in Search

USA Cricketer

Fox Sports Science proclaims cricket is easier than baseball! Do you agree?

Fox Sports Network compared baseball with cricket on its Sports Science show and concluded that cricket is easier than baseball. We disagree!


The show begins well and the concept is interesting. USA cricketer Aditya Thyagarajan and Arizona Diamondbacks 3rd baseman Mark Reynolds, were wired up and tested to resolve whether it was tougher to bat against a pitcher or a bowler?A question that a lot of baseball players have tried to answer themselves - including the famous Babe Ruth. More recently, Manny Ramirez tried his hand at baseball too.

In selecting Aditya Thyagarajan, one of USA's best cricketers, Fox showed they were serious about their mission. Aditya, who played first class cricket in India, recently played two key innings for USA - 42 against Bermuda and a match winning 84 against Canada, and he became known as "Pappelbon" after the Boston Red Sox closer.

But as the show progressed, you can see that it was not a like-for-like comparison. For a first time batter taking to cricket, Mark Reynolds did not get the entire range of bowling. In the video, he is seen batting against really well pitched balls begging to be hit which, to his credit, he did well.

For a cricketer to take a baseball bat, it is fairly obvious that it would take some getting used to.

All things being equal, for a ball that is tauntingly over pitched, begging to be hit, the surface area theory is probably right - the cricketer has an advantage because, when compared to baseball, he has a lot more surface area on the sweet spot.

But all things are not equal. A more scientific comparison would probably test a variety of balls - from googlies to fast bowling. Isn't that what cricket is about?

For a meaningful comparison - a super over is not what the doctor ordered.

Aditya Thyagarajan has the final word: "Cricket and Baseball require differrent techniques. In my opinion the analysis seemed a bit biased towards baseball. A Baseball player will find it extremely difficult to even play Division 5 local cricket and a cricketer will find it equally difficult to play league baseball. All in all - 2 great sports. Let's sit back and enjoy!" That is a true statesman.

Format: ???
Duration: 06:22

Comments

 

timmyj51 said:

From what I could see on the video I'd say it was a pretty fair compaison.  Sure,

the bowling wasn't that difficult; but then the pitching didn't seem too hard either,

and Thya looked like he had more trouble with baseball pitching than Reynolds

did with the bowling.  One thing, however, stands out like a sore thumb:  

tremendous potential  cricket talent with the baseballers of this country and,

as I've said for years, this is what the USACA should be trying to tap into.  Instead, they're still

scrounging around for banana boaters.

May 5, 2009 10:54 AM
 

nadirahsingh@yahoo.com said:

I think the PR was good; however slightly tainted.  With respect to the game, CRICKET requires much more skill, agility and presence of mind than Baseball does.  There are so many other dimensions and fine nuisances that further speak to the complexity and level of difficulty when playing the game; not to mention trying to figure out what Billy Bowden is doing on any given day, or trying to figure out Duckworth Lewis for that matter.  American TV has not changed.  It is ratings driven, propaganda related and very misleading.  They should stick to comparing  apples with apples, or more keenly put, trying to figure out how the Yankees and Mets can justify building brand new stadiums in the middle of a recession, bankrolling players who are not performing...and then asking the average American taxpayer to subsidize their nonsense! HOWZAT!

May 5, 2009 11:47 AM
 

jharrison@cardinal-gibbons.org said:

Yes, it was fair, but it was lopsided. Here's what I mean: in baseball, it's hard to score and easy to get out (thus the plethora of exciting 3-2 games). In cricket, the reverse is true - it's easy to score runs and difficult to get out (which is why a batter might go for hours without being dismissed).

So, if you compare batting in the two sports, the sport that's designed to be high scoring will look easier - when viewed from the batter's perspective.

Now, let's flip the comparision around.

What if Fox had compared bowling to pitching to determine which was easier? In that case, pitching would appear to be easier.

So which sport is easier? I guess it depends on whether you're batting or throwing.

May 6, 2009 7:18 AM

DreamCricket strongly disapproves of spam and we appreciate your taking the time to report this abuse to us so we can remove it accordingly. If you find any content or comments to be inappropriate, abusive or infringing other people's copyright please report it. To report abuse, please email us at content@dreamcricket.com.

This Blog

Syndication

Tags