Wednesday, January 21, 2009

A matter of opinion

This is an opinion poll I found asking which is better: Baseball or Cricket.

Granted, its a small sample size, but there are some interesting comments, ideas, perceptions, and prejudices that come out.

The most interesting is the idea that cricketers are skilled, athletic, professional athletes at the top of their game, while baseball players just play some silly game that requires no skill and athleticism.

A couple of comments try really hard to prove how much more difficult cricket is than baseball while admitting that they know nothing about baseball at all. Seems to me they want to study up a little before making assumptions they can't back up, particularly this comment here:

And of course a cricket bowler vs a baseball team is going to win at Baseball... just like a baseball team would lose to a cricket team at cricket. What pointless arguments.
He calls it a pointless argument, but can't give any evidence to support it.

Side note for those who don't know anything about cricket. The bowler (pitcher) gets a running start. Can you imagine any hitter standing in and facing Nolan Ryan or Randy Johnson if they could get a running start at the plate?

Anyhow, I've come to the following conclusion:

1) Baseball fans who have never played cricket: - don't really have any issues with cricket as most have never seen it player and could care less. They also don't make a lot of negative comments about cricket or the nationalities of those who play.

2) People who are fans of both sports: - seem to be able to look objectively at each individually and enjoy them for themselves, without being rude or condescending to the other.

3) Cricket fans who have never played baseball: - somewhat arrogant people who take every opportunity to put down baseball, and more so Americans, without being able to back up any point they make. This says a lot more about the people who watch cricket than it does about the game itself.

I've watched cricket for years, and except for the fact that it goes on forever, mainly due to the interminable time between pitches, I don't really have any issues with it. I'm not sure why cricket fans seem to be so anti-baseball.

I don't know what the demographics for the response were, but baseball did come out ahead. As is only right and natural.

And can you imagine any big league hitter getting to use a flat, cricket bat to hit? Forget about steroids, what would that do to the record book?


tHeMARksMiTh said...

I played and watched while I was over there. Bowling is nothing like pitching except for hurling a sphere at a small object, which is like basketball. Hitting is nothing like batting except that you hit a ball with a stick, and considering the cricket stick is flat and most slap the ball on the ground, it's more like putting in golf, except that the ball is moving in cricket. Hitting the cricket ball (I can't remember the name of it) is a whole different strategy. In baseball, you swing, and if you miss, all is well unless it's the third time. In cricket, you have to hit the ball to protect. There are a whole other number of differences.

Baseball does not equal cricket but is not necessarily better (though I believe it is). Ethnocentrism at its best, and this time it's between two world powers that are supposed to agree. What a world.

Ron Rollins said...

That's what I've always maintained. The only smilarities are the bat and the ball, and that's it. Two completely different games that shouldn't be held agaiinst each other.

Just like football and soccer, especially considering football derived from rugby.