Quote:
> An interesting strand comes from this post. There are a lot of transplanted people
> on this list who are currently in the US but are from the sub-continent
> (or, like me, from UK via Aus). Do you follow baseball at all? In Chicago
> the opportunities for watching cricket are very limited, and only CricInfo
> keeps me going. But I have to admit that through my 11 year-old son, who to
> my initial dismay has taken fervently to baseball, I've begun to enjoy the
> game.
> The pitchers are impressive, their speed and control can be awesome. The running
> is fierce, though of course being told when to run is fairly pathetic
> (as is the need for the fielders to catch with gloves on). The batting can be
> good to watch, and although it lacks the subtlety of building a long
> innings, from a spectator point of view the constant to-and-fro of the
> teams adds a lot. The current World Series is real edge-of-the-seat stuff,
> and although that's only a part of the appeal of cricket, it's not a bad
> pastime in the absence of the real thing. It's interesting also that baseball
> like cricket has spawned great literature and poetry and a passionate feel for
> the nostalgia of the game. A pity that cricket doesn't appeal in Hollywood,
> otherwise we'd have some great cricket movies (though I suppose there
> was the Bodyline TV series from Oz).
> So baseball v cricket? Comments? Flames? Is it possible to like both ...
> or have I been here too long
> Nick Weir-Williams
> Northwestern University
I was a "hold-out" against baseball for years, stubbornly
refusing to admit that it could in any way make up for losing
almost all touch with international cricket once I emigrated from
Jamaica to Canada. One thing always annoyed me was that Americans
had the nerve to call cricket "slow"; to me, baseball was the
slowest game in the world ... it took an age for the pitcher and
the catcher to agree on the right signals, and if a man was on
first base, the ball would be thrown over there half a dozen
times before it was pitched to the batter. "Cricket" I would
aver, "is a 'long' game, but it's not 'slow'" (except when the
Windies pacemen are on :-) )
But five years ago when the Toronto Blue Jays got hot, I
reluctantly sat up and took notice of the game. Now I have an
appreciation of it that can understand the enthusiasm it arouses
in American fans. There is an artistry in the fielding (what they
call "defence" in baseball) that rivals anything you see on the
cricket field. A "double play" is a thing of beauty! (I just saw
the Cleveland Indians pull off a beauty against Atlanta in the
2nd innning of the match tonight ... the short stop "gloved" the
ball to the second base man, who stepped on the bag for one out
and threw it to first for the second out to complete the double
play!) A triple play is as thrilling as it is rare!
Pitching as you say is impressive. The successful pitcher throws
fast balls, curve balls, balls that dip when they reach the
batter and "change-ups" - the equivalent of the bowler's flighted
ball. I used to think the idea was to throw that ball straight
over the plate every time, but it's far more sophisticated than
that ... the pitcher more often than not deliberately throws a
ball outside or inside the "strike zone" to entice the batter to
chase a bad ball!
Batters have a lot more command than John Hall thinks they do,
and can definitely direct the ball to the part of the field they
intend (not always successfully, of course) There is the famous
legend of the Babe (Ruth) who is supposed to have indicated on at
least one occasion where he intended to hit a home run ... and
did! To me, just being able to hit a ball with a round bat is an
accomplishment, let alone hitting a homer. Isn't Bradman supposed
to have practised as a youth by hitting a ball with a stump?
Oh, it's not cricket ... but it's the next best thing when you
can't watch the best!
Cheers!
Charles
--
"He [Bradman] didn't appear to recognize yorkers - to him they were
half-volleys; bouncers were simply long hops to be hooked ..."
- Barry Norman
by