| 
Posts and words
Loading ...Seven of those drops probably come on the third day of the first test match at Lords. Englands catching and fielding has been much sharper than Australia in this series overall.
Baseball’s benefits: what can Cricket learn?
By Will 5 years ago, at the end of August Add your comment below
I was pointed to this excellent article, written by Martin Stabe, which has really got me thinking. He raises some interesting points about baseball and cricket; their similarities are obvious, but his emphasis on the importance fielding is worth discussion.
Martin mentions this article at The Independent (London), which says England have spilled 13 catches this summer to Australia’s six. Now, I find that surprising – not that I’m doubting the author’s integrity – because just as much time has been made in the media of Australia’s fumbles as England’s. Perhaps the British media, nay public, are fundamentally in shock at the Australian’s slipping standards, and equally blasé at England’s buttery fingers. Anyway, moving on…
Martin thinks cricket’s fielders look lazy and incompetent, compared to their baseball counterparts, and not solely due to the lack of gloves. I’m sure England have used baseball-style coaching methods in the past, but in these days of frenetic, manic cricket, surely a professional fielding coach should be called for?
My only complaint with Martin’s otherwise excellent piece, is this:
An error in the field might cost the fielding team just one run in both games, but while this is usually no more than a minor irritant in a cricket, it’s a catastrophe that could cost a team the game in baseball.
That, essentially, is the beauty of cricket, summed up in one fell swoop. While it might seem as though runs are meant to be made, and “mere singles” are perfectly permissable, saving runs has always been vital in cricket and is becoming more so in the modern era. We saw at Edgbaston, and indeed Old Trafford, in this summer’s Ashes that runs are painfully precious. The odd single here and there can just as easily, and tragically, cost a cricket side a game. Which only goes to emphasis the importance fielding now has upon cricket, and perhaps why more attention and time should be spent on practising its art.
So what is the general opinion? Should teams bring specialist fielding coaches on tours, along with batting and bowling specialists? I think this summer has shown just how vital they could be, although I’m reminded of some words I heard (Geoff Boycott’s I think – oh, no, it was one of the Chappells) the other day: “You learn to catch between 7 and 15.” I know I’ve been talking about fielding rather than catching, but the two are obviously closely linked. It makes sense, too – you do learn how to catch in that age-range. Right, enough waffle…
Tags: baseball, coaches, fielding |
5 Responses to “Baseball’s benefits: what can Cricket learn?”
August 26th, 2005 at 1.29 am
August 26th, 2005 at 7.40 am
Point taken. I’m a baseball person who is still perplexed by cricket after seven years living in Britain, and don’t claim to fully understand the finer points.
I wasn’t really suggesting that “mere singles” were unimportant in cricket — only that cricketers appear to take that attitude from a (baseball playing) spectator’s perspective.
Thanks for pointing that out. In any case, as you point out, a single run could be essential (although this might take longer to become apparent in a test match than a baseball game!) Just another reason for cricketers to put a greater emphisis on fielding.
August 26th, 2005 at 11.33 am
I’ve spent quite a bit of time in the states, been to many matches and follow baseball closely but I cannot agree that fielding standards are better than in cricket.
I know it’s a tired argument but the glove makes a huge difference. Catching with a mitt is obviously much easier (in fact i would say it’s almost impossible to drop the ball as long as it reaches you. But more importantly the glove is an invaluable aid in the pick-up of ground balls. Not only does it provide a smooth path from pitch to hand but enables the fielder to very quickly redistribute the ball.
Now, I’m not rubbishing the athletisism and fielding abilities of baseballers (some of the plays I’ve seen have been superb). However, if I was to identify an area of fielding where baseballers have a definite edge it would be in their quick, accurate throwing and above all their awareness of both their team-mates and the running batters.
Due to the nature of the game run-outs are much more prevelant in Baseball but the skill and speed that the fielders distribute the ball to enforce double or triple plays is astounding.
Therefore I think it is in this area cricketers have most to learn.
Sorry for the long post..
August 26th, 2005 at 4.42 pm
As an American convert to cricket, I agree with Mark. The glove makes a huge difference. I think one reason baseball players practice fielding more is that they have the glove to protect their hands. My own experiences practicing cricket fielding with the leather ball have left me with bruises on my hands. Even world-class cricketers have been known to get injured in the nets. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of that happening in baseball (apart from maybe an occasional pulled muscle).
Plus it seems like when a pro baseball fielder needs to make a bare-handed play in a game he blows it about half the time. They’re not expected to make all of these.
There are other factors, too. In baseball there are only a few key players who must be great fielders – shortstop, second base, and third base. Other fielders just have to get the ball in the glove and maybe throw well. And there’s nothing in baseball like slip fielding. Only the catcher has to try to catch balls (with a big, padded glove) coming off the edge of the bat at 90 mph, and he’s not expected to hang on to all of them (it’s a foul ball, unless the batter has 2 strikes).
And then there’s the playing field. When the fielding area is limited to fair territory, you can field more aggressively. You have a smaller area to cover, and if you don’t get to the ball, someone behind you might get it, or the wall will stop it.
In test cricket, the level of focus required for fielding is much greater than in baseball. You can spend a whole hour standing around without touching the ball, and then suddenly you have a fraction of a second to get your hands in the right place.
As for the argument about runs being more valuable in baseball, there is something to it (and even more so in softball, where scores of 1-0 are not uncommon), but there’s another angle they left out. In test cricket, you can’t win if you don’t take 20 wickets. The 2nd Ashes test showed that runs can be crucial, but both the 2nd and the 3rd showed that the crucial factor is not runs but wickets. In the 2nd test England took 20 wickets (and just in time). In the 3rd they took 19. That’s where a dropped catch might have made a huge difference.
August 28th, 2005 at 5.54 pm
Australia do have a fielding coach. I think his name is Mike Young.
Comments
« Fumbles cost Australia | Main | England v Australia, Trent Bridge, Day Two »
