Cricket vs. Baseball

[blunty51]

Zucas said:
Trust me, you couldn't hit a 90 mph fastball. I played baseball for 12 years (in high school started on my team and won the state championship that year) and baseball is definitely not a sport that is easy to pick up. I'm sure cricket has it's own difficulties as well. But you are performing a hasty generalization fallacy in your assessment of baseball. Considering that is illogical, I'm going to discard it as such.

Well I did clearly say that I am biased and I never claimed to give a whole hearted comparison. For the record, Bowlers in cricket send 90mph+ balls down on a regular basis. Those fews times I played baseball in the U.S, it looked very much like a what a 90mph ball would look, except a little closer. I never played baseball on the highest level, and neither did I with cricket. Therefore the comparisons on that level are a little closer to consistent.

Having played baseball for so long, it is not something that you just pick up and play. Especially when you get into more serious competition. There is a reason why in the MLB, having a batting average of .300 (3 hits out of 10 at bats) is good. You are going to get out more than not because it is so difficult to hit a round ball with a round faced bat. But don't take anything off of pitching. Being able to throw overhand at 90 MPH consistently for 100 pitches while mixing in curves, sliders, changeups, etc is a thing of finese and practice. Tie that all in with accuracy as the strike zone isn't something that is large.

Indeed! Which is why I stated that it's more a pitcher's game, and I never discredited that.

Then of course we haven't even gotten to fielding positions. I can almost guarantee how many would try to catch a groundball and instead get out of the way due to fear. Catching a flyball is maybe one of the easier things in baseball but still takes time and practice to be able to judge it. But of course being a catcher is something not many will ever pick up due to the difficulty of the position.

The fielding positions in cricket are a lot more technical than baseball. In baseball I understand you will manipulate your infield according to how many outs you have, the count, showing bunt etc. but the numbers are generally the same. In cricket, these numbers are changed vastly, heck you can even have someone right up in the face of a batsman. The outfield is very flexible as well. In baseball however you generally have three outfielders I believe?  There are over 20 fielding positions in cricket. Oh, and btw, baseball uses gloves, cricket uses BARE HANDS. There is a huge difference. So let's talk about being scared when a groundout comes your way.

It might be easy for someone on the outside to be able to call something easy but until you really play it competitively, you are just speaking out of your ass. Which is why I will not simply call Cricket and easy sport that a bunch of silly men play. I respect that when playing competitively it is a sport of technique and strength like most of the others. And it is because I say that, that I am completely logical and you aren't.

The comparisons you made in your post have shown that you don't know much about cricket, and since i never claimed to give both sides of the arguement in my OP, you have no right to call me illogical. I have a very comprehensive knowledge of both games. You however, don't seem to, unless you prove otherwise ;)