Why cricket is better than baseball - An analysis
There are two nations that although are similar, try to differentiate themselves from each other as much as possible. The versatility can be seen from the use of the alphabet ‘u’ in their spelling of words like ‘favorite’ or ‘favourite’, depending on which
side of the Atlantic Ocean one is, to the way they play their sports.
It would be controversial to label baseball as a rip-off of cricket, but would it be a fair assessment. If one was to compare the two sports, while keeping in mind that cricket was the earlier of the two to be recognised, it may not be too far from the truth.
Analysing the core elements of the game reveals how baseball was America’s excuse for playing cricket without embracing the game. As mentioned earlier, Americans wish to differentiate themselves as much as they can from the British, but no matter how they
go about it, the fundamentals remain the same.
Cricket is played with a bat and a ball, unsurprisingly so is baseball. The clever thing is that the bat used in baseball is of a different shape and the ball is larger with different stitching. Knowing that this would not be enough, a rule was introduced
that the ball had to travel to the batsmen without hitting the ground. This allowed the game to replace the word bowler with pitcher.
As everyone knows the most exciting part of the batting innings in cricket is a ‘six’, when the ball travels over the rope to give the batting side six runs. Cue Home runs, baseball’s alternative to the sixer. The cricket pitch was rectangular so the baseball
one had to be different, so diverse in fact that it was removed altogether. Running in a http://www.senore.com/Cricket/Minal-Mahesh-Patel-c76331 replaced running between the wickets as baseball tried everything to make it as distinct as it could from cricket.
Runs were retained but the amount scored changed. A home run could get a side as much as four runs depending on the number of batters on the bases. The test format of cricket consists of two innings for each team. Baseball, it seems, wanted to set a new
benchmark and nine innings per team was introduced, though the amount of batters allotted to each team per innings were reduced.
The people behind baseball wanted to show that they were more forgiving than their cricketing counterparts as the batter was given three chances to smash the ball out of the ground before they returned to their dug out if they failed. Cricket took its time,
but in turn responded with the ‘review’.
In another move that endears baseball into the hearts of its fans, and probably to show the world that they are not as arrogant, any ball that ended up in the stands became the property of any fan that was fortunate enough to catch it. As opposed to cricket,
where the ball has to be returned to the playing field.
The fact is that cricket is better than baseball for a number of reasons. One could still argue that baseball is its own game, but the evidence is there for the world to see. Baseball has its origins in cricket and that is not a criticism by any stretch
of imagination. Instead, it took an idea and adapted it to its own needs and gave the world another reason to cheer, celebrate, moan and groan, but because it was a rip-off of an existing game, all the accolades go to cricket.
The opinions expressed in this article are of the writer and do not portray the editorial policy of Bettor.com
Tags: