, five days each), Aussies are off to a very solid start, Ponting overcoming his Indian Hoodoo with a fine century.
Two of the world's best teams on India's home turf. Should be a great series.
 
hey spud, did ponting end up getting out and if so how much for?
last i herd yesterday he was 101
 
steve said:
if that were to happen with a major league fastball, he'd probably need reconstructive surgery to keep his eye.
”
Why? Because it's a smaller, lighter, softer ball going at around the same speed?
Click to expand...
Because it would smash in his cheekbone and damage the eyesocket.
spud said:
Cricket has strange ability to change its context in a whisker and has the greatest propensity of any sport I know for the potential outcome to appear headed in only one direction yet end up the reverse.
Click to expand...
Yet more evidence that the very aspects of cricket that are attractions to its serious fans are undesirable and discouraged in baseball. Does this strike anyone else as strangely as it strikes me ?
 
Last edited:
So I'm pondering this suddenly apparent gulf where there appeared to be a close resemblance - cricket/baseball - and another aspect is highlighted:

The second game of the ALCS, the one Tampa took in 11 innings after more than five hours, was dominated by the small strike zone of the plate umpire. One very experienced observer (Tom Kelly, former Minnesota Twins coach known for acumen) said that it looked like the ump started off with too small a zone, and then was trapped by it as the game extended - consistency being the most important ump virtue - so that when Boston's Mike Timlin took the mound in the sixth hour (a control pitcher, reliant on nicking the extreme corners of the strike zone) the denouement seemed inevitable - he walked the first two batters, and got his pitching coach ejected for berating the ump over balls and strikes, before giving up the winning run on a sac fly.

The plate ump is probably the most important man on the field, in an ordinary game of baseball.

And why is the ump so important? Possibility: because there is no honor in baseball - voluntary fair play was not designed in, nor is it expected.

We have terms such as kosher, standard, upright, Christian, reasonable, above board, and so forth; these are words borrowed from specific contexts and generalized to mean ethical behavior, respect for fair play, an unwillingness to win at any cost to the game itself or the larger arena.

Among those terms is "cricket", derived from the game as she is played.

We have terms like underhanded, sharp, roughshod, gouge, suckerpunch, ambush, blindside, put the screws to, and so forth.

Among these terms is "hardball", derived from the game as she is played.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top