Talk:Comparison between cricket and baseball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
Baseball Portal
Comparison between cricket and baseball is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit ° history ° watch ° refresh)

The article does sum up some of the cursory differences though has a quite obvious slant favoring Baseball trying to make it sound more difficult to play and more gentlemanly. Cricket in some perceptions is a more difficult game, and Baseball is an others. For the author of this article to make direct assertions that one is easiar is an oversimplification. Likewise, saying that while Cricket is not truly the 'gentleman's game' due to sledging and then mentioning 'courtesy' in Baseball is immature. In both sports there are examples of good and bad sportsmanship--Andrew Flintoff going over to congratulate Brett Lee for an innngs well played during the Ashes despite Australia loosing the match shows that Cricket also has an answer to the 'courtesy' shown in Baseball.
cricket ball
Cricket Portal
Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability
Comparison between cricket and baseball is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Comparison between cricket and baseball was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: October 13, 2006
  1. September 2004 – October 2006

Contents

[edit] Good article nominee

Doesn't so far satisfy the references criterion. And hence it looks kind of like original research right now. Suggest that someone references the article.

Also suggest that currently it is written from a baseball POV to a neutral POV, and as such is more a description of the rules of baseball rather than a comparison based on known rules. Ansell 22:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Explain. Suggest some examples. Wahkeenah 22:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The policy about original research is "Articles may not contain any previously unpublished arguments, concepts, data, ideas, statements, or theories. Moreover, articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material (such as arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements) that serves to advance a position." I don't see how this is original research according to either of those standards. There are no previously unpublished arguments etc., and I don't see how any position is being advanced. Much of what was taken out might (sic) have qualified, but like it was taken out, eh? I'm open to argument, though (as long as it's not original research, of course). Fr one thing, the article's about as long as the Book of Job now, so it would be easy to miss something.

As for the contention that the article is written from a baseball perspective, what are your sources for that contention? That wasn't intended as a smart-ass remark, but merely as an expression of my frustration with the current rules about sources. Deduction apparently is not permitted under those rules. of course, your contention isn't a deduction but a hypothesis, so maybe my question isn't so smart-ass after all. perhaps the easiest way to deal with this is to specify what a neutral perspective would look like.

However, you're right about the references. I've fallen down on my promise to supply some, which should be fairly easy. So I apologize and will try to find some. John FitzGerald 20:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As an Englishman who is far more familiar with cricket than baseball, this article felt more like a comparison of cricket with baseball, written with target audience of someone familiar with baseball but not cricket. I'm not really sure why this is. Tompw 20:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That certainly wasn't my intention in my contributions, or in the big slashing I did last week. I like both games and think the fans of each would benefit from knowing more about the other. The comments here suggest that the other contributors feel the same way. I suspect fans of each sport may feel the perspective is off simply because the of tgheir unfamiliarity with the other sport. John FitzGerald 20:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that the contributions were bad, or that your intentions were in any way wrong. An example of why I put my first statement up is that the intro has no information about the history of cricket, while it has a large section on the history of baseball, which may be suited better to another article.
Another example, and this may be nitpicking, but no Commonwealth country that I know of measures fields in feet... I know this is a hotly contested thing but it, IMO, portrays the article as coming from a US-centric viewpoint.
It also uses the term Major League Baseball, where baseball is infact played in a few countries at a moderate level of professionalism, such as Japan and Cuba.
In general though it is more of a feel on the article. Interestingly the "beamer" linked to from the following sentence is actually the cricket beamer, which has a slightly different meaning. "An equivalent ball to striking the batter in baseball would be a beamer, where the ball hits the batman's upper body area without bouncing first."
Also, I realise that "offensive" and "defensive" terminology is intended to be neutral, however, it comes across with connotations that in either sport one is attacking a goal, or defending a goal, which is not necessarily the case. I consider a fielding team in cricket to be in an attacking position if they are dominating the batsman, for instance, when there are 9 fielders inside the circle, which would still be called "defensive" under the current terminology.
For anyone that knows about cricket statistics fanaticism, this statement is totally wrong, "Baseball statistics tend to be compiled and used more extensively[citation needed]." It is possibly equal IMO.
This statement, "Ian Botham is noted as a player who, despite relatively poor averages, was particularly noted as one of England's greatest cricketers for his ability to dominate games[citation needed]." is also in need of reform. The implication of the sentence is that averages reflect a players ability, something which is not easily accepted as a whole in cricketing circles. Using Ian Botham as an example is probably not the best as he is regarded as one of the best all-rounders in the game, and hence he is unlikely to excel to the top of the ranks in either bowling or batting.
I would contend with the following sentence, "It is the sport most readily identified with the United States, by Americans and non-Americans alike[citation needed]." on the basis that it is kind of weasely and is also likely to be incorrect given the fame that "American Football" has.
In response to the following statement "It is regarded by many people as the most English of sports [citation needed]." I would regard tennis to be just as English as game as cricket, but that is my $0.02, and possibly not totally correct.
"Test's and ODIs are too long for prime time TV)" is kind of false. An Australian summer consists of watching a continous (almost) stream of cricket, puctuated only by news and current affairs programs... :) Almost anyway, but the overall length does not stop it being shown completely over prime time in Australia at least.
The original research, as highlighted by the [citation needed] statements, still remains past all of that though, so references are a must for it to become a GA. Ansell 23:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll throw in my own two pence worth in response:

  • Better balance about the histories could be included. We don't want to get to in-depth as those subjects have their own articles. I think it's important to note that baseball and cricket were once less-dissimilar than they are now, and historical references here and there underscore that observation. The various bat-and-ball games are all cousins, as they all involve the same basic idea: one player delivering a ball to another player who tries to hit the ball with a bat.
  • Listing distances in feet first is appropriate because it's the way the respective fields were laid out. The metric equivalents can be added parenthetically, but it was the old inches-feet-yards-etc. systems that were used to define these distances, and the metric equivalents are merely informational. 90 feet and 60 feet-6 inches were decided as the optimal "fundamental" distances for baseball, and 66 feet for cricket. 66 feet also happens to be 4 rods, or a "chain" (specifically a Gunter's chain or surveyor's chain, which I suspect is not a coincidence.
  • Major League Baseball is the highest professional level in the world, at least in terms of paychecks, and because baseball is originally an American game, it makes sense to use the American version of the game as a starting point. However, anyone who knows about nuances to the game that vary in other countries, and which also make sense in contrasting baseball and cricket, is invited to weigh in here.
  • I don't understand your point about the "beamer" vs. the "beanball". Both types of deliveries are dangerously close to the head, whether they bounce first or not, and are similarly frowned upon by the umpires.
  • LET ME HELP YOU OUT- IN CRICKET ANYTHING COMING TOWARDS THE BODY IF ITS BOUNCING BEFORE IT COMES AT THE HEAD, ITS CONSIDERED GOOD, POOR BATSMAN USUALLY END UP WEARING A 95 MPH BALL ON THE BODY, BUT HOWEVER IF THE BALL DOESN'T BOUNCE BEFORE IT REACHES THE BATSMAN AND ITS ABOVE THE BATSMAN'S WAIST THEN ITS A BEAMER IN CRICKET. BUT IF IT BOUNCES THEN ITS NOT A PROBLEM, AND ARE NOT FROWNED UPON BY THE UMPIRES. ALL THE UMPIRE WOULD SAY IS TO THE BATSMAN IS "THE BALL IS NORMAL SIZE MATE, U SHOULD HAVE GOTTON OUT OF THE WAY" sorry about the caps, goodday
  • The terms "offensive" and "defensive", put in quotes because cricket apparently does not use those terms, are convenient shorthand for "the team trying to score" or "the team at bat" vs. "the team trying to prevent scoring" or "the team in the field". If you prefer "batting team" and "fielding team" to "offense" and "defense" where used, they could be worked in as needed. It is also worth pointing out that in both sports the team-at-bat is "defending" something, which is the way you're using the term. In cricket, the batsman is defending the wicket. In baseball, the batter is defending the strike zone. Baseball announcers will talk about a batter "defending". You mentioned the term "attacking", which I agree is more suitable for "goal" games such as basketball, hockey and all forms of football. Baseball announcers will also sometimes use "attacking" in reference to both pitcher and batter. But "defending" and "attacking" in bat-and-ball games are simply actions. The baseball rules define the "offensive" is the team trying to score, and the "defensive" as the team trying to prevent scoring, at a given time. To keep it neutral and understandable, "batting team" and "fielding team" might be better.
  • The notion that baseball is any more possessed of "figger filberts" than cricket is, is way off the mark and should be revised to say that, in fact, both sports are highly numbers-oriented; it's one of the features they have in common.
  • I don't know why a specific player would be singled out. I think the article does mention varying skill levels of different players. It's like asking why a home run hitter doesn't bunt more, or why a singles hitter doesn't hit home runs, or why a gold-glove fielder is kept around just because he doesn't hit well. They all have their places. The cricket term all-rounder is pretty close to American terminology. We have another term, also, for the best players: Hall of Famer!
  • Baseball is an American game that has found adherents around the world. Cricket is a British game that has found adherents around the world. I would say that each game is still significantly identified with its country of origin. However, the converse is not necessarily true, and that's where the writer got tripped up (if it was me, my face is as red as a cricket ball). Basketball is verifiably totally American, with no murky, uncertain past, and could be just as likely to be indentified as the "primary" American sport as anything, if one were to take a poll around the world. Certainly American football is inherently American. Soccer and Rugby are just as British as cricket is, methinks. To say that a sport is identified with a country of origin is fair. To say that a country is identified with a particular sport is really getting into the dreaded POV area. Wahkeenah 23:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure history belongs here, anyway, or the information about popularity around the world. They don't help people understand the games. An article like Comparison of Canadian and American football adduces minimal history and little about popularity. I too have been bothered by the section about statistics and have modified it a couple of times. It seemed at first to be some cricket POV advocating the introduction of baseball-type statistics into cricket. As for Ian Botham, I leave it to the cricketers to decide the appropriateness of that. Another term for all-rounder is (no hilarity please) five-tool player. I added most if not all of the citation flags, so share the concern about them. Apart from that I thnk pretty well as Wahkeenah does, except I don't think American football is inherently American (it's an offshoot of Rugby Union). Anyway, your two posts are a pretty good guide to what needs to be done with the article. I vote for taking out the statistics section for a start. Even if it's valid it doesn't help people understand the two games. I would like to see more taken out of the article, so I'll be back with further suggestions based on both your comments. John FitzGerald 02:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

And basketball is verifiably not totally American. it was invented by a Canadian. John FitzGerald 02:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Any version of football in which the ball is carried is pretty much an offshoot of Rugby. But the American game is not Rugby, any more than baseball is rounders. I didn't say basketball was invented by an American. It was invented at an American college and became an American game. Of course, Americans often import Canadians, for a variety of good uses. :) Wahkeenah 02:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify... there is no question that American football came from Rugby. But they are not the same, any more than French and Latin are the same. :) Wahkeenah 23:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wahkeenah, Re:offense/defense. It's not that these terms are not used in Cricket (though I would say they are uncommon), but that the bowling/fielding team is always refered to as the "attack", so any shorthand suggesting otherwise is going to be misleading. Therefore I would agree with your proposed changes. Incidently I think "British" sports use the offense/defense split less than "American" ones, where presumably the term has come from American football to be borrowed by other sports. User:Shane1 23:03 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • It might be interesting to discuss "attack" in cricket vs. "defense" in baseball. However, in general, it does seem best to say "batting team" and "fielding team", because then there is absolutely neither ambiguity nor bias in the presentation. Wahkeenah 23:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I made some changes. Comment, please. Wahkeenah 23:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I did some rewording of the intro. The history portion maybe needs its own section as it might be too much detail up front. But read the brief description of "two old cat", a form of "baseball" involving two bases and two batters. Sound familiar? It's the "missing link" (not very missing, actually) but I don't want to editorialize about that in the article, as the reader can draw its own conclusions. Wahkeenah 00:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Cricket#History shows that Cricket clearly predates the "two old cat" game, although no dates are given for "two old cat". The History part does deserve a section as the comparative development of both sports is within a similar timespan (ie, 1600's-1700's -> current). Therefore, stating that they are both part of a family, which supposedly cricket developed out of, instead of that it was a founder of the family, is debatable. The references in the Cricket#History section give dates that clearly predate the baseball history dates. Will have to check out conclusive datings on the other games, but currently the Intro does not do justice to the history of cricket.
  • The changes from offensive/defensive to more objective terms are good, it is a POV thing as to whether batting or fielding in cricket are either offensive or defensive. One could say that the batting team are being offensive as their purpose in some cases is to score many runs, where in other cases the batting team in cricket is just out there to use up time, which is clearly a defensive strategy. It would be original research to put these comments in unless you can source them from somewhere though.
  • I agree that the lengths used in cricket were developed under the Imperial system, however, translating the lengths to the metric in parentheses would be reasonable to reduce the US POV in that area.
  • It is probably always going to be POV to say which sports are identified "solely" with any country. Cricket clearly developed in Britain, however, current identification in terms of number of people or even per capita fan base would likely be India, which however, is editorialising.
  • (From Far Above) My OR comment at first may better have been taken as an unverified statement. I used OR, in close relation to my comment about references, so you cannot take it out of that context. Ansell 02:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • See History of cricket to 1696 for an explanation of the early development of cricket. Ansell 02:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, more followup:

  • It is not possible to say for sure that any of the other games evolved from cricket, because records were not kept of such "frivolous" matters when there were more important things to do, like running an empire. It is fair to say that all these games (a number of which are derived directly from baseball) derived from the idea of someone throwing something and someone hitting it. That's obvious, and is about all you can really say with certainty about the relationships between these games. I suspect cricket was embraced by the literate sooner than the other games were, which is why it has a longer and fuller recorded history. "Two Old Cat" is clearly a primitive cricket-like game, and may have been to cricket what stickball is to baseball, i.e. just a bunch of kids playing a game that resembled cricket.
  • It's not just that the dimensions were developed under the English/American measurement system, it's also important to understanding why those distances were chosen, at least in some general sense. Obviously, the bowling distance wasn't chosen to be 20-something meters, it was chosen to be precisely 66 feet, which just happens to equate to 20-something meters.
  • I don't think it's important to dwell too much on "the" country a sport is identified with except in terms of its history. Baseball as we know it is an American sport, still America-centric, but embraced by certain countries, specifically in Asia and Latin America. Meanwhile, many countries in the Commonwealth have embraced cricket, and I assume this mass interest is what led to the concept of the one-day match. Cricket was originally a game of people who were wealthy enough to be able to take 5 days off to play a game. Organized baseball also sort-of started out this way, as a form of exercise for urban businessmen. It didn't evolve in rural areas like Cooperstown, it evolved by these city-based businessmen organizing the games in New York and Boston... and many of those guys played cricket, also. Wahkeenah 03:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In terms of Two Old Cat, I would say that unless there is actually reason to believe that there may be a link, ie, there was some interaction with the Americas before 1500 which led to the English starting up the game, then I do not think you can validly call it a predecessor, even if it can be identified to be in its actions, a primitive "stick and ball" game.
  • About the distances, what you say about its historical meaning may be correct, however, you do not put up a convincing argument for why the common meterage should not be there in current terms for non-US readers. The fact that Shakespeare wrote in olde english does not mean we should only use that language to describe his works. In short, the measurements would not hurt, and would definitely improve, the ease with which people read that part of the article. Ansell 05:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Someone who is good with metrics should definitely go in and add the metric equivalents for those not so familiar with feet and inches. I would list the original measurements as primary and the metrics in parentheses, to cover all bases (ha!). It's kind of like the fact that a meter is now defined in terms of some obscure spectral wavelength, but its real origin is from dividing the northern half of the prime meridian into 10 million equal parts that just happen to work out to be a little longer than a yard long.
  • I do not argue that two-old-cat is a predecessor of cricket, only that they bear some resemblance, some commonality, in versions which feature two bases and two batters, which is more like cricket than like baseball in that way. Wahkeenah 06:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I will get into adding the metre equivalents sometime if noone beats me to it. I think it is roughly 20 or 22 metres in length, but I would have to check on the square metre areas of the MCG and such.
  • I added some distances in metrics (using .3048 as the conversion) but left the square footage alone, as that is getting a bit out of my "league". I also resisted the impulse (so far) to point out that 66 feet is also a chain or 1/10th of a furlong or 1/80th of a mile. Wahkeenah 06:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, the MCG has a baseball heritage "The first baseball game recorded being played at the MCG was in October 1885, by a team from the USS Enterprise, against an MCC chosen team (and the MCG also recorded the largest crowd ever at a baseball game (over 100,000) for an exhibition match during the 1956 Olympics)." Ansell
  • Baseball embraced by Aussies? I knew they were intelligent chaps. d:) Wahkeenah 06:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
what is the problem with using imperial units, i do not believe this to be US centric since people in the UK we have the best of both worlds feeling equally comfortable using both imperial and metric, switching between two without thinking, something like "the tree was 80 feet high and about a metre wide at the bottom" would not seem stupid. since cricket is the most english of sports i believe that it should be kept in imperial.
English cricket's dead, mate. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/DeathofEnglishCricket.jpg Well, ok... give us a couple of weeks to restore the natural order. Keep up the effort, baseball and cricket fanatics alike, potentially a very, very good article. MrAngy 08:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

though metric for those unfamiliar with imperial should probably be put in brakets Pratj 15:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics section/metric system

Ansell's last modification of the statistics section is highly appropriate, but I still wonder about the value of the section. Is it all that helpful to know that the statistics used in both sports are questioned? There are those fact tags to be dealt with, too.

As for metric measures, I agree that it's reasonable to put them in parentheses following the Imperial measures, since the Imperial measures are the definitive ones. I don't see the use of Imperial only as USPOV, though. If we were following official, legal Canadian practice we'd have the distance between the stumps in metres and the area of the field in square feet, but I don't think using the same system for both is anti-Canadian POV (and I do think many things are). Anyway, it's easily fixed. John FitzGerald 19:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am fine with having the metric system in bracket, per the history of the measurements being in Imperial. I do really see the use of Imperial only, on an article which compares sports played all over the globe, as pretty much a POV confined to a small part of the intended audience, which is why quoting the measurements in the other world measurement system is appropriate.
That said, I do not think we should get hung up on measurements, the issue of referencing the article is the primary concern, so we can remove the {{citation needed}} tags. Ansell 00:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but I still don't see the value of the Statistics section. At bottom it says that people have questioned the value of the statistics in both sports; I don't think that's a helpful comparison.

Turning to the fact tags, one place to start would be the Culture section. I doubt that adequate citations could be found for most of those tags, especially the ones about the cultural roles of the two sports, and I don't see what harm would be done by taking them out. The observations about sportsmanship are an important comparison, but it may not be possible to find a reference which satisfies Wikipedia standards, which apparently so not include obviousness. John FitzGerald 14:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


so we are starting with the culture section? it may be very hard to find citations for these as there is no official statistics (or means of measuring)of the "englishness" of a certain sport. and there is little way of measuring how cricket has affected the Commonwealth. but it will be worth a try.

btw: i made a slight correction (about a week late though) in the talk page in the section above (the NPOV section) to how age affects a cricket ball. (through no fault of your own) you kinda had the wrong idea. Pratj 21:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It might be more easily verifiable as to how the Commonwealth has affected cricket. That's based on my assumption that spreading popular interest is what led to the concept of the one-day match. I could also be totally wrong about that. Wahkeenah 00:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

An idea for how Cricket has affected the Commonwealth could come from how it has been a factor in resolving difficulties between Pakistan and India. There are major news stories which reference the role of cricket in this way. Not sure whether that i what was meant by the above statement though. The englishness of the sport has to at least partially come from the colonisation by england of other countries, something which Baseball has not had to its advantage.
There should be references for the last few paragraphs, admittedly, two sentences could summarise the first two paragraphs quite adequately with some references, which I believe could be found.
The references to Cricket having a "Gentlemans Game" aspect, ie, walking, is quite verifiable. Check out cricinfo.com for statements about Ponting and Gilchrist and their opposing views on the matter for instance. Equally though, it is well documented that the Australian team are the worst "Sledgers" in the game, and I do not know whether there is a Baseball equivalent to that. Do baseball runners participate in sledging with the base people.
About the statistics section. I do value it, as both sports are statistics crazy, and hence at least something should be said comparing the two ways that statistics are used and handled. Having people question the statistics could be there if you can find sources for it, however, that questioning does not change the huge use of statistics in both. In the spirit of NPOV there should be a section with both views. Ansell 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar with the term "Sledger". I'm guessing that is a term for a "roughhouse" player. Yes, we certainly have them in baseball. Sliding hard into second base to try to break up a double-play attempt is standard practice and acceptable, within certain limits. Deliberate interference with fielding, though, is generally against the rules, as is obstruction of runners by the fielders (it's always a judgment call on the part of the umpire). Wahkeenah 00:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have prefaced that. It is not actually related to that, although there are minor instances of physical contact in cricket, the laws of cricket are clear about who is responsible for avoiding who.
Sledging in cricket is the practice of mentally degrading an opponent using words that are not nice. It mostly happens with fielding teams trying to break down the concentration of the batters. Ansell 00:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Aha! That's an established practice in baseball, although probably used to be much worse than it is now. Keep in mind that organized baseball was once the realm of the working class. "Ladies" were kept in a separate section, some distance from the field and the stands, so that the men, on and off the field, could feel free to say anything they felt like... as they often did. There was an infamous incident in 1912 in which the southern-born and hot-tempered superstar Ty Cobb charged into the stands after a New York fan kept yelling that he was "half-African" (to put it politely). Similarly, Babe Ruth was ridden mercilessly by opposing fans and especially by bench jockeys on opposing teams. He had a broad nose and thick lips, features of his German heritage, but some mistook those features for African ancestry, and called him "African-lips" (again using a polite euphemism) among lots of other stuff about his weight, his mother, etc. When he hit his famous "called shot" in 1932 against the Cubs, existing newsreel footage shows that as he rounded the bases he was waving and gesturing (in a G-rated way) toward the Cubs bench, laughing at them after they had ridden him so hard. Infield chatter is also an established part of the game, although it usually consists of bland stuff like "no batter! no batter!" and such as that. The on-field players have to pay attention to business. They let the guys on the bench do the "jockeying". Wahkeenah 01:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It is a different situation in cricket with the bench being out of hearing contact with the players on the field. Although, outfielders in cricket sometimes get either the support, or non-support of the crowd. A famous show of support would be Merv Hughes at the MCG with his stretching exercises, while the equivalent crowd interaction would be with Muttiah Muralitharan (sp?) being abused by the same MCG crowd. It is a shame that sometimes cricketers on the field can't just get on with the job in a professional way. Ansell 01:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
One could say that a consequence of the popularization of cricket is the erosion of the type of crowd and/or players that were once unwelcome. A similar phenomenon happened in tennis. One sport where politeness still seems to be a virtue is golf. If you want to really start something, you could call this degradation of politeness the "soccerisation" or "footballisation" of the sport (please note my polite use of what would be the British spelling of those non-existent words). :) There is still some politeness in American crowds, though. Witness when an opposing ballplayer is seriously injured on the field. Play comes to a dead stop. The player is taken off the field, or maybe walks off, and often gets applause (although, if he's an impact player, maybe they're just glad he's leaving!) Wahkeenah 01:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I would not quite put it that way. The Members Stand for instance still has the same people as it did before, and the general admission sections, for instance the infamous "Bay 13" are still attracting the same people they did in the past. I agree that society standards for public behaviour may have gone down, but its not really appropriate on Wikipedia, unless it can be quoted from somewhere. Ansell 01:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
No, that would be editorializing, and also falling into the "things used to be better" trap. As Will Rogers said, "Things ain't the way they used to be... and never was!" Wahkeenah 01:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

cricket crowds are still remarkably well behaved. u rarely hear booing of the opposition and, look at last years Ashes, even opposition players can turn the others crowd. look at Shane Warne, the english crowds loved him (except for when he was taking wickets). Maybe crowd standards should be placed in the article? Pratj 15:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a wicket?

This may seem like a moronic question to cricket fans. But suppose the reader of this article has never seen even part of a cricket match. Does anyone else think that a "wicket"--and its purpose in the game--should be clearly defined somewhere near the beginning of this article? Similarly, you might want to explain what a base is and whether/how it's analagous to a wicket.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • That opens a can of worms. How far do you go in explaining one or both games in this article, when there are already detailed articles elsewhere that cover those topics? Wahkeenah 16:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree, but I see there's already a section comparing the two playing fields. Perhaps that section should briefly list the different terms for important elements of each field--"diamond," "bases," "pitcher's mound," "infield," "outfield" vs. "pitch," "stumps," "bails" etc. Maybe it's a bad idea, but I was a bit lost during parts of the article, b/c it assumed I already knew what some of the terms referred to.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 19:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • It could work. I'd like to see what the others have to say about it. It's worth pointing out, for example, that the lines in front of each wicket effectively provide a safe haven for the batsmen... until they vacate and run to the other wicket. A cricket expert needs to weigh in here, but that's kind of like a "force" in baseball, i.e. that a base is a safe haven until the batter hits the ball, in which case anyone on first base is forced toward second, etc. Then there's the fact that early forms of baseball used a stump-like stick (or sticks) of wood for a "base"... another way in which the games were once closer than they are now. Wahkeenah 23:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree about the can of worms comment. Also, terms like that should be linked to the appropriate articles, so people unfamiliar with them can follow-up. I notice a severe lack of such links in the first few sections of this article. e.g. terms like catcher, wicket-keeper, etc should be linked. (Don't have time to do it myself right now.) -dmmaus 23:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA failed

The tag of Image:Baseballpositioning-normal.png should be reviewed and the article needs to give its sources. Since sourcing is of the utmost importance in wikipedia, I cannot review this article until such a basic aspect is corrected. Lincher 15:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speeds

I've replaced the section: "Despite this, however, a baseball pitcher is typically able to throw the ball faster than a cricket bowler, since pitchers are allowed to use whatever natural throwing motion suits them, whereas cricketers must bowl with an unnatural motion in which the elbow does not straighten throughout the delivery

While a fast bowler in cricket can bowl over 90 mph, a pitcher throwing a four-seam fastball can sometimes get the ball in the 95-100 mph range", as I think the similarity in the speeds attainable by the very different delivery methods is more remarkable than the small difference, if there is one (the previous version underestimated the speed of the top fast bowlers: who bowl in the 95-100mph range).ReadingOldBoy 09:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not only are the speeds of cricket bowlers underestimated (even if they are in general more like 80-90 mph), the person who wrote that doesn't understand the action of bowling. The arm can straighten, just before the action "begins", however, there is then a limit the the flex after that point. The statement is much too simple to describe the action. Ansell 10:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Your intervention reminds me that my edit had removed any description of the main difference between pitching and bowling. I've tried to add a concise description now. ReadingOldBoy 13:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it is more fair to say that the sport of cricket makes effective bowling at a slower speed possible (specifically how they can use the ground), and thus far more common than slow pitching. Pitching and bowling at speeds above 100 mph is rare but possible. --67.165.6.76 23:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baseball coach on cricket

This is a link to a story by a baseball coach commenting on cricket. Seems like it should fit here. [1]

[edit] needs to be more pros on cricket

this is not a fair article about cricket. theres should be more positve points on cricket. as i read this article i felt this was written by a baseball fan...there should be more positive points about cricket and less opinions about baseball. infact there should not be any opinions or at least the minimal. Thugchildz 02:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The purpose of the article is to explain similarities and differences between the sports, not to "push" one over the other. Wahkeenah 02:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  • exactly then why do i feel its trying to push over cricket? thats why any opinion should not be on the article.
  • Be more specific. Wahkeenah 05:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I can sympathize, since when I first read this article it had clearly been written by cricket fans who didn't know a damn thing about baseball but thought they'd crap all over it, anyway. However, there is an easy solution if you think the article is too negative – change the bugger. John FitzGerald 13:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

My General feeling is that each section seems to say more on Baseball than Cricket, and that the there is little on some aspects of Cricket (strategy spin/swing bowling). Although I realise there is a space constraint and there is probably a lot to Baseball as well that is not in the article. On the whole though it is fairly nonPOV and well writtenShane1 13:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Stevage suggested some formats (at Talk:Comparison_between_cricket_and_baseball/Archive_1#Structure_.26_format) which would help insure against this problem. John FitzGerald 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Bowling speeds are kinda wrong, ok typical pitcher is about 85-91 mph, and a typical bowler being about 82-88 mph, but a "typical bowler" depends on when u look at him, ok lets take Brett Lee for example, he will bowl at about 90-96 mph in his first spell, and then about 88-93 in his second, then about 85-91 in his third, and then about 85-90 in his last spell, i guess the point i am trying to make is that a bowler is always asked to stay prepared to come back and bowl anytime his captian wants him to, but a picther knows that when hes gone hes not coming back to pitch again, so he gives it his all in that little time plus a bowler has to stay on the feild for the whole time, while a pitcher may pitch for 6 or seven innings and go and relax, a bowler may end up bowling for 4 and half days (yes days) + feild + may have to save the game with the bat as well. and this is why a bowler is always regarded slower than a pitcher, a bowler may even be asked to wicketkeep (back catch). Its a tough life being a fast bowler and If you go out there and try to impress people with your speed then you end up resting a sore ankle + sore back + sore knees after every game. Fast bowling is more physically demanding then pitching. I have been a pitcher and a fast bowler so i am not pulling this out of the sky, i have some personell experiance to back it up. But yes pitchers are more accurate then bowlers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.16.22.18 (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC).
Fatter? Have you seen BIG Dwayne lately? :)--Eva bd 19:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
And Shane "Bowler of the Century" Warne ain't exactly svelte.—DCGeist 19:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha ok shane and dwyane, thats 2, if u try ur hardest u may find 10 more players who are fat, thats 12 in total, i doubt i can find 12 players who actully look like pro athletes in the MLB and it shows how much u know about cricket, i was talking about FAST bowling, "Dwayne leverock" and "Shane Warne" aren't fast bowlers. Cheers ;)

[edit] Outs and Runs

I can see why my edit on Bowling/Pitching wasn't perfect, but it states further up the page that runs in Baseball are far more valuable than in Cricket. With Outs/Wickets the opposite is obviously true most of the time (definitely in Test matches). A Pitcher is expected to get multiple outs during his period of pitching, while a bowler will be happy to pick up one wicket in a single bowling spell. Shane1 13:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Maybe they should be discussed in the same paragraph. They are also both questionable statements, as they are both situational. I think the point of the runs issue was that baseball is relatively low-scoring and cricket is high-scoring. It's like trying to compare two other games, say soccer and basketball. A goal means a lot more, yet a single point at the right time can win a basketball game. Also, getting a single out can turn a baseball game around, just like dismissing an effective batsman can turn a cricket match around. It's situational. d:) Wahkeenah 14:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, maybe more needs to be said about the stark difference between the 1 innings / 50 overs match vs. the 2 innings / 5 day match. In the former, you're basically operating in a time limit. You could theoretically get your 50 overs and win the match without dismissing any batsmen. It's more like playing softball with a 1-hour limit. In baseball and traditional cricket, "the game is not over until the last man is out", generally speaking. Wahkeenah 14:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ODI Game Length

It is written that ODIs can last anywhere from a couple of hours to eight hours. A couple of hours seems a little short, considering Twenty20 matches generally last about 3 hours. Perhaps we could change it to something a little more reasonable? 202.183.125.42 01:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Go ahead. Wahkeenah 03:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

i have never seen an ODI last less than 5 hours Pratj 21:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

uh I did. it happens when teams get bowled out really quick and neither team bats for the full 50 overs.--Thugchildz
In international play? Are there really two teams with such overpowering bowling and such anemic batting on the world stage? (Understand that I'm fairly ignorant of the teams.) Wahkeenah 03:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I've changed it to say between 5 and 7 hours, but can go up to eight. If anyone thinks this is incorrect, feel free to change to something more appropriate. timothykhoo 11:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC) (202.183.125.42 01:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC))
i have seen County One Dayers last less than 5 hours, but never an ODI. maybe against Zimbabwe and Bangladesh, and rthe other minor nations like holland, scotland etc but never between established test teams. the pitches for ODI r normally deliberately flat, ppl wanna see big runs and big hitting in ODIs. so the pitch has to be a batsmen's pitch Pratj 13:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like ODI is to traditional cricket what indoor soccer is to soccer. Wahkeenah 15:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
What do u mean? Pratj 16:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
That might be an exaggeration. Indoor soccer is much more scoring-intensive, and apparently ODI cricket is as well. And, arguably, both are more interesting as spectator sports than the "originals" are. Wahkeenah 16:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Wrong, sorry, because ODI is not scoring-intensive; there are high scoring matches and low scoring matches all depands on the pitch and the pitch are not flat as often as said in odi's...its all random and depands. so odi cant be compared to indoor soccer. but twenty20 can as that is scoring-intensive and most pitches in that so far seems to be fat...twenty20 now is seen as novelty but not test or odi they are both important to cricketers and their fans--Thugchildz

i disagree. ODI is not scoring intensive but it does have a higher average run rate than test matches, as do all limited overs matches. after all, in ODIs u r expected to last only 50 overs, Tests u wanna last at least 80, so u will take more risks and play more "shots" than u would in a test. Pratj 21:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wahkeenah, just to answer your question from 15 Jan as a point of interest, it is not unusual for a team to be bowled out in international one day cricket. It is rare, but not extraordinary, for a team to be bowled out but go on to win. Even if a team is not bowled out the fall of wickets is crucial in slowing down the run rate. So the taking of wickets in one day cricket is more important than is immediately apparent to the uninitiated.


just to add to that. essentially, if u bowl everyone out in 48.3 overs, the 9 balls left won't usually make much of a diference. but the key impact of wicket taking in ODIs will be difficult to see for the less keen viewers to see. now, a typical ODI batsmen will take at least an over before he attempts a real shot, and will take anything from 2 - 5 overs before he gets his eye in. so for that period after a wicket, the fresh batsmen at the crease can't make any real runs, and even worse he is fresh meat for the bowler, who will often take his wicket while the batsmen is at his weakest. that's why u often see 2, 3, 4 wickets falling within the space of a few overs. so the effect of taking a wicket is more than it may first appear.

hope that helped Pratj 22:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and once you have 5-6 batsman out you are in to the bowlers, so the run rate will normally drop anyway. Shane1 (Yeah I know I should register but my contributions beyond cricket are limited!)

[edit] Similarities and differences

Nice article, but I'd just like to comment that whilst there are plenty of similarities listed, there are rather few differences mentioned. Whilst there are a large number of similarities, these are very different games. However, reading this article would leave an uninformed reader with the opposite impression. Still, nice work Modest Genius talk 19:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any specific areas where differences need to be highlighted more? Ansell 05:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


EDIT: thank you thank you thank you Firefox restore session, I almost lost all this. Hmm, now you're putting me on the spot ;). As a starting point, what about:
  • methods of dismissal!
  • target for bowler/pitcher (strike zone and wicket are barely mentioned)
  • concept of foul territory - mentioned for baseball but not mentioned that cricket doesn't have it
  • a map for geographic extent
  • nature of the grounds as well as the fields
  • communication on the field (catchers signals, calling singles etc)
  • fielding esp throwing 'on the bounce' vs straight to the baseman
  • the concepts of wide and ball are compared, without contrasting the different penalties eg. walks
  • attacking, defending, off and other cricket fields aren't mentioned, though the small changes used in baseball are. in fact there is little discussion of cricket fields at all
  • cricket extends the concept of runouts to stumpings, and has runners going in both directions
  • on a similarities note, what about tempting a batsman with a ball just outside the strike zone or off stump?
  • purely for consistency, some comparison of the age and development of the sports might be a good idea
  • different baseball pitches (curveball, fast, etc) vs their cricketing equivalents (yorker, bouncer, slower ball, cutter). similarly, different cricket styles of bowling (fast, leg spin, swing etc) have only a limited counterpart (LHP, underarm etc)
  • multiple stages (bases) to scoring a baseball run, not in cricket
  • good cricket batsmen will keep the ball along the floor to avoid being out, good baseball batters will hit long for home runs
That's all I can think of right now. As I said, nice article. Modest Genius talk 22:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Equivalence of runs

The article states that a run in baseball is worth ten in cricket. How was this equivalence of runs derived? On the face of it a baseball run would seem to be worth between fifty and a hundred cricket runs, but maybe I'm missing something. John FitzGerald 00:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fielding strategy

Way too much on Baseball in this section considering there is nothing on Cricket, just a vaguely related paragraph at the end regarding captaincy. Either we cut this section or put in a brief overview on fielding strategy in Cricket. (the latter I shall do when I have time, if no one else is so inclined.

[edit] Batter vs. Batsman

Just to clarify, the baseball rules use the term "hit batter" in rule 8.05 and "hit batsman" in rule 10.24. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

F*#%in' Selig...again.—DCGeist 09:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
While I can't argue with that sentiment in general, I think it has been worded that way for a long time, probably since the rules were re-codified in the early 1950s. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, and how fondly one recalls the familiar refrain, "Hey batsman, batsman, batsman, batsman, swing!" Jbening 02:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Now, come on, that wouldn't be cricket. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] semi-U.S.-centric?

Just something I perceived in this article. On the cricket side, it seems there are fair mentions of subtle differences in the game outside of England, such as in India and Australia. But on the baseball side, the article appears to be based totally on U.S. baseball rules, customs and practices. If one is going to mention — however briefly — that cricket pitches are different in Australia than in England, shouldn't similar distinguishing subtleties between baseball in the U.S. and Japan, for example, be included? I added one that I could cite: The article said that baseball is always played to a conclusion, without tie games. This isn't true in Japan. There may be other such nuances that would be appropriate. Thank you. — Michael J 19:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who knows something about non-U.S. baseball is welcome to speak up. However, this is about cricket vs. baseball, more than cricket vs. cricket and baseball vs. baseball. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Point taken. I just don't want the article to say something is always the case in one sport or another when it should say "in most cases" or the equivalent. — Michael J 06:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
"Always remember to never say 'always' or 'never'." The article has a glaring mistake in claiming that ties don't happen in American baseball. They are much less common due to the expansion of the suspended game, but they can still happen. That needs fixing. Also, is it true that Japanese ball games are called after 12 innings if still tied? That would compare with regular-season American football or hockey games being called a tie after some amount of time, though not tournament games, which go to a conclusion. So I somehow doubt that would be the case if it was the Japanese baseball championship, but I don't know. That question needs to be answered. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
You are correct about Japan — Regular-season games can be tied after 12 innings, but post-season games are played to conclusion. And of course there are ties in U.S. baseball ... they are even addressed in the official rules at Rule 4.12 (4) (ii)! But it's obvious that an article like this can't address every nuance of the two sports. A line must be drawn somewhere, the question is where? — Michael J 22:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The article is about differences and similarities between baseball and cricket. It's certainly fair to point out that ties or draws can happen in both sports, which is a similarity; and a quick overview of the reasons for ties or draws, which can be different. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whoa!!! NOT A RELIABLE ARTICLE!!! WIKIPEDIA should not allow such low class articles.

This article is completely wrong, biased and very much opinionated. The guy that wrote the article is most likely American because somehow, it seems to cover deeper information about baseball, while only briefly identifying cricket. The guy says things like "whole cricket batsmen find it easier to hit and direct the ball than baseball batters," the guy obviously needs to do his research because all of the deliveries are not pitched in baseball, while in cricket mostly all of them are pitched and you don't know how and where the ball will travel due to the ball hitting the ground first. Also he mentions that the field is more open for cricketers, come on mate, when a batsman hits a 6 its mostly during yorkers and in baseball mostly all of the deliveries are directed towards the bat in the air so tis easier to hit a home run, plus the field is quite smaller in baseball, less fielders in baseball. Look at his opinions stated in the article rather than fact, "Because baseball hitting is difficult" he's got many many more than facts, so i think wikipedia should make a note of the article or not publish it, because this article is clearly PRO BASEBALL and NOT BALANCED.

The last paragraph in Culture clearly implies to the public that are not well literate with Cricket, that Cricket is very unsportsmanlike because he implies that in Baseball Umpire's decision is final while not in cricket. That is complete Bull Shit because in cricket if you're not out and the ground umpire says you're out than you have to walk. You can't even look at the umpire the wrong way or do any offending gestures or comments even to yourself, if you do so, you will be punished or even suspended. He also thinks that baseball players are more responsible than cricketers because the same paragraph shows it clearly.

Dude, who the heck did publish this article thinking this was a clear legitimate article to publish. This is complete bull shit and should be taken off the site. This is completely BIASED and holds the least amount of truth as possible. The article is mostly OPINIONATED and does NOT present any FACTUAL information.

Maybe this thing may even get discarded because of my tone towards the thing but i hope it doesn't because if someone is really using this article as a research tool, then this would be completely useless and would serve as incorrect and irrelevant info.

Thank You and Hopefully someone will fix this situation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongunda (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to)..
I agree that there are a few uncited and dubious claims which I will attempt to fix. Please note that no single author wrote this article (or any other article on Wikipedia for that matter). Anyone, including you, can and should improve it if you think you can. —Moondyne click! 03:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
As a big fan of both baseball and cricket, I'd like to address the issue Dongunda raises concerning the difficulty of batting. The fact is--in broad, simple terms--it is easier for a professional cricket batsman to safely hit and productively direct the average ball he faces than it is for a professional baseball batter to safely hit and productively direct the average ball he faces. Yes, baseball hitting is more difficult. Does that make the article "pro baseball"? No, not on that account. Because, by the same token, cricket bowling is more difficult than baseball pitching. It is much, much more difficult to pick up a wicket—particularly in first-class cricket—than it is to record an out in baseball. The article can (and, to serve its purpose, must) observe the evident difference in the balance of skills. While many fans (of both sports!) may favor the shallow spectacle of batting over the richer, deeper pleasures of bowling and pitching, for the article to observe that one of those pursuits is easier in one sport than in the other does not indicate favoritism.—DCGeist (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You're right, many editors have contributed to the article and have tried to keep it balanced, and there is always room for improvement. There is no intent to tout one sport over the other, but simply to try to explain, for those who know one well and maybe not the other, what the similarities and differences are, between these two distant cousins. I've contributed baseball info here and there, and have found the article very useful for better understanding of cricket. The user that wrote the initial diatribe here is a red-link with only this one edit, so initially it looks like trolling behavior. But even so, there is always room for improvement, and wikipedia is "not paper". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)