1v1

What is the best one on one sport and why is it Tennis?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xkYrT5arGVw
washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/02/13/cricket-world-cup-2015-australia-assistant-coach-is-from-america/
stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/95065.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

the best sport is fucking Canadian women

cricket

>inb4 "IT'S A TEAM GAME XDXDXDXDDXDX"

No it isn't. It's 1v1.

Cricket is literally the poor man's baseball though

>pooinloo paddle

>Canadian women

>Canadian women

??

It really isn't if you understand both sports. Cricket is harder, though infinitely more autistic and far harder for normies to get into. The kind of cricket that indians are into is a shortened form and is more or less identical to baseball, if you're talking about that then yeah I'd agree with you.

>1v1
>1 of the 1's switches every 6 pitches

>Tennis
squash is better

also,
MMA/boxing/any ring sport??

Boxing is the only 1 on 1 sport.

>pic related

Tennis is okay and you're right, squash is better

...

Golf. prove me wrong

Starcraft

SFIV

In essence though it is just a multi-faceted 1v1 sport. There's no teamwork in it, really, aside from running and slip catching there is literally nothing that requires teamwork. It's just 11 guys against 11 of the other guys, individually. It's pretty similar to tennis in terms of the duel nature of the game, it's just that there are a lot more than one duel.

>harder

Lol

You wanna debate this? Really? I don't think I've met a single American who knows anything about cricket, whereas I know quite a bit about baseball. Everyone I know who has played both says that cricket (well, test cricket at least) is harder.

MMA, then boxing, you soft little pussy

It's pretty much common knowledge that it's easier to make contact in cricket than it is in baseball.

The paddle has an 800% greater surface area than a baseball bat in addition to baseball pitches being of much greater velocity on average than cricket bowls. Yes, I know cricket introduces the added difficulty of bowls/pitches hitting the ground, but there's still no debate on this subject. Cricketers can bat for HOURS without getting out. That is an impossibility in baseball, even if you were make a version of "test baseball" mirroring the rules of cricket.

Aside from the occasional run out, cricket fielders aren't required all that much to throw out runners.

You won't see anything like this in cricket.

A fielder nailing a runner from 300 feet away with a 105 mph throw:

youtube.com/watch?v=xkYrT5arGVw

Pretty much zero baserunning required in cricket.

Baseball is a much, much more athletic game, meaning there's "natural" barriers that no amount of skill learning can overcome. For example, Mike Trout is 6'2", 230lb, and runs faster than Cristiano Ronaldo.

Ronaldo's fastest in game sprint speed: 20.8mph

Mike Trout: 21.15mph

>muh no gloves

Baseball exit velocities are much faster off the bat, commonly reaching speeds of up to 115mph and peaking north of 120mph. Nothing in cricket, even in the slips, is reaching those speeds.

Furthermore, baseball players make many more plays over the course of season than a cricket player. An infielder's hand would be mush if he didn't use a glove.

Ex. The world record holder for catches in test cricket is 210, over a 16 year career.

An MLB shortstop puts out (catches plus throwing runners out) about twice that many per season. And outfielders will average around 700 put outs over the season.

There's nothing like the double play in cricket.

I really don't see how this an argument. Even if we grant cricket being tougher to bat in due to the prospect of a cricketer batting 2-3 hours /cont

>Baseball is a much, much more athletic game, meaning there's "natural" barriers that no amount of skill learning can overcome

What, part of the beauty of baseball is that if you're skilled enough then that's all you fucking need, you can be a 5'5" manlet, have just one hand, be 300 lbs, whatever, if you can hit or you can pitch you're good to go.

Oh my word, it's a gigantic list of American cliches.

>literally zero understanding of the sport of cricket

>/cont

at a time (I would wager, however, that baseball players spend more hours overall at the plate during a season), cricket doesn't demand proficiency in the overall range of skills (throwing, running, teamwork) as much as baseball (aside from specialist positions like DH's and relievers).

>the beauty of baseball is you can be a fat piece of shit and still be good

Fucking lmao

Alright man. I don't know shit about cricket. And obviously any sport is about equallydiff to play at the very highest level. But cricket can't really be that hard if fucking India can be competitive in it.

And now for a somewhat half direct cricket-baseball comparison of difficulty.

When the west indies decided to start using niggers on its team, from a population base of just 3 million or so they quickly dominated the world for a couple decades with perhaps the greatest team of all time.

But in baseball, niggers from similar caribbean nations, cuba and the DR, but with a far larger population base, do not even come close to dominating baseball. And the niggers from the Dominican are bred through MLB run baseball camps even. They're literally born to play baseball and they still can't dominate, because it's just more about natural talent and skill. Its fucking hard, if you don't have the talent and skill you just don't have it.

Spoken like someone that has never watched a game of cricket in their life

Snooker

So you have no argument?

Where's all the base running in cricket?

Where's the demand to be CONTINUOUSLY be accurate with throwing in the field? I've already showed you, with stats, that cricket fielders don't have anywhere the same demands as baseball fielders.
In fact, former baseball players have wound up on cricket teams as fielding coaches.

washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2015/02/13/cricket-world-cup-2015-australia-assistant-coach-is-from-america/

>But everyone from Tony Cozier to Jonty Rhodes are now clamoring for baseball coaches to help their sides improve their fielding skills. Just this week, Pakistan Cricket Chief Nasim Ashraf hinted that Pakistan would be hiring a baseball coach to improve fielding standards - from USA no less.

I've watched cricket fielding and throwing. Mechanically, they are in the stone ages.

That's just the truth. The day you see a former cricketer as coach in the MLB, is the day the US beats the All Blacks in Rugby.

btw in case you didn't realize. Caribbean niggers are real fucking good 'athletes'. See usain bolt etc. Just shows that getting good at cricket is easier with training and being a good athlete and shit. But being good at baseball is more about skill before being a good athlete.

It's debatable which of these is 'harder' I guess.

I'm not saying cricket players aren't skilled or baseball players aren't good athletes (other than a handful of fucking fatasses) either. Just that baseball requires innate skill above all else, and maybe this isn't the case in cricket.

India are competitive in it because it's literally all their population of 1 billion people care about. With that many people obsessed with a sport and pouring billions of dollars into development of it, it's inevitable that they can put forward 11 decent players.

Besides, it's not entire based on athleticism as much as it is skill. Usain Bolt wanted to be a fast bowler for his whole life, but he was too shit at it, so he focused on sprinting instead

>you can be a 5'5" manlet,

Altuive is an athletic beast. He reaches speeds of about 21 mph on the basepaths, which is the range of the fastest soccer players in the EPL.

I thought bolt wanted to play divegrass

Does Tennis use the away goals rule?

>m-m-m-m-muh athleticism!!!!!

Jesus christ is this all americans think of? Sport isn't about how fast you can run or how many nigs you can lift or how big your dick is.

It is LITERALLY the case in cricket, and Bolt is a LITERAL example of it.

>if fucking India can be competitive in it.
They aren't really. They're only good when they abuse home advantage. And anyway, there's a billion of them, surely they could beat NZ (4 mil) or SA (5 mil white people), but they can barely achieve that.

Nope. He wanted to play for the West Indies, but his high school coach told him he was never going to make it.

oh, you

she's not Canadian

maybe if you only watch subcontinental teams field. I guarantee that Australian and 00s Zimbabwe fielding and throwing is of the same calibre, if not higher with regards to catching.

Holy shit you are fucking retarded, players in baseball are far more specialised in terms of skillset than cricket

Kek did you even read my posts. I'm saying 'athleticism' is entirely secondary to skill in baseball, more so than any other sport.

Then how do you explain the windies dominating. We all know niggers aren't as skilled as whites

Also niggers did pretty well in baseball for a while as sluggers, hitting fingers left and right, basically all they're good for. Power and strength and speed and shit. And they were only able to dominate for a while because steroids gave them the edge they lacked from lack of skill. Now all they're usually good for is speedy faggots like dee Gordon and Billy hamilton. Speed is a niggers best asset in baseball now that there's no more giga steroid niggas allowed.

Poortugal still mad about Iceland KEK

>thread about individual sports
>insecure antipodeans yammer on about their lame team sport

Tennis is an odd way of spelling Mixed Martial Arts.

>Kek did you even read my posts. I'm saying 'athleticism' is entirely secondary to skill in baseball, more so than any other sport.
No you're not mate. ALL of your arguments are

>muh ball speed
>muh running fast
>muh catching lots
>muh throwing fast

Cricket is more difficult because bowling is a very unique skill that is damn hard to get right. Throwing is piss easy. Batting off the ground is more difficult than batting when you know exactly where the ball is going to be.

The only reason I watch baseball is for the athleticism side of it. I like things like double plays and the fact that there's more teamwork involved. But as for skill? It's fucking miles behind cricket. Even the most ridiculous knuckleballer is nothing compared to the shit Murali could pull.

>Just this week, Pakistan Cricket Chief Nasim Ashraf hinted that Pakistan would be hiring a baseball coach to improve fielding standards - from USA no less
Hope he prepares a ransom ahead of time, if he goes.

>But as for skill? It's fucking miles behind cricket. Even the most ridiculous knuckleballer is nothing compared to the shit Murali could pull.

your video link is broken

They were incredibly fucking talented. Viv Richards barely needed to run with the way he could hit the ball.

Even their bowlers, as good as they were, weren't the best in the world. They had a number excellent bowlers playing together at the same time, but Dennis Lillee, Wasim Akram, Glenn McGrath and arguably Dale Steyn and Alan Donald.

The West Indies are currently the second or third worst test team in the world. Australia, India, Pakistan, England Sri Lanka, New Zealand, Bangladesh and South Africa are all much better sides. Hell, even fucking Afghanistan and Ireland can give them a run for their money. I guess "muh athleticism" isn't everything then, is it?

Read more carefully. In an ADDITION to being a skill based game, baseball also demands a good deal of athleticism from most position players (First basemen, catchers, DH's, and pitchers don't really need uber athletic ability).

Nah that's the other guy

Well yeah because they don't care anymore. They just play divegrass now

I'm gonna go get some food

Krazy take the wheel

Jamaica does. The rest of the islands are still very much devoted to cricket, and all their current players grew up when cricket was all they cared about

It's wrestling, and it isn't even a debate.

please watch our sport big strong spartans

Based statscunt dropping elite truthbombs

>Where's all the base running in cricket?

Baseball - 4 small runs around a square.
Cricket - literally infinity until you're actually out.

Nah man, niggers aren't as skilled as whites, it's basically a proven fact senpai

So the population is down to like 2 million now. Their organization is a joke also and they only care about t20. And even they are moving towards divegrass also.

Just deal with it senpaitachi, it's not as much about skill as you think. If it were then even India would be able to produce the best teams, and they don't because they're just not good enough athletes.

KEK where did all the Big Strong Americans run off too? Did my handsome, muscular truthbombs drive you away?

Poopetually pooturbed Poopeericans on pootent poopetual pooicide watch

09er detected

>Batting off the ground is more difficult than batting when you know exactly where the ball is going to be.

Yeah, that's why Cricketers can stay batting for hours, sometime as long as 12. If it's so "hard," an event like that should be an impossibility.

>Cricket is more difficult because bowling is a very unique skill that is damn hard to get right.

So is pitching. They have to have the control to throw balls up to speeds of 100+ mph into an area the size of a 17" tv screen,

Bowlers aren't punished (by the rules) for missing the "strike zone" because there isn't any.

>yfw Genie Bouchard will never give you a big hug and hold it for 10 seconds before breaking off and giving you a warm smile
jdimsa

Reminder that "this" is an "elite" baseball "athlete"

>even they are moving towards divegrass also
wrong
>it's basically a proven fact

please link me your peer reviewed study on blacks and their cricket skill.

Oh wait, you can't

kek

KEK

K-E-K

>If it were then even India would be able to produce the best teams
India LITERALLY have the third best team in the world.

>Yeah, that's why Cricketers can stay batting for hours, sometime as long as 12. If it's so "hard," an event like that should be an impossibility.

Because all they have to do is hit the ball, defend their stumps and wait for a slip-up that they can pounce on or until they've seen enough of the pitch and bounce to predict how the ball's going to behave. Baseball players are pretty much trying to smash every ball from the get-go.

>So is pitching. They have to have the control to throw balls up to speeds of 100+ mph into an area the size of a 17" tv screen,

Just like cricket!

Reminder fast bowlers can bowl at similar speeds, but they just restrain themselves because the human body can't sustain that much force without breaking down.

>Bowlers aren't punished (by the rules) for missing the "strike zone" because there isn't any.

KEK

You are LITERALLY patently retarded. There IS """"strike zones"""""

>literally infinity until you're actually out.

More like

>run back and forth for a 60 whole feet a few times.

>No turning
>No needing to really worry about getting run out because cricket fielders can't throw
>Not required to evade tags

Yeah, cricket """"""""baserunning""""""""". Back and forth, back and forth. Major degree of difficulty there.

Fucking hilarious, Australia grasping at fucking straws now. Literally nothing you can say will convince me that cricket is more about skill than baseball. My arguments are too strong.

Sorry if the truth hurts

>b-b-b-but they TURN and play tag!

K - E - K

Nice """"sport"""" you've got here.

You're right. Cricketers haven't mastered the skill of the turn yet, and until they learn how to change directions while running this sport will forever be semen slurping.

Being THIS mad

Baseball players are more skilled AND bigger, stronger, and faster than cricket players and there's nothing you can do about it.

Just go jack off to Ellyse or something, basically all cricket (and Australia) is good for.

>You are LITERALLY patently retarded. There IS """"strike zones"""""

Does the batter get a free run or some other tactical advantage when the bowler misses this so called strike zone?

>Cricket bowlers, since they are not restricted to a small strike zone as their target, also use a wide variety of approaches which are not available to baseball pitchers.

>not restricted to a small strike zone

Baseball pitchers throw much harder on average. For example, there's only been 30 recorded instances (in history!) of a bowler throwing faster than 93mph.


stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/content/records/95065.html

A baseball pitcher can throw 30 93mph and above fastballs in a single inning.

Tagging someone with a ball while they were running was literally the best sport I ever played when I was around 8 years old or so. I grew out of it though.

>are pretty much trying to smash every ball from the get go

Utterly false

(You) on opiods for rectal pain watch

Why are you so invested? You're literally arguing with an ausposter

>They run back and forth with a paddle

You don't have the K E K high ground in this case, Bruce.

This is blatantly wrong, if you bowl it to wide or high (effectively so that it is un-hitable) you concede a wide or a no ball which means the other team gets a run and you have to redo the bowl.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and should stop talking.

>Does the batter get a free run or some other tactical advantage when the bowler misses this so called strike zone?
yes
>Baseball pitchers throw much harder on average. For example, there's only been 30 recorded instances (in history!) of a bowler throwing faster than 93mph.
because when they used to bowl that quickly speeds weren't measured. Jeff Thompson used to go well over 100 mph before his injury, and he wasn't even the fastest bowler. Nowadays with the amount of cricket that gets played, players can't bowl at those speeds without permanently killing their bodies. Even 150 kph is dangerous, as shown by Lillee, Bond, Harris, Starc and Cummins. You're always on the edge of being crippled for six months as a fast bowler.

Good lad. Cricket requires the most concentration than any of the aforementioned sports.

ANY and I mean ANY fourth tier bush league baseball striker would be able to hit this ball for six easily.

>This is blatantly wrong, if you bowl it to wide or high (effectively so that it is un-hitable) you concede a wide or a no ball which means the other team gets a run and you have to redo the bowl.

How big is this area?

Oh,

>The event of a ball being delivered by a bowler too wide or (in international cricket) high to be hit by the batsman, and ruled so by the umpire.

Lol.

Kiwi's and Aussie's consider a garage door sized area a "strike zone."

Brathwaite's bat always makes me laugh. The guy LITERALLY sands down the cherries on the sides so it looks like he middles every ball

Badminton

Its at most a metre and a bit wide, so you're right its like a door, a door most American's would struggle to fit through

Time to pack it up, we've been successfully argued by an idiot down to his level and have been soundly beaten.

Just fingered my own bumhole lads

Haha wow

Literally free home runs

>Does the batter get a free run or some other tactical advantage when the bowler misses this so called strike zone?
Literally yes. Tons, in fact.

but do they turn while running?

I don't deny there's impressive highlights and players in cricket.

That isn't argument.

I just think batting is overall easier due to the on average less velocity, nearly 10x larger surface area of the oar/paddle, and the fact, which we have stone cold proof of, cricket batters being able to bat for hours on end without getting out.

That's is simply impossible to do in baseball against pro pitching (if it were possible, we'd see players have multigame streaks of not getting out on the regular).

The highest recorded is 17 straight at-bats without getting out...all the way back in 1893.

Once again you're ignoring the clear difference in what a cricketer is trying to achieve and what a baseball player is trying to achieve

Half the time a bowler won't be focusing on getting the batsman out at that time, but are setting them up for a wicket three overs later.

I honestly think you're just comparing them on like terms which is retarded. The purpose of cricket isn't to hit home runs, therefore how """"easy"""" it is to hit the ball is dumb. If you stuck a baseball hitter in and bowled them half volley after half volley then for sure they'd dominate, but the moment they get a yorker they're fucked.

The purpose of cricket is to avoid getting out. That is difficult.

>Time to pack it up, we've been successfully argued by an idiot down to his level and have been soundly beaten.

Oh yeah, telling me cricket does indeed have a "strike zone" the size of a large door was clincher for you.

"Cricket bowlers have to be accurate!"

"Strike Zone?"

"Yep. It's the size of a door!"

Lol.

>Half the time a bowler won't be focusing on getting the batsman out at that time, but are setting them up for a wicket three overs later.

That's exactly what pitchers do.

You've literally missed every single point of what he's trying to say mate

Just letting you know.

>implying cricket bowlers don't just bowl it to a general not super precise spot and hope it makes a funky bounce of the seam

See Literally luckbounce

what, with their three strikes?

there is LITERALLY not NEARLY enough time for a baseball """player""" to set up and execute a strategy in the same way as cricket

t20 > odi >>>>> test

>The purpose of cricket is to avoid getting out. That is difficult.

Then why can they stay at bat for literal half-days?

And why is a 70% failure rate in baseball considered "good?"