Discussion:
Sports AHC - Make cricket popular in the USA
(too old to reply)
Michael G. Koerner
2007-03-23 03:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Seeing as the Cricket World Cup is currently underway just off of our shores
in the West Indies, find a PoD that makes the sport of cricket as
proportionately popular in the USA as it is now in, let's say, Australia.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-23 10:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael G. Koerner
Seeing as the Cricket World Cup is currently underway just off of our shores
in the West Indies, find a PoD that makes the sport of cricket as
proportionately popular in the USA as it is now in, let's say, Australia.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
You have to define "popular". Soccer is very popular in the U.S.,
millions and millions of boys and girls play it every Saturday and
Sunday during the season, with elaborate leagues and play-offs, high
schools have state championships and colleges and universities have
national championships. It just doesn't sell after that.

Watching your son or daughter kick a ball through a net is one level
of interest, having your local school in a championship is another.
Watching grown men in their underwear doing the same thing is dull,
dull, dull.

I don't know if they still do, but the "pools" for soccer in England
used to be picking ties. Talk about feeble. The only action in "adult"
soccer seems to be when the ball isn't in play. That big time head
butt made the papers in the States in a way a made penalty kick never
would.

While we are at it, could anyone explain why, at the professional
level, the person fouled always grabs a leg, even if he was hit on the
head?
Ingo Siekmann
2007-03-25 17:00:30 UTC
Permalink
Jack Linthicum schrieb:
-snip
Post by Jack Linthicum
Watching your son or daughter kick a ball through a net is one level
of interest, having your local school in a championship is another.
Watching grown men in their underwear doing the same thing is dull,
dull, dull.
Indeed. Only one thing is duller - watching grown men running in circles
after they have hit a ball with a club. :-)

Bye
Ingo
The Horny Goat
2007-03-25 17:37:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:00:30 +0200, Ingo Siekmann
Post by Ingo Siekmann
-snip
Post by Jack Linthicum
Watching your son or daughter kick a ball through a net is one level
of interest, having your local school in a championship is another.
Watching grown men in their underwear doing the same thing is dull,
dull, dull.
Indeed. Only one thing is duller - watching grown men running in circles
after they have hit a ball with a club. :-)
As opposed to say the same grown men running in circles kicking the
ball with their foot? Or attempting to beat each other senseless?

<says he ducking and running for cover>
David Tenner
2007-03-25 17:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:00:30 +0200, Ingo Siekmann
Post by Ingo Siekmann
-snip
Post by Jack Linthicum
Watching your son or daughter kick a ball through a net is one level
of interest, having your local school in a championship is another.
Watching grown men in their underwear doing the same thing is dull,
dull, dull.
Indeed. Only one thing is duller - watching grown men running in circles
after they have hit a ball with a club. :-)
As opposed to say the same grown men running in circles kicking the
ball with their foot? Or attempting to beat each other senseless?
<says he ducking and running for cover>
"I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out."--Rodney Dangerfield
--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net
Rich Rostrom
2007-03-23 17:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael G. Koerner
Seeing as the Cricket World Cup is currently underway just off of our shores
in the West Indies, find a PoD that makes the sport of cricket as
proportionately popular in the USA as it is now in, let's say, Australia.
Very difficult, unless the game was modified for faster play.
World Cup rules come closer, but still (IMHO) not there.

To me, it is amazing that a sport with the practical
difficulties of cricket survives at all.

3-day matches? who has the time? (to play or watch)

The critical element of play (bowler and batsman)
is in the center of the field, far from spectators.

Cricket is alive, but not AFAIK a big-money sport
like baseball, soccer, or basketball.

Counter AHC: baseball displaces cricket throughout
the Anglosphere, as well as the U.S. and Canada.
Baseball has also been dominant in Japan and the
Hispanic Caribbean.

What would be the effects of this cultural link?

The U.S. would still be the center of baseball,
much as Europe remains the center of soccer.
But the "World Series" would very likely be more
like the Test Match.

Baseball (for the practical reasons mentioned
above) would be more popular than cricket. It
would be a big-money sport, drawing much more
interest and participation than cricket.

South Asia's huge talent pool would be a
colossal factor. There would be contact
between the non-US Anglosphere and the
Hispanic Caribbean.

Baseball would catch on much more than
cricket in Africa.

There would be intra-Caribbean effects. The
anglo West Indies remain largely devoted to
cricket, while the Hispanic areas are big on
baseball. If they both competed in baseball...
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
merccurytravel
2007-03-24 04:19:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Very difficult, unless the game was modified for faster play.
World Cup rules come closer, but still (IMHO) not there.
To me, it is amazing that a sport with the practical
difficulties of cricket survives at all.
3-day matches? who has the time? (to play or watch)
The critical element of play (bowler and batsman)
is in the center of the field, far from spectators.
A sad demosntration of the inability of non-cricket fans to understand one
of the most complicated and beautiful games ever created.

It's sad that you'll never be able to understand the wonder of Bradman's
test batting average (something possibly never likely to be approached
again) - 99.94 |
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-24 10:25:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by merccurytravel
Post by Rich Rostrom
Very difficult, unless the game was modified for faster play.
World Cup rules come closer, but still (IMHO) not there.
To me, it is amazing that a sport with the practical
difficulties of cricket survives at all.
3-day matches? who has the time? (to play or watch)
The critical element of play (bowler and batsman)
is in the center of the field, far from spectators.
A sad demosntration of the inability of non-cricket fans to understand one
of the most complicated and beautiful games ever created.
It's sad that you'll never be able to understand the wonder of Bradman's
test batting average (something possibly never likely to be approached
again) - 99.94 |
Watch any high school or above batter hitting against a batting
practice pitcher. Same average if the person is any good and the
pitcher isn't.
xt828
2007-03-24 15:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by merccurytravel
Post by Rich Rostrom
Very difficult, unless the game was modified for faster play.
World Cup rules come closer, but still (IMHO) not there.
To me, it is amazing that a sport with the practical
difficulties of cricket survives at all.
3-day matches? who has the time? (to play or watch)
The critical element of play (bowler and batsman)
is in the center of the field, far from spectators.
A sad demosntration of the inability of non-cricket fans to understand one
of the most complicated and beautiful games ever created.
It's sad that you'll never be able to understand the wonder of Bradman's
test batting average (something possibly never likely to be approached
again) - 99.94 |
Watch any high school or above batter hitting against a batting
practice pitcher. Same average if the person is any good and the
pitcher isn't.
The above average means Bradman averaged 99.94 runs every game. The man
was an absolute artist of the bat.

The American sports have never achieved any real penetration in the
majority of the world - Baseball is played in Australia, for example,
but is so minor that it doesn't even rate a mention on the news.
Rich Rostrom
2007-03-25 07:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by xt828
The American sports have never achieved any real penetration
in the majority of the world
Except that basketball is taking over everywhere.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-25 09:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by xt828
The American sports have never achieved any real penetration
in the majority of the world
Except that basketball is taking over everywhere.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
Canadian inventor
Robert A. Woodward
2007-03-25 15:49:10 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by xt828
The American sports have never achieved any real penetration
in the majority of the world
Except that basketball is taking over everywhere.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
Canadian inventor
He was working in the USA at the time and his rules were rewritten
by Americans.
--
Robert Woodward <***@drizzle.com>
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-25 16:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by xt828
The American sports have never achieved any real penetration
in the majority of the world
Except that basketball is taking over everywhere.
--
| He had a shorter, more scraggly, and even less |
| flattering beard than Yassir Arafat, and Escalante |
| never conceived that such a thing was possible. |
| -- William Goldman, _Heat_ |
Canadian inventor
He was working in the USA at the time and his rules were rewritten
by Americans.
--
<http://www.drizzle.com/~robertaw>
and Russians, and Brazilians, and Italians, and, if you have ever seen
it, the 30 foot total league that used to play in the Phillipines.
Peter Bruells
2007-03-26 08:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by xt828
The American sports have never achieved any real penetration
in the majority of the world
Except that basketball is taking over everywhere.
Not over here, as far as I can tell. Leagues, yes. "Taking over" - not
by a long shot.
Michael G. Koerner
2007-03-24 15:40:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by merccurytravel
Post by Rich Rostrom
Very difficult, unless the game was modified for faster play.
World Cup rules come closer, but still (IMHO) not there.
To me, it is amazing that a sport with the practical
difficulties of cricket survives at all.
3-day matches? who has the time? (to play or watch)
The critical element of play (bowler and batsman)
is in the center of the field, far from spectators.
A sad demosntration of the inability of non-cricket fans to understand one
of the most complicated and beautiful games ever created.
It's sad that you'll never be able to understand the wonder of Bradman's
test batting average (something possibly never likely to be approached
again) - 99.94 |
Watch any high school or above batter hitting against a batting
practice pitcher. Same average if the person is any good and the
pitcher isn't.
In cricket, 'batting average' is runs scored while batting divided by the
number of times the batter is out. From what I have been reading on the
sport, a career batting average of 20 is decent, 30 is stellar and 40
legendary. A 99.94 career cricket batting average is sort of analogous to
Brett Favre's still active 237 consecutive game starts record for an NFL
quarterback - one of the most vulnerable of player positions in that game.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-24 16:05:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael G. Koerner
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by merccurytravel
Post by Rich Rostrom
Very difficult, unless the game was modified for faster play.
World Cup rules come closer, but still (IMHO) not there.
To me, it is amazing that a sport with the practical
difficulties of cricket survives at all.
3-day matches? who has the time? (to play or watch)
The critical element of play (bowler and batsman)
is in the center of the field, far from spectators.
A sad demosntration of the inability of non-cricket fans to understand one
of the most complicated and beautiful games ever created.
It's sad that you'll never be able to understand the wonder of Bradman's
test batting average (something possibly never likely to be approached
again) - 99.94 |
Watch any high school or above batter hitting against a batting
practice pitcher. Same average if the person is any good and the
pitcher isn't.
In cricket, 'batting average' is runs scored while batting divided by the
number of times the batter is out. From what I have been reading on the
sport, a career batting average of 20 is decent, 30 is stellar and 40
legendary. A 99.94 career cricket batting average is sort of analogous to
Brett Favre's still active 237 consecutive game starts record for an NFL
quarterback - one of the most vulnerable of player positions in that game.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
But the batter isn't required to run, right? Gives you the feel of
Casey at the Bat, not my style. Watch a really good hitter like the
ones in the home run derby before an all-star game. That's analogous.
Michael G. Koerner
2007-03-24 18:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Michael G. Koerner
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by merccurytravel
Post by Rich Rostrom
Very difficult, unless the game was modified for faster play.
World Cup rules come closer, but still (IMHO) not there.
To me, it is amazing that a sport with the practical
difficulties of cricket survives at all.
3-day matches? who has the time? (to play or watch)
The critical element of play (bowler and batsman)
is in the center of the field, far from spectators.
A sad demosntration of the inability of non-cricket fans to understand one
of the most complicated and beautiful games ever created.
It's sad that you'll never be able to understand the wonder of Bradman's
test batting average (something possibly never likely to be approached
again) - 99.94 |
Watch any high school or above batter hitting against a batting
practice pitcher. Same average if the person is any good and the
pitcher isn't.
In cricket, 'batting average' is runs scored while batting divided by the
number of times the batter is out. From what I have been reading on the
sport, a career batting average of 20 is decent, 30 is stellar and 40
legendary. A 99.94 career cricket batting average is sort of analogous to
Brett Favre's still active 237 consecutive game starts record for an NFL
quarterback - one of the most vulnerable of player positions in that game.
But the batter isn't required to run, right? Gives you the feel of
Casey at the Bat, not my style. Watch a really good hitter like the
ones in the home run derby before an all-star game. That's analogous.
One of the main differences in the basic play of cricket vs. baseball is that
in baseball, outs are common and runs are rare while in cricket, runs are
common and outs are rare.

In cricket, after hitting the ball the batter, along with the non-batter on
the 'pitch', do not have to run if they feel that it is not safe to do so.
BOTH runners (they are set at opposite ends of the pitch) have to make it
safely to the other end of the pitch for a run to count and they can keep
going back and forth on the pitch for as long as they feel safe doing so, sort
of like a baseball player thinking about stretching a single into a double or
a double into a triple.

Also, if a batted ball or a fielder in contact with the ball touches the line
drawn around the perimeter of the field or the ball bounces over it like a
'ground rule double' in baseball it counts as four runs and if the ball hits
the ground beyond the line on the fly (analogous to a home run in baseball) or
a fielder in contact with the ball touches the ground beyond the line it
counts as six runs.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-24 18:22:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael G. Koerner
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Michael G. Koerner
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by merccurytravel
Post by Rich Rostrom
Very difficult, unless the game was modified for faster play.
World Cup rules come closer, but still (IMHO) not there.
To me, it is amazing that a sport with the practical
difficulties of cricket survives at all.
3-day matches? who has the time? (to play or watch)
The critical element of play (bowler and batsman)
is in the center of the field, far from spectators.
A sad demosntration of the inability of non-cricket fans to understand one
of the most complicated and beautiful games ever created.
It's sad that you'll never be able to understand the wonder of Bradman's
test batting average (something possibly never likely to be approached
again) - 99.94 |
Watch any high school or above batter hitting against a batting
practice pitcher. Same average if the person is any good and the
pitcher isn't.
In cricket, 'batting average' is runs scored while batting divided by the
number of times the batter is out. From what I have been reading on the
sport, a career batting average of 20 is decent, 30 is stellar and 40
legendary. A 99.94 career cricket batting average is sort of analogous to
Brett Favre's still active 237 consecutive game starts record for an NFL
quarterback - one of the most vulnerable of player positions in that game.
But the batter isn't required to run, right? Gives you the feel of
Casey at the Bat, not my style. Watch a really good hitter like the
ones in the home run derby before an all-star game. That's analogous.
One of the main differences in the basic play of cricket vs. baseball is that
in baseball, outs are common and runs are rare while in cricket, runs are
common and outs are rare.
In cricket, after hitting the ball the batter, along with the non-batter on
the 'pitch', do not have to run if they feel that it is not safe to do so.
BOTH runners (they are set at opposite ends of the pitch) have to make it
safely to the other end of the pitch for a run to count and they can keep
going back and forth on the pitch for as long as they feel safe doing so, sort
of like a baseball player thinking about stretching a single into a double or
a double into a triple.
Also, if a batted ball or a fielder in contact with the ball touches the line
drawn around the perimeter of the field or the ball bounces over it like a
'ground rule double' in baseball it counts as four runs and if the ball hits
the ground beyond the line on the fly (analogous to a home run in baseball) or
a fielder in contact with the ball touches the ground beyond the line it
counts as six runs.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
What would you do with someone like Barry Bonds or another of the
steroid users hitting for six everytime they connected? Not having to
run is an asset with those people.
d***@supanet.com
2007-03-24 22:07:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
What would you do with someone like Barry Bonds or another of the
steroid users hitting for six everytime they connected? Not having to
run is an asset with those people.
Batsmen in cricket come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and bowlers
in cricket have a greater variety of weapons at their disposal than
their counterparts in baseball. An example of the latter point is
demonstrated in the different responses that arise when a bowler/
pitcher hurls the ball with the deliberate intention of hitting the
chap holding the big stick. In cricket, it's an accepted part of the
game, and the only issue is that the batsman isn't supposed to let any
blood get on the pitch. In baseball, the players get terribly agitated
and engage in "handbags at 10 paces".

There are and have been powerful batsmen capable of hitting a ball a
long, long way. Bowlers and fielders play accordingly. There are
essentially two approaches; bowl such that the batsman doesn't have
the opportunity to play big shots, and frustrate him, or give him the
chance to do so, with fielders positioned to take advantage should his
shot be slightly mishit.

There are also batsmen who are incredibly fast at running between the
wickets, and can steal runs. Bowlers and fielders play accordingly.

Of course, steroid use in cricket is banned, and there are regular
drug testing procedures at major tournaments. There are occasional
transgressions, as there are in all sports, but it's not a major
problem in cricket.
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-24 22:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@supanet.com
Post by Jack Linthicum
What would you do with someone like Barry Bonds or another of the
steroid users hitting for six everytime they connected? Not having to
run is an asset with those people.
Batsmen in cricket come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and bowlers
in cricket have a greater variety of weapons at their disposal than
their counterparts in baseball. An example of the latter point is
demonstrated in the different responses that arise when a bowler/
pitcher hurls the ball with the deliberate intention of hitting the
chap holding the big stick. In cricket, it's an accepted part of the
game, and the only issue is that the batsman isn't supposed to let any
blood get on the pitch. In baseball, the players get terribly agitated
and engage in "handbags at 10 paces".
There are and have been powerful batsmen capable of hitting a ball a
long, long way. Bowlers and fielders play accordingly. There are
essentially two approaches; bowl such that the batsman doesn't have
the opportunity to play big shots, and frustrate him, or give him the
chance to do so, with fielders positioned to take advantage should his
shot be slightly mishit.
There are also batsmen who are incredibly fast at running between the
wickets, and can steal runs. Bowlers and fielders play accordingly.
Of course, steroid use in cricket is banned, and there are regular
drug testing procedures at major tournaments. There are occasional
transgressions, as there are in all sports, but it's not a major
problem in cricket.
After the bowler is taken to the hospital what is the next option? A
long way is how far?

Do they test for HGH?
Richard Gadsden
2007-03-25 01:00:00 UTC
Permalink
A long way is how far?
400 ft +
--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
merccurytravel
2007-03-25 04:44:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Do they test for HGH?
Jack,

I don't know about other parts of the world, but in Australia controls are
probably far stricter than in the US -

http://www.asada.gov.au/

Sly Stallone was in Sydney recently and Customs raided his hotel and seized
HGH, which is a prohibited import and not allowed to be used in this
ountry - apparently he was carrying enough to support a tribe of baby
elephants.

Tony Bailey
d***@supanet.com
2007-03-25 12:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by d***@supanet.com
Post by Jack Linthicum
What would you do with someone like Barry Bonds or another of the
steroid users hitting for six everytime they connected? Not having to
run is an asset with those people.
Batsmen in cricket come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and bowlers
in cricket have a greater variety of weapons at their disposal than
their counterparts in baseball. An example of the latter point is
demonstrated in the different responses that arise when a bowler/
pitcher hurls the ball with the deliberate intention of hitting the
chap holding the big stick. In cricket, it's an accepted part of the
game, and the only issue is that the batsman isn't supposed to let any
blood get on the pitch. In baseball, the players get terribly agitated
and engage in "handbags at 10 paces".
There are and have been powerful batsmen capable of hitting a ball a
long, long way. Bowlers and fielders play accordingly. There are
essentially two approaches; bowl such that the batsman doesn't have
After the bowler is taken to the hospital what is the next option? A
long way is how far?
Bowlers are allowed, even expected to hit the batsmen. Only wimps and
wusses object to a physicality to a game. And if a batsman is scared
of being the target of 5.75 oz of leather hurled at 100mph at his face
from a distance of 22 yards, then he's no right to be playing the
game. It's not supposed to be a game for people who have no pluck.

And if their bowlers do it to you, what do you think your bowlers are
for?

How far is a long way? It depends on the ground; 300-400 feet would be
typical, but it could be more or less than that. Of course, some
players can strike the ball way, way further than that, with the ball
clearing the boundary rope by some considerable height and would
continue for twice that distance. For one example that I witnessed,
Flintoff (a powerful but by no means the most powerful) batsman hit a
ball at the Oval in 2003, and it broke the window of the opponents
dressing room, some 500 feet from the point of impact, and some 50-75
feet from the ground. It was reported that the ball was still rising,
but that could easily be an exageration.
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-25 12:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@supanet.com
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by d***@supanet.com
Post by Jack Linthicum
What would you do with someone like Barry Bonds or another of the
steroid users hitting for six everytime they connected? Not having to
run is an asset with those people.
Batsmen in cricket come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and bowlers
in cricket have a greater variety of weapons at their disposal than
their counterparts in baseball. An example of the latter point is
demonstrated in the different responses that arise when a bowler/
pitcher hurls the ball with the deliberate intention of hitting the
chap holding the big stick. In cricket, it's an accepted part of the
game, and the only issue is that the batsman isn't supposed to let any
blood get on the pitch. In baseball, the players get terribly agitated
and engage in "handbags at 10 paces".
There are and have been powerful batsmen capable of hitting a ball a
long, long way. Bowlers and fielders play accordingly. There are
essentially two approaches; bowl such that the batsman doesn't have
After the bowler is taken to the hospital what is the next option? A
long way is how far?
Bowlers are allowed, even expected to hit the batsmen. Only wimps and
wusses object to a physicality to a game. And if a batsman is scared
of being the target of 5.75 oz of leather hurled at 100mph at his face
from a distance of 22 yards, then he's no right to be playing the
game. It's not supposed to be a game for people who have no pluck.
And if their bowlers do it to you, what do you think your bowlers are
for?
How far is a long way? It depends on the ground; 300-400 feet would be
typical, but it could be more or less than that. Of course, some
players can strike the ball way, way further than that, with the ball
clearing the boundary rope by some considerable height and would
continue for twice that distance. For one example that I witnessed,
Flintoff (a powerful but by no means the most powerful) batsman hit a
ball at the Oval in 2003, and it broke the window of the opponents
dressing room, some 500 feet from the point of impact, and some 50-75
feet from the ground. It was reported that the ball was still rising,
but that could easily be an exageration.
and, that, in a few words is why the game is not interesting to
Americans. An attempt to injure is considered a threat to the
opponent's existence. If you make $20 million a year any thing meant
to hit or harm you is such a threat.

By the way home runs always break window and are rising as they leave
the field, that's the only kind that count.

Your 500 foot "homer" would be commonplace in the era of the lively
ball. Story of one Babe Ruth hit in an exhibition game in Atlanta. The
ball park was next to a railroad yard and babe hit one into an open
gondola car.
d***@supanet.com
2007-03-25 14:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by d***@supanet.com
Bowlers are allowed, even expected to hit the batsmen. Only wimps and
wusses object to a physicality to a game. And if a batsman is scared
of being the target of 5.75 oz of leather hurled at 100mph at his face
from a distance of 22 yards, then he's no right to be playing the
game. It's not supposed to be a game for people who have no pluck.
and, that, in a few words is why the game is not interesting to
Americans. An attempt to injure is considered a threat to the
opponent's existence. If you make $20 million a year any thing meant
to hit or harm you is such a threat.
Different sports, different attitudes.

The cricket attitude is that if one can't take a few knocks, one
shouldn't be playing, and that if you aren't prepared to risk a few
knocks, you don't deserve the pay of a professional. A game without a
physical threat is all a bit wimpish. "A threat to the opponent's
existence", forsooth. The batsman takes a knock, bleeds a bit, gets
patched up and carries on. Some of the memorable moments of cricket
history came about precisely because of the existence of the physical
threat. Like the time one Colin Cowdrey suffered a broken arm during a
game, and the game went down to the last batsman - him - and he came
out to face the music with his broken arm in plaster. Different sports
have different cultures, but cricket without the element of physical
threat would be like non-contact American football.

Me, I like both cricket (in its proper format, not the ODIous nonsense
for the brain dead) and baseball. They've strengths and weaknesses
compared to each other.
Michael G. Koerner
2007-03-25 14:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by d***@supanet.com
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by d***@supanet.com
Post by Jack Linthicum
What would you do with someone like Barry Bonds or another of the
steroid users hitting for six everytime they connected? Not having to
run is an asset with those people.
Batsmen in cricket come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and bowlers
in cricket have a greater variety of weapons at their disposal than
their counterparts in baseball. An example of the latter point is
demonstrated in the different responses that arise when a bowler/
pitcher hurls the ball with the deliberate intention of hitting the
chap holding the big stick. In cricket, it's an accepted part of the
game, and the only issue is that the batsman isn't supposed to let any
blood get on the pitch. In baseball, the players get terribly agitated
and engage in "handbags at 10 paces".
There are and have been powerful batsmen capable of hitting a ball a
long, long way. Bowlers and fielders play accordingly. There are
essentially two approaches; bowl such that the batsman doesn't have
After the bowler is taken to the hospital what is the next option? A
long way is how far?
Bowlers are allowed, even expected to hit the batsmen. Only wimps and
wusses object to a physicality to a game. And if a batsman is scared
of being the target of 5.75 oz of leather hurled at 100mph at his face
from a distance of 22 yards, then he's no right to be playing the
game. It's not supposed to be a game for people who have no pluck.
And if their bowlers do it to you, what do you think your bowlers are
for?
How far is a long way? It depends on the ground; 300-400 feet would be
typical, but it could be more or less than that. Of course, some
players can strike the ball way, way further than that, with the ball
clearing the boundary rope by some considerable height and would
continue for twice that distance. For one example that I witnessed,
Flintoff (a powerful but by no means the most powerful) batsman hit a
ball at the Oval in 2003, and it broke the window of the opponents
dressing room, some 500 feet from the point of impact, and some 50-75
feet from the ground. It was reported that the ball was still rising,
but that could easily be an exageration.
and, that, in a few words is why the game is not interesting to
Americans. An attempt to injure is considered a threat to the
opponent's existence. If you make $20 million a year any thing meant
to hit or harm you is such a threat.
By the way home runs always break window and are rising as they leave
the field, that's the only kind that count.
Your 500 foot "homer" would be commonplace in the era of the lively
ball. Story of one Babe Ruth hit in an exhibition game in Atlanta. The
ball park was next to a railroad yard and babe hit one into an open
gondola car.
It's not at all unusual for home runs to break windows and go bouncing down
side streets at Wrigley Field in Chicago, too. A '500 foot' homer would be in
the patio area at Murphy's Bleachers across Sheffield St from the Wrigley
bleachers. Any further would be in range of the CTA's Addison St 'Red' line
station.

A really long home run to left field at Miller Park (Milwaukee, WI Brewers)
could hit a vehicle on the adjacent Miller Park Way freeway (with the roof and
wall panels 'open'). In fact the freeway had to be shifted slightly eastward
to make enough room for the stadium.

Another difference between cricket and baseball - in baseball, fans can keep
any balls that go out of the field (home runs, foul balls, etc) while in
cricket, the ball must be returned as the wear that the balls endure during
play is considered integral to the game.
--
___________________________________________ ____ _______________
Regards, | |\ ____
| | | | |\
Michael G. Koerner May they | | | | | | rise again!
Appleton, Wisconsin USA | | | | | |
___________________________________________ | | | | | | _______________
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-25 20:14:16 UTC
Permalink
. An example of the latter point is
Post by d***@supanet.com
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by d***@supanet.com
demonstrated in the different responses that arise when a bowler/
pitcher hurls the ball with the deliberate intention of hitting the
chap holding the big stick. In cricket, it's an accepted part of the
game, and the only issue is that the batsman isn't supposed to let any
blood get on the pitch. In baseball, the players get terribly agitated
and engage in "handbags at 10 paces".
There are and have been powerful batsmen capable of hitting a ball a
long, long way. Bowlers and fielders play accordingly. There are
essentially two approaches; bowl such that the batsman doesn't have
After the bowler is taken to the hospital what is the next option? A
long way is how far?
Bowlers are allowed, even expected to hit the batsmen. Only wimps and
wusses object to a physicality to a game. And if a batsman is scared
of being the target of 5.75 oz of leather hurled at 100mph at his face
from a distance of 22 yards, then he's no right to be playing the
game. It's not supposed to be a game for people who have no pluck.
And if their bowlers do it to you, what do you think your bowlers are
for?
How far is a long way? It depends on the ground; 300-400 feet would be
typical, but it could be more or less than that. Of course, some
players can strike the ball way, way further than that, with the ball
clearing the boundary rope by some considerable height and would
continue for twice that distance. For one example that I witnessed,
Flintoff (a powerful but by no means the most powerful) batsman hit a
ball at the Oval in 2003, and it broke the window of the opponents
dressing room, some 500 feet from the point of impact, and some 50-75
feet from the ground. It was reported that the ball was still rising,
but that could easily be an exageration.
I will give you something to read which explains why throwing at a
hitter in baseball is not just unwise it is dangerous. A guy with
great potential gets to bat in his first major league game, hit in the
head by a wild pitch and unable to function thereafter. Which is why
any pitcher who throws at a hitter is automatically thrown out of the
game.

"Within the cowhide of an official baseball is a core of rubber-
encased cork, which is then surrounded by 1,100 feet of tightly wound
yarn. The entirety weighs about five ounces, and every kid who has
ever played the game is routinely urged not to be afraid of it, no
matter how hard it is thrown. But, of course, a baseball can be as
hazardous as any similarly sized rock. In 1920, a wayward pitch
crushed the skull of the Cleveland Indians shortstop Ray Chapman.
Blood poured out of both ears. He collapsed as he staggered about and
was dead by the next morning. While big-league baseball has suffered
no other fatalities, there have been plenty of other horrendous
beanings. The future Hall of Famer Mickey Cochrane, one of the game's
greatest catchers, had his career halted in 1937 by a pitch that left
him unconscious for 10 days. Thirty years later, Tony Conigliaro, a
brilliant young outfielder with the Boston Red Sox, was smacked just
below the left eye, shattering his cheekbone and damaging his retina.
He said it felt as if the ball were going into one side of his head
and coming out the other. The wildly popular Tony C. made a comeback
in 1969, but his eyesight had weakened and he was never the same."


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/magazine/25baseball.t.html?_r=1&ref=magazine&oref=slogin

Head Trip
By BARRY BEARAK

The moment possessed that rare, rapturous feeling of a dream come
true. Adam Greenberg knelt in the on-deck circle, awaiting his first
at-bat in his first major-league game. He had arrived at this occasion
by successfully ascending all those smaller steps along the way:
Little League, Legion ball, high-school ball, college ball, the minor
leagues. He was 24 now, an outfielder playing his best baseball ever.
The Chicago Cubs had promoted him from their Double A farm club in
West Tennessee. "Greenie, get a bat, you're hitting for the pitcher,"
Dick Pole, the bench coach, told him in the top of the ninth. The Cubs
were up 4-2 over the Florida Marlins. It was a Saturday night, July
2005. Towers of beaming light fended off the dark for a Miami crowd of
nearly 23,000. The air was steamy. A pelting rain had left the grass
with its deepest color. As Adam left the dugout, he wrapped his hands
around his favorite bat, a Zinger model X53, a 34-incher with a black
head and a cherry handle. He breathed in the familiar smell of the
polished wood. Dusty Baker, the Cubs manager, called out
encouragingly, "C'mon, Greenie, get on!"

Everything about this milestone was as thrilling as he had envisioned
it in a thousand boyhood imaginings. Two days earlier, he got the news
from the Cubs at a Day's Inn in Kodak, Tenn. A first-class plane
ticket to Florida was waiting in his name. There would be no more
daylong bus rides from nowhere to nowhere, no more paying rent month
to month, no more pinching pennies on a minor-league meal allowance.
In Fort Lauderdale, he was booked at a Marriott on the waterfront.
Awaiting him in his room was a note of congratulations from his agent
along with an iced bottle of Dom Perignon and two Champagne flutes,
each holding a blue napkin and a pink carnation. At the ballpark, he
was issued a uniform with 17 on the back, the number once worn by Mark
Grace, the Cubs star first baseman of the '90s. There was also some
pleasurable paperwork to complete. He signed a contract for $316,000.
The salary was the major-league minimum, but it didn't seem so minimal
to him. It was 15 times what he had been earning before.

Greenberg's parents, Mark and Wendy, rushed to Miami for the occasion,
bringing along Adam's two younger brothers, Sam and Max, and one of
his two sisters, Loren. Some remodeling was being done to their home
in Guilford, Conn. They hurriedly scrawled a note to the contractor on
a piece of Sheetrock: "We're on our way to Florida. Adam is a major
leaguer." Mark thought his son had defied incredible odds: "Adam is a
5-9, 180-pound Jewish kid from Connecticut. You don't see a lot of
those in professional baseball." Now the family was watching the game
from the box seats behind home plate. When Adam came out of the
dugout, Wendy sneaked down to the first row with a camera. "You can't
be down here," an usher chided. "But that's my son," she insisted.

In the on-deck circle, Greenberg concentrated on the pitcher, the
injury-plagued veteran left-hander Valerio de los Santos. Like any
good hitter, he used the vantage point to study the flow and twist of
the pitcher's motion and the release point of the ball. The Cubs first
batter grounded out. Then Greenberg stepped to home plate. More
excited than nervous, he smoothed the loose dirt in the batter's box
with his cleats and surveyed the field. The Marlins were playing him
straight away, though the center fielder was a shade to the left. As
de los Santos reared back to throw, Greenberg, a left-handed batter,
rocked back slightly as well, some of his weight shifting to his back
foot, his body ready to uncoil with the confident kinetics of a
seasoned hitter.

A major-league fastball takes less than half a second to travel the 60
feet 6 inches from a pitcher's hand to home plate. This one was moving
at 91 miles per hour, which isn't particularly brisk as such things
go. And yet the ball's errant path toward Greenberg's head seemed so
utterly unavoidable that it was as if the pitch had been misaligned by
some magnetic force, the foreknowledge of its menace allowing time for
only the slightest twinge of fear.

As he instinctively spun away, Greenberg was hit behind the right ear,
with part of the impact on his helmet and the rest on his skull. An
imprint from the curved stitching of the baseball would remain stamped
on his skin for days. His eyeballs floated upward, but he didn't lose
consciousness; in fact, he remained alert enough to worry for his
life. He was sure his skull must have split open, and as he rolled on
his back with his knees in the air, he held his head between his
hands, trying to keep anything from leaking out.

The crowd united in a gasp and then fell into a solicitous hush. The
two Cubs trainers raced to home plate. The team's dumbstruck TV
announcers groped for something meaningful to say. "Certainly you hate
to see that," Bob Brenly, a former big-league catcher and manager,
commented gravely. "We sure hope the young man's O.K. That ball was
just tracking his helmet from the moment it left de los Santos's
hand."

It took more than a minute before Greenberg sat up. The trainers asked
him: How many fingers? What's your name? Where are you? As Greenberg
recalls it, they then asked him something a bit more challenging.
Where were you two days ago? He replied to that one with a smile. "I
was in the minor leagues, and I'm not going back."

This quick-witted reply was a relief to everyone at the time. But the
answer has turned out to be sadly untrue. Fate was in a nasty and
perverse mood that evening, and that one throw of a baseball, that
single amalgam of variables within the mechanics of pitching - the
fingers exploring the braille of the ball's raised thread, the hurried
windmill movement of the arm, the angle of the launch, the density of
the air, the deflection of spin as a smooth circle pushes through the
emptiness - glided inches awry and changed everything. Adam
Greenberg's biggest moment lasted only a half second.

It may be the entirety of his major-league career.

I first met Greenberg last July in Kodak, Tenn., outside the same
Day's Inn where the year before he received word of his elevation to
the majors. After his fateful at-bat, he suffered vertigo, and though
that condition eventually went away, he remained burdened by something
nearly as dreadful - inexplicably diminished skills in hitting the
ball. He was no longer with the Cubs. Weeks earlier, he asked the team
to release him from their minor-league system, a request easy to
oblige since Greenberg was hitting a wretched .179 and mostly riding
the bench. He had since caught on with the Los Angeles Dodgers and was
back on the road trying to revive his faltering career with their
Double A affiliate in Jacksonville.

Nearly a year later, I was reminded of Greenberg by an article in The
Chicago Tribune by the columnist Mike Downey. It likened him to Dr.
Archibald (Moonlight) Graham, a character in W. P. Kinsella's
whimsical novel "Shoeless Joe," which was made into the 1989 movie
"Field of Dreams." Doc Graham, played by an elderly Burt Lancaster,
was an actual player fetched from the footnotes of baseball annals,
someone who got into a single major-league game in 1905 and was
marooned in the on-deck circle without ever coming to bat. "It was
like coming this close to your dreams and then watching them brush
past you like a stranger in a crowd," he laments in the film. "At the
time, you don't think much of it. We don't recognize our most
significant moments while they're happening. Back then I thought,
Well, there'll be other days. I didn't realize that was the only day."

When we met, Greenberg himself brought up the Graham comparison. "I'm
tired of hearing it," he said flatly. A freakish play may have plucked
him from obscurity, but he wanted it clear that he needed no one's
pity. He remained a hard-nosed, high-octane center fielder with a
terrific glove. He may never have hit with much power, but when he got
back to normal, he would be batting his usual .290, walking a lot and
creating havoc on the bases. Sportswriters were too prone to dwell on
eerie coincidences, he said: that he and Graham had the same initials,
that they both attended the University of North Carolina, that their
major-league appearances took place 100 years apart almost exactly to
the day. A few stories even seemed to imply reincarnation. "Isn't it
kind of ridiculous?" Greenberg asked.



Greenberg thoroughly understood why a reporter might seek him out.
"It's a great story," he said of himself. "You push and push and push,
you have some ups and downs, you get to the top of the mountain - or
at least you think so - and before you can even blink, literally,
everything comes crashing down, and not lightly. It's not slow. It's a
rapid decline." He took a deep breath before continuing in the second-
person singular with the pep talk he delivers to himself daily: "You
can be the person at the bottom who never digs himself out or tries to
get back up. I don't want that. I don't want any regrets."

He was committed to baseball. "Failure is not an option," he said. He
had begun talking to a sports psychologist, who advised him that while
batting he needed to blot out all inner seepages of negativity. "Last
night was huge for me," Greenberg declared two days after we first
met. He hadn't gotten any hits, but he did walk three times, drove in
two runs, scored twice and stole a base. "I'm just putting positive
thoughts in my head."

Still, I worried for him. He was barely hitting .200. I went to see
John Shoemaker, the Jacksonville Suns' gentlemanly manager. He was
delighted to talk about one of his favorites. "Adam's work ethic is
great," Shoemaker told me. "So is his style of play." Shoemaker has
been coaching minor leaguers for 25 years and wanted to be sure I
understood how big a compliment he had bestowed. Greenberg was always
the first player on the field, he said. He ran full speed on every
ground ball. He never threw to the wrong base. "With two outs in the
ninth, he's still picking up blades of grass in center field and
testing the wind," the manager said.

But then he reached for a folder that held the numbers. With the Suns,
Greenberg had struck out 30 times in 79 official at-bats. "That's not
so good," Shoemaker muttered somberly. He called in Mike Easler, his
hitting coach. Using invisible bats, they both demonstrated the
struggling hitter's unproductive swing and rendered assorted
diagnoses: He's not stepping into the ball. He's taking too big a cut.
He needs to adjust his back foot.

It was like watching that TV hospital series "House," with earnest
doctors inventorying a patient's symptoms and hypothesizing about
conceivable treatments.

Shoemaker glumly summed up the specialists' bewilderment: "Anyway,
something is wrong that needs to be fixed."

But what was it? The mechanics of hitting are as complicated as the
mechanics of pitching: the positioning of the feet, hands, hips and
shoulders; the assessment of the oncoming ball's location and
trajectory; the rotation of the body to convert torque into bat speed.
Even slight variations in technique can subvert the entire operation.
"So have you figured out what's wrong?" I kept asking Greenberg. Each
time, his answer was different, reporting the awareness of some new
flaw and the application of some new adjustment. The harder he worked,
though, the more messed up he seemed to get. "What is the root of my
problem?" he kept asking himself. Is it my stance? Is it my stride? Is
it my swing?

For a while, the villain had been vertigo, though this wasn't
immediately evident. In the hours after Greenberg was beaned, nothing
more than a lump on his head appeared in need of treatment. With an
ice bag pressed against his skull, he could still feel ebullient about
being a big leaguer. Valerio de los Santos called to apologize about
the pitch that got away, and one after another Greenberg's Cub
teammates came into the training room to amiably wish the rookie well.
Tomorrow, they assured him, would be another day.

But in the morning he didn't feel right. When he went to the stadium,
he was redirected to the hospital, where it was surmised that he had a
mild concussion. He sat out that afternoon's game. From time to time,
the TV cameras found him in the dugout with a big smile on his face.
But he kept returning to the clubhouse. He needed to nap.

After the game, baseball began its annual three-day All-Star break.
Greenberg went to Chicago, where he struggled with bouts of dizziness
so severe the world seemed to be capsizing in rough seas. Doctors at
first presumed the symptoms would simply go away. When the season
resumed, the trainers asked the new center fielder each day if he felt
ready to go. It pained Greenberg to respond honestly. He couldn't
play.

Arizona was a peculiar purgatory. On the one hand, doctors finally
figured out that Adam was suffering from benign paroxysmal positional
vertigo, an abnormal sensation of motion caused by a dislocation of
calcium crystals in the inner ear. His nerve cells were giving his
brain the wrong information about the movements of his head. On the
other hand, the correct exercises to fix the problem permanently - a
brief sequence of head movements - were a matter of trial and error,
and the right regimen was weeks in coming. At one point during this
frustrating hiatus, Greenberg prematurely declared himself ready for
baseball. By then, the Cubs no longer considered him a major leaguer.
So he was returned to Tennessee, with his eyes twitching
unpredictably, his vision flickering and his body taking ungainly
stumbles.

By September 2005, he had conquered the vertigo but lost his place in
line with the Cubs. He was no longer: solid hitter, outstanding
hustle, on the verge. He was: feeble bat, hard luck, question mark.
The Cubs were unimpressed by Greenberg at spring training, and he was
again assigned to West Tennessee at the start of the 2006 season. He
did poorly while hitting at the end of the lineup and then was moved
out of the batting order entirely.

But now a raw-deal wild pitch had knocked him off his ascendance. I
wondered: Had baseball been his fool's gold? Had it lured him in,
swallowed his energy and stolen his youth? My frame of reference was
the Cubs, my hopelessness springing eternal. He may say that failure
was not an option, but wasn't it now a probability?



But September came and went, and while the Cubs had much to regret en
route to the National League's worst record, the events Wendy foresaw
were not among them.

Within the cowhide of an official baseball is a core of rubber-encased
cork, which is then surrounded by 1,100 feet of tightly wound yarn.
The entirety weighs about five ounces, and every kid who has ever
played the game is routinely urged not to be afraid of it, no matter
how hard it is thrown. But, of course, a baseball can be as hazardous
as any similarly sized rock. In 1920, a wayward pitch crushed the
skull of the Cleveland Indians shortstop Ray Chapman. Blood poured out
of both ears. He collapsed as he staggered about and was dead by the
next morning. While big-league baseball has suffered no other
fatalities, there have been plenty of other horrendous beanings. The
future Hall of Famer Mickey Cochrane, one of the game's greatest
catchers, had his career halted in 1937 by a pitch that left him
unconscious for 10 days. Thirty years later, Tony Conigliaro, a
brilliant young outfielder with the Boston Red Sox, was smacked just
below the left eye, shattering his cheekbone and damaging his retina.
He said it felt as if the ball were going into one side of his head
and coming out the other. The wildly popular Tony C. made a comeback
in 1969, but his eyesight had weakened and he was never the same.

Batting helmets, made mandatory in 1971, have mitigated many blows.
But a hit in the head can lead to consequences beyond the physical,
including a residue of fear. I naturally wondered if the origin of
Greenberg's problems at home plate was some infinitesimal flinch.
Again and again, he denied it. Then, in January, he reversed course.
"I wasn't scared to bat against lefties, but I was affected," he
admitted. It's sometimes harder for left-handed hitters to follow the
delivery of left-handed pitchers, whose throws can seem to be sweeping
across the plate from "behind." A newborn caution caused Greenberg to
change his batting stance slightly to get a better look at each pitch.
That in turn altered his natural swing, and then each time he
corrected one problem, he seemed to introduce yet another. "You can
make yourself crazy, which is what I did."

Greenberg presented this analysis as a triumph. He was declaring
himself cured. After the 2006 season, he said he had hoped to play
winter ball in Mexico, but none of the teams there wanted him. Now he
thought this snub had turned out for the best. His holiday from
baseball had put an end to "over-trying" during every at-bat and
"overthinking" after every failure. Muscle memory had now restored his
natural swing, like a switch of the controls to autopilot. "I have the
opportunity to go out there again and just have fun," he said.

On baseball's eager calendar, winter comes to a close in mid-February.
Greenberg reported for spring training to Surprise, Ariz., the
preseason home of the Kansas City Royals. His new team signed him as a
free agent, promising to overlook the dreary .228 batting average he
posted the year before. With tomorrow unburdened of yesterday,
Greenberg sounded elated to embrace a fresh start. The clothes he
brought along included two suits - the black with the blue pinstripes
and the solid olive. While he expected to start the season in the
minors, he said he was confident of being called up to the Royals
later on and explained that "you've got to dress the part."

In Surprise, I watched practice along with J. J. Picollo, the team's
director of player development. He said that the Royals had taken a
chance on Greenberg because some players who get plunked in the noggin
simply need a season or so to recover. "If he gets over that hump, he
could be a real discovery for us," Picollo said. It was too soon to
know whether Greenberg had a resurgent bat, but he had already earned
Picollo's good will. "The kid is such a heady player," he said. "Great
instincts, understands the nuances of the game."

"Sometimes you have to be at the right place at the right time."

After all, everything can change in the blink of an eye.
merccurytravel
2007-03-26 05:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
I will give you something to read which explains why throwing at a
hitter in baseball is not just unwise it is dangerous.
Jack,

No one is arguing with you - they are simply trying to point out that in
cricket one fast bowling technique is to intimidate batsmen - another
technique is to simply confuse - Shane Warne being a fine example. With fast
bowlers its not unknown for a batsman to end up in hospital - many were
frightened near to death by the likes of Wes Hall.

Tony Bailey
d***@supanet.com
2007-03-26 06:42:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by merccurytravel
No one is arguing with you - they are simply trying to point out that in
cricket one fast bowling technique is to intimidate batsmen - another
technique is to simply confuse - Shane Warne being a fine example.
Perhaps a bit unwise to lump Warne in with all this talk of fast
bowlers. Maybe McGrath would be a better example of one who relies
much less on intimidation than examination of technique (although
describing McGrath as fast is a bit misleading).
Post by merccurytravel
With fast
bowlers its not unknown for a batsman to end up in hospital - many were
frightened near to death by the likes of Wes Hall.
And many, many other examples, most notable being the West Indies Pace
Quartet of the 1980s.

And where would this group be without the example of Larwood et al
under the inspired leadership of that nice Mr Jardine?
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-26 10:54:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by merccurytravel
Post by Jack Linthicum
I will give you something to read which explains why throwing at a
hitter in baseball is not just unwise it is dangerous.
Jack,
No one is arguing with you - they are simply trying to point out that in
cricket one fast bowling technique is to intimidate batsmen - another
technique is to simply confuse - Shane Warne being a fine example. With fast
bowlers its not unknown for a batsman to end up in hospital - many were
frightened near to death by the likes of Wes Hall.
Tony Bailey
Then the way to make cricket popular is to market it as a dry land
version of ice hockey, killer bowlers armed with hard spheroids
intentionally throwing them at unprotected batsmen. Batsmen, specially
hired for the team, to stand-in for a star player and beat any bowler
who throws close to the batsmen into insensibility. Umpires will judge
any fight on the basis of the "unarmed combat" rules. IE there are no
rules, only post fight penalties.

TV will bring the action into your home or local, multiple replays of
the hit on the batsman and bowler. Blood, running free, the English
sport, come partake of it.
d***@supanet.com
2007-03-26 06:38:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@supanet.com
. An example of the latter point is
I will give you something to read which explains why throwing at a
hitter in baseball is not just unwise it is dangerous. A guy with
great potential gets to bat in his first major league game, hit in the
head by a wild pitch and unable to function thereafter. Which is why
any pitcher who throws at a hitter is automatically thrown out of the
game.
"Within the cowhide of an official baseball is a core of rubber-
encased cork, which is then surrounded by 1,100 feet of tightly wound
yarn. The entirety weighs about five ounces, and every kid who has
ever played the game is routinely urged not to be afraid of it, no
matter how hard it is thrown.
(Snip of rest).

I'm not saying that being hit by either a baseball or a cricket ball
(which is slightly heavier and slightly smaller than a baseball)
travelling at high velocity isn't dangerous.

What I'm saying is that the two sports have very different attitudes
to that danger. In baseball, as you so eloquently describe, the
players regard that danger as unacceptable. In cricket, the danger is
regarded as an inherent part of the game.

Injuries occur in cricket, and they are regarded as part and parcel of
the game. No-one wants an individual to be hurt, but no-one wants to
remove the intimidatory aspect of the game, which involves the
possibility of injury. Baseball has gone down a different route.
k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2007-03-27 11:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@supanet.com
What I'm saying is that the two sports have very different attitudes
to that danger.
There is also a difference between the games that Jack may not be aware
off. In cricket the bowler is expected to make the ball hit the pitch
before it reaches the batsman. Bowling a non-pitching ball at chest or
head height is known as a beamer and has always been frowned on and is
now I believe illegal. Intimidation is usually done with bouncers where
the ball is bowled short so when it bounces it travels at head height
over the wicket. It is up to the batsman to deal with it then. Various
forms of cricket have limits on the number of bouncers in an over.

Fielders can be in as much danger as batters. Fielding at short stop is
positively risky and the only fielding position apart from wicket keeper
where a helmet may be worn.

Ken Young
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-27 11:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by d***@supanet.com
What I'm saying is that the two sports have very different attitudes
to that danger.
There is also a difference between the games that Jack may not be aware
off. In cricket the bowler is expected to make the ball hit the pitch
before it reaches the batsman. Bowling a non-pitching ball at chest or
head height is known as a beamer and has always been frowned on and is
now I believe illegal. Intimidation is usually done with bouncers where
the ball is bowled short so when it bounces it travels at head height
over the wicket. It is up to the batsman to deal with it then. Various
forms of cricket have limits on the number of bouncers in an over.
Fielders can be in as much danger as batters. Fielding at short stop is
positively risky and the only fielding position apart from wicket keeper
where a helmet may be worn.
Ken Young
One of the stories about your hero had him hit to each fielder in
turn, similar story about an American who hit to each field and when
reporters in the stands gave him some other places he started hitting
foul balls into the stands where they were.

I had forgotten the bounce, which would take quite a bit of the
impetus off a thrown ball. Any measurements on how fast a cricket ball
is going when it gets to the batsman in that situation? A regular fast
ball in major leabgue baseball is between 92 and 98 mph.
d***@supanet.com
2007-03-27 14:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
I had forgotten the bounce, which would take quite a bit of the
impetus off a thrown ball. Any measurements on how fast a cricket ball
is going when it gets to the batsman in that situation? A regular fast
ball in major leabgue baseball is between 92 and 98 mph.
It depends on the pitch, and it depends on how far from the batsman
the ball pitches, and it depends on the initial pace of the ball.

Most measurements (and I presume this is the case in baseball) measure
the pace of the ball on leaving the chucker's hand. Assuming a
standard quick bowler delivers the ball at high 80s/low 90s mph
(considered fast, but there are several in that region, and a few that
are faster), and remembering what I've seen of various analyses on TV,
the speed on reaching the batsman can be anything from 60mph for flat,
slow pitches to 75mph for lively wickets.

Some bowlers bowl a lot slower than this, but they generally rely on
large lateral movement off the pitch or through the air.
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-27 16:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@supanet.com
Post by Jack Linthicum
I had forgotten the bounce, which would take quite a bit of the
impetus off a thrown ball. Any measurements on how fast a cricket ball
is going when it gets to the batsman in that situation? A regular fast
ball in major leabgue baseball is between 92 and 98 mph.
It depends on the pitch, and it depends on how far from the batsman
the ball pitches, and it depends on the initial pace of the ball.
Most measurements (and I presume this is the case in baseball) measure
the pace of the ball on leaving the chucker's hand. Assuming a
standard quick bowler delivers the ball at high 80s/low 90s mph
(considered fast, but there are several in that region, and a few that
are faster), and remembering what I've seen of various analyses on TV,
the speed on reaching the batsman can be anything from 60mph for flat,
slow pitches to 75mph for lively wickets.
Some bowlers bowl a lot slower than this, but they generally rely on
large lateral movement off the pitch or through the air.
Those are the speeds for 12-year olds playing Little League. Scrub
everything I said about throwing at the batsmen.
d***@supanet.com
2007-03-27 17:00:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Those are the speeds for 12-year olds playing Little League. Scrub
everything I said about throwing at the batsmen.
Out of academic interest, does anyone reliable have comparable figures
for ball speed on reaching the hitter in baseball. I know that the
speeds on leaving the pitchers/bowlers hand are comparable, and I
would be interested in the equivalences at the other end.

Does anyone reliable have the distance from pitcher to batter?
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-27 17:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@supanet.com
Post by Jack Linthicum
Those are the speeds for 12-year olds playing Little League. Scrub
everything I said about throwing at the batsmen.
Out of academic interest, does anyone reliable have comparable figures
for ball speed on reaching the hitter in baseball. I know that the
speeds on leaving the pitchers/bowlers hand are comparable, and I
would be interested in the equivalences at the other end.
Does anyone reliable have the distance from pitcher to batter?
60 feet 6 inches, rubber to plate, assume a six foot pitchers will
stride about 5-6 feet in delivering the ball, with his back foot still
on the rubber. Distance is now about 55 feet. Those 100 mph and
similar numbers are the speed at the plate, usually measured by a
radar gun. Radar guns can be optomistic or pessimistic but generally
the same pitcher will throw an average that can be measured and an
extreme hgih that can be measured.

"Check out _The Physics of Baseball_ by Robert K. Adair (Harper and
Row, 1990, ISBN 0-06-096461-8). Adair is Sterling Professor of Physics
at Yale University and, from 1987 to 1989, Physicist to the National
League:

...the "muzzle velocity" of the ball -- as it leaves the pitcher's
hand -- is about 8 mph greater than its speed across the plate. The
ball loses speed at the rate of about 1 mph every 7 feet.

This means that a very fast fast ball leaves the hand of the pitcher
at well over 100 mph: at the plate measured speeds include 98.6
(Feller, 1946), 99.7 (Johnson, 1914, though how they got the number I
don't know), and 100.7 (Ryan, no date) mph. Johnson claimed that Dr.
Smokey Joe Wood was even faster. Add 8 mph to each for the speed at
the hand."

The Physics of Baseball (3rd Edition) (Paperback)
by Robert K. Adair (Author)

Guns and record speeds and the conditions
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/zoooomaya-and-speed-guns/
merccurytravel
2007-03-27 19:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@supanet.com
the pace of the ball on leaving the chucker's hand. Assuming a
Tut David!

Tony Bailey
d***@supanet.com
2007-03-28 04:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by merccurytravel
Post by d***@supanet.com
the pace of the ball on leaving the chucker's hand. Assuming a
Tut David!
Tony Bailey
I wondered if anyone would comment...
merccurytravel
2007-03-28 04:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@supanet.com
Post by merccurytravel
Post by d***@supanet.com
the pace of the ball on leaving the chucker's hand. Assuming a
Tut David!
Tony Bailey
I wondered if anyone would comment...
I rather thought it might be deliberate!

Tony Bailey

d***@supanet.com
2007-03-27 14:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Bowling a non-pitching ball at chest or
head height is known as a beamer and has always been frowned on and is
now I believe illegal.
According to the speed of the beamer, different actions are taken by
the umpire. If the umpire considers it intentional and quick, the
bowler is no-balled and removed from the attack for the innings. If
unintentional and/or slow, then the bowler is warned that repetition
will be treated as above.
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Intimidation is usually done with bouncers where
the ball is bowled short so when it bounces it travels at head height
over the wicket.
The target point is generally the throat.
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Fielders can be in as much danger as batters. Fielding at short stop
Short stop?

Silly mid on/off (ie, close in, in front of square).
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
is
positively risky and the only fielding position apart from wicket keeper
where a helmet may be worn.
And shin guards.
k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2007-03-27 20:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@supanet.com
Silly mid on/off (ie, close in, in front of square).
My mistake. And it is called silly for a reason.

Ken Young
Sydney Webb
2007-03-27 13:03:03 UTC
Permalink
***@supanet.com wrote:

[snip]
Post by d***@supanet.com
I'm not saying that being hit by either a baseball or a cricket ball
(which is slightly heavier and slightly smaller than a baseball)
travelling at high velocity isn't dangerous.
What I'm saying is that the two sports have very different attitudes
to that danger. In baseball, as you so eloquently describe, the
players regard that danger as unacceptable. In cricket, the danger is
regarded as an inherent part of the game.
Injuries occur in cricket, and they are regarded as part and parcel of
the game. No-one wants an individual to be hurt, but no-one wants to
remove the intimidatory aspect of the game, which involves the
possibility of injury. Baseball has gone down a different route.
True. But the question can still be asked, WI cricket went even further
down the route David described?

* * * *
Post by d***@supanet.com
And where would this group be without the example of Larwood et al
under the inspired leadership of that nice Mr Jardine?
David is correct. That nice Mr Jardine is practically an icon of
s.h.w-i prompting several threads on Leg Theory or, as those whinging
Aussies refer to it, Bodyline.

* * * *
Post by d***@supanet.com
A distinction was drawn between Professional Players (who were
generally paid, but poorly) and Amateur Gentlemen (who weren't paid,
but received generous expenses). In general terms, Players filled the
role of bowlers, which was regarded as necessary hard work for the
game, while Gentlemen filled the role of batsmen, which was regarded
as where one could show off elegant mastery of the art. (It's a
curious side note to speculate whether benefit of the doubt would go
to the bowler had the roles been reversed).
And here David is, perhaps inadvertently, chiding us. Have we on
s.h.w-i been showing sufficient Leninist zeal to the question of
cricket? [The question being, "What must be done?"]

Can we imagine a bowler led revolution in cricket - perhaps triggered by
that nice Mr Jardine - whereby the toilers, the bowlers, enjoy the
fruits of their production? Where, as David suggests, the benefit of
the doubt sits with the bowlers.

More importantly, where recent Law changes favour the bowlers. Wider
boundaries. Fewer field restrictions. Fewer limitations on the number
of overs that can be bowled. The abolition of runners. In short -
People's Cricket.

While I've suggested that nice Mr Jardine as our PoD there are other
possibilities. The 19th century seems a broad and rich field of poddage
as well. Over to you, chaps and chapesses of s.h.w-i!

- Syd
--
"Pastor Dietrich Bonhöffer argued that the mark of adulthood was the
ability to control one's passions. Warne has failed that test."
- Peter Roebuck
merccurytravel
2007-03-27 19:28:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sydney Webb
While I've suggested that nice Mr Jardine as our PoD there are other
possibilities. The 19th century seems a broad and rich field of poddage
as well. Over to you, chaps and chapesses of s.h.w-i!
Hm! - "Flashman and the professionals"?

Tony Bailey
d***@supanet.com
2007-03-24 18:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael G. Koerner
In cricket, 'batting average' is runs scored while batting divided by the
number of times the batter is out. From what I have been reading on the
sport, a career batting average of 20 is decent, 30 is stellar and 40
legendary.
It depends precisely upon the particular era; some periods have good
bowlers compared to batsmen, others vice versa. Pitch quality can also
have an effect.

As a rough rule of thumb, at international level, a batting average of
20 or less is poor (or what one might expect from someone not picked
for their batting), anything between 20-35 is not good, 35-40 is OK,
40-45 is good, 45-50 is very good, and above 50 is exceptional.

Bradman's 99.94 average is significant in that the next highest of all
time averages of those players who have played more than 20 matches -
is that of RG Pollock, at 60.97. That is a huge, huge gap, and I'm
struggling to think of any sport where there is such a huge gap
between the best and the second best.
k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2007-03-25 11:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@supanet.com
It depends precisely upon the particular era; some periods have good
bowlers compared to batsmen, others vice versa. Pitch quality can also
have an effect.
There is also the point that the rules have changed over time. IIRC
when Grace was batting all runs actually had to be run. The advent of
covered pitches has also changed things. Interestingly IIRC Bradman
only needed about 10 runs in his last innings to reach an average off
100 but was out for a duck.

Ken Young
d***@supanet.com
2007-03-25 12:24:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by d***@supanet.com
It depends precisely upon the particular era; some periods have good
bowlers compared to batsmen, others vice versa. Pitch quality can also
have an effect.
There is also the point that the rules have changed over time. IIRC
when Grace was batting all runs actually had to be run. The advent of
covered pitches has also changed things.
True enough. The constant changing of the LBW rule, the back foot/
front foot rule, the chucking rule, and so on all have had an impact.
They are, however, a bit esoteric, and probably not easily accessible
to those who have trouble understanding the game.
k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2007-03-24 11:52:26 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Rich Rostrom
Counter AHC: baseball displaces cricket throughout
the Anglosphere,
Baseball is played throughout the Anglo-Sphere we call it Rounders.
Having watched both Baseball and American football on TV I can quite
understand why they have never caught on elsewhere.
Post by Rich Rostrom
The U.S. would still be the center of baseball,
much as Europe remains the center of soccer.
But the "World Series" would very likely be more
like the Test Match.
Why the centre of gravity of both Rugby Union and now Cricket are in
the Southern Hemisphere with New Zealand and Australia respectively
being No 1 in the world rankings. I am not sure what you mean by the
"World Series" being more like a Test match. To qualify as a Test Match
it has to have national teams. England plays Test Matches Yorkshire does
not.



Ken Young
The Horny Goat
2007-03-24 15:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Rich Rostrom
Counter AHC: baseball displaces cricket throughout
the Anglosphere,
Baseball is played throughout the Anglo-Sphere we call it Rounders.
Having watched both Baseball and American football on TV I can quite
understand why they have never caught on elsewhere.
Well not exactly - the game is also very popular in Asian allies of
the United States like Taiwan and Japan.

Cricket is very strong primarily in the former Empire particularly
India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Rich Rostrom
The U.S. would still be the center of baseball,
much as Europe remains the center of soccer.
But the "World Series" would very likely be more
like the Test Match.
Why the centre of gravity of both Rugby Union and now Cricket are in
the Southern Hemisphere with New Zealand and Australia respectively
being No 1 in the world rankings. I am not sure what you mean by the
"World Series" being more like a Test match. To qualify as a Test Match
it has to have national teams. England plays Test Matches Yorkshire does
not.
For many years Rugby was the dominant high school sport in Canadian
high schools as it did not require the equipment expenditure that
football (US-style) and ice hockey require. Field hockey is primarily
a girls' sport with some fairly brutal stick work going well beyond
what would be acceptable on ice. (When I was in school "hackers"
referred to a member of one of these teams and had not yet acquired
the connection with computers it now has) Football (UK style) is
popular in Canadian youth sports with leagues starting from age 5 and
going to the inter-collegiate level. There is some play at the high
school level but it is not considered as highly as football (US) and
basketball.

For example when he was 14 my brother took part in a rugby tour to
Wales. He played football (UK) from age 6 to university level junior
varsity but has given up both as he is a chiropractor and a hand
injury could put him out of work. Obviously just one data point but
not at all a-typical.
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-24 16:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
In article
Post by Rich Rostrom
Counter AHC: baseball displaces cricket throughout
the Anglosphere,
Baseball is played throughout the Anglo-Sphere we call it Rounders.
Having watched both Baseball and American football on TV I can quite
understand why they have never caught on elsewhere.
Well not exactly - the game is also very popular in Asian allies of
the United States like Taiwan and Japan.
Cricket is very strong primarily in the former Empire particularly
India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.
Post by k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Rich Rostrom
The U.S. would still be the center of baseball,
much as Europe remains the center of soccer.
But the "World Series" would very likely be more
like the Test Match.
Why the centre of gravity of both Rugby Union and now Cricket are in
the Southern Hemisphere with New Zealand and Australia respectively
being No 1 in the world rankings. I am not sure what you mean by the
"World Series" being more like a Test match. To qualify as a Test Match
it has to have national teams. England plays Test Matches Yorkshire does
not.
For many years Rugby was the dominant high school sport in Canadian
high schools as it did not require the equipment expenditure that
football (US-style) and ice hockey require. Field hockey is primarily
a girls' sport with some fairly brutal stick work going well beyond
what would be acceptable on ice. (When I was in school "hackers"
referred to a member of one of these teams and had not yet acquired
the connection with computers it now has) Football (UK style) is
popular in Canadian youth sports with leagues starting from age 5 and
going to the inter-collegiate level. There is some play at the high
school level but it is not considered as highly as football (US) and
basketball.
For example when he was 14 my brother took part in a rugby tour to
Wales. He played football (UK) from age 6 to university level junior
varsity but has given up both as he is a chiropractor and a hand
injury could put him out of work. Obviously just one data point but
not at all a-typical.
And, one should always remember that the national game of Canada is
lacrosse and not hockey.

Rugby is a fun game at the fun level, once people get serious it gets
serious and there too many bodies. I used to go to the Washington
Blues games near the Mall in DC, highlight of the game would be the
Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, with a handkerchief tied at the corners
for a cover on his bald head. and the beer.
merccurytravel
2007-03-24 18:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
And, one should always remember that the national game of Canada is
lacrosse and not hockey.
And of course, "hockey" in this context is not what a large part of the rest
of the world calls "hockey"!


Tony Bailey
Invid Fan
2007-03-24 22:11:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
And, one should always remember that the national game of Canada is
lacrosse and not hockey.
Because, if memory serves, by making it the "national game" it became
illegal for anyone {read: Indians] to make money playing it.
--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total shit. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS
The Horny Goat
2007-03-25 04:35:29 UTC
Permalink
On 24 Mar 2007 09:09:16 -0700, "Jack Linthicum"
Post by Jack Linthicum
And, one should always remember that the national game of Canada is
lacrosse and not hockey.
Officially but not in any meaningful sense...
Post by Jack Linthicum
Rugby is a fun game at the fun level, once people get serious it gets
serious and there too many bodies. I used to go to the Washington
Blues games near the Mall in DC, highlight of the game would be the
Secretary of State, Dean Rusk, with a handkerchief tied at the corners
for a cover on his bald head. and the beer.
Definitely in my part of Canada both rugby and curling are as much
about the post-game beer as the actual game.

Some would argue more so...
Sydney Webb
2007-03-25 09:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Tender readers,

How delightful! A chance to talk about two forces for good (generally)
in this naughty world of ours: cricket and the USA. Of course, we must
take care lest we fall into trans-Pacific slanging about whose summer
game is the superior.

That said, let us look at what makes cricket, especially the 5-day Test
matches, so attractive. Here is ex-Father Paul Collins from yesterday's
Sydney Morning Herald[1]:

"Test cricket seems to be the antithesis of our media-driven, instant
gratification world."

Even more pertinently, here is Gideon Haigh[2]:

"Test cricket takes a long time but it endures in the memory, like a
good wine lingering on the palate."

We can compare and contrast to baseball. A single game of baseball is
of no consequence. So instead games are aggregated. A double-header.
A pennant race. The world series. Only here do we find significance.

So to answer the challenge "Make cricket more popular in the USA" we
have to understand why baseball, _baseball_, occupies the present
niche. Why is baseball so popular in TUS? And to answer that question,
we need to ask an American.

Oh look! Here comes one now:

Rich Rostrom wrote:

[snip]
Post by Rich Rostrom
To me, it is amazing that a sport with the practical
difficulties of cricket survives at all.
3-day matches? who has the time? (to play or watch)
The critical element of play (bowler and batsman)
is in the center of the field, far from spectators.
Cricket is alive, but not AFAIK a big-money sport
like baseball, soccer, or basketball.
So there's the answer. Americans like baseball because they don't know
any better.

To be even fairer, we're not exactly comparing apples with apples here.
To pick up Gideon's analogy and run with it a Test match is a bottle of
Grange Hermitage[3] and a ball game is a bottle of Bud Light. The Bud
is more accessible and two six-packs will still give you the same buzz
as the bottle of Grange, even if the experience isn't exactly the same.

We've looked at ways to allow the charms of cricket squeeze past the
reserve of American exceptionalism in the past. Here is just one, an
ObWI taken from the _AH Challenge: Those Sophisticated Americans_ thread
of two years ago.

* * * *

WI, following the battle of Brisbane, the US armed forces in
Australia put together a cricket team as a good-will gesture? They tour
the country, playing both country and Sheffield Shield sides. They do
well, not surprisingly; a mastery of baseball and an above average
intelligence gives one a head start in learning the civilised game.[4]
Plus the fact that most of the decent Aussie players are off serving
overseas.

Consequences? I'd like to think that returning servicemen could
evangelise the game in the 48 contiguous states. True, nothing is going
to get rid of baseball. But in Australia the massive popularity of
Australian Rules in the better class of states does not prevent
Australia being the leading Rugby League nation. If the CofA has room
to excel at three winter sports - including Rugby (Union) - there is no
reason why the more populous USA cannot do well at two summer sports.

A final thought. Americans are a famously polite people. Can they be
taught to sledge?

* * * *

[1] Spectrum p35, SMH 24/25 March 2007

[2] _All Out: The Ashes 2006-07_ by Gideon haigh

[3] http://www.penfolds.com/collection/super/

[4] Neither of these attributes will help a fast bowler manqué,
obviously.

- Syd
--
"I've learned from my mistakes and I'm sure I can repeat them exactly."
- Peter Cook
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-25 09:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sydney Webb
Tender readers,
How delightful! A chance to talk about two forces for good (generally)
in this naughty world of ours: cricket and the USA. Of course, we must
take care lest we fall into trans-Pacific slanging about whose summer
game is the superior.
That said, let us look at what makes cricket, especially the 5-day Test
matches, so attractive. Here is ex-Father Paul Collins from yesterday's
"Test cricket seems to be the antithesis of our media-driven, instant
gratification world."
"Test cricket takes a long time but it endures in the memory, like a
good wine lingering on the palate."
We can compare and contrast to baseball. A single game of baseball is
of no consequence. So instead games are aggregated. A double-header.
A pennant race. The world series. Only here do we find significance.
So to answer the challenge "Make cricket more popular in the USA" we
have to understand why baseball, _baseball_, occupies the present
niche. Why is baseball so popular in TUS? And to answer that question,
we need to ask an American.
[snip]
Post by Rich Rostrom
To me, it is amazing that a sport with the practical
difficulties of cricket survives at all.
3-day matches? who has the time? (to play or watch)
The critical element of play (bowler and batsman)
is in the center of the field, far from spectators.
Cricket is alive, but not AFAIK a big-money sport
like baseball, soccer, or basketball.
So there's the answer. Americans like baseball because they don't know
any better.
To be even fairer, we're not exactly comparing apples with apples here.
To pick up Gideon's analogy and run with it a Test match is a bottle of
Grange Hermitage[3] and a ball game is a bottle of Bud Light. The Bud
is more accessible and two six-packs will still give you the same buzz
as the bottle of Grange, even if the experience isn't exactly the same.
We've looked at ways to allow the charms of cricket squeeze past the
reserve of American exceptionalism in the past. Here is just one, an
ObWI taken from the _AH Challenge: Those Sophisticated Americans_ thread
of two years ago.
* * * *
WI, following the battle of Brisbane, the US armed forces in
Australia put together a cricket team as a good-will gesture? They tour
the country, playing both country and Sheffield Shield sides. They do
well, not surprisingly; a mastery of baseball and an above average
intelligence gives one a head start in learning the civilised game.[4]
Plus the fact that most of the decent Aussie players are off serving
overseas.
Consequences? I'd like to think that returning servicemen could
evangelise the game in the 48 contiguous states. True, nothing is going
to get rid of baseball. But in Australia the massive popularity of
Australian Rules in the better class of states does not prevent
Australia being the leading Rugby League nation. If the CofA has room
to excel at three winter sports - including Rugby (Union) - there is no
reason why the more populous USA cannot do well at two summer sports.
A final thought. Americans are a famously polite people. Can they be
taught to sledge?
* * * *
[1] Spectrum p35, SMH 24/25 March 2007
[2] _All Out: The Ashes 2006-07_ by Gideon haigh
[3]http://www.penfolds.com/collection/super/
[4] Neither of these attributes will help a fast bowler manqué,
obviously.
- Syd
--
"I've learned from my mistakes and I'm sure I can repeat them exactly."
- Peter Cook
Yes, I have spent many an hour glued to the TV watching the "Paint
Drying" Channel. As for a single baseball game being meaningless, try
attending a Boston-New York game in Fenway Park in September.
d***@supanet.com
2007-03-25 16:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack Linthicum
Post by Sydney Webb
A final thought. Americans are a famously polite people. Can they be
taught to sledge?
Yes, I have spent many an hour glued to the TV watching the "Paint
Drying" Channel.
I guess the answer to Syd's question is yes.
merccurytravel
2007-03-25 19:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sydney Webb
To be even fairer, we're not exactly comparing apples with apples here.
To pick up Gideon's analogy and run with it a Test match is a bottle of
Grange Hermitage[3] and a ball game is a bottle of Bud Light. The Bud
is more accessible and two six-packs will still give you the same buzz
as the bottle of Grange, even if the experience isn't exactly the same.
Syd,

Always remember never to offer the Grange to someone who likes Bud Light!
Offer, instead, the Chateau Cardboard Rough Stuff from the bargain counter
at Liquorland. and save the Grange for you and I - they'll never know the
difference.

Tony Bailey
Neuromancer
2007-03-24 23:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael G. Koerner
Seeing as the Cricket World Cup is currently underway just off of our shores
in the West Indies, find a PoD that makes the sport of cricket as
proportionately popular in the USA as it is now in, let's say, Australia.
I rember hearing a program on R4 whos this is was that cricket lost
popularity in the US because the "Gentelmen" didn't want to play with
the "players"

Efectivly the Upper classes didnt like the idea of a working class oik
beating them.

The first international was i belive between the USA and The UK

may be a change would be have a president or two or similar play the
game and asociate with the plebs (race would also come into it)
d***@supanet.com
2007-03-26 09:05:30 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 25, 12:08 am, "Neuromancer"
Post by Neuromancer
I rember hearing a program on R4 whos this is was that cricket lost
popularity in the US because the "Gentelmen" didn't want to play with
the "players"
Efectivly the Upper classes didnt like the idea of a working class oik
beating them.
Well, I don't know if the R4 programme was an oversimplification, but
what you've described is not an accurate representation of the early
days of cricket.

A distinction was drawn between Professional Players (who were
generally paid, but poorly) and Amateur Gentlemen (who weren't paid,
but received generous expenses). In general terms, Players filled the
role of bowlers, which was regarded as necessary hard work for the
game, while Gentlemen filled the role of batsmen, which was regarded
as where one could show off elegant mastery of the art. (It's a
curious side note to speculate whether benefit of the doubt would go
to the bowler had the roles been reversed). There are notable
exceptions, of course (Jack Hobbs being the best example), but in
general, the paid employees did the hard work to enable the Gentlemen
to show off their talent.

It's also a mistake to identify Gentlemen as "Upper Class". By and
large, they would be better described as Middle-Class.

The Gentlemen were more than happy to play alongside Players
(provided, of course, that the Players "Knew Their Place" - the row
that erupted when Surrey introduced a single dressing room for their
side, and didn't have separate facilities for G & P was remarkable).

As time went on, the Amateur status of the Gentlemen was more and more
abused (Trevor Bailey, for example, was an Amateur. His job was
coaching cricket for the county side, and this entitled him to turn
out as an amateur for his county).
Richard Gadsden
2007-03-26 20:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by d***@supanet.com
On Mar 25, 12:08 am, "Neuromancer"
Post by Neuromancer
I rember hearing a program on R4 whos this is was that cricket lost
popularity in the US because the "Gentelmen" didn't want to play
with the "players"
Efectivly the Upper classes didnt like the idea of a working class
oik beating them.
Well, I don't know if the R4 programme was an oversimplification, but
what you've described is not an accurate representation of the early
days of cricket.
David, I think you may not be early enough.

America's early relationship with cricket is in the 1840s and 1850s,
which was an era when the Players were treated far worse than in the era
you were discussing.
--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
Neuromancer
2007-03-26 21:22:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Gadsden
Post by d***@supanet.com
On Mar 25, 12:08 am, "Neuromancer"
Post by Neuromancer
I rember hearing a program on R4 whos this is was that cricket lost
popularity in the US because the "Gentelmen" didn't want to play
with the "players"
Efectivly the Upper classes didnt like the idea of a working class
oik beating them.
Well, I don't know if the R4 programme was an oversimplification, but
what you've described is not an accurate representation of the early
days of cricket.
David, I think you may not be early enough.
America's early relationship with cricket is in the 1840s and 1850s,
which was an era when the Players were treated far worse than in the era
you were discussing.
--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
I found the link to the program

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/thinkingallowed_20040915.shtml
Jack Linthicum
2007-03-26 21:44:32 UTC
Permalink
On Mar 26, 5:22 pm, "Neuromancer"
Post by Neuromancer
Post by Richard Gadsden
Post by d***@supanet.com
On Mar 25, 12:08 am, "Neuromancer"
Post by Neuromancer
I rember hearing a program on R4 whos this is was that cricket lost
popularity in the US because the "Gentelmen" didn't want to play
with the "players"
Efectivly the Upper classes didnt like the idea of a working class
oik beating them.
Well, I don't know if the R4 programme was an oversimplification, but
what you've described is not an accurate representation of the early
days of cricket.
David, I think you may not be early enough.
America's early relationship with cricket is in the 1840s and 1850s,
which was an era when the Players were treated far worse than in the era
you were discussing.
--
Richard Gadsden
"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it" - Attributed to Voltaire
I found the link to the program
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/thinkingallowed_20040915.shtml
This is from Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_cricket

"Originally played by officers of the British Army with local landed
gentry predisposed to be Anglophiles, cricket became a major
recreation of American gentlemen of leisure and indeed, several
Founding Fathers of the United States were known to be avid
cricketers---John Adams among them, who stated in the US Congress in
the 1780s that if leaders of cricket clubs could be called
"presidents", there was no reason why the leader of the new nation
could not be called the same!

Eastern Canada had developed cricket clubs as well, shortly after the
US clubs had made their initial appearance. Both US and Canadian
cricket clubs roamed far and wide in search of competitive cricket, as
was the custom in those times. Soon, an animated cross-border traffic
developed, and it was out of that friendly rivalry that the first
international cricket developed in the modern world.

The first annual Canada vs. USA cricket match, played since the 1840s,
was attended by 10,000 spectators at Bloomingdale Park in New York.
The USA vs. Canada cricket match is the oldest international sporting
event in the modern world, predating even today's Olympic Games by
nearly 50 years.

Touring teams from the West Indies, England and Australia were playing
in the USA and Canada until the 1920s. In one of the last such
established tours, the Australian team with Don Bradman among them
played in Canada and the USA, leading to the naming of Stanley Park in
Vancouver, British Columbia, as his "favorite cricket ground" by the
great Sir Don himself.

The USA also sent touring sides abroad. It achieved its greatest
success when a national USA side defeated the West Indies by nine
wickets in an international match in British Guiana in the 1880s....
see "USA vs. West Indies: Our Finest Hour" for a report on this
victory.

Cricket declined in the USA in the 20th century because in the late
1800s it had remained a strictly amateur elite sport at the same time
that England, then Australia, were developing a professional system
that allowed full-time players to participate. In the halcyon days of
amateur cricket, talented North Americans could sometimes hold their
own on the field with the best the world had to offer. But as cricket
standards improved elsewhere in the world by becoming semi-
professional and then fully professional, many North American cricket
clubs stayed stubbornly elitist. Abandoning cricket, they converted
their facilities to recreations like golf and tennis."
d***@supanet.com
2007-03-27 05:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Gadsden
Post by d***@supanet.com
On Mar 25, 12:08 am, "Neuromancer"
Post by Neuromancer
I rember hearing a program on R4 whos this is was that cricket lost
popularity in the US because the "Gentelmen" didn't want to play
with the "players"
Efectivly the Upper classes didnt like the idea of a working class
oik beating them.
Well, I don't know if the R4 programme was an oversimplification, but
what you've described is not an accurate representation of the early
days of cricket.
David, I think you may not be early enough.
America's early relationship with cricket is in the 1840s and 1850s,
which was an era when the Players were treated far worse than in the era
you were discussing.
My sources were:

The Players, A Social History of the Professional Cricketer, by Ric
Sissons, covering the mid Victorian era onwards (V+Basically kicking
off from the 1840s, and devoting much of its space to the 1860s/
1870s).

A Social History of English Cricket, by Derek Birley, which traces
cricket back to its roots (the earliest indication of the game being
in 1611, when two men were prosecuted for playing cricket rather than
attending church).

and

Start of Play, Cricket and Culture in 18th Century England, by David
Underwood. It does what it says.
V***@yahoo.com
2007-03-27 10:04:57 UTC
Permalink
One word: Soccer.
Loading...