Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think anyone who has watched Rugby knows the truth, as for NFL players, it's more likely they wouldn't last five minutes on a rugby pitch. for the simple reason that on average, American football players only run around 1 mile per game and they only actually play for an average of 11 minutes whilst rugby players play for a full 80 minutes. NFL players would be physically exhausted after playing 10 minutes of Rugby.
As for cricket fast bowling is involves sending the ball in different trajectories in to confuse the batsman and there is also Spin bowling. Whilst cricketers have wickets as well as a wicket keeper (catcher).
I think cricketers could adapt to baseball better than baseball players could adapt to cricket, for the simple reason that we have all played rounders and it's fairly easy to pick up, however cricket is a lot less straightforward, with leg before wicket and all kinds of other such rules that relate to the wickets, which you can not impede or hit with your bat.
I don't think cricketers or baseball players are any more or less at an advantage learning to play the other's sport. LBW isn't so complicated a concept that it would take an inordinate amount of time to explain it to baseball players. Obviously baseball requires greater hand-eye coordination because 1) you're trying to hit a sphere with a cylindrical surface rather than a flat one, and 2) the field of play is only 90 degrees which greatly advantages the defense and disadvantages the offense vs cricket. How well a cricket batsman could adjust to the round vs flat bat and eliminating 75% of the field of play, I don't know. But that of course is why a typical 3-hour baseball game will typically feature somewhere between 5 and 15 runs total while a 3-hour T20 match will ring up somewhere around 350.
Your argument can be said about any sport
It’s easy to play any sport at an amateur level … not so easy at a professional level
Take for example ping-pong, one of my favorite sports
Anybody can play it with their friends … now try playing it against a professional player and you’ll be crying after 5 minutes
Well then you misunderstood the argument. We were talking about ease of entry into a sport as a child. Accessibility in terms of cost, equipment, physical ability etc.
I don't think cricketers or baseball players are any more or less at an advantage learning to play the other's sport. LBW isn't so complicated a concept that it would take an inordinate amount of time to explain it to baseball players. Obviously baseball requires greater hand-eye coordination because 1) you're trying to hit a sphere with a cylindrical surface rather than a flat one, and 2) the field of play is only 90 degrees which greatly advantages the defense and disadvantages the offense vs cricket. How well a cricket batsman could adjust to the round vs flat bat and eliminating 75% of the field of play, I don't know. But that of course is why a typical 3-hour baseball game will typically feature somewhere between 5 and 15 runs total while a 3-hour T20 match will ring up somewhere around 350.
Million Dollar Arm examined the differences between cricket and baseball. The major draw was Jon Hamm playing the lead, famous for his lead role on Mad Men (which was about to end its run). Although he might have accidentally typecasted himself because he was still wearing suits in the move that look contemporaneous with his TV role.
Quote:
Originally Posted by svelten
Unlike say baseball which is incredibly complicated and unnatural,
Some have dubbed the recent Latin Mass restrictions controversy as "Inside Baseball" because of the internal politics that non-Catholics would not understand or have interest. (Although the secular press took an interest because of the artistry and pageantry the Latin Mass enriching Western Civilization/culture for more than a millennium. Pope Francis is also noted to be less colorful than his predecessor.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by vindag
Again I agree with what you are saying. Of all 4 major North American sports, hockey shows the worse on TV
There are only 3 major sports in the U.S. NFL, NBA, and MLB are on the first tier; while hockey, soccer, and NASCAR are on the second-tier. MLS is starting to overtake NHL and eventually join the first-tier.
Rugby players very rarely absorb impacts of the same energy that occur in gridiron. The concussive trauma we see in ex-NFL players is simply not present in rugby players even at the highest level. Rugby players retire with less back pain and joint injury, and generally go on to be heathier in middle and old age. NFL players are vastly more likely to suffer throughout middle and old age. Many of the hits in gridiron would be illegal in rugby, which specifically bans head high tackles. This absolute nonsense that rugby is tougher, because they don't wear padding, is laughable. There are 500 NFL players that are over 300 pounds, so your typical rugby player would have to bulk up to play NFL football. I would say you have a far better chance of getting seriously injured in NFL football, but in rugby you need more stamina.
Equally, the typical American football player would be out on his feet in 5 minutes on a Rugby or Rugby League field, or soccer or Aussie rules. But yes, the players are adapted over many years for the particular rigours of each sport.
Impacts are bigger on a limited number of players in the NFL of course. Much of it to do with poor tackling technique borne out of having a weapon on their head. Most players receive very little significant impact trauma, whereas every player on the field, in every play, is open to significant impact in the Rugby codes.
Fortunately in Rugby League, concussion is now being taken much more seriously and managed far better with stricter enforcement of rules intended to protect the head. The days of a bloke unsteady and barely unable to find his feet, scrambling back into the defence line to make the next tackle are gone. Not long ago, that was witnessed in every game including young juniors.
But I would say that overall in the football codes, considering all physical elements, Rugby League is a "tougher" sport followed by American Football then Rugby Union.. And Soccer comes way down the list, far behind the likes of Aussie Rules, somewhere near field hockey.
More like you'd make contact with 1 out of 20 -- if you were having a really good day. Very few of those would actually be in play, and on very few of THOSE would you safely reach base with all other runners (if any) also advancing safely.
Top American football players are also much bigger, much quicker, and hit much harder -- the latter enabled by all that padding that doesn't offer as much protection as you might imagine. They protect the player doing the playing a lot more than the player being hit. Even your top rugby players would get creamed on an NFL pitch because the physique that suits rugby isn't well-suited for American football, except maybe as tight ends if they have really good speed.
Also, fast bowlers in cricket almost never hit 100mph. Mid-90s is more standard with the best ones in the upper 90s..
The average height and weight across all positions is actually remarkably similar between American Football and Rugby Union, but yes, there are far greater outliers in the NFL. Although those 300lb fellas aren't doing many big hits.
The real difference is speed. Most NFL players are faster than most Rugby players, because the sport is built around explosive power, where the players get to rest and reload each play and have an average of around 10 minutes actual playing time where the Rugby codes have closer to 70 min actual playing time. So yes, due to similar sizes and faster speed, impact will be higher. But for a limited number of players and for a much smaller number of impacts per game. Reality is they are both incredibly touugh and the men that play them would be able to compete in either if they grow up with it and trained for it. However the conversion would be much tougher for the average NFL guy who would also need to add some ball skills into the equation.
You are correct that relatively few bowlers exceed 100mph in Cricket. But I know from a safety perspective, I'd much rather be in the batters box facing deGrom than in front of the wickets facing Starc.
The average size is much smaller and a rugby player doesn't have the shoulder and head protection which allows American football players to drive home their attack. Generally speaking only one player on the field has armor covering their ribs meanwhile receivers, often 3 or 4 out of 11 have increasingly cut back the padding they wear to improve quickness and flat out speed.
I would imagine that the larger rugby players are more suited to the crossover positions of linebacker and running back than the ball catching eligible interior lineman the tighteneds
The average sizes are actually very similar. NFL just has move of the big unfit guys. But yes, on average they are stronger and faster.
Million Dollar Arm examined the differences between cricket and baseball. The major draw was Jon Hamm playing the lead, famous for his lead role on Mad Men (which was about to end its run). Although he might have accidentally typecasted himself because he was still wearing suits in the move that look contemporaneous with his TV role.
Some have dubbed the recent Latin Mass restrictions controversy as "Inside Baseball" because of the internal politics that non-Catholics would not understand or have interest. (Although the secular press took an interest because of the artistry and pageantry the Latin Mass enriching Western Civilization/culture for more than a millennium. Pope Francis is also noted to be less colorful than his predecessor.)
There are only 3 major sports in the U.S. NFL, NBA, and MLB are on the first tier; while hockey, soccer, and NASCAR are on the second-tier. MLS is starting to overtake NHL and eventually join the first-tier.
There there is no way the MLS will overtake the NHL. Winning the Stanley Cup will AWAYS be bigger than winning the MLS title. MLS tickets are cheap that's why they draw, while hockey tickets are expensive. The Islanders just built a 1 billion dollar stadium, no way an MLS team could afford a billion dollar stadium. Their stadiums are in the 200 million dollar range. The NHL takes in 8x the revenue of the MLS. I grew up in Philly, if the Flyers win the Stanley Cup, 2 million people will party in the streets. If The Union won the MLS title it would be nothing more than a sports story, not major news like The Flyers.
This post is total nonsense that NFL players wouldn't last 5 minutes on a rugby pitch. NFL players on average are bigger, stronger, faster than rugby players. Believe me if they trained for a more stamina type of game like rugby, they would have no problem adapting to it. Most rugby players could never play in the NFL, because they aren't big enough, strong enough or fast enough. Jarryd Hayne at one time a great fullback in the NRL, and the highest paid player in the NRL, played in 8 games for the San Francisco 49ers. He averaged 3 yards a run, before he was tackled to the ground. On 8 punt returns he fumbled the ball 3 times. Jarryd Hayne said at the time, heavy hits are very scary in the NFL, and he struggled to sleep as a result of head injuries in the short time he was in the NFL. By the way, he never scored a touchdown. Also there is not one cricket player in the world who could ever play in MLB. You are just ridiculous.
The fact that Hayne, having never played a down of football, and experience in it was limited to playing Madden, could make the team is quite amazing. He was a good athlete, but not even able to secure his preferred position in the Australian Rugby league team.
No one in the NFL would make it on to an NRL team so quickly especially in a key playing position. It would be hilarious actually to watch. The only chance would be on the wing due to pace, but even then would be destroyed in defence. While athletically they could of course adapt, they would have to learn ball skills which for the vast majority of NFL players are exceptionally limited. And defence is so different. It would take many years to be effective after coming from a game where every play is a set play starting from scratch.
There are many great Cricket batsmen that could undoubtedly make their way up through the minors once they got their hitting adapted to baseball. Their hand eye is obviously just as good and fielding/catching far superior. If you think a Steve Smith or a Virat Kholi would be unable to hit in Baseball, then you just haven't seen enough cricket. Probably none that would become a pitcher though.
But again, there is not a single MLB player that even with years of prep could transition to cricket and compete at firstclass level, let alone international. It is far too different to contemplate. That is not to say if they grew up with it they couldn't. There is no magic in the water in the US that means only people born there can be good at their domestic sports.
But who cares. It's great having all of these amazing sports to watch.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. And Soccer comes way down the list, far behind the likes of Aussie Rules, somewhere near field hockey.