Ready for some pro cricket in America?

[inari]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4331872

Cricket's governing body in the United States wants to create an elite Twenty20 competition along the lines of the lucrative Indian Premier League.

 

The USA Cricket Association announced Thursday it hopes "top-class international cricket" will finally take root in America by launching the first professional competition, the USA Premier League.

 

Traditional cricket can be a bit tiresome, and an American audience just wouldn't deal with it well. Twenty20, while still longer than a baseball game, could certainly appeal to the same kind of people baseball appeals to.

 

I was in Australia earlier this year, and they're crazy about cricket there. It's really a fun game to watch.

[RedFlash]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=4331872

Cricket's governing body in the United States wants to create an elite Twenty20 competition along the lines of the lucrative Indian Premier League.

 

The USA Cricket Association announced Thursday it hopes "top-class international cricket" will finally take root in America by launching the first professional competition, the USA Premier League.

 

Traditional cricket can be a bit tiresome, and an American audience just wouldn't deal with it well. Twenty20, while still longer than a baseball game, could certainly appeal to the same kind of people baseball appeals to.

 

I was in Australia earlier this year, and they're crazy about cricket there. It's really a fun game to watch.

 

I don't know if Americans will ever "be ready" for cricket. Hell, right now soccer/futbol is hit and miss with Americans, so I definately see cricket flopping.

[Magnetic Curses]

fond du lac has a small east indian population, they play cricket at this baseball diamond by my house. it's pretty sweet to watch them play. i probably wouldn't watch it on tv, though.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If this ever gets off the ground, it'll appeal to ex-pats and no more.

[OleMissCub]

I've said this story a couple of times I think, but when I went to school at Cambridge they always had cricket on TV. So I wanted do an experiment and see if I could learn a game from scratch just by watching it and never reading the rules or anything. Like three hours later I was still completely befuddled.

 

As a baseball history fan, I did find it interesting to watch the fielders. It kind of helped me imagine what baseball must have looked like back in the 1800's when they didn't use gloves.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I've said this story a couple of times I think, but when I went to school at Cambridge they always had cricket on TV. So I wanted do an experiment and see if I could learn a game from scratch just by watching it and never reading the rules or anything. Like three hours later I was still completely befuddled.

 

As a baseball history fan, I did find it interesting to watch the fielders. It kind of helped me imagine what baseball must have looked like back in the 1800's when they didn't use gloves.

 

 

Baseball

+

Only two bases

+

One run per base

+

Don't have to run when you hit it

+

Out on one strike (the wicket is the strike zone)

+

No foul territory

+

Six runs for a home run, four for a ground-rule double

 

 

That's 90% of it right there.

[Guest]

If this ever gets off the ground, it'll appeal to ex-pats and no more.

 

Probably. But even then, the ex-pats would likely prefer watching the old country.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Also, I still think baseball fielders from the pre-glove era would have been better. A cricket lineup is essentially five first-basemen, a catcher, and five pitchers. Nobody is selected for their defense, and any they provide is pure bonus.

[SpongeWorthy]

It seems like the U.S. is the one country where people try to pigeonhole other countries' popular sports in. There's only so many hours in a day.

[TruffleShuffle]

there is zero chance this will work. some foreigners will get into it but like 3 americans will care. most people think soccer is too boring and a lot of people say baseball is too slow-paced. how will they react to a sport where games can take 5 days and individual batters are up for hours on end? no way.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

No.

[Careless]

I've said this story a couple of times I think, but when I went to school at Cambridge they always had cricket on TV. So I wanted do an experiment and see if I could learn a game from scratch just by watching it and never reading the rules or anything. Like three hours later I was still completely befuddled.

 

As a baseball history fan, I did find it interesting to watch the fielders. It kind of helped me imagine what baseball must have looked like back in the 1800's when they didn't use gloves.

In the two months I lived in Malaysia I learned the rules of cricket to a reasonable degree. Aside from the confusion of watching both 5 day and 20 over [edit: not sure about the number of overs anymore] matches (which is like watching baseball played with a limited number of innings vs a long game clock), it didn't seem that confusing

 

But I don't see how it can appeal to Americans at this point, who either are baseball fans or won't care about a game like cricket

[Hairyducked Idiot]

there is zero chance this will work. some foreigners will get into it but like 3 americans will care. most people think soccer is too boring and a lot of people say baseball is too slow-paced. how will they react to a sport where games can take 5 days and individual batters are up for hours on end? no way.

 

The league in question would be a 20/20 league, which is more or less a three-hour home-run derby.

[wvcbxl]

Also, I still think baseball fielders from the pre-glove era would have been better. A cricket lineup is essentially five first-basemen, a catcher, and five pitchers. Nobody is selected for their defense, and any they provide is pure bonus.

 

The great allrounders of cricket history are laughing at this post. :evil:

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Also, I still think baseball fielders from the pre-glove era would have been better. A cricket lineup is essentially five first-basemen, a catcher, and five pitchers. Nobody is selected for their defense, and any they provide is pure bonus.

 

The great allrounders of cricket history are laughing at this post. :evil:

 

And I'm laughing right back at them. The allrounders are usually just bowlers who can hit a little. None of them can field. I watch quite a bit of cricket, I know what they consider "great" defense, and a good MLB middle infielder would put them all to shame.

[wvcbxl]

And I'm laughing right back at them. The allrounders are usually just bowlers who can hit a little. None of them can field. I watch quite a bit of cricket, I know what they consider "great" defense, and a good MLB middle infielder would put them all to shame.

 

A good MLB middle infielder would probably show you his middle finger if you'd ask him to field at silly point 8-)

 

And "hit a little" does injustice to the ability of people like Imran Khan and Wilfred Rhodes, imho

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And I'm laughing right back at them. The allrounders are usually just bowlers who can hit a little. None of them can field. I watch quite a bit of cricket, I know what they consider "great" defense, and a good MLB middle infielder would put them all to shame.

 

A good MLB middle infielder would probably show you his middle finger if you'd ask him to field at silly point 8-)

 

And "hit a little" does injustice to the ability of people like Imran Khan and Wilfred Rhodes, imho

 

On the first point, that's fine. But does silly point really take that much skill? Courage, sure. I guess maybe quick hands. But you are mostly just hoping the ball pops up at you (or sticks in your pocket, as it did for that one guy a few weeks back).

 

As far as all-rounders, that's why I said "usually." But the basic point is that no cricket player will ever be denied a position if they can bowl or bat to an adequate degree. In baseball, there are only a few positions that you can play if you have no defensive skill, and at some positions defense is more important than offense.

[wvcbxl]

But the basic point is that no cricket player will ever be denied a position if they can bowl or bat to an adequate degree. In baseball, there are only a few positions that you can play if you have no defensive skill, and at some positions defense is more important than offense.

 

I agree - the basic point is indeed that it is very hard to compare both sports. To get back to your initial analogy: the fielding of a side made up of a starting rotation (minus the one that is pitching) complemented by first basemen would be entertaining (especially at SS and CF).

 

In traditional test cricket, defense simply isn't that important. A couple of more runs doesn't matter much when an inning totals between 300 and 500.

That may evolve in a 20/20 format though.

[Guest]

But the basic point is that no cricket player will ever be denied a position if they can bowl or bat to an adequate degree. In baseball, there are only a few positions that you can play if you have no defensive skill, and at some positions defense is more important than offense.

 

I agree - the basic point is indeed that it is very hard to compare both sports. To get back to your initial analogy: the fielding of a side made up of a starting rotation (minus the one that is pitching) complemented by first basemen would be entertaining (especially at SS and CF).

 

In traditional test cricket, defense simply isn't that important. A couple of more runs doesn't matter much when an inning totals between 300 and 500.

That may evolve in a 20/20 format though.

 

Really? I wouldn't think it would matter much even in 20/20.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Really? I wouldn't think it would matter much even in 20/20.

 

Run rate is everything in 20-20. The significance of wickets is greatly reduced, but if you can save four fours into twos in a match, you've shaved .4 per over off the rate, which is pretty significant.

 

That format is still so new that the strategy is still evolving, but I can see a day where teams have a defensive specialist or two in the lineup for that reason.

[cardinalsfan]

Really? I wouldn't think it would matter much even in 20/20.

 

Run rate is everything in 20-20. The significance of wickets is greatly reduced, but if you can save four fours into twos in a match, you've shaved .4 per over off the rate, which is pretty significant.

 

That format is still so new that the strategy is still evolving, but I can see a day where teams have a defensive specialist or two in the lineup for that reason.

This is actually true. Even in 50-over cricket defense have became a major factor in selecting players. I am not saying a guy who is solid in his defense and doesnt know how to hit will make the team (Aka izturis). I am saying defense is certainely one of the main factors in selecting a player.

[Marco4]

And "hit a little" does injustice to the ability of people like Imran Khan and Wilfred Rhodes, imho

 

As far as all-rounders, that's why I said "usually." But the basic point is that no cricket player will ever be denied a position if they can bowl or bat to an adequate degree. In baseball, there are only a few positions that you can play if you have no defensive skill, and at some positions defense is more important than offense.

 

On the first bit, I'm as proud as any post I've read to see Wilfred Rhodes mentioned on NSBB. He was born, what, 10 minutes from me and his career arc is truly tremendous.

 

Samit Patel springs to mind as someone whose 'mobility' issues have cost him a place in the England team, but he's unproven at international level to date.

 

As for the main thread, I've never really 'got' any restricted cricket. I love the full form of the sport, its in my blood, but I can't deal with the 50, 40 and 20 over things.

[Guest]

As for the main thread, I've never really 'got' any restricted cricket. I love the full form of the sport, its in my blood, but I can't deal with the 50, 40 and 20 over things.

 

Hahaha, I have grand uncles who are like that. In fact, one of them told me that 20/20 was for impatient Americans like me.

[OleMissCub]

I feel like I'm reading a foreign language in this thread.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

As for the main thread, I've never really 'got' any restricted cricket. I love the full form of the sport, its in my blood, but I can't deal with the 50, 40 and 20 over things.

 

Hahaha, I have grand uncles who are like that. In fact, one of them told me that 20/20 was for impatient Americans like me.

 

I prefer first-class, but I really don't mind watching limited overs. It's interesting in its own way.

 

I really recommend people who love baseball (not just sports fans in general, but specifically love baseball) take the time to get into cricket. It's got many of the elements we love about baseball, but also has a much richer strategic layer to it.