Cricket v/s Baseball

[Josh]

Originally Posted by slugger

the one rule i would change about baseball is the pitcher shall be alloted a number of pitches and then must be replaced by another pitcher. say like 9 pitches for each pitcher, then replaced. furthermore all 9 players that are fielding must play all roles pitching, fielding etc. no one should came on from the bench. i laugh when i see how many players are in the dug out these like 20 who can all be utilised at anytime. there should only be 9 players listed for that game.

Not everyone in the dugout is a player designated as a substitute for that match. Trainers, coaches and even players that are injured or just resting and not playing sit in the dugout.

[slugger]

ok fair point. on the dug out.

*a cricket bowler bowls 6 delivery's (per over, 10 overs per one dayer)
*all i'm suggesting is the pitcher be designated a number of pitchers. i think it's stupid one player (pitcher) can remain on the mound and pitch as many as he likes (or until he gets injured, according to reason)
*like 9 pitches for each pitcher, a pitcher can only return to the mound after another 9 pitches have been throwen by another allocated pitcher.
* i wouldnt expct all players to pitch thats stupid. I'm just suggesting a team has to use two players (pitchers) at minimum to rotate through the alloted 9 pitches.
NB 9 pitches is only an arbitrary number.


but hey it's all good, the game is a success on many levels.

[Josh]

I think it's fine to have one pitcher do the bulk of the work. That's just how it is. Not every pitcher is skilled enough to pitch at the early & middle innings and not all pitchers can handle certain situations. The general format is the starting pitcher pitches 6-7 innings, then a series of relievers pitch until the 9th. inning where a closer wraps it up.

[chekmeout]

Josh seems like you have played quite a bit of baseball?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by slugger

ok fair point. on the dug out.

*a cricket bowler bowls 6 delivery's (per over, 10 overs per one dayer)
*all i'm suggesting is the pitcher be designated a number of pitchers. i think it's stupid one player (pitcher) can remain on the mound and pitch as many as he likes (or until he gets injured, according to reason)
*like 9 pitches for each pitcher, a pitcher can only return to the mound after another 9 pitches have been throwen by another allocated pitcher.
* i wouldnt expct all players to pitch thats stupid. I'm just suggesting a team has to use two players (pitchers) at minimum to rotate through the alloted 9 pitches.
NB 9 pitches is only an arbitrary number.


but hey it's all good, the game is a success on many levels.

You clearly don't understand the intricacy of tactics involved in the game. Hitters go out there knowing how many pitches a pitcher must throw before he tires sufficiently that he loses his effectiveness. With that in mind, the hitters head out there and try to force that pitcher to throw that number of pitches as early in the game as possible. If the pitcher is taken out of the game, it opens up a potential scoring opportunity against a lesser or less established pitcher. If he continues, the hitters can maximize on loose pitches due fatigue.

It's a deeper game than you give it credit for.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by chekmeout

Josh seems like you have played quite a bit of baseball?

No, I'm part American and have had a near-lifelong interest in the sport. I'd love to play but not in my current financial situation. I have to choose between one or the other so I choose cricket. Maybe in a few years I will give it a go.

[Deja moo]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

You clearly don't understand the intricacy of tactics involved in the game. Hitters go out there knowing how many pitches a pitcher must throw before he tires sufficiently that he loses his effectiveness. With that in mind, the hitters head out there and try to force that pitcher to throw that number of pitches as early in the game as possible. If the pitcher is taken out of the game, it opens up a potential scoring opportunity against a lesser or less established pitcher. If he continues, the hitters can maximize on loose pitches due fatigue.

It's a deeper game than you give it credit for.

What are the pitchers, sissies ? Test bowlers are capable of sending in excellent deliveries even at the fag end of a days play. If one expects a baseball pitcher to tire and lose his effectiveness within the duration of a 3 hour (?) game, heaven help them.

[Mister Wright]

Originally Posted by Deja moo

What are the pitchers, sissies ? Test bowlers are capable of sending in excellent deliveries even at the fag end of a days play. If one expects a baseball pitcher to tire and lose his effectiveness within the duration of a 3 hour (?) game, heaven help them.

There is a lot more pressure being put on a pitches arm when throwing consistently in baseball, bowlers don't put anywhere near the same pressure on their throwing arms.

[Deja moo]

Originally Posted by Mister Wright

There is a lot more pressure being put on a pitches arm when throwing consistently in baseball, bowlers don't put anywhere near the same pressure on their throwing arms.

cough*lee,akhtar*cough

[slugger]

what a sorry game that rely's on one player to get weak and fatigured, i cant for the life of me see the strategy in that. it's just like gridiron the whole game revolves around one player the quater back. you yanks no nothing about a team game.

[Mr Casson]

Originally Posted by andyc

Completely agree, Checkmeout, I saw a game of baseball at school and just thought ‘what the f***.’ I watched for about half an hour and I didn’t see the ball get hit once. The skill level involved in playing cricket is much much higher—take pitching in baseball, which is mainly just about how fast you can throw it. As for the fielding, I hate how they rely on their gloves to catch the ball. I always get a kick when my friends are throwing around a baseball and (from a distance away) I ask them to throw it to me. Same response, every time: “But you haven’t got a glove!” (a baseball is softer a cricket ball, too)

Wear a glove.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by slugger

what a sorry game that rely's on one player to get weak and fatigured, i cant for the life of me see the strategy in that. it's just like gridiron the whole game revolves around one player the quater back. you yanks no nothing about a team game.

if you genuinely think American Football all revolves the quarterback then you are deluding yourself...plenty of teams have gone to the superbowl with average quarterbacks and plenty of teams with amazing quarterbacks havent even got closee to the superbowl.

Even a great quarterback cannot get his job done without his supporting team, ie Running backs, wide receivers..and probably most importantly the offensive linemen

[Mister Wright]

Originally Posted by Deja moo

cough*lee,akhtar*cough

2 bowlers out of how many? I don't see them playing 5 games a week either.

[slugger]

dude you still don't get it!!! the game revolves around one person, no matter how you look at it. whether he is good or not is beside the point, his role is so pivotal to the game everything he does or does'nt do makes or breaks the play, thats pretty important to me. (theres no "I" in team)

whereas rugby they work as a team to get the ball over the try line and yes must literally touch down the ball to get a point. futhermore the same players in rugby who are on the offence can also be on defense.

you guys have one whole team for offense and another whole team for defense.

now that's ridiculous.

[Swervy]

Originally Posted by slugger

dude you still don't get it!!! the game revolves around one person, no matter how you look at it. whether he is good or not is beside the point, his role is so pivotal to the game everything he does or does'nt do makes or breaks the play, thats pretty important to me. (theres no "I" in team)

whereas rugby they work as a team to get the ball over the try line and yes must literally touch down the ball to get a point. futhermore the same players in rugby who are on the offence can also be on defense.

you guys have one whole team for offense and another whole team for defense.

now that's ridiculous.

its not a rule of the game that you have to have a team for offense and a team for defense...its up to the coach how he uses his squad during a game....the game has evolved in such a way that coaches have figured out that the best way to win a game is to have separate players for offense and defense (although some still do 'multi-task')

If you dont think an american football team works as a team in order to advance the ball towards a touchdown, well...you are wrong.Each one of the 11 players on the field plays a vital part of the play, even if they dont directly touch the ball. If one player misses his assignment on the play, chances are the play will fail, whether that be an offensive lineman, a running back or the quarterback.

Of course the quarterback is a pivotal player on the team(on offense anyway), but that doesnt diminish the roles of the other players in the slightest..as I say a great QB without the support of a good running game, or protection from the line, or recieivers that can run good routes and catch the ball,will not put in good performances.