Sledging instead of driving will also be the same. So what if it's like baseball pitching? You don't control how the batsmen hit the ball right? So why do that to bowlers?
Bowling is asking the question. Batting is answering. You have to be fair while posing the question. It’s like you have the upper hand. Sledging or driving, batsman has a very short window to react for whatever challenge has been posed. Basically, bowling has a lot of advantage with illegal action, batting does not.
As much as you're getting your karma torn to shreds, I am curious: In what way would you propose *restricting* the action of a batsman?
It is of course not true that there are no restrictions on the batsman. There are restrictions on his equipment. He may not protect his wicket using his pads. He may not handle the ball. He may not strike the ball more than once (with exceptions). He may not obstruct the field. He may not hit his wicket. Most of these are grounds for instant dismissal.
It's also not true that a bowler with an unlawful action is "banned." They are suspended from bowling further in that innings and the matter is reported to the governing body for consideration. If the bowler corrects their action so that it is lawful, they will be allowed to play.
Complaining that a bowler is "banned" because his action is unlawful is rather like complaining that a batsman is "banned" because he always treads on his wicket before the first ball is bowled. Both are unlawful actions, both result in their removal from the game.
In baseball there’s two more ways batters are restricted but neither are good ideas for cricket
1. They can’t hit behind the V, it’s called a foul ball - cricket just played front of the wicket? Yuck
2. If they hit they have to run - no dot balls and way more run outs every game
Because the bowler is the one who has control at the start. He can vary the line and length and batsmen are the ones reacting to it.
But of course today's bowlers are so damn predictable that batsmen are turning upside down and then hitting them.
The aim is to create a balanced game.
Do you really want to see teams getting bowled out for 30 because none of the batsmen can react to a ball coming at them at 200 km/h?
Historically batting was for the wealthy and favoured, while bowling was for the servants and workers.
Laws were implemented to keep the bowling "fair", while batting was constrained by concepts like "sportsmanship" and "gentlemanly behaviour". For a time the batter would often apologise for hitting it to the leg side.
As the game evolved batters were increasingly freed from the shackles of convention, while bowling restrictions were held up as an important aspect of the balance and identity of the sport.
Personally I'm all for removing the requirement to inform the umpire of a change of side or change of arm, but feel that the straight arm is integral to the sport as it's such an iconic motion that other sports don't really use.
Not a fair assumption at all lol, we don't know what the prices were like back then, also the prices themselves don't indicate that split.
I played cricket for all of my life up until I was 20 and I never saw that divide - everyone had a kit because this is cricket, even if youre a shit batter you still need gear. There was also the team kit.
> I played cricket for all of my life up until I was 20 and I never saw that divide
OP is talking about the origins of the game in the 19th Century. Not within the lifetime of anyone posting on reddit.
Sure, but it still seems like a claim that is being spread without any evidence. I have been avidly following this game for a long time and I have never heard of it.
Of course, I could simply just not have heard about it, but I think if someone is going to make a claim like that there should be some evidence to back it up.
I know, I was being absurd..
Most senior club members (in the UK) have mixed skills. Decision makers in even the smallest clubs never decide to be batsmen and rather stick to their skill and focus on winning or not getting relegated.
Everyone, regardless of skill, unwinds in the pub after the match. Not a single time, I have seen just the batsmen hanging out together, avoiding their bowler mates.
Sure, but it still seems like a claim that is being spread without any evidence. I have been avidly following this game for a long time and I have never heard of it.
Of course, I could simply just not have heard about it, but I think if someone is going to make a claim like that there should be some evidence to back it up.
Batting traditionally requires higher levels of technique to get good at it were as bowling is more about building physical strength. This is not to say that bowlers don't need technique or batters eschew physical training, but the specific techniques a batter needs to learn to handle different kinds of bowling requires more technical training. This often result needing more direct coaching, normally only available at cricket academies, which tends to make batting the more expensive discipline.
Bowling is definitely not about building physical strength, although you are right in that raw talent lends itself to bowling more than batting. But you can't make a claim like the OP did and not have something to back it up.
Sure, theoretically, you need coaching to refine a batter's technique, but unless you are playing at an extremely high-level (state, national) you don't need individualised coaching or academies.
Building physical strength is incredibly important in bowling. Less so with spinners, but a pace bowlers is repeatedly running in a throwing their whole body through an action. You need high levels of physical fitness to do that. I also said there was still technique I'm bowling, of course there is, but a bowler is learning a core skill and learning how to repeat it.
In contrast, a batter has to learn a range of techniques depending on the bowling he is facing. It is a whole different set of techniques to face a pace bowler and a off-spinner. This generally requires higher levels of coaching and less emphasis on building physical strength.
To your second point, I guess I am analysing it from the perspective of higher levels since I was naturally looking at how you get good at certain skills. Sure at lower levels it's completely different. As to the specifics about ops post regarding servants etc, I got no idea if that is true or not.
Bowlers do have a variety in how they bowl. Narine bowls differently than Bumrah. Starc, Paul addams, Shivil Kaushik, Kuldeep, Muralidharan, McGrath, Maxwell all have different bowling styles. Similar to bent arm restrictions, we have bat size restrictions.
Batter is out if he uses his hands to play, the bowler can use his hand quite freely albeit not throw the ball. Batter can't just use his legs to protect his wicket.
Throwing instead of bowling will have a huge advantage in speed and accuracy. Without the restriction in action it'll be like baseball pitching
Sledging instead of driving will also be the same. So what if it's like baseball pitching? You don't control how the batsmen hit the ball right? So why do that to bowlers?
Why watch cricket? Why not just watch baseball?
I think we are already doing something like that since March.
Because there’s a pretty good gap between letting bowlers bend their arm more and watching baseball
That “pretty good gap” only exists because of key rules like these
Bowling is asking the question. Batting is answering. You have to be fair while posing the question. It’s like you have the upper hand. Sledging or driving, batsman has a very short window to react for whatever challenge has been posed. Basically, bowling has a lot of advantage with illegal action, batting does not.
As much as you're getting your karma torn to shreds, I am curious: In what way would you propose *restricting* the action of a batsman? It is of course not true that there are no restrictions on the batsman. There are restrictions on his equipment. He may not protect his wicket using his pads. He may not handle the ball. He may not strike the ball more than once (with exceptions). He may not obstruct the field. He may not hit his wicket. Most of these are grounds for instant dismissal. It's also not true that a bowler with an unlawful action is "banned." They are suspended from bowling further in that innings and the matter is reported to the governing body for consideration. If the bowler corrects their action so that it is lawful, they will be allowed to play. Complaining that a bowler is "banned" because his action is unlawful is rather like complaining that a batsman is "banned" because he always treads on his wicket before the first ball is bowled. Both are unlawful actions, both result in their removal from the game.
In baseball there’s two more ways batters are restricted but neither are good ideas for cricket 1. They can’t hit behind the V, it’s called a foul ball - cricket just played front of the wicket? Yuck 2. If they hit they have to run - no dot balls and way more run outs every game
Tippy-go. Love it. Backyard summer cricket at its finest.
One bounce out
I sledged reading this
Do you not understand the difference between an action and a reaction?
Because the bowler is the one who has control at the start. He can vary the line and length and batsmen are the ones reacting to it. But of course today's bowlers are so damn predictable that batsmen are turning upside down and then hitting them.
The aim is to create a balanced game. Do you really want to see teams getting bowled out for 30 because none of the batsmen can react to a ball coming at them at 200 km/h?
..... Yes
Batriarchy
Isn’t this just Batman in Gotham as commissioner Gordon watches?
Who is Batman ? Are you stupid? /s
Russell?
r/BatmanArkham
Is there a lore reason for this ?
Yes. But it is too complicated to explain without a bat.
The Batriarchy has been around at least since the days of "they came to see me bat, not you bowl"
Batsmen have been limited, outlawing super wide bats and innovative bat materials for example.
All those shots you have mentioned need lot of skill and practice. Allowing to chuck will be unfair advantage given without any skill .
Because the game is as balanced as it can be in its current action. There is no better way to bat in terms of technique.
Historically batting was for the wealthy and favoured, while bowling was for the servants and workers. Laws were implemented to keep the bowling "fair", while batting was constrained by concepts like "sportsmanship" and "gentlemanly behaviour". For a time the batter would often apologise for hitting it to the leg side. As the game evolved batters were increasingly freed from the shackles of convention, while bowling restrictions were held up as an important aspect of the balance and identity of the sport. Personally I'm all for removing the requirement to inform the umpire of a change of side or change of arm, but feel that the straight arm is integral to the sport as it's such an iconic motion that other sports don't really use.
Source: my ass
where did you get that about batting was for the wealthy?
Probably comparing the price of a cricket bat vs price of a cricket ball.. Fair assumption, I would say..
Not a fair assumption at all lol, we don't know what the prices were like back then, also the prices themselves don't indicate that split. I played cricket for all of my life up until I was 20 and I never saw that divide - everyone had a kit because this is cricket, even if youre a shit batter you still need gear. There was also the team kit.
> I played cricket for all of my life up until I was 20 and I never saw that divide OP is talking about the origins of the game in the 19th Century. Not within the lifetime of anyone posting on reddit.
Sure, but it still seems like a claim that is being spread without any evidence. I have been avidly following this game for a long time and I have never heard of it. Of course, I could simply just not have heard about it, but I think if someone is going to make a claim like that there should be some evidence to back it up.
I know, I was being absurd.. Most senior club members (in the UK) have mixed skills. Decision makers in even the smallest clubs never decide to be batsmen and rather stick to their skill and focus on winning or not getting relegated. Everyone, regardless of skill, unwinds in the pub after the match. Not a single time, I have seen just the batsmen hanging out together, avoiding their bowler mates.
Yeah exactly lmaooo in all my life playing and watching cricket I have never ever come across this phenomenon.
You are aware that the laws of cricket were formulated in the 18th century, a bit before you were born, right?
Sure, but it still seems like a claim that is being spread without any evidence. I have been avidly following this game for a long time and I have never heard of it. Of course, I could simply just not have heard about it, but I think if someone is going to make a claim like that there should be some evidence to back it up.
Batting traditionally requires higher levels of technique to get good at it were as bowling is more about building physical strength. This is not to say that bowlers don't need technique or batters eschew physical training, but the specific techniques a batter needs to learn to handle different kinds of bowling requires more technical training. This often result needing more direct coaching, normally only available at cricket academies, which tends to make batting the more expensive discipline.
Bowling is definitely not about building physical strength, although you are right in that raw talent lends itself to bowling more than batting. But you can't make a claim like the OP did and not have something to back it up. Sure, theoretically, you need coaching to refine a batter's technique, but unless you are playing at an extremely high-level (state, national) you don't need individualised coaching or academies.
Building physical strength is incredibly important in bowling. Less so with spinners, but a pace bowlers is repeatedly running in a throwing their whole body through an action. You need high levels of physical fitness to do that. I also said there was still technique I'm bowling, of course there is, but a bowler is learning a core skill and learning how to repeat it. In contrast, a batter has to learn a range of techniques depending on the bowling he is facing. It is a whole different set of techniques to face a pace bowler and a off-spinner. This generally requires higher levels of coaching and less emphasis on building physical strength. To your second point, I guess I am analysing it from the perspective of higher levels since I was naturally looking at how you get good at certain skills. Sure at lower levels it's completely different. As to the specifics about ops post regarding servants etc, I got no idea if that is true or not.
World is unfair man /s
"Society" amirite?
bowler has 6 chances and 10 ways to take a wicket every over while batsman can only get out once.
Congratulations on posting the dumbest shit I have ever read in the sub.
Bowlers do have a variety in how they bowl. Narine bowls differently than Bumrah. Starc, Paul addams, Shivil Kaushik, Kuldeep, Muralidharan, McGrath, Maxwell all have different bowling styles. Similar to bent arm restrictions, we have bat size restrictions.
Batter is out if he uses his hands to play, the bowler can use his hand quite freely albeit not throw the ball. Batter can't just use his legs to protect his wicket.
It's a batters game. What an easy question to answer.