Reaction score

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • I think a better analogy would be an SAS trooper versus a midget SAS trooper.

    But having experiecned both, it puts me in a better position to judge than you.

    I meant this wole saga.

    I (again) think my analogy is better. They're both foods, (sports), they're both fruits (bat and ball games), but aside from that they're very different.
    Well ours will use their superior size and weight to rip yours apart.

    No, I'm not unbiased. But I'm a hell of a lot less biased than you. I garuntee that I knew more about baseball going into this argument than you did about cricket.

    They are related, but they are also pretty different. I'd say it's more of an apples and oranges argument, rather than, say, and apples and curry argument.

    Besides, I've been known to take these kinds of frivolous things to a new level of serious.
    I don't see it that way. I've seen a lot of cricket, and I've seen enough baseball to know which one I prefer, and I know a bunch of other people agree with me.

    I think probably one of the things you have to take into account is that as an American in America, you don't get a lot of foreign stuff. Not that I'm trying to say that you're completely blind to anything outside America, but you definitely don't get as much foreign media as we do. Because of that, I think we're a lot more aware of American culture than you are of ours, or Britains, etc.

    I just realised that sounded really arrogant.

    Pics or GTFO.

    EDIT: Zoos don't count.
    You know what? I've come to the conclusion that cricket is an aquired taste. You don't get it, and thats fine. But if you ever do get it, you'll see what I mean.
    First of all, we wouldn't be anywhere near the Middle East if you weren't there. We have a treaty that means we're war buddies, remember? You're just using us to help you out with your rape thing.

    And the whole East Timor thing is different. They ASKED us to come help them. You on the otherhand, are conducting several wars, some of which are illegal, as a knee jerk reaction to... well, lets not go into what I think about 9/11.

    It's just trying to even out the competition, and make it more entertaining.

    Not quite. To win in a test match, you have to beat an the opposition within five days. That means that you have to get them all out twice. If you run out of time, then no one wins and it's called a draw. If the scores are equal when you finish getting them all out the second time, then it's a tie.

    If you want to get into it: There was no boundary, no pitch, no wickets. All of which are generally required to have a good game of cricket. The things you listed are just things that are in baseball, not a part of it.
    Not directly raping them. But indirectly. It's exactly the same thing, just a lot subtler. Unless of course you look in the Middle East, then it's pretty obvious.

    What? Are you saying the powerplay rule was brought in to avoid ties?

    Because no team was good enough to beat the other team in the allotted time. Makes perfect sense.

    Well, I don't know. I just don't know.

    Well, you can play a makeshift game of cricket just as easily. But those armies stopping for a spell wanted to play a proper game, and a legitemate baseball game was much easier to set up than a legitemade cricket game.
    Really? Maybe you have to be outside the US to see it in perspective.

    Ummm, yes?

    No. Just to make the game harder/more interesting.

    It's only to distinguish in a test match between no result, and an even result. If time runs out then no team wins, regardless of the score, and it's called a draw. If, when the last batsman gets out in the last innings, the scores are equal, then it is called a tie.

    Gooood, maybe they're not equal then. Make me do some reasearch why don't you....

    Actually, it's probably only a bit more popular. The popularity has skyrocketed in recent years though.
    Only because they did everything directly. America has as much sway in todays world than the British Empire did 100 years ago.

    I thought all Wikipedia articles were supposed to be prefaced with a "may have been".

    Ok, you can use the shotgun, I'll use the rifle. We're standing 40-or-so paces apart, remember?

    And it takes more skill to get a wicket when a powerplay is on. And no, we just figure a tie is a tie.

    Incidentally, there have only ever been two tied test matches. As opposed to a draw, which means no result. Ten batsmen out and the same score. Easily more exciting than a win. Strangely.

    I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but I'd imagine it's comprable to women's baseball numbers.

    So was cricket! We could almost be friends now.
    If you want to pretend that you're not as bad as the Empire, then that's fine by me. At least they had good intentions to hide behind. Warped intentions, but their hearts were in the right place. Sort of.

    Well, you claim that cricket is as easy to set up as baseball.

    Quote: Wikipedia

    An army making a brief stop at a location could easily organise a game of baseball on almost any clear patch of ground, whilst cricket required a carefully prepared pitch.


    I challenge you to a duel, good sir! Pistols, at dawn!

    It was unsportsmanlike behaviour which no one wanted to see. How does it not take skill out of the equation? The fielder doesn't have to do anything. Nothing at all. It's still out. Getting the easy double play would require more skill.

    Yes, but only in the new modified version of the game, the ODI match. The test match (the original) doesn't have that problem, because if there aren't 40 outs in a game, no one wins. The fielders have to bowl offensively if they want to win. As opposed to one days, where the fielder just has to wait for 50 overs to pass without letting too many runs getting through.

    No, they play actual cricket. It's not that women don't play it's variants, it's that it doesn't have any (or no popular ones, anyway). Not like Baseball/Softball.

    No, I just mean even features, nice complexion, feminine, not too butch. The regular things.

    The only differences between baseball and softball I can think of from the top of my head are a larger ball, and and underarm pitch. So fastpitch is like the hardcore version of softball?
    Do me a favour and look up economic imperialism.

    With, say, a (modern) tennis ball and a large enough space (more space required, remember?). Have you ever tried to bounce a cricket ball on grass (the bouncing is required, remember?). Besides, if you're going to dispute the evidence I get from Wikipedia, then you've got no right to be using it for your evidence.

    I disagree knave!

    I was talking about the powerplay rules. It forces the captain of the fielding side to play smarter because he's got less to work with, and it requires that the bowlers be better at bowling, because they have to make sure the batsman hits to a certain part of the ground. As opposed to the infield fly rule, which a) assumes the fielders are going to cheat to get an easy double play, and b) takes the element of skill out of the equation.

    Cricket is pretty much the same as baseball in that regard, except it doesn't have a women dominated variant.

    We do have some hot cricketers though.

    What does the term fastpitch mean? Apart from pitching fast (thats an obvious one). Whats the difference between it and regular softball?
    It's not as though England forced it's colonies to play cricket. They just made it easier for it to naturally grow in those countries. Much like what America is doing with baseball now.

    Youd be surprised. Ever tried bouncing a baseball on a grassy field? Admittedly, the availability of tennis balls makes it easier to play anywhere, but back during the civil war, it wasn't such a big thing. Not that that was my point. My point was that baseball required less setting up than cricket.

    It got that reputation during it's decline, and compounded it.

    They didn't add the rule that you can bowl ball as the batters head to make the game more interesting. It has always been a part of the game. And it's not forcing the players to play beneath their abilities. It's forcing them to play above them by placing them in a more difficult situation. As I said, it was introduced because, in this new version of the game, it is easy for the fielding team to win by playing defensively. That was not, and never has been the case in the original form.
    I don't understand what you're saying with that paragraph.

    If you can't even decide on a common set of rules to play by, then why should anyone else decide to play a sport that is so far behind other modern games?

    So, they didn't want it to happen because they knew they wouldn't make money off it. Because they knew that no one was going to watch it. Because it would be an uncompetetive competition dominated by a couple of teams.

    Sigh, I was facetiously trying to highlight that whilst it is probably the least popular game in Australia, it's still popular. It wasn't really a real point.

    Concerning Cricket pitches: You are unfamilliar with the game, so I'll forgive you. A cricket pitch (the pitch specifically, the little strip that contains the wickets and the batsman) needs to be carefull rolled and compacted to make sure it's harder than the rest of the pitch. Otherwise, the ball doesn't bounce, and you don't have a game of cricket. Unless you're using a tennis ball, of course, but that was hardly going to be popular back then.

    It only got the image of a "pretentious bull**** sport played mostly by rich Anglophiles" in the USA, and after you stopped playing it.

    It's not. It's a part of the game. It's considered fair play to rough the batsman up a bit. Doing it repeatedly, of course, is frowned upon, and can get you in trouble. The infield fly rule just makes a bad situation into a slightly less worse one, and no more exciting. Less, probably.
    You don't think that international cricket is more popular than international baseball? You don't think that the MLB is baseball's premier competition? Or you don't think that it's a domestic league? Or you don't think that it being the premier league has anything to do with baseball not being a popular world game? You don't think that the fact that the USA's and Japan's domestic leagues respectively use different rules is some reflection of the lack of interest in an international form of the game?

    If they wanted to set up an International AFL league, (assuming it was popular enough), they wouldn't limit it to ameteur only players, because that would serve to make it less desirable to watch, because there would be no link to the domestic clubs that everyone already loves, and make it a less interesting competition overall.

    Concerning Baseball's popularity in Australia:


    This is our states premier ground. Pretty shabby eh? You can't see it in the picture, but it's surrounded on one side by a very white trash sort of neighbourhood, another side by an industrial complex, and on the other by an uninhabited no man's land.

    There are several reasons why Cricket became less popular in America than Baseball. One was the civil war, where a baseball pitch was easier to set up than a cricket pitch. Another was the fact that you kept getting thrashed by Englands touring side. You decided to go play a game that no one else played, just so you could say you were the best at it.

    A good game shouldn't need a bad rule to counteract a bad situation. No one wins in that scenario.
    I meant that more people watch international cricket than international baseball (even if you exclude all the countries you don't want involved). The fact that baseball's premier competition is a domestic one says a lot about how popular international baseball is. The fact that Japan and America play by different rules says a lot about the games popularity (the last time that happened in Cricket was in the 19th century).

    True, but they wouldn't do that because they would know that it would be popular. Unlike baseball, where you only realised that it was an ameteur only competition when someone finally got bored enough to decide to watch it.

    And how are beanballs no fun? They're fun for everyone involved.
    I meant that Cricket's international games have more interest than baseball ones.

    You can't compare them. AFL is ONLY a domestic competition, and the Olympics are boring as ****. If AFL was as popular a game as Soccer, then I would care about both domestic and international competition.

    No it's not.

    But beanballs aren't actually considered unsportsman like, because we're not wusses. It's a fair part of the game. Ball tampering, on the other hand, will get you into cricket hell for a first offence.

    1) They're not in the same family of games. One is basically Soccer with sticks, and the other is a psuedo-turn based game which involves two teams doing different things for half the game.

    3) Because I made the point that Baseball only became popular in games that didn't already have a BAT and ball game, to which you replied that hockey and lacrosse were bat and ball games, which is ludicrous.
    Whatever, it's still true.

    People play cricket and they love it. More people, I might add. Cricket is also played internationally consistently, and with more interest than baseball. How is basebally more popular?

    No it's not.

    How so?

    What became hockey is one of the oldest games in the world. It was played in ancient Egypt and Greece. Rounders grew out of a bunch of kids in the English countryside hitting balls into sticks with bats. They are not the same.
    If I'm attacking your country then how is it personal? Like I said, only countries that didn't already have a bat and ball game AND were being raped.

    What about the Netherlands?

    Is it not the same with baseball, except for a few countries?

    That's why there are other forms of the game which are more exciting. The only reason test cricket is still around is because it was the original, and cricket is very much a game about history and tradition, so there's no way it's going anywhere unless something drastic happens.

    And baseball is no more interesting than cricket. Certainly not one day or Twenty20.

    Ok, so it sort of makes sense. But it's a countermeasure that results from a fundamental fault in how baseball was designed. Cricket doesn't have a problem like that.

    What? Lacrosse isn't a bat and ball game. It's like a weird net/scoop thing and ball game. Bat and ball games have a bat, which you hit the ball with, and are generally more of a turn based type of affair.
    But baseball is more localised. The only countries that play it are SK, Japan, the US and any country that is being economically raped by the US.

    You're an economically strong nation, but you're not that strong. It's generally only taken up in countries which didn't already have a popular bat and ball sport. Same deal with NFL.

    More things happening doesn't necessarily make for a better game. There's a simple truth to Cricket.

    But the powerplay rule actually serves to make the game more interesting, by forcing the batsmen to play bigger, more exciting shots. Because the game has an overs limit (that means the innings automatically ends after 50 overs (300 balls), as opposed to test matches, which end in a draw after five days if four innings haven't been fully completed), then it's a lot easier for the fielding team to engineer a win, by placing all their fielders in the outfield and bowling defensively. This forces the fielding team to have to play an attacking style of play, which is way more interesting.

    The infield fly rule just confuses me. Why should the batter be out if it's not caught?
    But every time I say that Cricket is more popular, you're always "But they're all Indian"

    The last time England was a superpower was the early 20th century, wheras the US was a massive superpower for most of the 20th century. Thats more than enough time to spread your crazy culture around the place.

    Yeah. Interesting Fact about Aus/NZ relations: we had an EU kind of freedom of movement deal with them at one point, but that resulted in a mass exodus to Australia, so NZ shut that down pretty quick. This has been your Interesting Fact about Aus/NZ relations.

    I mean that Baseball might be complicated, but that doesn't make it a better spectator sport. Probably worse, even.

    At least powerplays make sense. The infield fly rule is probably the stupidest rule I can think of. Depending on how many people are on the bases, if a "catchable" ball is hit, then it's out regardless of whether it's caught? WTF.

    Ok, now you explain why powerplays don't make sense.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…