This moment proved that Allah was on our side

When did baseball switch to paddles?

Honestly letting a smattering of curries in for the tikka masala, spin bowling and favour with Allah must have seemed like a good deal to the boomers.

what the literal fuck is going on? I feel like Fry watching blernsball for the first time.

>smattering
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO

What about the Rugby World Cup? Or was that down to skill?

>Johnny Wilkinson slices a dropkick through the posts in extra time and immediately wins the game
Total luck desu, it was a horrible dropkick that somehow went through
Plus it’s a bs extra time format as well, first person to score wins instead of having a set period of extra time to play
In fact ain’t that a coincidence, all 3 of England’s WC’s have come about from I insanely lucky and dubious circumstances
>’66 goal that clearly didn’t cross the line
>’03 lucky kick that instantly won the game due to some retarded extra time rules
>’19 drew the game twice due to insane good luck in the final overs not to mention the umpires giving you an extra run off of that stokes extra 4 as well as not giving Roy out for a golden duck
>Umpires gave nz out TWICE for LBW when the ball was going high, cost us a wicket
>”Wins” the CWC off of two draws despite being all out after 50 overs
England hasn’t won a WC fairly in any sport

So we're the ultimate shithousery Nation? Bloody hell.

cricket is substantially older and more complex
baseball is the burger simplification of the original

Baseball isn't a descendent of cricket. Cricket wasn't even an actual bat-and-ball sport as we know the concept today until after the turn of the 18th century. Bowlers are called bowlers because they actually rolled the ball on the ground and the batter hit it with something resembling a field hockey stick.

I enjoy both sports, and no, cricket isn't more complex.

Attached: cricket-origins-xlarge.jpg (1000x626, 156K)

If you know baseball, this is essentially the same thing as an outfielder making a throw toward home to try and nab the runner, the ball hits his helmet and deflects away, allowing another baserunner to score.

>They're actually vastly different sports but superficially seem similar
Yeah, cricket vs. baseball is a false dilemma. Each sport skins the cat of the bat-and-ball sport concept in vastly different ways. Softball is discount baseball, a sport that is just a worse version of baseball designed to be more accessible to weekend players and such.

how was this even legal?

Undeserved

>allah is a cheating pommy bastard
huh who knew

Thanks to the makeup of our team we would’ve had on our side:

-God (Protestant)
-God (Catholic)
-Allah
-Irish God (luck of the Irish)

Absolutely BTFO by the empire

what hte fuck are you talking about, rwc 2003 extra time was not first to score wins, it won the game shortly after because there were only 20 seconds left

grim

>Or was that down to skill?

Yes. It was a good drop-goal by Wilkinson after a brutal game.

>swings his bat out in front of the ball when he could have angled it towards the ground
>whoops accident, aww shucks guess we'll get 6 runs, bad luck kiwis ;>

glad i stopped watching this semen slurping sport

Why was New Zealand trying so hard to get wickets in the last over when all they had to do was prevent boundaries?

Banter.

It's called a full toss, where the ball doesn't bounce before reaching the batsman.

Attached: 1563139120397.webm (1024x576, 2.52M)

>losing to Englel
imagine

Seethe Seethe Seethe

To The Max.

nah that was a good kick off the weaker foot.

>losing to englel
State

PBUH

*appears in literally any thread at any time of the day when someone says something disparaging about baseball*
i admire your tenacity, if nothing else.

I think what you just wrote is gobbledygook to him, because it is to me

even on paper cricket is more complex
>larger/nonexistent strike zone
>batters stay in for more than one ball
>batters are free to position themselves nearly anywhere they choose
>360degree fielding
>fielding team has to cover more area per player
>larger playing field that varies in shape and size
>pitches (the ground the bowlings bowl the ball on) vary in many ways, no pitch is the same
>more than one bowler in an innings, and bowlers vary in different schools of bowling technique
>ball gets used for more than one pitch, quality deteriorates and the condition of ball influences strategy
incomplete list but I will admit that in cricket the fielding team can only get one player out at a time and there are only 2 wickets the ball is returned to, rather than 4 bases
also
>baseball gloves
people get killed in cricket but the only gear the fielding team has is the wicket keepers gloves and helmets if they are a positioned a few metres in front of the batter

Seems like a shitty time to deliver it.

Cricket has some kino moments which sometimes can only be appreciated in slow motion.

Attached: 1467707442754.webm (720x400, 545K)

reminder that batters didn't used to wear helmets. Does anyone know how many people used to die from being struck in the head? I imagine it was pretty high

Attached: crickot.webm (540x360, 2.66M)

They used to get out of the way more when they didn't have helmets.

>Catholics believe in God
They believe in the Pope and the Antichrist

fuck off dup

>t. cucktholic

that doesnt make it more complex though you fucking moron. from what i've seen the fielding in cricket is laughably simple(you either have to catch the ball or throw it at one of the two stumps) and the balls leave the bat at half the speed they do in baseball.

i'll give you that batting in cricket probably has a steeper learning curve

why the fuck would they die? the bounce reduces the speed significantly

What is this ? Special Olympics baseball? Dressed like a bunch of poofs

Ask Phil Hughes.

Cricket has a strikezone. It's the wicket. Hit that, and it's "one strike and you're out." The large strikezone you're speaking of is likely the no-ball area, but I'm unsure how that plays into the comparison since a no-ball doesn't change the dynamics of the at bat anywhere near the level that a ball in baseball does. The difference between a 0-2 count and 1-1 is massive. .300 on-base percentage vs. .184.

How does batters staying in for more than one ball (not true, by the way, since a batter can be dismissed in one ball) add additional "complexity" to the overall sport? Anyhow, this comparison is difficult to make since baseball and cricket are inversions in this case. Bowlers bowl six balls and then hand if off, while baseball pitchers can throw over 100 straight if they're doing well. In baseball, the pitcher controls/dominates the action whereas in cricket, it's the batsman.

You can position yourself anywhere you like within fair territory in baseball. The defensive tactics are pretty much identical for both sports. The defensive studies batter tendency, positions fielders where a batter is most likely to hit it, and hopes the bowler/ptichers do their job in delivering balls that raise the odds of the batter hitting where the fielders are positioned (i.e. shifting on a pull hitter/attacking with inside pitches, stacking slip fielders/attacking with deliveries hoping to induce an edged ball.

Yes, cricket batting is more complex due to the 360 playing area (it's not THAT more complex, and I'll explain why if you're curious. This reply is getting long) but cricket doesn't have anything like sacrifice flies/bunts, stolen bases, double steals, contact plays, sign stealing (i.e. a player on second base can see what pitch the catcher is calling for and relay that to his teammate, forcing the catcher to encode the signs). Nor does it have anything like the count or a varying men on base situation that further effects tactics.

/limit

god i fucking hate england

Post is getting long so I'll try to be short (I like both sports, so I like discussing the nuances) but yeah, baseball has nothing like varying pitches between regions, but baseball stadiums are actually more dimensionally diverse than cricket stadiums. I can explain how this affects tactics/strategy/roster building if you're interested.

Baseball fielding has a lot more variables to account for. Double plays, tagging runners, pick-offs, defending stolen bases, multiple relay throws, and actually more ground to cover when the ball is in play because balls hit to gaps in cricket are usually 4s where no play is needed unless the fielder is close enough to stop the ball before it hits the rope. In all my years watching both sports, I've never seen (nor can recall) any cricket player dead sprinting for 100-150 feet to make a catch.

The gloves criticism is the stupidest cricketfan criticism in history. The ball is hit considerably harder in baseball (cricket ball is harder, but how the balls subjectively feel doesn't change their respective masses which are within 10g). And again, cricket doesn't require anywhere close to the same amount of quick and fastly thrown infield exchanges. Nor tagging runners. Go ahead and stick your barehand in front of a base as a pair of metal spikes are coming at it.

Enjoy both sports, but their respective complexities are showcased in different areas, which is why trying to 1 to 1 compare them is futile.

>American education

>fielder signals the six
based sportsmanship
fuck boult for being so retarded

Attached: england.jpg (799x445, 66K)

I dont understand bugsport

>The ball is hit considerably harder in baseball (cricket ball is harder, but how the balls subjectively feel doesn't change their respective masses which are within 10g)
Wouldn't more energy be transferred from the bat to a harder ball than to a softer one?
Also cricket bats are a lot heavier and springier.

So runners can just interfere with a thrown ball? It's that even legal? You do that in baseball you get fucking tossed

>Wouldn't more energy be transferred from the bat to a harder ball than to a softer one?
Yes, because deformation translates to drag (this is why a 140 mph tennis serve loses about half its speed over 80 feet before it even hits the ground, a baseball/cricket ball loses about 7-10 mph over that distance). And a softer ball would lose energy since more energy would be absorbed but turned into "wasteful" heat. But despite the subjective way the two balls feel, they're aren't that difference in composition, weighing on average 150 and 160 grams respectively.
>Also cricket bats are a lot heavier and springier.
Operating on the same idea, a cricket bat is also a lot softer, made with willow presswood while a baseball bat is made with hard ash or maple. Average bat speed in baseball is around 90 mph while a cricketer's bat speed is around half of that.

In any event, we have the data. I've never seen a cricket ball hit over 90 mph when they track exit speed. Fastest exit speeds in baseball can reach up to 120mph.

Don't think he tried to do it. It's like in baseball if the throw hit the batter's helmet unknowingly and bounced away.