http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...A&mode=related&search=
And the best of them all, IMO
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yuojh_R0Rhw
And the best of them all, IMO
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yuojh_R0Rhw
Look, Ma! No mitts!!!
- Thread starter athithi
- Start date
DrPizza
Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Typical American:
"Duhhh, I don't understand cricket. Therefore cricket must be a stupid sport."
btw, that second video shows how smart of a player he is in addition to his physical skills.
Originally posted by: athithi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...A&mode=related&search=
And the best of them all, IMO
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yuojh_R0Rhw
In MLB they make diving catches like that daily, and then usually they have to make a tough throw also.
wth? both are shite lol
cricket is especially shite because complete bordum is actually more entertaining. and before some one moans, yes im british and yes my work colleagues love cricket and they regal me daily with how great it is.
all i know its cricket sux and england seem to suck at playing it as well.
cricket is especially shite because complete bordum is actually more entertaining. and before some one moans, yes im british and yes my work colleagues love cricket and they regal me daily with how great it is.
all i know its cricket sux and england seem to suck at playing it as well.
Originally posted by: rsd
Originally posted by: athithi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...A&mode=related&search=
And the best of them all, IMO
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yuojh_R0Rhw
In MLB they make diving catches like that daily, and then usually they have to make a tough throw also.
Probably, but they use this big-ass mitt which makes it much easier to catch. A cricket ball is heavier too, though about just as hard as a baseball.
I wasn't really knocking baseball. I was just kidding. But these videos show a much more exciting aspect of cricket than usual.
Mucho:
The second video shows Mark Waugh, a retired Australian cricketer, playing a first-class game in England. He has been one of the best fielders in the game (apart from being one of the best batsman ever and a half-decent bowler to boot). He has taken many relfex catches like the ones shown in the first video. But this catch shows him displaying lighting fast physical and mental reflexes. In a split-second, he did the following:
1. Prevented the ball from going over while in his hands by tossing it up.
2. Stepped over the line to regain his balance while the ball was in the air.
3. Stepped back in.
4. Tapped the ball by reaching over the line, without stepping out again.
5. Caught it before it hit the ground
If the ball had landed over the boundary, it would've been a maximum of 6. If it had bounced before crossing the line, it would've been a maximum of 4. If he had prevented both without catching it before it hit the ground, it would've fetched the batsman whatever runs he had managed to run in the meantime. If he had even touched the line with the ball in his hand, the batsman would've got 6 runs.
To physically do that was amazing. But to react that quickly with his mind puts him on a fielding level above the best EVER in the business. All IMO.
The verdict was given by the third umpire after reviewing the slow-motion videos. It was a fair catch.
Originally posted by: rsd
Originally posted by: athithi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...A&mode=related&search=
And the best of them all, IMO
http://youtube.com/watch?v=yuojh_R0Rhw
In MLB they make diving catches like that daily, and then usually they have to make a tough throw also.
Tough throw? Bah!
In cricket, if the ball hasn't crossed the line, they have to throw it at the wickets...from 50-60 yards maybe, if not more...at three little sticks planted vertically and often from sideways, where you can see only one stick. And it isn't always the wicketkeeper with the mitts who gets to collect the throw. Often they throw at the bowlers end and he has to catch it with his bare hands to try and break the wickets before the batsman reaches the crease.isdain; happens all the time in cricket. A lot of the catches in the video were from a distance, but plenty others have been taken just a few feet from the bat.You must be the only Brit who doesn't have the hots for Flintoff
They have been pretty good in recent years...especially after Nasser Hussain became captain. Vaughan, Trescothick, Pietersen, Flintoff, Harmison, Panesar, Collingwood are all as good as they get. They would've beaten India in the first Test if not for the rain. Of course, they are not doing so well in this second Test that's going on right now
I don't know anything about cricket, but after watching that video I have a question. Assuming you treat the boundary line like you would the end zone in american football, wouldnt it not be an "out" in the 2nd video? I'm going to guess that it is against the rules of cricket to stand outside the boundary line, catch the ball after jumping and land inside the boundary line. If thats not the case, then I guess this wouldnt apply. If it is the case, then how come he knocks the ball up, steps out of bounds, and then touches the ball again before establishing his feet in the boundary line? If its not important that his feet were in bounds before jump touching the ball, then whats to stop someone from going way out of bounds, and jump throwing the ball back to a teammate? Stupid, I know, but I think its a valid question.
I think in american football as long as your feet don't break the end zone line, you can knock the ball back out of the end zone during a punt. However, you can't stand in the end zone and jump to knock the football back out of the end zone.
I hope I am explaining this clearly enough.
I think in american football as long as your feet don't break the end zone line, you can knock the ball back out of the end zone during a punt. However, you can't stand in the end zone and jump to knock the football back out of the end zone.
I hope I am explaining this clearly enough.
Actually, I believe you can technically stand outside the boundary, jump up, catch the ball without any part of your body touching the ground outside the boundary and land inside the line and it would be a fair catch. But there are other rules that specify how long you can stand outside the boundary legally and why you were outside the boundary in the first place. It gets a bit complicated then and I am not sure how long a fielder can wait outside the boundary before it becomes illegal for him to catch a ball in play.
I am guessing if a player crosses the boundary while the ball is in play and then comes back before the play ends, it is allowed. But for a fielder to constantly stand outside the boundary is not common.
Nevetheless, fielders sometimes step in and out across the boundary lines while waiting for the bowler to deliver the ball - it may be for taking a sip of water or to sign an autograph.
In this case, however, he was within the boundary when he first touched the ball. This was really pushing the boundary (no pun intended) as to what a fielder can do on the boundary ropes. Net result, it was a fair catch.
Originally posted by: athithi
look at the videos. there is so much more velocity in baseball
Originally posted by: SpanishFry
Originally posted by: athithi
look at the videos. there is so much more velocity in baseball
...have seen a few games on TV. The velocity didn't appear particularly greater. Cricketers have died or been seriously injured fielding in close-up positions. There are a couple of fielding positions where fielders stand maybe 4-5 feet from the batsman...close enough for the bat to whack them if they are not careful. Maybe there weren't any in this video...if I can find any, I'll post it here. Do baseball fielders even stand that close...apart from the catcher, that is..who is anyway behind the batter and wears full-suit body armor
Originally posted by: athithi
Originally posted by: SpanishFry
Originally posted by: athithi
look at the videos. there is so much more velocity in baseball
...have seen a few games on TV. The velocity didn't appear particularly greater. Cricketers have died or been seriously injured fielding in close-up positions. There are a couple of fielding positions where fielders stand maybe 4-5 feet from the batsman...close enough for the bat to whack them if they are not careful. Maybe there weren't any in this video...if I can find any, I'll post it here. Do baseball fielders even stand that close...apart from the catcher, that is..who is anyway behind the batter and wears full-suit body armor
which supports my point
In cricket, doesn't one team bat through all their innings or whatever they're called, then the other team gets to bat? That's the part that really seems dumb to me.
Originally posted by: SpanishFry
Originally posted by: athithi
Originally posted by: SpanishFry
Originally posted by: athithi
look at the videos. there is so much more velocity in baseball
...have seen a few games on TV. The velocity didn't appear particularly greater. Cricketers have died or been seriously injured fielding in close-up positions. There are a couple of fielding positions where fielders stand maybe 4-5 feet from the batsman...close enough for the bat to whack them if they are not careful. Maybe there weren't any in this video...if I can find any, I'll post it here. Do baseball fielders even stand that close...apart from the catcher, that is..who is anyway behind the batter and wears full-suit body armor
which supports my point
Yeah, but isn't the catcher mainly protected against the 90+ mph missiles from the pitcher, and not so much for what ricochets off the bat? I could argue that the velocity off the bat is greater in cricket since the batsman can rush the ball and swing the bat a longer way while a baseball batter uses just his torso and arms for momentum. A cricket batsman can also use the pace of the ball to just deflect it behind him without slowing it down much.
Originally posted by: athithi
Originally posted by: SpanishFry
Originally posted by: athithi
Originally posted by: SpanishFry
Originally posted by: athithi
look at the videos. there is so much more velocity in baseball
...have seen a few games on TV. The velocity didn't appear particularly greater. Cricketers have died or been seriously injured fielding in close-up positions. There are a couple of fielding positions where fielders stand maybe 4-5 feet from the batsman...close enough for the bat to whack them if they are not careful. Maybe there weren't any in this video...if I can find any, I'll post it here. Do baseball fielders even stand that close...apart from the catcher, that is..who is anyway behind the batter and wears full-suit body armor
which supports my point
Yeah, but isn't the catcher mainly protected against the 90+ mph missiles from the pitcher, and not so much for what ricochets off the bat? I could argue that the velocity off the bat is greater in cricket since the batsman can rush the ball and swing the bat a longer way while a baseball batter uses just his torso and arms for momentum. A cricket batsman can also use the pace of the ball to just deflect it behind him without slowing it down much.
the driving power in a baseball swing comes from the rotation of the hips
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
I love baseball, but not to watch. I wouldn't want to watch Cricket either, once I actually understood how it is played.
But I love playing baseball. Played it almost my whole life (up to high school, but not in), and the last couple of years built up to be a really good first basemen (took a little time since I switched between positions my whole time of playing).
I enjoyed baseball so much, that I don't know if something else could have been better. It was way more than a game for me, and kind of makes me upset I didn't play for some local league during highschool.
But I love playing baseball. Played it almost my whole life (up to high school, but not in), and the last couple of years built up to be a really good first basemen (took a little time since I switched between positions my whole time of playing).
I enjoyed baseball so much, that I don't know if something else could have been better. It was way more than a game for me, and kind of makes me upset I didn't play for some local league during highschool.
A team plays one inning at a time and all its players play in that inning (so each player has also played an individual inning). In the longer version, the inning for the team ends when
1. When all its players have played and ended their innings, typically by getting out.
OR
2. If they decide they have scored enough runs without all their players having a turn at bat.
An individual inning can also end if a player gets hurt and cannot bat any more.
In the shorter version a team inning can end when all its players have ended their innings or when the limited overs (usually 50) they are allowed to play comes to an end.
So, even though all the players in a team play all their innings straight through, the team itself completes only one inning at a time. This is in the longer version of the game, where each team gets 2 innings played alternately over a trifling 5 days. In the shorter version, each team gets only one inning lasting a limited number of overs, and again, all the players in a team play their innings straight through. Both teams innings are completed in one day.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 18K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter