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'd say passing a rugby ball or throwing a cricket ball are on par from a fundamental skill perspective as kicking a soccer ball. And that may be a worthwhile point if they were the almost singular physical skill required as kicking a ball is in soccer. But Rugby and Cricket and baseball and hockey and on and on, are sports with multifaceted skillset requirements. Much more than soccer.
Now I'm not saying top line soccer players aren't immensely skilled. Of course they are. But we are talking about barriers to entry to various sports, and from a skill perspective, soccer is objectively one of the lowest skill bars. Maybe walking and running are easier as they are singular in physical skillset requirement... But yes, top level soccer players are very very good at kicking the ball.
A kid learning soccer, just needs to be able to run and kick (and then stick the most unskilled one in the goal). A kid playing Rugby has to run, kick, pass with the hand, catch, tackle, scrum, ruck, maul, lineout. It is why the early years, the rules need to be heavily modified, much more so than soccer. The cricket kid has to learn perhaps the most unnatural action in sport; bowling the ball, batting, throwing, catching, running between wickets. It is chalk and cheese with regard to learning the physical skills of the respective sports.
If you lined up 100 able bodied people who had never seen or practiced the skills of those sports, 100 of them would be able to kick a soccer ball, hardly any at all hit a baseball, bowl a cricket ball on the pitch, drop kick a rugby ball or control a hockey puck. And those are just one of the fundamental skills required to be successful at the other sports.
Well being English means I've played all those sports and football is far more difficult! Try dunking a basketball with your hands then do the same with your feet, afterward throw a ball 30 metres to your mate then kick a football to him, then come back to me and tell me which was 'more difficult'!
Hockey is faster but that's part of the problem for people like me. Half the time I'm like "WHERE THE HELL IS THE PUCK?" And when it gets inside all I see are a mass of bodies and sticks until a little black puck squirts out or the goal lights up. The fast breaks are exciting though often are whistled dead for offsides. Can you imagine Lebron intercept a pass and on a breakaway for a spectacular dunk and the whistles blow because some player was out of position? Yes, I also dislike the American football rules on ineligible receivers.
THANK YOU! You don’t know what this mean to me lol. I am the same way- where is the puck???? I can never find it, but everyone I’m with seems to have no problem keeping up.
I find all professional sports pretty boring. College sports are more fun, the athletes seem to be more “into it” than professional athletes.
Soccer I find very boring- it’s two hours of watching people run around a rectangle chasing a ball. There’s no score. We just spent two hours watching people run and nothing happened. At least in hockey I don’t have a clue why soccer fans fight- what are you fighting over, which team ran the furthest???
I do enjoy college softball but that’s just because I raised a softball player- I was trained to like the sport. I can admit it’s boring for most people.
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.
Baseball and Softball are just versions of rounders, which was originally a British game dating back to Tudor times, and Rounders is still quite common in terms of school games.
Rounders ranks 5th in the most played team sports in British school, with over one million people have played Rounders in the last year, so a lot of Brits have used a rounded bat before and are familiar with the concept.
I wonder how many Americans have used a cricket bat before.
In terms of cricket, you don't just have to concentrate on hitting the ball, you also have to worry about the stumps.
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.
Rugby is just a far faster and free flowing game, requiring a lot of stamina and fitness.
In terms of injuries, it's not injuries that make a sport great. it's levels of excitement, and having watched both the NFL and Rugby, there is no comparison, as Rugby is far more exciting to watch.
Well being English means I've played all those sports and football is far more difficult! Try dunking a basketball with your hands then do the same with your feet, afterward throw a ball 30 metres to your mate then kick a football to him, then come back to me and tell me which was 'more difficult'!
If you want a master class in how skilful some footballers are then simply post a few of the greats who make it look easy.
Here's Georgie Best for instance, and you don't get any better than George.
Baseball and Softball are just versions of rounders, which was originally a British game dating back to Tudor times, and Rounders is still quite common in terms of school games.
Rounders ranks 5th in the most played team sports in British school, with over one million people have played Rounders in the last year, so a lot of Brits have used a rounded bat before and are familiar with the concept.
I wonder how many Americans have used a cricket bat before.
In terms of cricket, you don't just have to concentrate on hitting the ball, you also have to worry about the stumps.
How many go on to fine-tune their ability to play rounders once they're out of school? It sounds like it's more of a kid's sport / recreational hobby than a developed sport over there.
In terms of baseball, you don't just have to concentrate on hitting the ball, you also have to worry about the strike zone. In both cases the batter is defending a space; the difference is the space they're defending and to an extent how they're defending it.
How many go on to fine-tune their ability to play rounders once they're out of school? It sounds like it's more of a kid's sport / recreational hobby than a developed sport over there.
In terms of baseball, you don't just have to concentrate on hitting the ball, you also have to worry about the strike zone. In both cases the batter is defending a space; the difference is the space they're defending and to an extent how they're defending it.
There are a lot more ways to be given out in Cricket than Baseball, then you have playing conditions, the ball and catching and numerous other factors.
There are a lot more ways to be given out in Cricket than Baseball, then you have playing conditions, the ball and catching and numerous other factors.
Dude, all I said is I don't think one has any significant advantage over the other in adapting to playing the other sport. I didn't say anything about how many ways there are to be given out in cricket versus baseball (though it's not "a lot more" as you claim) nor about the ball or catching or "numerous other factors." I'm well aware of the differences between cricket and baseball, you really don't need to keep going down that rabbit hole.
Dude, all I said is I don't think one has any significant advantage over the other in adapting to playing the other sport. I didn't say anything about how many ways there are to be given out in cricket versus baseball (though it's not "a lot more" as you claim) nor about the ball or catching or "numerous other factors." I'm well aware of the differences between cricket and baseball, you really don't need to keep going down that rabbit hole.
If your well aware then you will realise there are a lot more complex factors in terms of cricket, and the condition of the pitch and conditions, make the ball play differently, whilst there are a lot more factors to consider in relation to being put out.
Also once pit out, that's it, you don't get another chance, whilst in terms of hitting the ball there are fielders all over a cricket pitch, just as there are a baseball pitch.
Whilst the two games do not have the obvious similarity that rounders does with baseball, anyone wjo thinks cricket is not a difficult game and that baseball is somehow more difficult, is sadly mistaken.
As for Baseball, I actually do like the game and prefer it to NFL, indeed it terms of US sports I would rank it just below hockey. Then again I am not a big basketball fan.
Baseball and Softball are just versions of rounders, which was originally a British game dating back to Tudor times, and Rounders is still quite common in terms of school games.
Rounders ranks 5th in the most played team sports in British school, with over one million people have played Rounders in the last year, so a lot of Brits have used a rounded bat before and are familiar with the concept.
I wonder how many Americans have used a cricket bat before.
In terms of cricket, you don't just have to concentrate on hitting the ball, you also have to worry about the stumps.
Once again with your silly rounders argument. Well those British kids could play silly rounders everyday for the rest of their lives, and they still would not have acquired the necessary skills to ever play in the lowest levels of minor league baseball, let alone in one of the worlds great sports league in MLB. Baseball is not "just" a version of rounders, what an ignorant statement. There are some similarities, but completely different games.
Last edited by vindag; 07-26-2021 at 09:15 AM..
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.
