love NFL football n baseball
both freakin grate
both faaar better than soccer that i wudnt take no notice of no more if Napoli didnt x-cyst
comment by 4zA - its into the shame and into the guilt an... (U22472)
posted 8 hours, 6 minutes ago
love NFL football n baseball
both freakin grate
both faaar better than soccer that i wudnt take no notice of no more if Napoli didnt x-cyst
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't exist....outside of Naples...
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 9 hours, 15 minutes ago
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 1 minute ago
It's a complete mess but one of the most exciting sports I've watched is Australian Rules Football.
Baseball live is similar to cricket, it's like watching a puppet show of sport because you can't see the ball most of the time. I get people are often there just to get drunk and have fun with friends while the sport is on in the background but the sports themselves are probably better on TV (and they're still often only exciting about 5% of the play time, if you're lucky).
Tennis can be excellent although you often get very one sided games which isn't great. It suffers from not being a team sport as well, people do follow certain players but even with the current goats having all played in one era it feels like it's barely got more popular. The women's game is excellent in comparison to other sports and seems to provide a lot more upsets which can add to the entertainment.
As cheesy as it is the Netflix F1 program has done wonders for the sport by showing how it's not all about winning. Due to budgets, just like in football it never can be but in F1 you get a better feel for how much it means for a lesser team just to score a few points during an entire season. That side of sport is definitely missed most of the time and maybe other sports could learn from telling the story of the sides who aren't necessarily winning but are fighting just as hard and may even be significantly out performing everyone else in terms of relative performance.
Sport and excitement can be found in almost anything though, especially/particularly if you can muster up some sort of emotional interest in one or both of the competitors
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't see the ball most of the time at cricket? Only time you can't see it is when the bowler is running in. You can see it the whole time it is in "play".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can also see it in baseball other than when the pitcher is concealing it from the batter.
Feel like this guy has never watched either sport...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've watched both on TV and live in stadiums. Watched the Boston Redsocks and the England Cricket team FFS
For the cricket we were close to the pitch and could still hardly see the ball unless it came our way (or eventually slowed down somewhere) or was bowled by a spinner.
Baseball was so rubbish though, the crowd did nothing bar the "here we go" song and despite not being in terrible seats you couldn't see feck all most of the time, just a swing and a miss.
Being behind the wickets/pitcher would help I guess but most of the crowd isn't.
And no I wasn't drunk... At the beginning at least!
Like I said in the original comment you can get into anything with some emotional attachment, even cockroach racing, chess or something as dross as baseball
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You not being able to see the ball probably says more about you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assume you've never actually watched these sports live. I was not alone in this issue, loads of people around us were saying the same thing (we were all surprised), the regulars just said it was normal
You must have terrible eye sight not to be able to see the ball at cricket. I go to watch England 2 or 3 times every summer and go to watch the odd T20 County game and never have such problems.
The problem is more likely that you don't know where to look or are trying to watch the ball directly out of the bowlers hand and then trying to catch up with a ball travelling 90 mph. If you lose sight of it, you can generally pick up where it is quite quickly by the batsmen's movements if you know the sport and the shots they play.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 minutes ago
You must have terrible eye sight not to be able to see the ball at cricket. I go to watch England 2 or 3 times every summer and go to watch the odd T20 County game and never have such problems.
The problem is more likely that you don't know where to look or are trying to watch the ball directly out of the bowlers hand and then trying to catch up with a ball travelling 90 mph. If you lose sight of it, you can generally pick up where it is quite quickly by the batsmen's movements if you know the sport and the shots they play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes you appreciate the fielders in the covers even more, now we know none of them can see the ball.
Cover fielders generally look at the batsman rather than the ball don't they?
comment by 4zA - its into the shame and into the guilt and into the fooking fray (U22472)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
love NFL football n baseball
both freakin grate
both faaar better than soccer that i wudnt take no notice of no more if Napoli didnt x-cyst
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about throwing donkeys off cliffs?
That’s quite a fun sport I’m told
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 9 hours, 15 minutes ago
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 1 minute ago
It's a complete mess but one of the most exciting sports I've watched is Australian Rules Football.
Baseball live is similar to cricket, it's like watching a puppet show of sport because you can't see the ball most of the time. I get people are often there just to get drunk and have fun with friends while the sport is on in the background but the sports themselves are probably better on TV (and they're still often only exciting about 5% of the play time, if you're lucky).
Tennis can be excellent although you often get very one sided games which isn't great. It suffers from not being a team sport as well, people do follow certain players but even with the current goats having all played in one era it feels like it's barely got more popular. The women's game is excellent in comparison to other sports and seems to provide a lot more upsets which can add to the entertainment.
As cheesy as it is the Netflix F1 program has done wonders for the sport by showing how it's not all about winning. Due to budgets, just like in football it never can be but in F1 you get a better feel for how much it means for a lesser team just to score a few points during an entire season. That side of sport is definitely missed most of the time and maybe other sports could learn from telling the story of the sides who aren't necessarily winning but are fighting just as hard and may even be significantly out performing everyone else in terms of relative performance.
Sport and excitement can be found in almost anything though, especially/particularly if you can muster up some sort of emotional interest in one or both of the competitors
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't see the ball most of the time at cricket? Only time you can't see it is when the bowler is running in. You can see it the whole time it is in "play".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can also see it in baseball other than when the pitcher is concealing it from the batter.
Feel like this guy has never watched either sport...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've watched both on TV and live in stadiums. Watched the Boston Redsocks and the England Cricket team FFS
For the cricket we were close to the pitch and could still hardly see the ball unless it came our way (or eventually slowed down somewhere) or was bowled by a spinner.
Baseball was so rubbish though, the crowd did nothing bar the "here we go" song and despite not being in terrible seats you couldn't see feck all most of the time, just a swing and a miss.
Being behind the wickets/pitcher would help I guess but most of the crowd isn't.
And no I wasn't drunk... At the beginning at least!
Like I said in the original comment you can get into anything with some emotional attachment, even cockroach racing, chess or something as dross as baseball
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You not being able to see the ball probably says more about you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assume you've never actually watched these sports live. I was not alone in this issue, loads of people around us were saying the same thing (we were all surprised), the regulars just said it was normal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate, I go to every test match at Lords, every summer and never once had an issue picking up the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been to Fenway Park, Rogers Centre, London Stadium and T Mobile Park for baseball, and Lords for cricket and have been able to see the ball just fine.
I also play baseball every summer with no issues.
This one is 100% on you...
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by 4zA - its into the shame and into the guilt and into the fooking fray (U22472)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
love NFL football n baseball
both freakin grate
both faaar better than soccer that i wudnt take no notice of no more if Napoli didnt x-cyst
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about throwing donkeys off cliffs?
That’s quite a fun sport I’m told
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They throw them down steep steps in Santorini
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 9 minutes ago
Cover fielders generally look at the batsman rather than the ball don't they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I field in the covers and watch the batsmen and their foot movement to work out if they are going to be hitting the ball my way before it gets to them.
The poster who couldn't see the ball though said that no one could see it until it slowed down and the reason he couldn't was because he was closer and side on. Given the ball is generally travelling pretty fast through the covers and at point, and they are even closer and side on; it would imply that none of them would be able to see the ball until it was past them.
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 minutes ago
You must have terrible eye sight not to be able to see the ball at cricket. I go to watch England 2 or 3 times every summer and go to watch the odd T20 County game and never have such problems.
The problem is more likely that you don't know where to look or are trying to watch the ball directly out of the bowlers hand and then trying to catch up with a ball travelling 90 mph. If you lose sight of it, you can generally pick up where it is quite quickly by the batsmen's movements if you know the sport and the shots they play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Normally, expect this is the same in cricket, if I'm watching a ballgame I'd look quite vaguely between the pitcher and hitter and can easily pick the ball up.
Imagine it's the same looking at the wicket in cricket.
Really isn't hard
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 9 minutes ago
Cover fielders generally look at the batsman rather than the ball don't they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I field in the covers and watch the batsmen and their foot movement to work out if they are going to be hitting the ball my way before it gets to them.
The poster who couldn't see the ball though said that no one could see it until it slowed down and the reason he couldn't was because he was closer and side on. Given the ball is generally travelling pretty fast through the covers and at point, and they are even closer and side on; it would imply that none of them would be able to see the ball until it was past them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gotcha!
I was a cover or mid-wicket fielder, mostly. Much easier than the slips
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 9 minutes ago
Cover fielders generally look at the batsman rather than the ball don't they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I field in the covers and watch the batsmen and their foot movement to work out if they are going to be hitting the ball my way before it gets to them.
The poster who couldn't see the ball though said that no one could see it until it slowed down and the reason he couldn't was because he was closer and side on. Given the ball is generally travelling pretty fast through the covers and at point, and they are even closer and side on; it would imply that none of them would be able to see the ball until it was past them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gotcha!
I was a cover or mid-wicket fielder, mostly. Much easier than the slips
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I could field anywhere with a baseball glove, but I have so much respect for cricket players fielding in the slips / silly point etc.
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by 4zA - its into the shame and into the guilt and into the fooking fray (U22472)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
love NFL football n baseball
both freakin grate
both faaar better than soccer that i wudnt take no notice of no more if Napoli didnt x-cyst
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about throwing donkeys off cliffs?
That’s quite a fun sport I’m told
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They throw them down steep steps in Santorini
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably an original Olympic event
Slips is easier than the covers in my opinion. The ball comes quickly but it's generally straight forward reflex catches. You just want the person with the safest hands there.
The most difficult place to field is point / backward point. When the ball comes at you there it comes off the face of the bat with no pace taken off it. It generally has spin on the ball too which you have to factor it. It's why the likes of Collingwood, Jonty Rhodes and Trevor Penny (the best fielder I have seen when he played for Warwickshire) all fielded in that position.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 20 seconds ago
Slips is easier than the covers in my opinion. The ball comes quickly but it's generally straight forward reflex catches. You just want the person with the safest hands there.
The most difficult place to field is point / backward point. When the ball comes at you there it comes off the face of the bat with no pace taken off it. It generally has spin on the ball too which you have to factor it. It's why the likes of Collingwood, Jonty Rhodes and Trevor Penny (the best fielder I have seen when he played for Warwickshire) all fielded in that position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the difference in fielding positions is, close in once you've fielded it your job is basically done. Where as in baseball at third base for example off a right handed hitter you can take the ball at well over 100mph, field it, then you've got make a throw 127 feet to 1st base all before the batter can run there which is about 4.3 seconds on average.
It also depends what level you play at too I guess. If you play at a higher level where the batsmen are good and technically correct, then the covers isn't an easy place to field. The batsmen drive a lot, so you get the ball hit hard at you quite frequently. You also have to be on your toes for when they try to drop the ball in the gaps and run. You are probably second most in the action besides the wicketkeeper.
At lower levels where batsmen are more likely to play across the line, the covers is a less busy position.
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 20 seconds ago
Slips is easier than the covers in my opinion. The ball comes quickly but it's generally straight forward reflex catches. You just want the person with the safest hands there.
The most difficult place to field is point / backward point. When the ball comes at you there it comes off the face of the bat with no pace taken off it. It generally has spin on the ball too which you have to factor it. It's why the likes of Collingwood, Jonty Rhodes and Trevor Penny (the best fielder I have seen when he played for Warwickshire) all fielded in that position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the difference in fielding positions is, close in once you've fielded it your job is basically done. Where as in baseball at third base for example off a right handed hitter you can take the ball at well over 100mph, field it, then you've got make a throw 127 feet to 1st base all before the batter can run there which is about 4.3 seconds on average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think its similar in that you might have to have a shy at the stumps to run someone out. You also might have a chase on if it goes past you and there is no deep fielder. In cricket though you only really have two options on ends to throw it. Baseball I guess they have to process more before deciding where to go.
They all get gloves though, so the degree of difficulty on the first bit is reduced.
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 minutes ago
Slips is easier than the covers in my opinion. The ball comes quickly but it's generally straight forward reflex catches. You just want the person with the safest hands there.
The most difficult place to field is point / backward point. When the ball comes at you there it comes off the face of the bat with no pace taken off it. It generally has spin on the ball too which you have to factor it. It's why the likes of Collingwood, Jonty Rhodes and Trevor Penny (the best fielder I have seen when he played for Warwickshire) all fielded in that position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally hated fielding in the slips. You're right though, is point area. Punter also fielded there from memory.
But hey, all better than long off or on!
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 20 seconds ago
Slips is easier than the covers in my opinion. The ball comes quickly but it's generally straight forward reflex catches. You just want the person with the safest hands there.
The most difficult place to field is point / backward point. When the ball comes at you there it comes off the face of the bat with no pace taken off it. It generally has spin on the ball too which you have to factor it. It's why the likes of Collingwood, Jonty Rhodes and Trevor Penny (the best fielder I have seen when he played for Warwickshire) all fielded in that position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the difference in fielding positions is, close in once you've fielded it your job is basically done. Where as in baseball at third base for example off a right handed hitter you can take the ball at well over 100mph, field it, then you've got make a throw 127 feet to 1st base all before the batter can run there which is about 4.3 seconds on average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think its similar in that you might have to have a shy at the stumps to run someone out. You also might have a chase on if it goes past you and there is no deep fielder. In cricket though you only really have two options on ends to throw it. Baseball I guess they have to process more before deciding where to go.
They all get gloves though, so the degree of difficulty on the first bit is reduced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh 100% I wouldn't pretend otherwise, having a glove is WAY easier.
But don't forget baseball players fire the ball at eachother at 90+ mph (the only cricket player that receives a ball like this s the wicket keeper who does wear gloves...), when I went to Lords I saw then looping the ball to eachother!
Sign in if you want to comment
The Superbowl coverage
Page 9 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 15/2/22
love NFL football n baseball
both freakin grate
both faaar better than soccer that i wudnt take no notice of no more if Napoli didnt x-cyst
posted on 15/2/22
comment by 4zA - its into the shame and into the guilt an... (U22472)
posted 8 hours, 6 minutes ago
love NFL football n baseball
both freakin grate
both faaar better than soccer that i wudnt take no notice of no more if Napoli didnt x-cyst
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They don't exist....outside of Naples...
posted on 15/2/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/2/22
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 9 hours, 15 minutes ago
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 1 minute ago
It's a complete mess but one of the most exciting sports I've watched is Australian Rules Football.
Baseball live is similar to cricket, it's like watching a puppet show of sport because you can't see the ball most of the time. I get people are often there just to get drunk and have fun with friends while the sport is on in the background but the sports themselves are probably better on TV (and they're still often only exciting about 5% of the play time, if you're lucky).
Tennis can be excellent although you often get very one sided games which isn't great. It suffers from not being a team sport as well, people do follow certain players but even with the current goats having all played in one era it feels like it's barely got more popular. The women's game is excellent in comparison to other sports and seems to provide a lot more upsets which can add to the entertainment.
As cheesy as it is the Netflix F1 program has done wonders for the sport by showing how it's not all about winning. Due to budgets, just like in football it never can be but in F1 you get a better feel for how much it means for a lesser team just to score a few points during an entire season. That side of sport is definitely missed most of the time and maybe other sports could learn from telling the story of the sides who aren't necessarily winning but are fighting just as hard and may even be significantly out performing everyone else in terms of relative performance.
Sport and excitement can be found in almost anything though, especially/particularly if you can muster up some sort of emotional interest in one or both of the competitors
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't see the ball most of the time at cricket? Only time you can't see it is when the bowler is running in. You can see it the whole time it is in "play".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can also see it in baseball other than when the pitcher is concealing it from the batter.
Feel like this guy has never watched either sport...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've watched both on TV and live in stadiums. Watched the Boston Redsocks and the England Cricket team FFS
For the cricket we were close to the pitch and could still hardly see the ball unless it came our way (or eventually slowed down somewhere) or was bowled by a spinner.
Baseball was so rubbish though, the crowd did nothing bar the "here we go" song and despite not being in terrible seats you couldn't see feck all most of the time, just a swing and a miss.
Being behind the wickets/pitcher would help I guess but most of the crowd isn't.
And no I wasn't drunk... At the beginning at least!
Like I said in the original comment you can get into anything with some emotional attachment, even cockroach racing, chess or something as dross as baseball
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You not being able to see the ball probably says more about you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assume you've never actually watched these sports live. I was not alone in this issue, loads of people around us were saying the same thing (we were all surprised), the regulars just said it was normal
posted on 15/2/22
You must have terrible eye sight not to be able to see the ball at cricket. I go to watch England 2 or 3 times every summer and go to watch the odd T20 County game and never have such problems.
The problem is more likely that you don't know where to look or are trying to watch the ball directly out of the bowlers hand and then trying to catch up with a ball travelling 90 mph. If you lose sight of it, you can generally pick up where it is quite quickly by the batsmen's movements if you know the sport and the shots they play.
posted on 15/2/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/2/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/2/22
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 minutes ago
You must have terrible eye sight not to be able to see the ball at cricket. I go to watch England 2 or 3 times every summer and go to watch the odd T20 County game and never have such problems.
The problem is more likely that you don't know where to look or are trying to watch the ball directly out of the bowlers hand and then trying to catch up with a ball travelling 90 mph. If you lose sight of it, you can generally pick up where it is quite quickly by the batsmen's movements if you know the sport and the shots they play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Makes you appreciate the fielders in the covers even more, now we know none of them can see the ball.
posted on 15/2/22
Cover fielders generally look at the batsman rather than the ball don't they?
posted on 15/2/22
comment by 4zA - its into the shame and into the guilt and into the fooking fray (U22472)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
love NFL football n baseball
both freakin grate
both faaar better than soccer that i wudnt take no notice of no more if Napoli didnt x-cyst
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about throwing donkeys off cliffs?
That’s quite a fun sport I’m told
posted on 15/2/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/2/22
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 35 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 46 minutes ago
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 9 hours, 15 minutes ago
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Two Balls, One Saka (U19684)
posted 1 minute ago
It's a complete mess but one of the most exciting sports I've watched is Australian Rules Football.
Baseball live is similar to cricket, it's like watching a puppet show of sport because you can't see the ball most of the time. I get people are often there just to get drunk and have fun with friends while the sport is on in the background but the sports themselves are probably better on TV (and they're still often only exciting about 5% of the play time, if you're lucky).
Tennis can be excellent although you often get very one sided games which isn't great. It suffers from not being a team sport as well, people do follow certain players but even with the current goats having all played in one era it feels like it's barely got more popular. The women's game is excellent in comparison to other sports and seems to provide a lot more upsets which can add to the entertainment.
As cheesy as it is the Netflix F1 program has done wonders for the sport by showing how it's not all about winning. Due to budgets, just like in football it never can be but in F1 you get a better feel for how much it means for a lesser team just to score a few points during an entire season. That side of sport is definitely missed most of the time and maybe other sports could learn from telling the story of the sides who aren't necessarily winning but are fighting just as hard and may even be significantly out performing everyone else in terms of relative performance.
Sport and excitement can be found in almost anything though, especially/particularly if you can muster up some sort of emotional interest in one or both of the competitors
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't see the ball most of the time at cricket? Only time you can't see it is when the bowler is running in. You can see it the whole time it is in "play".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can also see it in baseball other than when the pitcher is concealing it from the batter.
Feel like this guy has never watched either sport...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've watched both on TV and live in stadiums. Watched the Boston Redsocks and the England Cricket team FFS
For the cricket we were close to the pitch and could still hardly see the ball unless it came our way (or eventually slowed down somewhere) or was bowled by a spinner.
Baseball was so rubbish though, the crowd did nothing bar the "here we go" song and despite not being in terrible seats you couldn't see feck all most of the time, just a swing and a miss.
Being behind the wickets/pitcher would help I guess but most of the crowd isn't.
And no I wasn't drunk... At the beginning at least!
Like I said in the original comment you can get into anything with some emotional attachment, even cockroach racing, chess or something as dross as baseball
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You not being able to see the ball probably says more about you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assume you've never actually watched these sports live. I was not alone in this issue, loads of people around us were saying the same thing (we were all surprised), the regulars just said it was normal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate, I go to every test match at Lords, every summer and never once had an issue picking up the ball.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been to Fenway Park, Rogers Centre, London Stadium and T Mobile Park for baseball, and Lords for cricket and have been able to see the ball just fine.
I also play baseball every summer with no issues.
This one is 100% on you...
posted on 15/2/22
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by 4zA - its into the shame and into the guilt and into the fooking fray (U22472)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
love NFL football n baseball
both freakin grate
both faaar better than soccer that i wudnt take no notice of no more if Napoli didnt x-cyst
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about throwing donkeys off cliffs?
That’s quite a fun sport I’m told
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They throw them down steep steps in Santorini
posted on 15/2/22
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 9 minutes ago
Cover fielders generally look at the batsman rather than the ball don't they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I field in the covers and watch the batsmen and their foot movement to work out if they are going to be hitting the ball my way before it gets to them.
The poster who couldn't see the ball though said that no one could see it until it slowed down and the reason he couldn't was because he was closer and side on. Given the ball is generally travelling pretty fast through the covers and at point, and they are even closer and side on; it would imply that none of them would be able to see the ball until it was past them.
posted on 15/2/22
comment by GTWI4T- some people deserve to get trolled (U6008)
posted 44 minutes ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 14 minutes ago
You must have terrible eye sight not to be able to see the ball at cricket. I go to watch England 2 or 3 times every summer and go to watch the odd T20 County game and never have such problems.
The problem is more likely that you don't know where to look or are trying to watch the ball directly out of the bowlers hand and then trying to catch up with a ball travelling 90 mph. If you lose sight of it, you can generally pick up where it is quite quickly by the batsmen's movements if you know the sport and the shots they play.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Normally, expect this is the same in cricket, if I'm watching a ballgame I'd look quite vaguely between the pitcher and hitter and can easily pick the ball up.
Imagine it's the same looking at the wicket in cricket.
Really isn't hard
posted on 15/2/22
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 9 minutes ago
Cover fielders generally look at the batsman rather than the ball don't they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I field in the covers and watch the batsmen and their foot movement to work out if they are going to be hitting the ball my way before it gets to them.
The poster who couldn't see the ball though said that no one could see it until it slowed down and the reason he couldn't was because he was closer and side on. Given the ball is generally travelling pretty fast through the covers and at point, and they are even closer and side on; it would imply that none of them would be able to see the ball until it was past them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gotcha!
I was a cover or mid-wicket fielder, mostly. Much easier than the slips
posted on 15/2/22
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Barefoot (U19770)
posted 9 minutes ago
Cover fielders generally look at the batsman rather than the ball don't they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, I field in the covers and watch the batsmen and their foot movement to work out if they are going to be hitting the ball my way before it gets to them.
The poster who couldn't see the ball though said that no one could see it until it slowed down and the reason he couldn't was because he was closer and side on. Given the ball is generally travelling pretty fast through the covers and at point, and they are even closer and side on; it would imply that none of them would be able to see the ball until it was past them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Gotcha!
I was a cover or mid-wicket fielder, mostly. Much easier than the slips
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I could field anywhere with a baseball glove, but I have so much respect for cricket players fielding in the slips / silly point etc.
posted on 15/2/22
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Bobby Dazzler (U1449)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by 4zA - its into the shame and into the guilt and into the fooking fray (U22472)
posted 9 hours, 40 minutes ago
love NFL football n baseball
both freakin grate
both faaar better than soccer that i wudnt take no notice of no more if Napoli didnt x-cyst
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about throwing donkeys off cliffs?
That’s quite a fun sport I’m told
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They throw them down steep steps in Santorini
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably an original Olympic event
posted on 15/2/22
Slips is easier than the covers in my opinion. The ball comes quickly but it's generally straight forward reflex catches. You just want the person with the safest hands there.
The most difficult place to field is point / backward point. When the ball comes at you there it comes off the face of the bat with no pace taken off it. It generally has spin on the ball too which you have to factor it. It's why the likes of Collingwood, Jonty Rhodes and Trevor Penny (the best fielder I have seen when he played for Warwickshire) all fielded in that position.
posted on 15/2/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 15/2/22
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 20 seconds ago
Slips is easier than the covers in my opinion. The ball comes quickly but it's generally straight forward reflex catches. You just want the person with the safest hands there.
The most difficult place to field is point / backward point. When the ball comes at you there it comes off the face of the bat with no pace taken off it. It generally has spin on the ball too which you have to factor it. It's why the likes of Collingwood, Jonty Rhodes and Trevor Penny (the best fielder I have seen when he played for Warwickshire) all fielded in that position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the difference in fielding positions is, close in once you've fielded it your job is basically done. Where as in baseball at third base for example off a right handed hitter you can take the ball at well over 100mph, field it, then you've got make a throw 127 feet to 1st base all before the batter can run there which is about 4.3 seconds on average.
posted on 15/2/22
It also depends what level you play at too I guess. If you play at a higher level where the batsmen are good and technically correct, then the covers isn't an easy place to field. The batsmen drive a lot, so you get the ball hit hard at you quite frequently. You also have to be on your toes for when they try to drop the ball in the gaps and run. You are probably second most in the action besides the wicketkeeper.
At lower levels where batsmen are more likely to play across the line, the covers is a less busy position.
posted on 15/2/22
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 20 seconds ago
Slips is easier than the covers in my opinion. The ball comes quickly but it's generally straight forward reflex catches. You just want the person with the safest hands there.
The most difficult place to field is point / backward point. When the ball comes at you there it comes off the face of the bat with no pace taken off it. It generally has spin on the ball too which you have to factor it. It's why the likes of Collingwood, Jonty Rhodes and Trevor Penny (the best fielder I have seen when he played for Warwickshire) all fielded in that position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the difference in fielding positions is, close in once you've fielded it your job is basically done. Where as in baseball at third base for example off a right handed hitter you can take the ball at well over 100mph, field it, then you've got make a throw 127 feet to 1st base all before the batter can run there which is about 4.3 seconds on average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think its similar in that you might have to have a shy at the stumps to run someone out. You also might have a chase on if it goes past you and there is no deep fielder. In cricket though you only really have two options on ends to throw it. Baseball I guess they have to process more before deciding where to go.
They all get gloves though, so the degree of difficulty on the first bit is reduced.
posted on 15/2/22
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 13 minutes ago
Slips is easier than the covers in my opinion. The ball comes quickly but it's generally straight forward reflex catches. You just want the person with the safest hands there.
The most difficult place to field is point / backward point. When the ball comes at you there it comes off the face of the bat with no pace taken off it. It generally has spin on the ball too which you have to factor it. It's why the likes of Collingwood, Jonty Rhodes and Trevor Penny (the best fielder I have seen when he played for Warwickshire) all fielded in that position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally hated fielding in the slips. You're right though, is point area. Punter also fielded there from memory.
But hey, all better than long off or on!
posted on 15/2/22
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Tamwolf (U17286)
posted 20 seconds ago
Slips is easier than the covers in my opinion. The ball comes quickly but it's generally straight forward reflex catches. You just want the person with the safest hands there.
The most difficult place to field is point / backward point. When the ball comes at you there it comes off the face of the bat with no pace taken off it. It generally has spin on the ball too which you have to factor it. It's why the likes of Collingwood, Jonty Rhodes and Trevor Penny (the best fielder I have seen when he played for Warwickshire) all fielded in that position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the difference in fielding positions is, close in once you've fielded it your job is basically done. Where as in baseball at third base for example off a right handed hitter you can take the ball at well over 100mph, field it, then you've got make a throw 127 feet to 1st base all before the batter can run there which is about 4.3 seconds on average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think its similar in that you might have to have a shy at the stumps to run someone out. You also might have a chase on if it goes past you and there is no deep fielder. In cricket though you only really have two options on ends to throw it. Baseball I guess they have to process more before deciding where to go.
They all get gloves though, so the degree of difficulty on the first bit is reduced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh 100% I wouldn't pretend otherwise, having a glove is WAY easier.
But don't forget baseball players fire the ball at eachother at 90+ mph (the only cricket player that receives a ball like this s the wicket keeper who does wear gloves...), when I went to Lords I saw then looping the ball to eachother!
Page 9 of 10
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10