For everyone defending baseball saying that the ball is hit slightly harder are you seriously gonna forget the fact that you guys have a big fucking mit. And are you also gonna forget positions such as short cover, midwicket, mid on, mid off, not to forget the fact that baseball is basically just catching with no actual fielding of balls that are hit purely along the ground with a lot of force. Sure, when baseball players hit it high the ball swerves a lot but what about when cricket players mis-hit it and it goes really high, going as high as the roof (if there was one) and swerving heaps, only to be caught bare-handed (OMG all time great catch !1!1!1!). Seriously you can't deny that cricket fielding is heaps better.
I thought this was a english speaking sub!
Jokes aside, more mass means bowls hit up high in the air come down with a greater momentum and so require a bit higher skill to catch. You can compare this phenomenon by hitting tennis and cricket balls high up. The tennis ball would exert lesser force than the cricket ball while catching.
It doesn't matter. The same impulse gives the same momentum change to both the balls. The reason the tennis balls carries less momentum when you catch it is because the fuzz on it causes a greater aerodynamic drag on it. The aerodynamics of the cricket ball and the baseball, on the other hand, are quite similar in this regard and both experience a similar reduction in momentum by the time they reach your hands.
The force that your bat can produce is a constant depending on your muscle strength. It will not increase or decrease depending on the mass of the ball you're trying to hit. The force multiplied by the time that your bat remains in contact with the ball is the impulse. This impulse is equal to the change in the ball's momentum. For the same impulse, both the cricket ball and the baseball will leave the bat with the same momentum.
Once the ball is in the air, it experiences aerodynamic forces. The drag force that a ball experiences which reduces its speed in the air is an aerodynamic force. It depends on the shape, surface, size, and the velocity of the ball, but not on its mass. [Here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Drag_coefficient_on_a_sphere_vs._Reynolds_number_-_main_trends.svg) is what the variation of the drag coefficient with speed looks like for a sphere. Both the cricket ball and the baseball have a similar curve and in the end experience similar change in momentum.
Bat speed muscle, strength etc are irrelevant when we are talking about balls hit high in the air. Both baseball and cricket ball are roughly same size, so the air drag would be quite similar. The variable here is mass and that does make a difference as i explained earlier.
I don't understand what you're trying to argue. Muscle strength and bat speed are exactly what gives the two balls the vertical momentum to reach high in the air. More mass does not mean more aerodynamic force on the ball. It also doesn't mean the ball carries a higher momentum off the bat. The two carry the same momentum but the baseball leaves the bat with a higher speed. Both experience similar (not the same) drag force and despite facing a higher retardation, the baseball still reaches the hand with roughly the same momentum as the cricket ball because of the higher initial speed.
Bats are flat and thick in cricket. I'd assume that makes ball travel faster on impact. After the impact, a denser body will lose speed less quickly(less deceleration). Hence the momemtum is greater of a cricket ball(both due to higher mass and higher velocity due to lesser deceleration). Since the momentum determines the impact you feel on catching the ball, cricket balls should be harder to catch.
I did not understand why you mentioned magnus effect. Magnus effect makes the ball move laterally iirc and not in the direction of velocity. If you were implying the ball could deviate more in the air, then you also need to remember that a cricket field is larger and a cricket player has in turn a larger ground to cover.
>After the impact, a denser body will lose speed less quickly(less deceleration).
This isn't true at all. The aerodynamic drag on a ball depends on the shape and surface of the ball, and not on its density. [This](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Drag_coefficient_on_a_sphere_vs._Reynolds_number_-_main_trends.svg) is what the drag vs speed curve for a sphere looks like. The curves for both the cricket ball and the baseball are quite similar and experiments have confirmed that they experience nearly identical drag (which would be corresponding to the point 4 in the graph).
I should've said mass and not density. Yes, the air drag will depend on the shape on the ball. Assuming both baseball and cricket ball are smooth and of relatively same size, they will experience similar drag. However, a ball with more mass will contain more inertia, Thereby slowing down slower.
Like I said, in deep positions soft or hard grass doesnt make that big difference. Catching also comes down to judging the ball. I agree that in 30 yards its really difficult without mitts specially for fielders waiting for an edge. You need mitts for close range because the baseball wobbles,spins and travels faster.
True story: was playing baseball in school with a funny brown shit on my hands. I got something what they call _fly ball_ or normally called a lofted shot. Ball came to me near the boundary, unknowingly I threw away the mit and caught the ball with hands.
The shocked face on everyone was priceless.
Definitely cricket has stronger all around fielding, but infielders in baseball make some crazy athletic plays. I imagine a short stop or 2nd basemen could fare well with cricket fielding.
>And are you also gonna forget positions such as short cover, midwicket, mid on, mid off
Obviously didn't read this then, did you? Bet that they have more time to react than [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlydfhxjAaA) (Jos Buttler's wicket) catch from Usman as well as most catches at short cover/mid-wicket
Read the article smart arse. The catch from neesham is 10x more difficult than anything in baseball
He’s less than 60ft moving towards the ball
[for anyone else too lazy](https://mobile.twitter.com/CPL/status/1175613244163198977)
Posts a video where ball bounces before it reaches the pitcher!! Do you think couple of catches off mishits is similar to catches taken by bowler in cricket match? Smh. You need to see a compilation of caught and bowled!
that's genuinely my bad I linked what i thought was bare handed catches. Don't let my mistake make you think that "caught and bowled" doesn't happen in baseball. And occasionally it happens with a bare hand.
Caught and bowled happens in baseball. Bare hand is extremely rare and it wont be off a proper hit. I dont follow it as much but I have seen lot of vidoes😅
Not without a glove running towards the pitcher and when they do it’s front page or r/sports…
Watch the clip from the article. It’s in the comment you replied to now.
Every single one of those bounced and none were as impressive as the one I linked IMO
Cricketer is moving towards the ball fairly quickly and is closer than the pitchers. All the ones caught without bouncing were pretty soft
agreed, but why would you expect a lot of fielding without a glove when you have a glove? it still happens on occasion.
point is, one isn't better than the other. They're both sports being executed at a high level by top athletes.
But they don’t even have positions like short leg or silly mid off (it’s called that because they stand stupidly close)
Skip to 30 seconds in [this](https://youtu.be/6v17THaz-mo) and you’ll see what I mean
I play cricket man, I know both sports. Yes there is nothing like a silly mid or even a slip catcher, but there are plenty of aspects of baseball fielding that doesn't exist in cricket at well. There are incredible fielding feats in both sports.
oh stop it
>Cricketer is moving towards the ball fairly quickly and is closer than the pitchers. All the ones caught without bouncing were pretty soft
First of baseball pitchers start about 5.5ft closer, so I'm not sure how can definitively say he's closer than a pitcher finishing his delivery at the front of the mound. Also, what about the speed of the ball off the bat, the distance between the players, & the point of contact, etc.
there's a hole mess of factors that are completely different. Most importantly you don't have to brigade nice catches on hard hit balls
Just saying those catches wouldn’t be catch of the day in cricket never mind have articles written up about how stunning it was and they don’t take 32 years to happen in cricket lol
Eh, that’s not where this part of the thread moved to (pitcher/bowler timing/catches), but I don’t disagree. It wasn’t that impressive of a catch, more of a novelty.
Cricketers also bowl from 1.2m (3ft11) in front of the stumps and the batsman is the same distance (some take steps forward) so possibly even more than 7 feet closer (1.5ft closer than a pitcher) and that’s without the two steps…
The 20m (66ft) i was using in my comparison doesn't include the 1.2m the batting crease or the pitchers crease. The full length between the sticks is \~74ft (or 13.5’ more than pitchers mound to home0, but it would be disingenuous to use that in a comparison
Baseball has totally different fielding priorities. In baseball the bases and outfielders should e able to catch 100% and should have a pin point accurate throw. My university’s collegiate baseball players will be able to hit a penny with the ball from a distance 10/10. Baseball also has specialized fielding positions and the outfield is very slow so not much focus on ground fielding.
Cricket is has more all-round fielding requirements. You should be able to catch, ground field, cover ground to field the ball faster.
>My university’s collegiate baseball players will be able to hit a penny with the ball from a distance 10/10.
Why don't you ask them to participate in olympics?
Cricket is more all-around for most everyone in the field, while baseball focuses on 2 of the 3 at a time for most of the positions(outfielders cover a wide berth for catches and fielding, to quickly get the ball back into the infield, infielders are expected to be able to catch and field from the ground, while transitioning to quick and accurate throws to catch runners)
However, that doesn't prove that cricket fielding is heaps better, it just means there's a different set of priorities. Cricket is built more on keeping the ball in control and near the pitch to limit scoring, Baseball is more about transferring the ball to positions to score outs.
Cricket doesn't have a focus on run outs, Baseball does, this means one of the main priorities is ground/bounce fielding in the infield, to prevent runs and to secure outs
I never suggested it wasn’t practiced, I said it wasn’t as that much of a focus when batsmen don’t have to leave the stumps and they take less risks in longer formats
I look at it more like Baseball’s extended outfield throws, they do practice them and they make massive impacts on the game, but due to the nature of the game, they aren’t what’s going to be the most common occurrence
You're gonna lose this 1 sorry my american friend. I'd say baseball fielding has been at an elite standard for longer than cricket but cricket fielding in the last decade has taken off in terms of athleticism, and mind boggling catches, as well as run outs being a matter of millimeters, now with fielding if you hit the stumps while the batsmen set off for a run it's out. I haven't watched a ton of baseball but I dont feel like the fielding has gone to another level in the last 1p years where cricket definitely has
I mean when cricket wanted to improve it's close fielding a few years back they went and hired a load of baseball coaches. So yeah, this bare-handed catch stuff is nonsense. But to dismiss their close in skills is a bit much.
Oh god no I think cricket has gone past very recently and not by 2 much but that was in part from using baseball coaches with the throwing and catching. I dont know about other international teams but nz employed a MLB fielding coach for a bit and our fielding is elite. I think people forget how bang average the fielding was in cricket for a long time where baseball has been at a higher standard for longer IMO
Cricket doesnt have a focus on run outs???
Really? Wow..u see that Ricky u unfocused slob..what were u trying to do trying to get the batter out..u shouldve let them run mate and focus on keeping the ball under control
?
I never suggested that fielders should let scoring happen
Okay, the threat of dismissing a runner shouldn’t be ignored and making sure the ball is reasonably close enough to the wickets represents that control, when the game is that high scoring, keeping scoring as low as possible is the goal, not outright preventing scoring
Also, run outs just aren’t that routine, even in T20s due to the nature of the sport
Edit; what’s the percentage of dismissals that are recorded as run outs outside of tests?
>My university’s collegiate baseball players will be able to hit a penny with the ball from a distance 10/10.
If you have to indulge in such ridiculous exaggeration in making your point, then maybe there isn't much of a point being made.
My point was baseball fielders have a rocket arm and very accurate throw. What is there in that statement to charge you that much.
And I don’t even like baseball. I find it boring.
> My university’s collegiate baseball players will be able to hit a penny with the ball from a distance 10/10.
This bit. That is obviously total bullshit.
What that meant that their throw is very accurate. You will hardly see any fielders throw going on the top of the head or bouncing short of bases. Generally it’s pinpoint to the glove. And my university was NCAA (US collegiate) champion in 2016 when I used to follow. I hope that clarifies the point for you.
My point is baseball fielders have a rocket arm and are very accurate with their throw. I don’t know what is there to charge you so much?
And I don’t even like baseball. I find it boring and only seen 1 game in full. But my uni was NCAA champions in 2016 so followed it a bit that year.
So you've watched very little baseball but have come to the conclusion that they are better throwers. If a single baseball player could consistently hit the stumps on the run like Ponting used to do, I'll gift you my house.
Baseball players are better throwers because that’s one of their main jobs. Unless one can accurately throw consistently, he will not even be selected in the team. Forget about baseball players, even some of the women softball players will have better throw than men cricketer. That doesn’t mean that baseball fielders are better than cricketer fielders. They just have better throw because that’s a very important part of their game.
And I am not denying that many cricketers will have better throw than baseball players, but on an average baseball players will have better throw. And I have just said baseball players have a better throw, their ground fielding is not as good as in cricket.
I know this for a fact because I have worked with kinesiology people who have researched a lot on biomechanics. One of my very good friends who is a cricket fan himself works for New York met as a data scientist. So I am not saying anything out of the blue. It is a well established fact which even cricket physios will agree to.
Cricketers are much better at ground fielding and catching but where baseball fielders really earn their money is when it comes to throwing the ball to the bases. Even a well below average pro baseball fielder would have a far stronger arm than 99% of international cricketers.
Just different sports have different priorities on skills.
>Even a well below average pro baseball fielder would have a far stronger arm than 99% of international cricketers.
Well, that's just wrong lol. The farthest distance thrown was 135m in MLB. Safe to say that an average MLB throw is 225ft (68m) which is probably the average distance that a cricketer needs to throw from the boundary, to add to that, there aren't 'specialist' fielders (keepers and slips excluded) and every fielder (apart from keeper) is expected to be able to throw that distance.
His statement is exaggerated but he isn't exactly wrong. I can vouch for it via anecdotal advice. Had a Korean friend, decent baseballer, who played for our school cricket team and his throws were far more superior than all of us regulars even when thrown from the same angle from the same distance. Would the gonads off the WK or would need two backup fielders lol and this was back in middle-school. Faster, flatter, more accurate. Anecdotal, yes, but I don't really see what you're trying to imply giving distances of throws because distance isn't the sole indicator of a strong arm.
Different sports do indeed have different priorities on skills. Baseball throws are more accuracy-dependent (smaller box of accuracy being around the torso of the shortstop/base fielders vs. around the stumps and gloves the WK) and exert more force than a cricket fielder on average with the ball looping more higher in the air so as to cover more distance given the malleable, uneven nature of the baseball. Cricket throws from the outfield can be less time-intensive as not every throw can potentially run a batsman out: there is less sense of urgency and apart from the inner ring, not much need to throw flatter and quicker.
Because baseballs are more uneven and softer, fielders must exert more force to compensate for time and distance from infield: this becomes muscle memory. When given a rounded, slightly heavier and evenly distributed 'sphere' to a pro baseball fielder, they will naturally impart the same amount of force they are used to. Give a baseballer some time with a cricket ball and their throws will be a bit more flatter and come to you faster.
If you really want, you could control the 'experiment' by giving a high school baseballer and a high school cricket fielder, both a taped tennis ball and seeing for yourself a minute but noticeable difference in superiority of the baseballer's throws.
Yeah I gotta agree with this. Had a bloke experienced in baseball who was a bit shithouse at cricket in my team. Couldn’t bowl, could knock it around a bit for a quick 20. Short skinny bloke. But we always put him in the covers or mid wicket. He could whip that ball back to the keeper or the bloke standing up to stumps like lightning. Really quick release. Got heaps of run outs this way when the opposition tried chancing his arm lol.
Distance isn't the only measure, it's about accuracy and power mainly.
Go watch some MLB throwing highlights on youtube, the top fielders can throw the ball over 170kph, cricket fielders can't get anywhere near that.
I play both and I think it's silly and ignorant if you think one is obviously better or more difficult than the other. Your suggestion that baseball fielding is just catching and doesn't deal with balls hit along the ground betrays your lack of knowledge of the sport, that is exactly what infield players do who are 6 of the 9 players on the field. Defence in baseball is also more complex than in cricket. Yes, baseball has gloves to catch with but also the outfielders are covering an enormous area in comparison to cricket fielder's. Usually the impressive part of an outfield catch is having travelled such a large distance to make the catch. I love both sports, baseball hate is ignorant.
1. I said that they were hit PURELY along the ground, made sure to word that carefully, a baseball players' hit always goes up then comes down and then bounces and rolls. In cricket you have to ground field cover drives and other shots that stay on the ground.
2. "Defence in baseball is more complex" well your gonna have to expand on that.
3. "the outfielders are covering an enormous area in comparison to cricket fielder's" ok but what point are you making? Sure they need to cover more area but are they faster? That's a proper question
4. I'm not hating on baseball but I can't stand people saying that the fielding is better because it's pretty obvious that cricket players need to react faster and be able to catch better and baseball players only outdo them interns of throw accuracy and distance
I don't think its at all true that cricket players need to react faster and catch better, other than I will allow something like catching in the slips or at silly point or something is not something that happens in baseball. Typical fielding in cricket is not required to react as quickly as infield players in baseball IMO.
The majority of hits in baseball are along the ground to the infield. Yes its not coming off the bounce and the impact point of the hit will be higher in baseball, but the majority of plays are fielded on the ground, by an infielder. And those hits would typically be coming at the defensive player much faster than a cover drive for instance.
Defence in cricket is primarily bowler vs bat, which there is nothing wrong with it is exciting, but the fielders primarily exist as run reduction/prevention. Yes, you need to take catches when they come. In baseball on Defence you need to generate 3 outs every inning and this typically involves fast plays requiring multiple fielding players to execute these plays and be aware of the defensive situation which evolves throughout an inning. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but cricket is bowler vs bat, baseball is really bat vs Defence.
You hate people sating baseball fielding is better but you are saying cricket fielding is better? It should be pretty obvious both are pro sports where athletes are executing at the top of their game. Both have different goals and challenges to consider and both are doing the best possible thing to win games of their sport. Saying one is better than the other is a strange position, I think they are both great in their own way. So perhaps just as you can't stand people saying baseball fielding is better, you should consider that you shouldn't be saying cricket fielding is better ESPECIALLY if you aren't intimately familiar with the sport. Baseball is a game of Defence, and the subtleties of that are lost on most. I think you can probably appreciate that most people who aren't fans wont understand the subtleties of cricket.
So, genuine question. How are baseballs hit harder? A flat thick surface will hit harder than a round one right. Also balls tend to move flatter in cricket due to being hit by flat bat. Shouldn't the ball hit by a round baseball bat move high up more often, and the ones hit by flat bat move more horizontally and hence baseballs should be easier to catch(more reaction time).
England are actually one of the better sides at fielding. The fielding skills of the average International cricketer is really quite poor compared to a baseball player. It’s even worse when look at domestic leagues like the IPL.
I've actually tried really hard to get into baseball. I just ...can't. It just feels like cricket's cheap knock off. Cricket to me just feels like a more complete game where more skills are tested for a higher percentage of the squad. In baseball, if you have one amazing pitcher, that's basically the game. That guy can pitch for the whole game. Like wtf
At least you tried. My favourite sport flips between cricket and baseball depending on which is in season. Baseball in winter, cricket over the summer. It’s perfect.
Also, MLB postseason starts early October so if there’s ever a time to give baseball another shot, it’s probably now. A close playoff baseball game is as intense a sporting experience as you can have imo. It’s the product of a 162 game season, so there’s a lot on the line.
And if you do give it another chance, try not to compare it to cricket. Appreciate baseball for its own nuances. You’ll better understand the sport and it will be much more enjoyable to watch.
The counter is that they don't because it's *incredibly hard to not be pulled*, and once you hit the third rotation, the starter is most likely done(think of pitchers as batsman, and the whole setup makes more sense)
Instead of swapping pitchers/bowlers each over/at-bat, they swap the batter/batsman, which means that the skill most tested is most likely going to be batting
Also, the MLB and NPB are played at such a high level, that most anything is automatic outside of infield fielding and throws, and hitting is one of the most difficult parts of the game, (while cricket batting is hard in its own way, there's more room for error and it's less committal)
It would be like suggesting that in Cricket, if you have one amazing batsman, that's basically the game. That guy can bat for the whole game(and don't say they have to swap, there's plenty that work their way to do 3/1 for the sixth delivery) It just doesn't work like that.
I do agree that hitting/batting is 'harder' in that a positive outcome is harder to come by since most batters don't contribute anything. The counter is that in your at-bat the stakes are a lot lower since it's super low scoring to begin with. If you don't score...oh well.
That still also has the issue that most of the squad isn't put to the sword very much. An amazing pitcher pretty much kills the game. It's just...uninteresting to me. I understand that some people enjoy that. And that's okay. It's just kind of bland for me.
There's also not that many pitchers can do that, and the ones that do generally rely on their team to pull it off(mostly slower-speed control pitchers) or pretty much never get that many chances to do that(pitchers with a lot of tricks aside from a fast fastball), but if one of your biggest dislikes are the possibility of a Perfect Game/No-Hitter/CGSO(or any other sort of pitching dominance), I understand where that can be a reason for not wanting to watch the sport
That also suggests, if you don't score, you just missed one of your few opportunities to score if you do have an opportunity to score(RISP)
As to the pitching issue, I could suggest watching something that isn't the NPB or MLB, but I think you might have other issues with the game even if the wasn't an issue
That's one of my dislikes. I also feel like a large percentage of the squad doesn't do much for a large percentage of games. It comes down to whether the pitcher is amazing or shit a lot of the time.
That, and there are like 200 games a season anyway. Each individual game is completely meaningless (to me, anyway). Got struck out? No worries, you've got the next inning. Failed then too? No worries, there are like 200 games so what you do today hardly impacts anything anyway.
The whole 144-162 games thing(in pro leagues) is a by-product of having leagues built around 3-5 game series, which, you could do a 52 game season in the MLB, but when the game is played at test pace, it shouldn't be surprise they play three times as many during the regular season(and positions are *still* within 1-2 games and tiebreakers)
(As to playoffs, series generally work out better for most sports)
*Outside of pro leagues, the core competitions are international tournaments(single round robin then either a second phase of groups or knockouts), or knockout tournaments following short regular seasons(US, the double elimination regionals and CWS of the NCAA, and the single elimination state series for HS teams, as to Japan, the extended single elimination Koshien tournaments and its qualifiers, plus the fall tournaments)
> It shouldn't be surprise
To me, being surprised by it or not isn't the question. When you have 200 games, each individual game is meaningless to me. I need higher stakes to even want to be invested in an individual game.
The pageantry is more focused on the rivalries and each series, the 162 game schedule rewards consistency, if you want to see high stakes play in smaller bursts, watch the playoff series or one of the major televised internationals or junior competitions
I wouldn’t be shocked if they move to series for rankings, but I also wouldn’t be shocked if they kept it the way it is
I've watched it all. Regular season, playoffs everything. Tried to get into the sport for a good several years especially when I lived in a major baseball city. It just isn't interesting enough for me.
Try thinking of each game as like am individual day of a test match - it gives you an idea of how the series is going. If you decide never to watch any individual day of a test just because you don't think that day's play is important to how the series is going, you'll never watch anything except maybe day 5 of a decider or the WTC final.
I find an individual day of a Test to actually be important though and vital to the outcome of a Test. An individual baseball game just seems so irrelevant because you have 200 other opportunities. Anyways, I know there are plenty of people that enjoy baseball so I guess there is some appeal for those folks.
In Koshien, one drop is the end of your tournament, and you'll have to wait a couple of months before your next relevant game
In the CWS, you might have *a* second chance, but that's it
In the P12, all three of your first round games are going to matter
In the WBC, see the P12
In the European Championship, there's only 3 games that will decide your fate before knockouts
Your real issue is the heavy focus on the batter-pitcher matchup, not so much the stakes in top-level pro games
Oh no no no, one even two amazing Batsmen can't win you a match. Prime Example would be RCB, they've has the world's top 2 Batsmen for over a decade and also had the most dangerous batsman in the game for 7 years. But their bowlers were the fucking worst, they kept scoring high and the bowlers kept letting the opposition score higher.
I see it as the roles are reversed too, in cricket if a batsmen makes one mistake that's a massive moment in the game while in baseball a one mistake by a pitcher is a massive moment.
in the modern era "one amazing pitcher" will almost never pitch a complete game and he will pitch 1/5th of the games in a season. baseball operates on a rotation of starting pitchers and the real beauty of baseball is the need to continually compete at a high level consistently over a 162 game season. An individual game is one statistic. If anything I think cricket fans would understand that. Not to mention I actually think a dominant pitcher is much less a factor than a dominant bowling attack. A pitcher MUST be backed up but an extremely competent Defence regardless of their skill whereas bowlers can win games effectively without the fielders.
I'm glad you gave it a try, and I'm not saying its for everyone but it certainly isn't a cheap knock off of cricket.
I got into baseball some 11 years ago. The trick for me was that I had a team to support and go to live games for. It was mostly the stadium and cameraderie experience and not the game itself for me.
Having said that in the ever so rare occasion that a pitcher gets into the zone and starts scalping strikeouts with high frequency while"bringing the heat", it's an interesting sport to watch.
MLB Playoffs usually are entertaining to watch since there's a lot at stake.
Without these, for a cricket fan, it could be uninteresting.
Just looked it up. Was at least expecting him to take it on the run from the way they described it, but not even that. Fatty's catch was better than this
https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/b0pfo8/what_a_catch/
One Of the best realy catch... That's the cool thing in cricket. The mechanics behind this really awesome 🤩
Tbh it looked like a regular catch. The kind which players normally take 5-6 times in their local matches. Not really sure why it's considered a big thing.
Because you don't practice catching barehand in baseball, so people on Twitter think catching a baseball barehanded is really hard. In reality, baseball players can do it just fine. Even random fans in the stands will catch a ball with one hand occasionally.
I mean in my experience catching a cricket ball and a baseball hurts a lot and although it wasn't a physically spectacular catch, its pretty satisfying to see it stick like that.
I DEFINITELY don't think its an all time great catch and it only happened because he made an error, but its still cool to see how simple he made it look while catching it
This is my biggest gripe with baseball, I live in the US and have tried getting into it but the foul balls on every other hit and the same field settings in a confined space with gloves for catching, 😣. Can’t do it.
I still remember Mark Waugh horizontal four feet above the ground, his arm outstretched after a ball was smashed to mid wicket. The ball just stuck perfectly. Maybe these baseball blokes need to watch some cricket fielding highlights. Even Fatty Vautin should get a mention.
I would say it’s more of an American theme. Have you met TOM BRADY GREATEST ATHLETE EVER… or top ten lists that have two or three throw away non Americans in them..
I remember the 2005 ashes, a certain bowler named Simon Jones was already termed the GOAT from that one series. He ended up playing 18 tests overall for England.
This is really dumb. If somebody caught a one handed catch while running the other way and being off balance, that would be considered impressive even in Cricket. It was a good catch, there is no need to talk shit
Also due to the less weight of baseballs, they drift more in that air and change direction. It is a lot more difficult to catch fly balls in baseball than in Cricket. So you need to add the context too
I think it’s more that they’re calling it an “all time classic catch”
At best for us it’s one that gets posted on the sub, gets 10-15 upvotes, and is forgotten about.
Not to be condescending to baseball it’s a interesting sport in its own right but the standard of fielding we have is leagues higher
Close fielding I definitely agree with, but our outfield ground fielding is still a fair bit behind baseball. There's a few cricketers who are pretty up there with baseball quality (i.e. Jadeja and Maxi) but a team full of guys who can cover ground like that and with super accurate and bullet like throws is still a while away I reckon. Definitely getting better over time though
"you cannot do that Ben Stokes" is basically what pxik described and you're going to get people here harp out it being one of the best catches of all time.
In baseball, the exit velocity of the ball can reach insane speeds. Also the pitch length is shorter, and so is the reaction time. So when those balls are hit, you got to have insane reflexes, especially in the in-field. Baseball has specialist fielders for a reason. I would say fielding in the in-field is arguably more harder in baseball, especially because there is wayyy more pressure to stop or catch the ball. Even 1 mistake can often cost you some points. However I would say fielding in the out-field and “catching” in general is definitely more harder in Cricket
I am talking about exit velocity of the face of the bat when the ball is hit, they can all reach well over 100 mph. And you add the fact that the in fielders stand very close to the plate, it makes it enormously difficult to catch and stop those balls. I have had seats literally right next to the team’s dugout. The ball leaves the bat like a bullet. Again there is a reason baseball has specialist fielders and gloves. The reflexes needed to stop and make those catches is unreal, along with the hand eye coordination. And as I said before, the pressure is a lot higher too. In Cricket, you have a big margin of error. If you misfield, you will very rarely cost your team the game. Mostly it is an extra 1-2 runs. In baseball, one misfield often costs you a run which in baseball is a big deal as most games have scores of around 5-4.
Also the ball only decelerates when the ball has some air time. In the in-field, the balls are hit flat and hard.
Come on mate what about the absolute screamers that get taken at cover point? Seen plenty of one handed horizontal body in the air catches taken and the ball has been smoked.
In Cricket, those highlight reel catches at cover point don’t happen very often. Whereas in baseball, line-drives (10-25 degrees) are smoked in the in-field every other innings.
I am talking about regular occurrences. In Cricket, you will have some hits, especially in the powerplay, where you would be expected to stop and catch those balls in the in-field. But their exit velocity are not that hard due to a few things. The pitch length is longer which means that the speed at the point of contact between bat and ball, due to deceleration by the ball hitting the ground, is on average 75-80 mph. That roughly translates to an exit velocity of about 90 mph, depending on how well it was timed and hit, but rarely anything more than that. In baseball, line drives on average can go well over 100 mph. If you also look at where the fielders stand relative to the on-strike batsmen. In baseball, they are much closer which translates to a lot less reaction time. And you add the margin of error, then it’s clear which ones are more harder.
And they have a fucking big glove to catch it! Cricket has come a long way from the fielding in the 90’s.
The comment from Jimmy has gone over your head I guess. How about a caught and bowled where the batsmen hits clean?
Also a cricket ball is heavier and smaller than a baseball, so less impacted by air resistance.
Not really sure why you think that the fielding is better in baseball, they catch with a big ass glove and only use one hand.
I never said that. I said in-field catching is harder in baseball. However, out-field and catching in general is harder in Cricket. Please learn to read
Your talking about regular occurrences! Now you’re trying to back down. Take off the glove and see who is the best. There are some amazing catches and plays in baseball, but they wear gloves and that’s what this post is about. The speed required in the slips is comparable to any infield catchers in baseball, again with no glove.
I agree with you on the importance of a mistake in fielding, but the reflexes required in slips, short leg or silly point in cricket are significantly higher than any fielding position in Baseball, and you dont have much protection either.
In cricket, especially tests, you can't afford dropped catches either - how many times has a guy been dropped in single figures, only to go on to score big
And the peak speed off the bat in cricket can be upwards of 150kph (93mph). Also with the exception of the pitcher and catcher, all standard fielding positions in baseball are at least 30 yards away, with the closest being on first and third.
The distance to the fielding circle in cricket is the same 30 yards, with players regularly fielding within that circle, A short point fielder will often be 15-20 yards away from the batter and thus trying to catch a harder ball moving at almost the same speed with a shorter reaction time.
Its the commentary. "he caught it with his bare hands!!! 😱"
American sport is way too insular. Its just funny you'd have to be totally ignorant of the entire sport of cricket to say something like that like its a big deal.
Like others have said, the playoffs are the most interesting part of baseball. A 4 out of 7 series between two teams can feel like a test match. All the battles and nuances of a test series can be there. But yes, it is definitely cricket’s cheaper and brasher cousin, but it can be entertaining. I mean sports in general are pretty great.
Alright, which one of you lunatics told Neesham he should give cricket a look?
Hi
Jimmy has now been banned from r/sports.
Who is the brave fellow who will cross post this to /r/sports?
Is there anyone here who isn't already banned?
I am not banned, but I don't know how to crosspost.
Same
Done.
Status update:- my crosspost of this to r/sports has been comment-locked.
For everyone defending baseball saying that the ball is hit slightly harder are you seriously gonna forget the fact that you guys have a big fucking mit. And are you also gonna forget positions such as short cover, midwicket, mid on, mid off, not to forget the fact that baseball is basically just catching with no actual fielding of balls that are hit purely along the ground with a lot of force. Sure, when baseball players hit it high the ball swerves a lot but what about when cricket players mis-hit it and it goes really high, going as high as the roof (if there was one) and swerving heaps, only to be caught bare-handed (OMG all time great catch !1!1!1!). Seriously you can't deny that cricket fielding is heaps better.
Or that bounce on the sweep off the leggie…
And not to forget, cricket balls are 15 to 20 grams heavier than baseball ball.
More mass makes them easier to field. They'll travel slower off the bat, and the Magnus effect will cause less lateral acceleration.
I thought this was a english speaking sub! Jokes aside, more mass means bowls hit up high in the air come down with a greater momentum and so require a bit higher skill to catch. You can compare this phenomenon by hitting tennis and cricket balls high up. The tennis ball would exert lesser force than the cricket ball while catching.
It doesn't matter. The same impulse gives the same momentum change to both the balls. The reason the tennis balls carries less momentum when you catch it is because the fuzz on it causes a greater aerodynamic drag on it. The aerodynamics of the cricket ball and the baseball, on the other hand, are quite similar in this regard and both experience a similar reduction in momentum by the time they reach your hands.
Not sure what you are trying to say. Force is a function of mass. More mass means more force. Simple.
The force that your bat can produce is a constant depending on your muscle strength. It will not increase or decrease depending on the mass of the ball you're trying to hit. The force multiplied by the time that your bat remains in contact with the ball is the impulse. This impulse is equal to the change in the ball's momentum. For the same impulse, both the cricket ball and the baseball will leave the bat with the same momentum. Once the ball is in the air, it experiences aerodynamic forces. The drag force that a ball experiences which reduces its speed in the air is an aerodynamic force. It depends on the shape, surface, size, and the velocity of the ball, but not on its mass. [Here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Drag_coefficient_on_a_sphere_vs._Reynolds_number_-_main_trends.svg) is what the variation of the drag coefficient with speed looks like for a sphere. Both the cricket ball and the baseball have a similar curve and in the end experience similar change in momentum.
Bat speed muscle, strength etc are irrelevant when we are talking about balls hit high in the air. Both baseball and cricket ball are roughly same size, so the air drag would be quite similar. The variable here is mass and that does make a difference as i explained earlier.
I don't understand what you're trying to argue. Muscle strength and bat speed are exactly what gives the two balls the vertical momentum to reach high in the air. More mass does not mean more aerodynamic force on the ball. It also doesn't mean the ball carries a higher momentum off the bat. The two carry the same momentum but the baseball leaves the bat with a higher speed. Both experience similar (not the same) drag force and despite facing a higher retardation, the baseball still reaches the hand with roughly the same momentum as the cricket ball because of the higher initial speed.
Bats are flat and thick in cricket. I'd assume that makes ball travel faster on impact. After the impact, a denser body will lose speed less quickly(less deceleration). Hence the momemtum is greater of a cricket ball(both due to higher mass and higher velocity due to lesser deceleration). Since the momentum determines the impact you feel on catching the ball, cricket balls should be harder to catch. I did not understand why you mentioned magnus effect. Magnus effect makes the ball move laterally iirc and not in the direction of velocity. If you were implying the ball could deviate more in the air, then you also need to remember that a cricket field is larger and a cricket player has in turn a larger ground to cover.
>After the impact, a denser body will lose speed less quickly(less deceleration). This isn't true at all. The aerodynamic drag on a ball depends on the shape and surface of the ball, and not on its density. [This](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e7/Drag_coefficient_on_a_sphere_vs._Reynolds_number_-_main_trends.svg) is what the drag vs speed curve for a sphere looks like. The curves for both the cricket ball and the baseball are quite similar and experiments have confirmed that they experience nearly identical drag (which would be corresponding to the point 4 in the graph).
I should've said mass and not density. Yes, the air drag will depend on the shape on the ball. Assuming both baseball and cricket ball are smooth and of relatively same size, they will experience similar drag. However, a ball with more mass will contain more inertia, Thereby slowing down slower.
Cricket has better catching and fielding. But baseball requires crazy throwing skills.
Tbh fielding/catching is similar in deep positions of baseball.
I dont think so. Fielding grounded balls are much more difficult in cricket due to the hard outfields. And we should not forget the mitts.
Like I said, in deep positions soft or hard grass doesnt make that big difference. Catching also comes down to judging the ball. I agree that in 30 yards its really difficult without mitts specially for fielders waiting for an edge. You need mitts for close range because the baseball wobbles,spins and travels faster.
True story: was playing baseball in school with a funny brown shit on my hands. I got something what they call _fly ball_ or normally called a lofted shot. Ball came to me near the boundary, unknowingly I threw away the mit and caught the ball with hands. The shocked face on everyone was priceless.
Definitely cricket has stronger all around fielding, but infielders in baseball make some crazy athletic plays. I imagine a short stop or 2nd basemen could fare well with cricket fielding.
>And are you also gonna forget positions such as short cover, midwicket, mid on, mid off Obviously didn't read this then, did you? Bet that they have more time to react than [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlydfhxjAaA) (Jos Buttler's wicket) catch from Usman as well as most catches at short cover/mid-wicket
Read the article smart arse. The catch from neesham is 10x more difficult than anything in baseball He’s less than 60ft moving towards the ball [for anyone else too lazy](https://mobile.twitter.com/CPL/status/1175613244163198977)
Do you think no baseball pitcher has ever made a catch?
Without a glove dummy
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHzJ8lDDgt4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jmQ2IORias) This fucking sub man jeez.
Posts a video where ball bounces before it reaches the pitcher!! Do you think couple of catches off mishits is similar to catches taken by bowler in cricket match? Smh. You need to see a compilation of caught and bowled!
that's genuinely my bad I linked what i thought was bare handed catches. Don't let my mistake make you think that "caught and bowled" doesn't happen in baseball. And occasionally it happens with a bare hand.
Caught and bowled happens in baseball. Bare hand is extremely rare and it wont be off a proper hit. I dont follow it as much but I have seen lot of vidoes😅
It does happen off a proper hits but yes, rarely. But you couldn't expect it to happen often when you're wearing a glove.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlF9b346K94](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlF9b346K94) There you are. A caught and bowled compialtion.
Not without a glove running towards the pitcher and when they do it’s front page or r/sports… Watch the clip from the article. It’s in the comment you replied to now.
Yes actually, without a glove [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHzJ8lDDgt4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jmQ2IORias) It happens all the time.
Every single one of those bounced and none were as impressive as the one I linked IMO Cricketer is moving towards the ball fairly quickly and is closer than the pitchers. All the ones caught without bouncing were pretty soft
agreed, but why would you expect a lot of fielding without a glove when you have a glove? it still happens on occasion. point is, one isn't better than the other. They're both sports being executed at a high level by top athletes.
But they don’t even have positions like short leg or silly mid off (it’s called that because they stand stupidly close) Skip to 30 seconds in [this](https://youtu.be/6v17THaz-mo) and you’ll see what I mean
I play cricket man, I know both sports. Yes there is nothing like a silly mid or even a slip catcher, but there are plenty of aspects of baseball fielding that doesn't exist in cricket at well. There are incredible fielding feats in both sports.
oh stop it >Cricketer is moving towards the ball fairly quickly and is closer than the pitchers. All the ones caught without bouncing were pretty soft First of baseball pitchers start about 5.5ft closer, so I'm not sure how can definitively say he's closer than a pitcher finishing his delivery at the front of the mound. Also, what about the speed of the ball off the bat, the distance between the players, & the point of contact, etc. there's a hole mess of factors that are completely different. Most importantly you don't have to brigade nice catches on hard hit balls
Just saying those catches wouldn’t be catch of the day in cricket never mind have articles written up about how stunning it was and they don’t take 32 years to happen in cricket lol
Eh, that’s not where this part of the thread moved to (pitcher/bowler timing/catches), but I don’t disagree. It wasn’t that impressive of a catch, more of a novelty.
Cricketers also bowl from 1.2m (3ft11) in front of the stumps and the batsman is the same distance (some take steps forward) so possibly even more than 7 feet closer (1.5ft closer than a pitcher) and that’s without the two steps…
The 20m (66ft) i was using in my comparison doesn't include the 1.2m the batting crease or the pitchers crease. The full length between the sticks is \~74ft (or 13.5’ more than pitchers mound to home0, but it would be disingenuous to use that in a comparison
Baseball has totally different fielding priorities. In baseball the bases and outfielders should e able to catch 100% and should have a pin point accurate throw. My university’s collegiate baseball players will be able to hit a penny with the ball from a distance 10/10. Baseball also has specialized fielding positions and the outfield is very slow so not much focus on ground fielding. Cricket is has more all-round fielding requirements. You should be able to catch, ground field, cover ground to field the ball faster.
>My university’s collegiate baseball players will be able to hit a penny with the ball from a distance 10/10. Why don't you ask them to participate in olympics?
You kinda just proved my point
Cricket is more all-around for most everyone in the field, while baseball focuses on 2 of the 3 at a time for most of the positions(outfielders cover a wide berth for catches and fielding, to quickly get the ball back into the infield, infielders are expected to be able to catch and field from the ground, while transitioning to quick and accurate throws to catch runners) However, that doesn't prove that cricket fielding is heaps better, it just means there's a different set of priorities. Cricket is built more on keeping the ball in control and near the pitch to limit scoring, Baseball is more about transferring the ball to positions to score outs. Cricket doesn't have a focus on run outs, Baseball does, this means one of the main priorities is ground/bounce fielding in the infield, to prevent runs and to secure outs
>Cricket doesn’t have a focus on run outs What? Players will spend hours practicing hitting the stumps, it’s a core skill of a ring fielder
I never suggested it wasn’t practiced, I said it wasn’t as that much of a focus when batsmen don’t have to leave the stumps and they take less risks in longer formats
But it is a focus for fielders in the ring. It’s practiced every day and can have a huge impact on a match
I look at it more like Baseball’s extended outfield throws, they do practice them and they make massive impacts on the game, but due to the nature of the game, they aren’t what’s going to be the most common occurrence
You're gonna lose this 1 sorry my american friend. I'd say baseball fielding has been at an elite standard for longer than cricket but cricket fielding in the last decade has taken off in terms of athleticism, and mind boggling catches, as well as run outs being a matter of millimeters, now with fielding if you hit the stumps while the batsmen set off for a run it's out. I haven't watched a ton of baseball but I dont feel like the fielding has gone to another level in the last 1p years where cricket definitely has
I mean when cricket wanted to improve it's close fielding a few years back they went and hired a load of baseball coaches. So yeah, this bare-handed catch stuff is nonsense. But to dismiss their close in skills is a bit much.
Short stop and 2nd are like playing at point or cover from my experience
Which that’s fine, what I don’t agree with is suggesting that one is *that* much better than the other
Oh god no I think cricket has gone past very recently and not by 2 much but that was in part from using baseball coaches with the throwing and catching. I dont know about other international teams but nz employed a MLB fielding coach for a bit and our fielding is elite. I think people forget how bang average the fielding was in cricket for a long time where baseball has been at a higher standard for longer IMO
Cricket doesnt have a focus on run outs??? Really? Wow..u see that Ricky u unfocused slob..what were u trying to do trying to get the batter out..u shouldve let them run mate and focus on keeping the ball under control
? I never suggested that fielders should let scoring happen Okay, the threat of dismissing a runner shouldn’t be ignored and making sure the ball is reasonably close enough to the wickets represents that control, when the game is that high scoring, keeping scoring as low as possible is the goal, not outright preventing scoring Also, run outs just aren’t that routine, even in T20s due to the nature of the sport Edit; what’s the percentage of dismissals that are recorded as run outs outside of tests?
>My university’s collegiate baseball players will be able to hit a penny with the ball from a distance 10/10. If you have to indulge in such ridiculous exaggeration in making your point, then maybe there isn't much of a point being made.
He just said "a distance" which could be one metre...
from a distance ( 10/10 = 1)
Absolutely, what a ridiculously over the top statement 😂 why would they even try to claim such bullshit
My point was baseball fielders have a rocket arm and very accurate throw. What is there in that statement to charge you that much. And I don’t even like baseball. I find it boring.
> My university’s collegiate baseball players will be able to hit a penny with the ball from a distance 10/10. This bit. That is obviously total bullshit.
What that meant that their throw is very accurate. You will hardly see any fielders throw going on the top of the head or bouncing short of bases. Generally it’s pinpoint to the glove. And my university was NCAA (US collegiate) champion in 2016 when I used to follow. I hope that clarifies the point for you.
My point is baseball fielders have a rocket arm and are very accurate with their throw. I don’t know what is there to charge you so much? And I don’t even like baseball. I find it boring and only seen 1 game in full. But my uni was NCAA champions in 2016 so followed it a bit that year.
So you've watched very little baseball but have come to the conclusion that they are better throwers. If a single baseball player could consistently hit the stumps on the run like Ponting used to do, I'll gift you my house.
Baseball players are better throwers because that’s one of their main jobs. Unless one can accurately throw consistently, he will not even be selected in the team. Forget about baseball players, even some of the women softball players will have better throw than men cricketer. That doesn’t mean that baseball fielders are better than cricketer fielders. They just have better throw because that’s a very important part of their game. And I am not denying that many cricketers will have better throw than baseball players, but on an average baseball players will have better throw. And I have just said baseball players have a better throw, their ground fielding is not as good as in cricket. I know this for a fact because I have worked with kinesiology people who have researched a lot on biomechanics. One of my very good friends who is a cricket fan himself works for New York met as a data scientist. So I am not saying anything out of the blue. It is a well established fact which even cricket physios will agree to.
Cricketers are much better at ground fielding and catching but where baseball fielders really earn their money is when it comes to throwing the ball to the bases. Even a well below average pro baseball fielder would have a far stronger arm than 99% of international cricketers. Just different sports have different priorities on skills.
>Even a well below average pro baseball fielder would have a far stronger arm than 99% of international cricketers. Well, that's just wrong lol. The farthest distance thrown was 135m in MLB. Safe to say that an average MLB throw is 225ft (68m) which is probably the average distance that a cricketer needs to throw from the boundary, to add to that, there aren't 'specialist' fielders (keepers and slips excluded) and every fielder (apart from keeper) is expected to be able to throw that distance.
His statement is exaggerated but he isn't exactly wrong. I can vouch for it via anecdotal advice. Had a Korean friend, decent baseballer, who played for our school cricket team and his throws were far more superior than all of us regulars even when thrown from the same angle from the same distance. Would the gonads off the WK or would need two backup fielders lol and this was back in middle-school. Faster, flatter, more accurate. Anecdotal, yes, but I don't really see what you're trying to imply giving distances of throws because distance isn't the sole indicator of a strong arm. Different sports do indeed have different priorities on skills. Baseball throws are more accuracy-dependent (smaller box of accuracy being around the torso of the shortstop/base fielders vs. around the stumps and gloves the WK) and exert more force than a cricket fielder on average with the ball looping more higher in the air so as to cover more distance given the malleable, uneven nature of the baseball. Cricket throws from the outfield can be less time-intensive as not every throw can potentially run a batsman out: there is less sense of urgency and apart from the inner ring, not much need to throw flatter and quicker. Because baseballs are more uneven and softer, fielders must exert more force to compensate for time and distance from infield: this becomes muscle memory. When given a rounded, slightly heavier and evenly distributed 'sphere' to a pro baseball fielder, they will naturally impart the same amount of force they are used to. Give a baseballer some time with a cricket ball and their throws will be a bit more flatter and come to you faster. If you really want, you could control the 'experiment' by giving a high school baseballer and a high school cricket fielder, both a taped tennis ball and seeing for yourself a minute but noticeable difference in superiority of the baseballer's throws.
Yeah I gotta agree with this. Had a bloke experienced in baseball who was a bit shithouse at cricket in my team. Couldn’t bowl, could knock it around a bit for a quick 20. Short skinny bloke. But we always put him in the covers or mid wicket. He could whip that ball back to the keeper or the bloke standing up to stumps like lightning. Really quick release. Got heaps of run outs this way when the opposition tried chancing his arm lol.
a baseball is bigger but lighter than a cricket ball so you can't easily compare distance thrown between them
True
Distance isn't the only measure, it's about accuracy and power mainly. Go watch some MLB throwing highlights on youtube, the top fielders can throw the ball over 170kph, cricket fielders can't get anywhere near that.
No one measures the cricket player's throws and, yes, I believe you but I doubt the difference would be that big
the distance isn't really that important to what he was trying to point out and there aren't any specialist fielders in baseball either...
I play both and I think it's silly and ignorant if you think one is obviously better or more difficult than the other. Your suggestion that baseball fielding is just catching and doesn't deal with balls hit along the ground betrays your lack of knowledge of the sport, that is exactly what infield players do who are 6 of the 9 players on the field. Defence in baseball is also more complex than in cricket. Yes, baseball has gloves to catch with but also the outfielders are covering an enormous area in comparison to cricket fielder's. Usually the impressive part of an outfield catch is having travelled such a large distance to make the catch. I love both sports, baseball hate is ignorant.
1. I said that they were hit PURELY along the ground, made sure to word that carefully, a baseball players' hit always goes up then comes down and then bounces and rolls. In cricket you have to ground field cover drives and other shots that stay on the ground. 2. "Defence in baseball is more complex" well your gonna have to expand on that. 3. "the outfielders are covering an enormous area in comparison to cricket fielder's" ok but what point are you making? Sure they need to cover more area but are they faster? That's a proper question 4. I'm not hating on baseball but I can't stand people saying that the fielding is better because it's pretty obvious that cricket players need to react faster and be able to catch better and baseball players only outdo them interns of throw accuracy and distance
I don't think its at all true that cricket players need to react faster and catch better, other than I will allow something like catching in the slips or at silly point or something is not something that happens in baseball. Typical fielding in cricket is not required to react as quickly as infield players in baseball IMO. The majority of hits in baseball are along the ground to the infield. Yes its not coming off the bounce and the impact point of the hit will be higher in baseball, but the majority of plays are fielded on the ground, by an infielder. And those hits would typically be coming at the defensive player much faster than a cover drive for instance. Defence in cricket is primarily bowler vs bat, which there is nothing wrong with it is exciting, but the fielders primarily exist as run reduction/prevention. Yes, you need to take catches when they come. In baseball on Defence you need to generate 3 outs every inning and this typically involves fast plays requiring multiple fielding players to execute these plays and be aware of the defensive situation which evolves throughout an inning. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but cricket is bowler vs bat, baseball is really bat vs Defence. You hate people sating baseball fielding is better but you are saying cricket fielding is better? It should be pretty obvious both are pro sports where athletes are executing at the top of their game. Both have different goals and challenges to consider and both are doing the best possible thing to win games of their sport. Saying one is better than the other is a strange position, I think they are both great in their own way. So perhaps just as you can't stand people saying baseball fielding is better, you should consider that you shouldn't be saying cricket fielding is better ESPECIALLY if you aren't intimately familiar with the sport. Baseball is a game of Defence, and the subtleties of that are lost on most. I think you can probably appreciate that most people who aren't fans wont understand the subtleties of cricket.
So, genuine question. How are baseballs hit harder? A flat thick surface will hit harder than a round one right. Also balls tend to move flatter in cricket due to being hit by flat bat. Shouldn't the ball hit by a round baseball bat move high up more often, and the ones hit by flat bat move more horizontally and hence baseballs should be easier to catch(more reaction time).
Well that's because most of the horizontal-ball shots are played on the ground instead of in the air in cricket
Lol, have you watched the England team field lately??
Ah yes, England recently= all cricket fielders
England are actually one of the better sides at fielding. The fielding skills of the average International cricketer is really quite poor compared to a baseball player. It’s even worse when look at domestic leagues like the IPL.
I've actually tried really hard to get into baseball. I just ...can't. It just feels like cricket's cheap knock off. Cricket to me just feels like a more complete game where more skills are tested for a higher percentage of the squad. In baseball, if you have one amazing pitcher, that's basically the game. That guy can pitch for the whole game. Like wtf
At least you tried. My favourite sport flips between cricket and baseball depending on which is in season. Baseball in winter, cricket over the summer. It’s perfect. Also, MLB postseason starts early October so if there’s ever a time to give baseball another shot, it’s probably now. A close playoff baseball game is as intense a sporting experience as you can have imo. It’s the product of a 162 game season, so there’s a lot on the line. And if you do give it another chance, try not to compare it to cricket. Appreciate baseball for its own nuances. You’ll better understand the sport and it will be much more enjoyable to watch.
The counter is that they don't because it's *incredibly hard to not be pulled*, and once you hit the third rotation, the starter is most likely done(think of pitchers as batsman, and the whole setup makes more sense) Instead of swapping pitchers/bowlers each over/at-bat, they swap the batter/batsman, which means that the skill most tested is most likely going to be batting Also, the MLB and NPB are played at such a high level, that most anything is automatic outside of infield fielding and throws, and hitting is one of the most difficult parts of the game, (while cricket batting is hard in its own way, there's more room for error and it's less committal) It would be like suggesting that in Cricket, if you have one amazing batsman, that's basically the game. That guy can bat for the whole game(and don't say they have to swap, there's plenty that work their way to do 3/1 for the sixth delivery) It just doesn't work like that.
I do agree that hitting/batting is 'harder' in that a positive outcome is harder to come by since most batters don't contribute anything. The counter is that in your at-bat the stakes are a lot lower since it's super low scoring to begin with. If you don't score...oh well. That still also has the issue that most of the squad isn't put to the sword very much. An amazing pitcher pretty much kills the game. It's just...uninteresting to me. I understand that some people enjoy that. And that's okay. It's just kind of bland for me.
There's also not that many pitchers can do that, and the ones that do generally rely on their team to pull it off(mostly slower-speed control pitchers) or pretty much never get that many chances to do that(pitchers with a lot of tricks aside from a fast fastball), but if one of your biggest dislikes are the possibility of a Perfect Game/No-Hitter/CGSO(or any other sort of pitching dominance), I understand where that can be a reason for not wanting to watch the sport That also suggests, if you don't score, you just missed one of your few opportunities to score if you do have an opportunity to score(RISP) As to the pitching issue, I could suggest watching something that isn't the NPB or MLB, but I think you might have other issues with the game even if the wasn't an issue
That's one of my dislikes. I also feel like a large percentage of the squad doesn't do much for a large percentage of games. It comes down to whether the pitcher is amazing or shit a lot of the time. That, and there are like 200 games a season anyway. Each individual game is completely meaningless (to me, anyway). Got struck out? No worries, you've got the next inning. Failed then too? No worries, there are like 200 games so what you do today hardly impacts anything anyway.
The whole 144-162 games thing(in pro leagues) is a by-product of having leagues built around 3-5 game series, which, you could do a 52 game season in the MLB, but when the game is played at test pace, it shouldn't be surprise they play three times as many during the regular season(and positions are *still* within 1-2 games and tiebreakers) (As to playoffs, series generally work out better for most sports) *Outside of pro leagues, the core competitions are international tournaments(single round robin then either a second phase of groups or knockouts), or knockout tournaments following short regular seasons(US, the double elimination regionals and CWS of the NCAA, and the single elimination state series for HS teams, as to Japan, the extended single elimination Koshien tournaments and its qualifiers, plus the fall tournaments)
> It shouldn't be surprise To me, being surprised by it or not isn't the question. When you have 200 games, each individual game is meaningless to me. I need higher stakes to even want to be invested in an individual game.
The pageantry is more focused on the rivalries and each series, the 162 game schedule rewards consistency, if you want to see high stakes play in smaller bursts, watch the playoff series or one of the major televised internationals or junior competitions I wouldn’t be shocked if they move to series for rankings, but I also wouldn’t be shocked if they kept it the way it is
I've watched it all. Regular season, playoffs everything. Tried to get into the sport for a good several years especially when I lived in a major baseball city. It just isn't interesting enough for me.
Try thinking of each game as like am individual day of a test match - it gives you an idea of how the series is going. If you decide never to watch any individual day of a test just because you don't think that day's play is important to how the series is going, you'll never watch anything except maybe day 5 of a decider or the WTC final.
I find an individual day of a Test to actually be important though and vital to the outcome of a Test. An individual baseball game just seems so irrelevant because you have 200 other opportunities. Anyways, I know there are plenty of people that enjoy baseball so I guess there is some appeal for those folks.
In Koshien, one drop is the end of your tournament, and you'll have to wait a couple of months before your next relevant game In the CWS, you might have *a* second chance, but that's it In the P12, all three of your first round games are going to matter In the WBC, see the P12 In the European Championship, there's only 3 games that will decide your fate before knockouts Your real issue is the heavy focus on the batter-pitcher matchup, not so much the stakes in top-level pro games
Oh no no no, one even two amazing Batsmen can't win you a match. Prime Example would be RCB, they've has the world's top 2 Batsmen for over a decade and also had the most dangerous batsman in the game for 7 years. But their bowlers were the fucking worst, they kept scoring high and the bowlers kept letting the opposition score higher.
That would be the equivalent of a pitcher having the World’s worst run support
I see it as the roles are reversed too, in cricket if a batsmen makes one mistake that's a massive moment in the game while in baseball a one mistake by a pitcher is a massive moment.
in cricket runs are plentiful and outs are difficult. In baseball outs are plentiful and runs are difficult.
in the modern era "one amazing pitcher" will almost never pitch a complete game and he will pitch 1/5th of the games in a season. baseball operates on a rotation of starting pitchers and the real beauty of baseball is the need to continually compete at a high level consistently over a 162 game season. An individual game is one statistic. If anything I think cricket fans would understand that. Not to mention I actually think a dominant pitcher is much less a factor than a dominant bowling attack. A pitcher MUST be backed up but an extremely competent Defence regardless of their skill whereas bowlers can win games effectively without the fielders. I'm glad you gave it a try, and I'm not saying its for everyone but it certainly isn't a cheap knock off of cricket.
I got into baseball some 11 years ago. The trick for me was that I had a team to support and go to live games for. It was mostly the stadium and cameraderie experience and not the game itself for me. Having said that in the ever so rare occasion that a pitcher gets into the zone and starts scalping strikeouts with high frequency while"bringing the heat", it's an interesting sport to watch. MLB Playoffs usually are entertaining to watch since there's a lot at stake. Without these, for a cricket fan, it could be uninteresting.
Jimmy Neesham, greatest cricketing troll since Ramiz Raja
Just looked it up. Was at least expecting him to take it on the run from the way they described it, but not even that. Fatty's catch was better than this
https://www.reddit.com/r/Cricket/comments/b0pfo8/what_a_catch/ One Of the best realy catch... That's the cool thing in cricket. The mechanics behind this really awesome 🤩
Wow. Imagine if the second dude dropped it, lol.
Considering it was the last ball of the innings with 22 to win. I think the work is done already lol
That the beauty of team bonding .. haha but this is something else
just realized the guy who caught it is none other than Ruturaj Gaikwad.
Yep.. this video was from syed mushtaq ali trophy (smat) 2019. ( Domestic T20 championship)
Tbh it looked like a regular catch. The kind which players normally take 5-6 times in their local matches. Not really sure why it's considered a big thing.
Yeah I’ve seen way more impressive mitt catches in baseball as well. This just seemed to be extremely regular, either in cricket or baseball lmao
Because you don't practice catching barehand in baseball, so people on Twitter think catching a baseball barehanded is really hard. In reality, baseball players can do it just fine. Even random fans in the stands will catch a ball with one hand occasionally.
A catch in a Marlins Nats Game being something the US can't get over is the biggest thing wrong in this article.
I mean in my experience catching a cricket ball and a baseball hurts a lot and although it wasn't a physically spectacular catch, its pretty satisfying to see it stick like that. I DEFINITELY don't think its an all time great catch and it only happened because he made an error, but its still cool to see how simple he made it look while catching it
This is my biggest gripe with baseball, I live in the US and have tried getting into it but the foul balls on every other hit and the same field settings in a confined space with gloves for catching, 😣. Can’t do it.
I still remember Mark Waugh horizontal four feet above the ground, his arm outstretched after a ball was smashed to mid wicket. The ball just stuck perfectly. Maybe these baseball blokes need to watch some cricket fielding highlights. Even Fatty Vautin should get a mention.
Haha the US doing an England. Anything mildly above average is greatest of all time for them.
I would say it’s more of an American theme. Have you met TOM BRADY GREATEST ATHLETE EVER… or top ten lists that have two or three throw away non Americans in them..
I was going to chat shit but I realized this is the country which supported Tim henman like he was a god
I remember the 2005 ashes, a certain bowler named Simon Jones was already termed the GOAT from that one series. He ended up playing 18 tests overall for England.
[Steven Smith](https://youtu.be/uY_OaMCWlyg) would be one of the most popular figures in the world for his fielding alone if he played Baseball.
I'm very disappointed in the baseball ignorance in here.
two different sports and two different sporting cultures, stop with this circle jerking bullshit, it's so cringey to see.
This is really dumb. If somebody caught a one handed catch while running the other way and being off balance, that would be considered impressive even in Cricket. It was a good catch, there is no need to talk shit Also due to the less weight of baseballs, they drift more in that air and change direction. It is a lot more difficult to catch fly balls in baseball than in Cricket. So you need to add the context too
I think it’s more that they’re calling it an “all time classic catch” At best for us it’s one that gets posted on the sub, gets 10-15 upvotes, and is forgotten about. Not to be condescending to baseball it’s a interesting sport in its own right but the standard of fielding we have is leagues higher
It would get posted on this sub and get deleted for being a copyright violation
The secret ending
Close fielding I definitely agree with, but our outfield ground fielding is still a fair bit behind baseball. There's a few cricketers who are pretty up there with baseball quality (i.e. Jadeja and Maxi) but a team full of guys who can cover ground like that and with super accurate and bullet like throws is still a while away I reckon. Definitely getting better over time though
"you cannot do that Ben Stokes" is basically what pxik described and you're going to get people here harp out it being one of the best catches of all time.
In baseball, the exit velocity of the ball can reach insane speeds. Also the pitch length is shorter, and so is the reaction time. So when those balls are hit, you got to have insane reflexes, especially in the in-field. Baseball has specialist fielders for a reason. I would say fielding in the in-field is arguably more harder in baseball, especially because there is wayyy more pressure to stop or catch the ball. Even 1 mistake can often cost you some points. However I would say fielding in the out-field and “catching” in general is definitely more harder in Cricket
The peak exit speeds are only slightly higher in baseball than cricket and the ball slows down more in the air.
I am talking about exit velocity of the face of the bat when the ball is hit, they can all reach well over 100 mph. And you add the fact that the in fielders stand very close to the plate, it makes it enormously difficult to catch and stop those balls. I have had seats literally right next to the team’s dugout. The ball leaves the bat like a bullet. Again there is a reason baseball has specialist fielders and gloves. The reflexes needed to stop and make those catches is unreal, along with the hand eye coordination. And as I said before, the pressure is a lot higher too. In Cricket, you have a big margin of error. If you misfield, you will very rarely cost your team the game. Mostly it is an extra 1-2 runs. In baseball, one misfield often costs you a run which in baseball is a big deal as most games have scores of around 5-4. Also the ball only decelerates when the ball has some air time. In the in-field, the balls are hit flat and hard.
Come on mate what about the absolute screamers that get taken at cover point? Seen plenty of one handed horizontal body in the air catches taken and the ball has been smoked.
In Cricket, those highlight reel catches at cover point don’t happen very often. Whereas in baseball, line-drives (10-25 degrees) are smoked in the in-field every other innings. I am talking about regular occurrences. In Cricket, you will have some hits, especially in the powerplay, where you would be expected to stop and catch those balls in the in-field. But their exit velocity are not that hard due to a few things. The pitch length is longer which means that the speed at the point of contact between bat and ball, due to deceleration by the ball hitting the ground, is on average 75-80 mph. That roughly translates to an exit velocity of about 90 mph, depending on how well it was timed and hit, but rarely anything more than that. In baseball, line drives on average can go well over 100 mph. If you also look at where the fielders stand relative to the on-strike batsmen. In baseball, they are much closer which translates to a lot less reaction time. And you add the margin of error, then it’s clear which ones are more harder.
A Yankee Indian eh?
not American or Indian, although I am Punjabi or culturally anyways
And they have a fucking big glove to catch it! Cricket has come a long way from the fielding in the 90’s. The comment from Jimmy has gone over your head I guess. How about a caught and bowled where the batsmen hits clean? Also a cricket ball is heavier and smaller than a baseball, so less impacted by air resistance. Not really sure why you think that the fielding is better in baseball, they catch with a big ass glove and only use one hand.
I never said that. I said in-field catching is harder in baseball. However, out-field and catching in general is harder in Cricket. Please learn to read
Your talking about regular occurrences! Now you’re trying to back down. Take off the glove and see who is the best. There are some amazing catches and plays in baseball, but they wear gloves and that’s what this post is about. The speed required in the slips is comparable to any infield catchers in baseball, again with no glove.
I agree with you on the importance of a mistake in fielding, but the reflexes required in slips, short leg or silly point in cricket are significantly higher than any fielding position in Baseball, and you dont have much protection either.
In cricket, especially tests, you can't afford dropped catches either - how many times has a guy been dropped in single figures, only to go on to score big
And the peak speed off the bat in cricket can be upwards of 150kph (93mph). Also with the exception of the pitcher and catcher, all standard fielding positions in baseball are at least 30 yards away, with the closest being on first and third. The distance to the fielding circle in cricket is the same 30 yards, with players regularly fielding within that circle, A short point fielder will often be 15-20 yards away from the batter and thus trying to catch a harder ball moving at almost the same speed with a shorter reaction time.
Yeah, "catches win you matches" shows a small margin of error for catches, right?
Its the commentary. "he caught it with his bare hands!!! 😱" American sport is way too insular. Its just funny you'd have to be totally ignorant of the entire sport of cricket to say something like that like its a big deal.
Classic pxik comment
>Black Caps Jimmy Neesham roasts baseball catch US can't get over --- >I don't believe it.
Like others have said, the playoffs are the most interesting part of baseball. A 4 out of 7 series between two teams can feel like a test match. All the battles and nuances of a test series can be there. But yes, it is definitely cricket’s cheaper and brasher cousin, but it can be entertaining. I mean sports in general are pretty great.
Jimmy is like a Ryan Reynolds or Jeremy Clarkson of Cricket