Midfielder Posted April 21, 2014 Author Share Posted April 21, 2014 That doesn't matter. And you are clearly too dense to see that. For one, cricket does have its fair share of full tosses (yorkers and legal full tosses), so in cricket the ball IS comming at 100mph too. Proverbially speaking. Plus, even if the ball is losing 30% of its energy in bouncing (which is not necessarily so. a cricket ball can lose as little as 20% of its energy after bounce on certain circumstances)it doesn't matter because the cricket ball is spending 70-80% of the distance covered in flight also: incanse you didnt notice, 90% of cricket balls bounce within 70-80% on their way to the batsman, some, 90% of their way to the batsman or more. So, at given speeds, when one ball is going a distance of 18 meters at 95mph versus going 16 meters at 95mph and 4 meters at 70mph, the reaction times difference translates to a negligible difference. if what you are saying ( a cricket ball coming at 70mph over the distance is easier to hit than a baseball comming at 90mph over the distance) is true, it is true for only those long hops bowled by spinners and such, where the ball bounced less than half way down the pitch and dies on the batsmen. That is flat out incorrect and lies. Pure and simple and I bet you won't be able to find a single article that proclaims it to be humanly impossible to see a baseball its entire length. Incorrect. Unathletic players in cricket are far more athletic than unathletic baseball players. Cricketers have far greater stamina than most baseball players. baseball players are stronger in general than cricketers, especially in the major muscle groups. They do have different fitness criterias but cricket's fitness is harder to acuqire: it is not about strength, its about stamina- which is much harder to increase. That is a flat out lie too. There are many people who can run 20 meters in 2 seconds. Does not mean they can run 100 meters in 10. I don't know what sport you have played. Very few balls are full tosses not a fair share as you claim. Proverbial speak does not count as facts. Even if a ball is full toss cricket player has lot more surface area to bat with hence less skills are needed. Go fact check your numbers and mine. I will discuss spinners later but no spinner ever bowls half way down the pitch. Maybe you have done that. Cricket players are not for the last time better conditioned than baseball player. I like Rahane but that guy is 30 lb underweight. You never ever see that kind of crap in MLB. I don't know if you know what you are talking about. So I have to take your word that cricket players have that something which is difficult to acquire which you cannot define and they have more of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddysahb Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 ^ oh man this back and forth one up manship is still going on Midfielder's points and logic are all right But IMHO, I feel that cricket is a much better overall and superior game than baseball both in concept and execution. Players have more control over the different aspects in cricket. baseball is more random and hit and run. baseball is a combination of raw power and body mechanics especially batting in baseball is really hard it is exponentially harder to hit a baseball as the bat is thinner than a almost paddle like cricket bat. but definetely cricket is more evolved and more interesting for sure and we love cricket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vvvslaxman Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 You are dense. where is economist published from? enough said. Quantity does not equate to quality. For n+1 times cricket ball does not come at 100 mph 65 is all it is doing(yorker and full toss faster). Whoever is saying that is a liar. I can list 100s of articles done on reaction times of baseball players. It is not possible to see a baseball for the entire length. It is beyond the limit of human data acquisition skills. If I am a better athlete I will outperform you. Fitness is so important in baseball and it is not stressed enough in cricket. Most of Baseball players are close to Olympic sprinter numbers very few cricket players are. Don't throw dirt all over the place hoping something will stick. It does not work that way. Stick to one point and we can discuss it. BTW thanks for admitting that it is 100-200 msec after the ball is pitched. We wasted four pages to get that admission. Rest is all garbage and I can clinically dissect each and every point.The reaction time paper was informative though. Sure they are :cantstop: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vvvslaxman Posted April 24, 2014 Share Posted April 24, 2014 I don't know what sport you have played. Very few balls are full tosses not a fair share as you claim. Proverbial speak does not count as facts. Even if a ball is full toss cricket player has lot more surface area to bat with hence less skills are needed. Go fact check your numbers and mine. I will discuss spinners later but no spinner ever bowls half way down the pitch. Maybe you have done that. Cricket players are not for the last time better conditioned than baseball player. I like Rahane but that guy is 30 lb underweight. You never ever see that kind of crap in MLB. I don't know if you know what you are talking about. So I have to take your word that cricket players have that something which is difficult to acquire which you cannot define and they have more of it. Dude you are spouting nonsense by comparing Indians and Americans. It has something to do with ethnicity. You have to compare with guys from South Africa, Australia, West Indies. You are think you are comparing sports. No you are not. you are actually comparing two different races. You think if Indians play baseball they will run 100 meter in 9.93 seconds? :cantstop: If you compare sports you have to compare the best athletes in cricket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 ^ oh man this back and forth one up manship is still going on Midfielder's points and logic are all right But IMHO, I feel that cricket is a much better overall and superior game than baseball both in concept and execution. Players have more control over the different aspects in cricket. baseball is more random and hit and run. baseball is a combination of raw power and body mechanics especially batting in baseball is really hard it is exponentially harder to hit a baseball as the bat is thinner than a almost paddle like cricket bat. but definetely cricket is more evolved and more interesting for sure and we love cricket What you say is true. But its not easier to execute a shot than it is in baseball. Yes, to simply put bat on ball in baseball is harder. But in baseball you are not placing the ball with pin point accuracy. You are aiming an allmighty hoick in front of you. In cricket, you neef more precision control to pierce the gaps. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vvvslaxman Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 What you say is true. But its not easier to execute a shot than it is in baseball. Yes, to simply put bat on ball in baseball is harder. But in baseball you are not placing the ball with pin point accuracy. You are aiming an allmighty hoick in front of you. In cricket, you neef more precision control to pierce the gaps. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0QJhXD9gtQ]8 impossible short leg catches in cricket - YouTube[/ame] This is a foul in baseball.. Here batsman get bowled in addition to finger get broken :cantstop: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midfielder Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 ^ oh man this back and forth one up manship is still going on Midfielder's points and logic are all right But IMHO, I feel that cricket is a much better overall and superior game than baseball both in concept and execution. Players have more control over the different aspects in cricket. baseball is more random and hit and run. baseball is a combination of raw power and body mechanics especially batting in baseball is really hard it is exponentially harder to hit a baseball as the bat is thinner than a almost paddle like cricket bat. but definetely cricket is more evolved and more interesting for sure and we love cricket I agree mostly and I do enjoy cricket too but only 20/20. Test cricket to me is boring and stupid. That is a personal preference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midfielder Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 Sure they are :cantstop: Cherry picking data is not fair. The expectation here is different. Some of these guys are pitchers who are pretty much pitching at the extreme limits of human body.They genrerate and transfer energy from their legs, shoulders and transfer it to arms. It is amazing what they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midfielder Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 Dude you are spouting nonsense by comparing Indians and Americans. It has something to do with ethnicity. You have to compare with guys from South Africa' date=' Australia, West Indies. You are think you are comparing sports. No you are not. you are actually comparing two different races. You think if Indians play baseball they will run 100 meter in 9.93 seconds? :cantstop: If you compare sports you have to compare the best athletes in cricket.[/quote'] No I am not. The most important point I am trying to drive home is physical conditioning of indian players which is pathetic. My first coach in tennis told me something very important and that is applicable in all sports. He said that there is nothing wrong in losing a game because of talent but you should never lose game on conditioning. There is no reason minimum physical standards should not be implemented for cricket. Another e.g. is that in High Schools in US for soccer if you cannot run two miles in 12 mnts they would not let you step on the field. Point is Indians can do that too. They need to learn that from US Baseball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vvvslaxman Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 No I am not. The most important point I am trying to drive home is physical conditioning of indian players which is pathetic. My first coach in tennis told me something very important and that is applicable in all sports. He said that there is nothing wrong in losing a game because of talent but you should never lose game on conditioning. There is no reason minimum physical standards should not be implemented for cricket. Another e.g. is that in High Schools in US for soccer if you cannot run two miles in 12 mnts they would not let you step on the field. Point is Indians can do that too. They need to learn that from US Baseball. Why not try the methods of Australian cricketers, SA cricketers instead of fat US baseball players or even SOccer teams, Rafa Nadal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midfielder Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 Why not try the methods of Australian cricketers' date=' SA cricketers instead of fat US baseball players or even SOccer teams, Rafa Nadal[/quote'] Nothing wrong with that but Australians come and learn it from US so why not go to the source directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vvvslaxman Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 Nothing wrong with that but Australians come and learn it from US so why not go to the source directly. Australians also learnt yogan and other things in India prior 2004 test series. Should americans do that? Aussies are naturally well toned and athletic. West Indians are also known for athleticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midfielder Posted April 25, 2014 Author Share Posted April 25, 2014 Australians also learnt yogan and other things in India prior 2004 test series. Should americans do that? Aussies are naturally well toned and athletic. West Indians are also known for athleticism. You make a valid point. Both Australians and WI are great athletes. Nothing wrong if Indian cricket players learn how to condition themselves from Aussies or WI. As long as they maintain certain physical standards it does not matter if they learn it from Timbuktu. Yoga is a great relaxation technique. It will help in close matches that is why Australians and rest of the world tries to learn it. It keeps them cool and pressure does not get them that quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 5TspIzewltg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midfielder Posted July 24, 2014 Author Share Posted July 24, 2014 Upton and Young are better, faster, stronger than 99.9% of cricket players. They are being nice. Actually I cant think of any cricket player who is more athletic than these two guys and they are two of many. Please don't even compare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now