Christopher wrote:
theonlysaneone wrote:
Igg wrote:
In my experience cricket balls are harder than baseballs- having played games with both, and having been hit in the head with both.
Not much harder though. i just concluded that as with American football/Rugby comparison; Americans are wussies
I think it's more due to the distance the ball needs to be thrown than anything else. In baseball, catchers need mitts because they're catching 90 mph balls being thrown, and it also makes it easier to catch balls way up in the air. In cricket, you toss underhanded.
Only Australians toss underhanded.
Or, you know, roll it across the ground towards the wicket because they;re *that* petty.
People tend not to through underarm in cricket, unless they are throwing the ball very short distances, e.g. wicket keeper to bowler. Although even then it's often overarm.
When fielding the ball is also often thrown pretty far and fast- for example someone retrieving a ball from a boundary and then throwing it back to wicket keeper to try and have the batsman run out.
And we can always rely on Paul's wikipedia skills to find us some statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_bowling even if he did re-word it
Cricket balls go fast. Or rather, can go fast. If you're a finger spiner like Monty Panesar you're not throwing the ball particularly hard or fast, and you barely need a run up. Whereas pace bowlers like Steve Harmison are bowling up in the 90mph area.