Yes we all know how worthwile the contributions of the Barmy Army are, we would be lost without their input. Football supporters who were at the wrong stadium.
-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
Baseball V Cricket?
- Thread starter laksh_01
- Start date
zaremba
Cricketer Of The Year
A slightly different point tbh.Yes we all know how worthwile the contributions of the Barmy Army are, we would be lost without their input. Football supporters who were at the wrong stadium.
Fusion
Global Moderator
I found this to be a good read. I don't agree with everything he writes, but I strongly agree with the writer's point on how to effectively reach the baseball/American fan.
November 4, 2010
Posted by Peter Della Penna 10 hours, 7 minutes ago in Batting for baseball
Two weeks ago, my blogging colleague Samarth Shah dedicated a post to the Woodley fields in Los Angeles. But it was a line in the post that had nothing to do with Woodley that solicited the most responses.
“Most cricket grounds in the USA are shared with amateur soccer or baseball clubs,” wrote Shah. “Those wusses - especially at the amateur level - want thick grass in the outfield.”
Yesterday, I was listening to the WEPN 1050-AM ESPN Radio station in my car, the same station that carries World Series broadcasts between the San Francisco Giants and Texas Rangers, when I heard an ad come across the airwaves from the Barbados Tourism Board. In the spot, a voice waxes poetic about Kensington Oval and how it has “played host to some of the world’s greatest bowlers, batsmen, fielders and allrounders, some who might be considered on par with even baseball’s best players.”
“But then again,” the voice crows, “when was the last time you ever saw a baseball player score 100 runs in one game?”
Reading and hearing things like this, it’s not surprising to me why my countrymen don’t get interested in cricket. By and large, the cricket-loving public has a condescending attitude towards Americans and baseball. Cricket is seen as a vintage wine and baseball just a cheap beer. Americans don’t understand the game because it’s just too complicated. We aren’t smart enough and don’t have the patience to appreciate all of its nuances.
However, there is also the American side of the argument, which is to say, there is no argument. Baseball is the best. It’s the national pastime. Baseball players chew tobacco, cricketers drink tea. Cricket can’t be a real sport if it’s played by men wearing sweaters.
At this stage, it’s as if the cricket fan feels like his manhood is being challenged almost to the point that he’s ready to drop his pants and whip it out for a measuring contest to see who’s bigger. He stops short of doing that though and instead tries to engage the baseball fan in a dialogue to defend cricket’s honour.
Cricket fan: No, cricket is the best!
Baseball fan: Actually, baseball is. The New York Yankees have won the World Series 27 times and they’re the most recognizable sports franchise brand in the world.
Cricket fan: No, cricket is! Because Sachin Tendulkar plays cricket and he is God!
Baseball fan: Well then how come I’ve never seen him anywhere on television?
Cricket fan: Um… er… because all TV networks in America are run by atheists!
The baseball fan looks at the cricket fan like he needs to be placed in a mental asylum, because this man clearly cannot be reasoned with and is possibly psychotic, and just walks away. In the cricket fan’s mind, he sees the baseball fan leaving and declares it a confirmation of cricket’s superiority, but in reality nothing has been resolved.
One reason Americans might not feel motivated to care an awful lot about cricket is that American athletes get paid way more than any cricketer. On Forbes’ 2010 list of The World’s 50 Top-earning Athletes, 32 out of the 50 were Americans and four of the 18 foreigners were plying their trades in American professional leagues: David Beckham, Yao Ming, Ichiro Suzuki and Dirk Nowitzki.
Besides Ichiro, three other baseball players made the list: CC Sabathia, Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter with all three playing for the Yankees. On the other hand, there are zero cricketers on this list. Perhaps this has contributed to the confusion about cricket in this country. Why are people so desperate to watch and play the game when the vast majority of its stars are poor in comparison to athletes in American sports?
Steve Waugh scored more than 10,000 runs in Test cricket and has the greatest winning percentage for any player who captained his team in 25 or more Tests. Graeme Lloyd was another Australian who worked as a left-handed specialist out of the bullpen and won two World Series titles with the Yankees during a modest 11-year career in MLB from 1993-2003, the time that spans the best years of Waugh’s 20-year international career. But it’s estimated that Lloyd made close to $13 million dollars in salary, something Waugh probably would have dreamed of.
Money talks and the fact that the franchise model has only existed in cricket since 2008 means cricketers have never earned much through playing and have relied on book deals, newspaper columns and other endorsements to supplement their income. But the IPL has been working around the clock to play catch up to the value of American sports teams.
Cricket owes baseball for bringing up its fielding standards as well. Mike Young was a middle of the road coach in baseball. I doubt most baseball fans in the USA have any clue who Mike Young is. He’s not Joe Torre that’s for sure. But Mike Young is viewed almost as a revolutionary figure in cricket for integrating the standard technical aspects of baseball fielding into the Australian cricket team. Anyone who saw the recent ODI series between Bangladesh and New Zealand would have noticed the improvement in Bangladesh’s fielding. Who is their fielding coach? Former baseball player Julien Fountain. Cricket fans should be grateful to baseball, rather than disparage baseball players as wusses for wearing gloves in the field.
So instead of treating cricket and baseball as competing sports, cricket supporters would be much better served to illustrate them as sports that complement each other. “If you like baseball, you’ll definitely like cricket too” has always worked much better for me to draw people’s interest into the great game of cricket. Taking a confrontational tone, “Baseball sucks! Cricket is the best!” will continue to agitate baseball fans in America and restrict God and his cult of followers to pirated internet streams rather than being seen on TV.
Link
November 4, 2010
Posted by Peter Della Penna 10 hours, 7 minutes ago in Batting for baseball
Two weeks ago, my blogging colleague Samarth Shah dedicated a post to the Woodley fields in Los Angeles. But it was a line in the post that had nothing to do with Woodley that solicited the most responses.
“Most cricket grounds in the USA are shared with amateur soccer or baseball clubs,” wrote Shah. “Those wusses - especially at the amateur level - want thick grass in the outfield.”
Yesterday, I was listening to the WEPN 1050-AM ESPN Radio station in my car, the same station that carries World Series broadcasts between the San Francisco Giants and Texas Rangers, when I heard an ad come across the airwaves from the Barbados Tourism Board. In the spot, a voice waxes poetic about Kensington Oval and how it has “played host to some of the world’s greatest bowlers, batsmen, fielders and allrounders, some who might be considered on par with even baseball’s best players.”
“But then again,” the voice crows, “when was the last time you ever saw a baseball player score 100 runs in one game?”
Reading and hearing things like this, it’s not surprising to me why my countrymen don’t get interested in cricket. By and large, the cricket-loving public has a condescending attitude towards Americans and baseball. Cricket is seen as a vintage wine and baseball just a cheap beer. Americans don’t understand the game because it’s just too complicated. We aren’t smart enough and don’t have the patience to appreciate all of its nuances.
However, there is also the American side of the argument, which is to say, there is no argument. Baseball is the best. It’s the national pastime. Baseball players chew tobacco, cricketers drink tea. Cricket can’t be a real sport if it’s played by men wearing sweaters.
At this stage, it’s as if the cricket fan feels like his manhood is being challenged almost to the point that he’s ready to drop his pants and whip it out for a measuring contest to see who’s bigger. He stops short of doing that though and instead tries to engage the baseball fan in a dialogue to defend cricket’s honour.
Cricket fan: No, cricket is the best!
Baseball fan: Actually, baseball is. The New York Yankees have won the World Series 27 times and they’re the most recognizable sports franchise brand in the world.
Cricket fan: No, cricket is! Because Sachin Tendulkar plays cricket and he is God!
Baseball fan: Well then how come I’ve never seen him anywhere on television?
Cricket fan: Um… er… because all TV networks in America are run by atheists!
The baseball fan looks at the cricket fan like he needs to be placed in a mental asylum, because this man clearly cannot be reasoned with and is possibly psychotic, and just walks away. In the cricket fan’s mind, he sees the baseball fan leaving and declares it a confirmation of cricket’s superiority, but in reality nothing has been resolved.
One reason Americans might not feel motivated to care an awful lot about cricket is that American athletes get paid way more than any cricketer. On Forbes’ 2010 list of The World’s 50 Top-earning Athletes, 32 out of the 50 were Americans and four of the 18 foreigners were plying their trades in American professional leagues: David Beckham, Yao Ming, Ichiro Suzuki and Dirk Nowitzki.
Besides Ichiro, three other baseball players made the list: CC Sabathia, Alex Rodriguez and Derek Jeter with all three playing for the Yankees. On the other hand, there are zero cricketers on this list. Perhaps this has contributed to the confusion about cricket in this country. Why are people so desperate to watch and play the game when the vast majority of its stars are poor in comparison to athletes in American sports?
Steve Waugh scored more than 10,000 runs in Test cricket and has the greatest winning percentage for any player who captained his team in 25 or more Tests. Graeme Lloyd was another Australian who worked as a left-handed specialist out of the bullpen and won two World Series titles with the Yankees during a modest 11-year career in MLB from 1993-2003, the time that spans the best years of Waugh’s 20-year international career. But it’s estimated that Lloyd made close to $13 million dollars in salary, something Waugh probably would have dreamed of.
Money talks and the fact that the franchise model has only existed in cricket since 2008 means cricketers have never earned much through playing and have relied on book deals, newspaper columns and other endorsements to supplement their income. But the IPL has been working around the clock to play catch up to the value of American sports teams.
Cricket owes baseball for bringing up its fielding standards as well. Mike Young was a middle of the road coach in baseball. I doubt most baseball fans in the USA have any clue who Mike Young is. He’s not Joe Torre that’s for sure. But Mike Young is viewed almost as a revolutionary figure in cricket for integrating the standard technical aspects of baseball fielding into the Australian cricket team. Anyone who saw the recent ODI series between Bangladesh and New Zealand would have noticed the improvement in Bangladesh’s fielding. Who is their fielding coach? Former baseball player Julien Fountain. Cricket fans should be grateful to baseball, rather than disparage baseball players as wusses for wearing gloves in the field.
So instead of treating cricket and baseball as competing sports, cricket supporters would be much better served to illustrate them as sports that complement each other. “If you like baseball, you’ll definitely like cricket too” has always worked much better for me to draw people’s interest into the great game of cricket. Taking a confrontational tone, “Baseball sucks! Cricket is the best!” will continue to agitate baseball fans in America and restrict God and his cult of followers to pirated internet streams rather than being seen on TV.
Link
GotSpin
Hall of Fame Member
That's not always correct. A 2008 sports study found that Cricket was the nations most interested sport.
morgieb
Request Your Custom Title Now!
Cricket's popular, but he's right. In most areas league (NSW & QLD), AFL (rest of the country), union (upper-class areas in NSW) and soccer (areas with large NESB immigrants) are the most popular. Cricket wins overall because it's followed everywhere.
Ruckus
International Captain
I think the main advantage cricket has over baseball are the extra dynamics involved in play. Firstly, in baseball the batsman has no opportunity to be defensive, whilst in cricket the batsmen does. And that sets up a contest between bat and ball, where the pressure can shift between the bowler and batsman. It also means the pace of the game is much more complex. Secondly, in baseball, while the pitcher can add variety to the deliveries like curveballs etc., there is obviously no role for bounce. In cricket, not only can the bowler create the same 'in-the-air' variation like in baseball (i.e. swing), but they can also produce variation in deliveries by making use of the bounce (i.e. seam movement etc.). And also the fact the ball bounces obviously allows two types of bowling: both spin and pace.
So given all of that, I really see no actual advantages baseball has over cricket. You could argue it allows for more spectacular, long-range, shots, but then you just have to compare it with T20 cricket which is easily as entertaining from that perspective.
In summary, I think:
Cricket=more dynamic, more complex, allows for more strategy (intellectual) and just as spectacular (fielding and shots are equal, if not better to watch, than baseball).
Baseball=more linear, more repetitive, allows for less strategy, ****ing boring.
So given all of that, I really see no actual advantages baseball has over cricket. You could argue it allows for more spectacular, long-range, shots, but then you just have to compare it with T20 cricket which is easily as entertaining from that perspective.
In summary, I think:
Cricket=more dynamic, more complex, allows for more strategy (intellectual) and just as spectacular (fielding and shots are equal, if not better to watch, than baseball).
Baseball=more linear, more repetitive, allows for less strategy, ****ing boring.
Ruckus
International Captain
But then you can just compare it with T20, which is pretty damn frantic really?
Considering the 3 formats of cricket, I don't see how there are any facets of baseball advantageous to cricket. Baseball is like dumbed-down T20 (which, when considering what T20 is, says a lot really.)
Ruckus
International Captain
Yeh no suprise there.Well those same people tell me they like T20 cricket. I guess it's an attention span thing
I find it interesting though considering the baseball vs. cricket debate on a cricket forum, because obviously (as the poll suggests) there will be a massive bias towards cricket. However, if the same question was posed on a a baseball forum, I'm really struggling to think (given the 3 formats of cricket) how a baseball fan could justify why their sport is better. I literally cannot think of one area where cricket doesn't have baseball covered. Yet I can't imagine baseball fans simply conceding defeat...
KingViv
Cricket Spectator
Tbh, this poll is fairly ludicrous. Not only is the comparison done on a cricket website, but also, most posters fail to comprehend the nuances of baseball. As a fan of both, I believe both are easily different enough to be enjoyable in their own aspects. Anyone posting things like, "I'm really struggling to think (given the 3 formats of cricket) how a baseball fan could justify why their sport is better. I literally cannot think of one area where cricket doesn't have baseball covered", can't speak on the subject unbiased or comprehensively.
Keep thoughts to oneself, no reason to degrade another sport simply because both include a bat and a ball. This is not meant to flame anyone, I will post if another feels obligated to see my viewpoints expressed more descriptively.
Keep thoughts to oneself, no reason to degrade another sport simply because both include a bat and a ball. This is not meant to flame anyone, I will post if another feels obligated to see my viewpoints expressed more descriptively.
Ruckus
International Captain
Not saying you can't enjoy both sports, just saying I can't see how a Baseball fan could justify how their game is more enjoyable and/or better than cricket - i.e. cricket has all the basic elements baseball has, plus many more.
Please tell me any basic elements baseball has that cricket doesn't? Basic elements along the lines of entertainment value (e.g. big shots, spectacular fielding etc.), room for strategy, different dynamics in the game (different pitches/deliveries etc.) and so on...
Flem274*
123/5
Different strokes for different blokes. It's all subjective, they don't have to justify anything.
Ruckus
International Captain
Yeah, but I think its a tremendous cop-out to say that just because enjoyment of the games is subjective, you can't objectively compare the games and the value of various components.
Last edited:
Faisal1985
International Vice-Captain
Its fair to compare the 2 sports imo. They are similar, no one can deny that. I watch Baseball sometimes. But DeusEx said, i don't find it as entertaining as cricket due to the dynamics involved.
I understand baseball as much as any common fan...watched the world series but didn't enjoy it as much as i enjoyed the T20 final of 2009 or 2007....
Its not really degrading a sport. Its really talking about how attractive it is to new comers...in that respect i think T20 Cricket is much more attractive then Baseball.
How often do you see a home run while you are watching a random baseball game? The amount of force that the batter put in to those shots and then they get caught and out is ridiculous......
andyc
Cricket Web: All-Time Legend
This, to be honest. As someone who is a huge cricket fan and knows fairly little about baseball apart for a basic knowledge of how it's played, of course I'm going to rate cricket higher, but if I was a baseball fan instead I'd probably be thinking that cricket is outdated and boring.