27 Nov 08
Originally posted by CrowleySo, you give no creedence to the outstanding talent displayed in baseball because you perceive cricket to be more difficult? Give me a break!! Go back to you day job as a javelin catcher.
Uhm, guys please, let's not litter a thread about amazing catches with these useless baseball 'catches'.
Cricket uses a heavier and slightly smaller ball with an almost lacquer type finish, which makes it much more difficult to catch than a baseball. Because of this a cricket ball probably travels faster to the boundary as well - I don't know, I was never ...[text shortened]... makes the catch so special.
Hope I cleared this up for our uninformed American posters...
28 Nov 08
1 edit
Originally posted by shortcircuitI didn't say cricket is more difficult than baseball, have you taken reading lessons from Very Rusty?
So, you give no creedence to the outstanding talent displayed in baseball because you perceive cricket to be more difficult?
I'm saying outfielders in cricket have a much more difficult time catching balls on their way to the boundary than baseball players in the outfield have, for the reasons listed.
Therefore, none of the catches you listed gets ANYWHERE near these two boundary catches.
01 Dec 08
Check out Ricky Ponting's catch in the 2nd test against New Zealand.
I think this might be even better than the 2 aforementioned catches, only cause of the less reaction time it takes.
But also in saying this it is very hard to judge greatest ever catch, as outfield catches,infield catches and slips catches all have different levels of skills involved.
A simply amazing catch though all the same.
01 Dec 08
Originally posted by boarmanTalking about this one:
Check out Ricky Ponting's catch in the 2nd test against New Zealand.
I think this might be even better than the 2 aforementioned catches, only cause of the less reaction time it takes.
But also in saying this it is very hard to judge greatest ever catch, as outfield catches,infield catches and slips catches all have different levels of skills involved.
A simply amazing catch though all the same.
It's a great catch.
I agree with you, the fielding positions are very different, so the catches are judged differently...
Great slip catches are almost just instinctive; great in-field catches usually involves very little reaction time and the player will need to have put in a big dive/jump; great out-field catches usually involve a long run and then awareness of the boundary.
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by CrowleyThat catch was all instinct. Marvellous effort that!
Talking about this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lth7TMCYkIE
It's a great catch.
I agree with you, the fielding positions are very different, so the catches are judged differently...
Great slip catches are almost just instinctive; great in-field catches usually involves very little reaction time and the player will need to have put in a big dive/jump; great out-field catches usually involve a long run and then awareness of the boundary.
I cant find it, but watch if available footage of John Dyson in the 1970's taking a magnificent diving behind him out field catch. Dysons is one of the best ever IMO.
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by CrowleyNo, collisions with walls are much less difficult. So is scaling a wall considerably taller than you are is also much less difficult.
I didn't say cricket is more difficult than baseball, have you taken reading lessons from Very Rusty?
I'm saying outfielders in cricket have a much more difficult time catching balls on their way to the boundary than baseball players in the outfield have, for the reasons listed.
Therefore, none of the catches you listed gets ANYWHERE near these two boundary catches.
Have you always had this difficulty comprehending that when someone makes a total dismissal of a sport the way you did, it is a reasonable assumption that the person making the statement was implying it was less difficult?
Therefore all of the catches do qualify IMO. And, IMO, they are all much more difficult. There are others that are even better, but I can't find film footage to show you.
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by shortcircuitYes. It's pretty easy actually - I did it a few times when I was younger and not looking where I was going.
No, collisions with walls are much less difficult.
Baseball catches are not even close to the difficulty level associated with cricket as they have a leather bucket affixed to their hands to catch the ball with.
Thanks for coming!
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by boarmanWhat is it with Aussies and 'agreeance'? I thought it was only the Yanks that butchered English. Agreement, mate. Agreement.
I agree after watching both catches this one is amazing.
The only difference with this is that its not a South African catching it , if it were Crowley would be in total agreeance.