Discuss... (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Baseball_vs_Cricket)

~String

the only reason baseball exists is that yanks lack the skill and patients to play the gentleman's game:)

oh BTW that must have been written by a yank
it mixes up tests with one day cricket

edit: no i was wrong, i missread the catigory on the side is all:p

I watch the World Series every year or two, but in all honestly, both baseball and cricket are painfully boring to watch. In fact, they make the event of watching paint dry seem quite enjoyable. In baseball, it angers me incredibly to see the batter scratch tirelessly at his crab-infested nutsack, unstrap and restrap his gloves, spit three mouthfuls of tar, and practice swing his bat thirty-six times, in between every single pitch. The worse part? The batter hits a foul ball after all of this time-wasting nonsense. Drives me nuts. Cricket is simply awful because it takes days for the game to complete, which is truly inexcusable. In addition, the rules for cricket are relatively difficult to grasp, and the setup is impractical for those who aren't playing for a professional team or league.

In terms of actually playing the sport, baseball wins, hands down. I actually enjoy playing baseball, although I've inexplicably become a pussy as of late, in the sense that I fear pitching. That's what a few Youtube videos showing line-drives will do to you.


Kadark

I hate cricket, baseball is ok to play, watching it is boring.

two very lame sports, if they grouped up into 2-4 teams armed themselves with baseball/cricket bats and wore american football armour (thats not padding its a full suit of armour) then had a mass brawl that would be decent.

Might aswell watch golf.

peace.

lol you beat my post by seconds. - with a freakishly simular opinion.

Edit, mine ws just new and improved + to the point.

peaace.

Kadark you should watch one day's or 20/20 matches if you dont like the tests

And just because you cant pick up the rules doesnt make it inpractical for ammatures to play. we do it all the time. plus the rules can be easerly modifided for the situation, some examples being indoor cricket, beach cricket and backyard rules

How about taking the bat and ball away for one change, and add some elephant riders, shields and a couple maces.

peace.

elephant's are so hard to come by in australia im afraid:p

Kadark you should watch one day's or 20/20 matches if you dont like the tests

And just because you cant pick up the rules doesnt make it inpractical for ammatures to play. we do it all the time. plus the rules can be easerly modifided for the situation, some examples being indoor cricket, beach cricket and backyard rules

I mean impractical in the sense that the equipment/number of players/etc. is difficult to gather for small affairs. It's not something you can do with a friend when you're bored.


Kadark

there your wrong.

The basic equitment needed for cricket (cheep bat, rubber coated tennis ball and some stumps) can be bought for around $5-10 at any toy shop

Its only once you get up to the team level that you buy the sort of equiptment i have

further more backyard cricket can be played with 2 people min or as many as 50

As i said the rules just get modifide
for instance 2 overs each,
over the fence is 6 and out

ect

What about all of that protective gear?


Kadark

not nessary when your playing with a tennis ball, Only needed when you use a propper cricket ball

We used to get tennis balls and put electrical tape over one side to make them swing (BOY did they swing:p)

I play cricket with a proper ball and no pads, and no shoes, and drunk, don't be faggots.

I spend half the year wondering what I liked about cricket the summer before, but then the sun comes out, beer starts running through my veins, you hear the channel 9 cricket theme music on the tv every other morning, and it hits you.

Cricket is so much more nuanced and poetic than baseball, I'm a pretty unbiased sports fan, my favourite sport of all is american football, but baseball is very weak in comparison to cricket.

I play cricket with a proper ball and no pads, and no shoes, and drunk, don't be faggots.

I suppose as a rugged Aussie, being repeatedly hit on the skull with a dense ball is not a major concern (it sure explains a lot, really). The thing I don't like about cricket, and sports like it, is that one very determined player cannot dominate an entire game. My favorite sport is basketball, because one player can easily control the game at any given point in time and steal the show ... in sports like cricket, it's a slow team process.


Kadark

Actually in cricket one player can dominate a game. In baseball they can't, the best they can do is get a homerun and then sit down to wait their turn, but in cricket a batsmen can come out and just smash the ball for boundaries all day and destroy the opposition singlehandedly.
Especially if the other team batted first and got some humble score as a team, one man can then come out and beat their whole team by himself. It happens all the time.

I agree basketball is good, I don't think I would want to play real organised games of cricket (and I do play real basketball), but backyard bbq cricket is great, and it's good to watch real international games (if you really know what's going on and have some interest in who wins and it's possible your country might win- otherwise forget it).

I don't get hit in the head btw, I'm too good, I might get hit in the toes every now and then, or the shins, but last time I checked I didn't have a vagina between my ass cheeks, so whatever.

I suppose as a rugged Aussie, being repeatedly hit on the skull with a dense ball is not a major concern (it sure explains a lot, really). The thing I don't like about cricket, and sports like it, is that one very determined player cannot dominate an entire game. My favorite sport is basketball, because one player can easily control the game at any given point in time and steal the show ... in sports like cricket, it's a slow team process.


Kadark

I hate having to heavily rely on team mates to win, i prefer to be able to take control of any part of the game and not have to wait for me to do something about destroying the opposition. I prefer games like football/football, basketball, rugby, combat sports and so on. I dont mind getting a cricket bat and some balls and just taking it in turns to bowl and hit the ball. but the full game of cricket is not my cup of alize.

peace.

peace.

Actually in cricket one player can dominate a game. In baseball they can't, the best they can do is get a homerun and then sit down to wait their turn, but in cricket a batsmen can come out and just smash the ball for boundaries all day and destroy the opposition singlehandedly.
Especially if the other team batted first and got some humble score as a team, one man can then come out and beat their whole team by himself. It happens all the time.

I agree basketball is good, I don't think I would want to play real organised games of cricket (and I do play real basketball), but backyard bbq cricket is great, and it's good to watch real international games (if you really know what's going on and have some interest in who wins and it's possible your country might win- otherwise forget it).

I don't get hit in the head btw, I'm too good, I might get hit in the toes every now and then, or the shins, but last time I checked I didn't have a vagina between my ass cheeks, so whatever.

Yeah when it's your turn to bat it's good but fielding and waiting need to be eradicated.


pece.

Actually thankyou string. You reminded me that i needed to get around to joining a new team so i did:)
just had my bat re-gripped (for the 5th time, i love that bat:D) and oiled it and training is tonight:)

I dislike both sports. Baseball more than cricket.

I used to play cricket, and if I wasn't bowling or stumping I was bored out of my brains so I called it quits.

I used to watch baseball sometimes on NASN, but quickly got bored of it.

God, i forgot how exusting cricket can be even if your only batting in the nets

I watch the World Series every year or two, but in all honestly, both baseball and cricket are painfully boring to watch. In fact, they make the event of watching paint dry seem quite enjoyable. In baseball, it angers me incredibly to see the batter scratch tirelessly at his crab-infested nutsack, unstrap and restrap his gloves, spit three mouthfuls of tar, and practice swing his bat thirty-six times, in between every single pitch. The worse part? The batter hits a foul ball after all of this time-wasting nonsense. Drives me nuts. Cricket is simply awful because it takes days for the game to complete, which is truly inexcusable. In addition, the rules for cricket are relatively difficult to grasp, and the setup is impractical for those who aren't playing for a professional team or league.

In terms of actually playing the sport, baseball wins, hands down. I actually enjoy playing baseball, although I've inexplicably become a pussy as of late, in the sense that I fear pitching. That's what a few Youtube videos showing line-drives will do to you.


Kadark

kad,baseballers don't chew tobacco anymore, as its illegal. They chew gum now, far more hygienic.

Yuh, Baseball does rule and once you know the rules to cricket it can be interesting too. Australian baseballers are actually helping the national cricket team stay world champions, through their fielding skills, using baseball gloves in practice. Both sports are OK, when you play or know the rules, 'cept in baseball you get a few more chances if you fuck it up with the bat the first time. :)

umm i think you have that backwards CarpetDiem

cricketers make decent baseballers because they drive the baseball and have alot more control over the bat

Baseballers always end up skying the ball trying to hit it cross bat and are a waste of a player.

There is no point using baseball gloves because they dont teach you how to catch a ball at all (infact if you removed the glove and watch where it goes it would fly straight between the thumb and first finger)

I watch the World Series every year or two, but in all honestly, both baseball and cricket are painfully boring to watch. In fact, they make the event of watching paint dry seem quite enjoyable. In baseball, it angers me incredibly to see the batter scratch tirelessly at his crab-infested nutsack, unstrap and restrap his gloves, spit three mouthfuls of tar, and practice swing his bat thirty-six times, in between every single pitch. The worse part? The batter hits a foul ball after all of this time-wasting nonsense. Drives me nuts. Cricket is simply awful because it takes days for the game to complete, which is truly inexcusable. In addition, the rules for cricket are relatively difficult to grasp, and the setup is impractical for those who aren't playing for a professional team or league.

In terms of actually playing the sport, baseball wins, hands down. I actually enjoy playing baseball, although I've inexplicably become a pussy as of late, in the sense that I fear pitching. That's what a few Youtube videos showing line-drives will do to you.


Kadark


umm i think you have that backwards CarpetDiem

cricketers make decent baseballers because they drive the baseball and have alot more control over the bat

Baseballers always end up skying the ball trying to hit it cross bat and are a waste of a player.

There is no point using baseball gloves because they dont teach you how to catch a ball at all (infact if you removed the glove and watch where it goes it would fly straight between the thumb and first finger)

Umm...no actually, when Dave Nielson teaches the cricketerz its not about catchin the ball, its about throwing, as most cricketers loop the ball, whereas with baseball you learn to throw flat, hence Andrew Symonds and co learning to use the upper torso instaed of the arm to throw from the boundary. Check out an aussie fielding sesh and you'll see the baseball gloves come out in droves.

Take your point about the batting though. It benefits the cricketers more than us whackers.:D

Had this discussion before, and a guy (spud emperor) went into some detail about where the cool stuff was in cricket - the interesting thing for me was that the interest in cricket seems to be in exactly the stuff that is ruled out of baseball, and I think vice versa (judging from comments). It's like they were shadow games of each other, with fundamentally different approaches concealed beneath a superficial similarity.

Raised American, I require a sport to have a serious component of fear in it, and calculated gambling in an arena of uncertainty. Hence football over rugby, baseball over cricket.

Had this discussion before, and a guy (spud emperor) went into some detail about where the cool stuff was in cricket - the interesting thing for me was that the interest in cricket seems to be in exactly the stuff that is ruled out of baseball, and I think vice versa (judging from comments). It's like they were shadow games of each other, with fundamentally different approaches concealed beneath a superficial similarity.

Raised American, I require a sport to have a serious component of fear in it, and calculated gambling in an arena of uncertainty. Hence football over rugby, baseball over cricket.

Watching Americal football is I get it, like watching human chess; good, but just not speed chess. Take the protective cladding orf these guys and that would be real fear and a whole lot more interesting, whereass rugby or Australian Rules football is fear. Maybe you get better margins on football, don't know. baseball allows for atonement.

Had this discussion before, and a guy (spud emperor) went into some detail about where the cool stuff was in cricket - the interesting thing for me was that the interest in cricket seems to be in exactly the stuff that is ruled out of baseball, and I think vice versa (judging from comments). It's like they were shadow games of each other, with fundamentally different approaches concealed beneath a superficial similarity.

Raised American, I require a sport to have a serious component of fear in it, and calculated gambling in an arena of uncertainty. Hence football over rugby, baseball over cricket.


How on earth did you miss the detailed exlpanation of the fear factor in cricket (getting your gonads vitamised, having your head knocked off, having the rocklike ball searing up at your throat from an unpredictably bouncing pitch{the turf})?

I'm not going to wax any further. I know what I know.
Both great sports. Cricket far and away the most intriguing and complex ever invented.

Australia vs. India in a weeks time in India.
Some very interesting recent history to be revisited...Turban warfare!

Cricket is shit scary.

One match I played, I ended up batting at the same time as my brother.
On the first ball of the over against a new bowler, he bounced it and broke my finger, we ran for one. On the next ball, he bounced it into my brothers chest and left him on the floor for 10 minutes, after running another single, you can imagine there was quite a lot of fear when I faced him again.

Yeah, get hit in baseball ( that's not fair..off you go, have a free base, we might see you later on.)
Cop a bouncer in the gob from some rampant six foot seven West Indian dynamo( you know, the guys where Usain Bolt comes from with explosive power to burn) and you've got about 30 seconds before he's at you again..and again and again..as long as you can survive.

Put on a bandaid, face up to the next ball.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=i-NNkbFS6FE&feature=related[/QUOTE]

Cricket is the game of the Gods.
It is the greatest sport known to man, except, possibly, boxing.
But Gods do not box.

I might like baseball if I ever saw it.
I probably would, but it's never on UK Television.

I like the way that baseball supporters never forget old heroes.
In that sense it is similar to cricket.

Take the protective cladding orf these guys and that would be real fear and a whole lot more interesting, whereass rugby or Australian Rules football is fear. You don't know what you are talking about.

The pads in football are not primarily protection from being hit, they are protection for the hitting surface - like boxing gloves, they allow harder hits. (If you notice, the football positions that do the least hitting and take the most hits, like quarterback, have lighter pads).

There is a small movement in the US to reduce the padding in lower levels of the sport, to reduce the rate of injury. The theory is that if the pads were reduced to, say, rugby levels, the level of violence would be reduced to rugby levels as well, and fewer serious injuries would result. This movement is resisted by Americans who regard a high level of violence and injury as intrinsic features of the sport.

Yeah, get hit in baseball ( that's not fair..off you go, have a free base, we might see you later on.) Again, the reason is practical. If there were no penalty for hitting a batter, a baseball pitcher could (and some would) take any given player out of the game and maybe put him in the hospital. Several famous players, and innumerable unknowns, have had their careers ended through being hit by a pitch or a batted ball - even in the helmet era. It's not a matter of sucking it up and getting back in the box - it's a matter of if you can grip the bat, walk normally, or wake up and not be seeing double the next morning. A pitch that's bounced through the box, like a cricket bowl, is no big deal - laugh at that.

What you describe as creating fear is more or less routine for catchers in every game of baseball - and they are on the same team.

The point is not to outmacho the competition - headhunting by pitchers is bad for the game, and is outlawed by rule. The catcher is padded as much as possible. A pitcher can, at the plate umpire's discretion, be ejected from the game for hitting a batter. Other matters that add to the game of cricket are thought to detract from the game of baseball - such as bouncing the pitch, batting the ball backwards or sideways, etc - and are likewise discouraged by rule. It's really kind of interesting - the more cricket is delved into and explained to me, the more different it appears from baseball.

so?
thats EXACTLY what a cricket player does
bouncer to the head, one to the rib cage, one right on his toes and then on to the stumps. By this time the batsman needs to have REAL spine to actually not bolt

I have suffered the only two broken bones i have ever had (big toe and middle finger) playing cricket. Friend yorked me at training and took out my toe and i was keeping to our operning bowler and got one wrong on the gloves and it smashed my middle finger first over of the day. I will point out i kept all that day and being a one day game, then went out and batted. scored 50 too

You right about the padding in football though, there was a debate about how much padding should be alowed in AFL and it was decided that the only safe level was foam helmets because they cant injure anyone else. The gloves are just to increase the grip on the football

Again, the reason is practical. If there were no penalty for hitting a batter, a baseball pitcher could (and some would) take any given player out of the game and maybe put him in the hospital. Several famous players, and innumerable unknowns, have had their careers ended through being hit by a pitch or a batted ball - even in the helmet era. It's not a matter of sucking it up and getting back in the box - it's a matter of if you can grip the bat, walk normally, or wake up and not be seeing double the next morning. A pitch that's bounced through the box, like a cricket bowl, is no big deal - laugh at that.

What you describe as creating fear is more or less routine for catchers in every game of baseball - and they are on the same team.

The point is not to outmacho the competition - headhunting by pitchers is bad for the game, and is outlawed by rule. The catcher is padded as much as possible. A pitcher can, at the plate umpire's discretion, be ejected from the game for hitting a batter. Other matters that add to the game of cricket are thought to detract from the game of baseball - such as bouncing the pitch, batting the ball backwards or sideways, etc - and are likewise discouraged by rule. It's really kind of interesting - the more cricket is delved into and explained to me, the more different it appears from baseball.


Iceaura, you're missing the point of bouncing the ball in cricket.
When you say a bounced pitch in baseball is considered bad, well derr! It's a spastic pitch and would be downright embarrassing. The softer ball ( a baseball is a marshmallow compared to a cricket ball, fact, and the ground is not prepared to bounce a ball off) would dolly through and should be smacked over the fence.
A cricket pitch( the wicket, the rolled piece of turf to bowl into and bat on) is designed to withstand five days of arduous wear and tear and is like concrete( with ever widening cracks appearing) a fast rising, deviating delivery can hit you before you see it move.
Honestly! there's a concept you need to get your head around here, the movement of the ball off the pitch can be completely unpredictable and herein lies THE major difference between the two sports.
When you liken the concept of a baseball pitch ( throw) which bounces before reaching the batter as laughable and insinuate that therefore every bouncing cricket delivery is a joke, you miss a big point.
A non-bouncing delivery in cricket is the joke because the batsman has a full 0.4 seconds to get a sight on it and should, by rights, whack the thing over the fence. A bouncing delivery gives the batsman less than half this time to adjust his footwork ( I'll say it again..adjust his footwork). Yes, you see the cricketing batsman does not stand in his comfortable hitting stance waiting for the ball to be delivered in HIS hitting zone, no, no, no. He has to sum up the line, the length, the swing, bounce in 0.2 seconds, adjust his stance and decide whether to defend, attack, duck or laugh and then in the next 0.2 seconds perform any one of the myriad options.

If by chance, he's an opening batsman who faces the fresh bowler with the new( very hard, very shiny) ball on the fresh pitch( a bit green and therefore unpredictable in bounce) he will most likely get hit at least a few times and will bat on sporting bruised knuckles, ribs etc. like nothing ever happened.
It is a tough sport.

Spud, as i think i said i havent played for 10 years so i dont really know how i played before (i know i didnt keep dropping my bottom hand like i have been tonight:mad:) but i found that if you relax your body and watch the line from the arm it gives you more time to move. Of course a concret pitch is more pradictable and i dont really worry to much about taking one to the head:p

You do get more time from the spinners, but less pradictability which is why its better to dance when you can

I pulled a thigh mussle moving to a ball which is now aching like hell. NEVER start playing sport after 10 years away from the game. Its killing me

Asguard, I've just taken up comp. squash again.
I've played for nearly thirty years but injuries have always got in my way ( from other sports)so it's my first in seven years.
Don't ask me how but I nearly broke my big toe on my second night. First game of a tough five setter.
It takes me four days for my sorry arse to recover.

Iceaura, you're missing the point of bouncing the ball in cricket.
When you say a bounced pitch in baseball is considered bad, well derr! It's a spastic pitch and would be downright embarrassing. The softer ball ( a baseball is a marshmallow compared to a cricket ball, fact, and the ground is not prepared to bounce a ball off) would dolly through and should be smacked over the fence.
A cricket pitch( the wicket, the rolled piece of turf to bowl into and bat on) is designed to withstand five days of arduous wear and tear and is like concrete( with ever widening cracks appearing) a fast rising, deviating delivery can hit you before you see it move.
Honestly! there's a concept you need to get your head around here, the movement of the ball off the pitch can be completely unpredictable and herein lies THE major difference between the two sports.
When you liken the concept of a baseball pitch ( throw) which bounces before reaching the batter as laughable and insinuate that therefore every bouncing cricket delivery is a joke, you miss a big point.
A non-bouncing delivery in cricket is the joke because the batsman has a full 0.4 seconds to get a sight on it and should, by rights, whack the thing over the fence. A bouncing delivery gives the batsman less than half this time to adjust his footwork ( I'll say it again..adjust his footwork). Yes, you see the cricketing batsman does not stand in his comfortable hitting stance waiting for the ball to be delivered in HIS hitting zone, no, no, no. He has to sum up the line, the length, the swing, bounce in 0.2 seconds, adjust his stance and decide whether to defend, attack, duck or laugh and then in the next 0.2 seconds perform any one of the myriad options.

If by chance, he's an opening batsman who faces the fresh bowler with the new( very hard, very shiny) ball on the fresh pitch( a bit green and therefore unpredictable in bounce) he will most likely get hit at least a few times and will bat on sporting bruised knuckles, ribs etc. like nothing ever happened.
It is a tough sport.

More talk about cricket please Spud.

If anyone wants to explain what they love about baseball, go ahead.
It looks like a good game from the little I've seen of it.

I once dared to face the bowling machine that was set up for 110 mph (max speed).
I knew exactly where the ball was going to go, but I was still shitting my pants as soon as I saw the coach load the ball.

[QUOTE=iceaura;2036866]You don't know what you are talking about.

The pads in football are not primarily protection from being hit, they are protection for the hitting surface - like boxing gloves, they allow harder hits. (If you notice, the football positions that do the least hitting and take the most hits, like quarterback, have lighter pads).

Spud, take the pads off, that's my challenge if its really is about fear, which it isn't. Its just psyching out your opponent. Old cricketers talking about war wounds and 6 foot seven jamaicans bowling thunderbolts in district grade makes me LOL. In baseball they chuck, some pitchers have guidance, others dont. I play and if you get hit, it hurts. Yes, cricket can be unforgiving, but then if you're facing a jamaican, you're normally 5-10 metres behind the stumps, not two feet as in baseball. Having ssaid that both sports rock. I'd like to see Amercian football players versus Rugby players to really see fear. :D

Iceaura, you're missing the point of bouncing the ball in cricket. No I'm not, I'm remarking on the significance of the differences in the two games.

A great deal of the attraction of cricket seems to be based on aspects of the game specifically and intentionally ruled out - eliminated or punished by design - in baseball, and vice versa.

Deterioration (even modification!) of the ball, changes in the field over time, deliberately bouncing the ball, routinely attempting to hit the batter, etc etc - not just absent, but avoided, forbidden, punished, in baseball.

Example: You've a rule in cricket that a ball must be used for at least eighty overs, each over involving hard contact with the ground and probably the bat. The ball and the pitch are both expected to change and be changed, very noticeably and in ways that affect the play of the game, in that time. That would be regarded as damaging the game, in baseball.

Example: physical contact between players on opposite teams are a normal part of baseball- takeout slides are seen in most games, attempts to score on close plays at the plate are common.

There's a fundamental difference in approach, in what is regarded as "good" in the game.


The softer ball ( a baseball is a marshmallow compared to a cricket ball, fact, and the ground is not prepared to bounce a ball off) would dolly through and should be smacked over the fence. "Marshmallow" is an exaggeration, especially if you notice that a baseball is not kept in play after being softened up a bit. And no one is likely to smack a fifty nine footer over the fence - swinging at pitches in the dirt is poor judgment, and usually earns a quick exit, in baseball.

Meanwhile, that marshmallow is not just painful. You linked video showing a guy getting hit square on the cheekbone by a fast bowl - if that were to happen with a major league fastball, he'd probably need reconstructive surgery to keep his eye.

Meanwhile, that marshmallow is not just painful. You linked video showing a guy getting hit square on the cheekbone by a fast bowl - if that were to happen with a major league fastball, he'd probably need reconstructive surgery to keep his eye.

Why? Because it's a smaller, lighter, softer ball going at around the same speed?

Yeah iceaura I was exaggerating about the marshmallow bit, I was more referencing that to it bouncing where it would certainly spoon up like a blancmange off the unprepared ground.
I do think you are coming around to the fact that cricket does indeed have many complexities and is a fascinating sport( I've never doubted this of baseball).
I was thinking about cricket's excitement level and it can be huge, especially at the tight conclusion of a long match but generally the interest level is more like an intriguing novel with twists, turns and surprise endings.
Cricket has strange ability to change its context in a whisker and has the greatest propensity of any sport I know for the potential outcome to appear headed in only one direction yet end up the reverse. Things are not always what they seem and seemingly impregnable positions of dominance can be reversed, it may take four days for that eventuate or it might happen like a house of cards tumbling.
For anyone who's interested, Australia and India are in the first day of their test series (4 tests, five days each), Aussies are off to a very solid start, Ponting overcoming his Indian Hoodoo with a fine century.
Two of the world's best teams on India's home turf. Should be a great series.

hey spud, did ponting end up getting out and if so how much for?
last i herd yesterday he was 101

if that were to happen with a major league fastball, he'd probably need reconstructive surgery to keep his eye.
”
Why? Because it's a smaller, lighter, softer ball going at around the same speed? Because it would smash in his cheekbone and damage the eyesocket.

Cricket has strange ability to change its context in a whisker and has the greatest propensity of any sport I know for the potential outcome to appear headed in only one direction yet end up the reverse. Yet more evidence that the very aspects of cricket that are attractions to its serious fans are undesirable and discouraged in baseball. Does this strike anyone else as strangely as it strikes me ?

Some dude made a new record in the most boring game ever:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/cricket/7675435.stm

oh its back on is it, he was 47 runs off it at the end of the last test

There has never been, in the entire history of cricket, a boring match.

So I'm pondering this suddenly apparent gulf where there appeared to be a close resemblance - cricket/baseball - and another aspect is highlighted:

The second game of the ALCS, the one Tampa took in 11 innings after more than five hours, was dominated by the small strike zone of the plate umpire. One very experienced observer (Tom Kelly, former Minnesota Twins coach known for acumen) said that it looked like the ump started off with too small a zone, and then was trapped by it as the game extended - consistency being the most important ump virtue - so that when Boston's Mike Timlin took the mound in the sixth hour (a control pitcher, reliant on nicking the extreme corners of the strike zone) the denouement seemed inevitable - he walked the first two batters, and got his pitching coach ejected for berating the ump over balls and strikes, before giving up the winning run on a sac fly.

The plate ump is probably the most important man on the field, in an ordinary game of baseball.

And why is the ump so important? Possibility: because there is no honor in baseball - voluntary fair play was not designed in, nor is it expected.

We have terms such as kosher, standard, upright, Christian, reasonable, above board, and so forth; these are words borrowed from specific contexts and generalized to mean ethical behavior, respect for fair play, an unwillingness to win at any cost to the game itself or the larger arena.

Among those terms is "cricket", derived from the game as she is played.

We have terms like underhanded, sharp, roughshod, gouge, suckerpunch, ambush, blindside, put the screws to, and so forth.

Among these terms is "hardball", derived from the game as she is played.