Hi Craig
...

The two games have many similarities but are chalk and cheese. BTW isn't it strange that only the so-called anglo-saxon countries, or those once in their empire (or in their current empire, as is the case with the US), seem to have a summer sport like this?

>>DULL AS DISH-WATER!
>>
>>They were playing for about half an hour before anyone scored!
>>Most the time the batter just stands there while the pitcher throws the ball at him, and does nothing.
>
>The batter is waiting for the "right" pitch. (See below)
>
>>What's all this back-stop showing fingers and the pitcher doing a histrionic nod all about?
>
>There are two guys back there One is the umpire...called referee or judge in other sports. He shows fingers indicating number of strikes and balls thrown. (See below). The other guy (the guy squatting down) is the catcher. The finger thing is the signal to the pitcher to indicate how he should throw the ball...the type of pitch (slider, curve ball, fast ball, etc). The pitcher will nod or shake his head depending on if he agrees or disagree with the catcher.

Yeah I knew who they were: the umpire is the one the players histrionically argue with and do belly bumps, keeping their arms rigidly to their sides :-) And the guy squatting down, wearing padding and a huge glove is the Catcher? - Noooo! :-) (called wicket-keeper in cricket)
>
>>I thought it was three pitches, 3 strikes and out but there seems to be lots more, disallowed for some arcane technicality or other.
>
>Well... that does get a bit complicated. The ball must be thrown in the "strike zone"... roughly between the batter's knees and waist. The ball also can't be too far to the left or right ("over the plate"). If the ball is thrown in that area, the umpire will rule it a strike. If it is outside that area, it is a ball. If the batter gets four balls, he automatically gets to advance to first base. If the batter swings and misses, no matter if the pitcher threw a strike or a ball, the umpire calls a strike. If the batter hits the ball and it goes foul, it is a strike, unless that would give him three strikes, then it just doesn't count.

This I find tedious. In cricket they're practically all legal. The batting side can get extra runs for wides and highs (outside the "batting zone"). It's just up to the bowler to knock the stumps down, or entice the batter into a dangerous shot that he can be caught out on, so it's up to him if he wants to be accurate or not. A high or wide shot often gives the batter an advantage in that he's not worried about his stumps being knocked down and can let fly with a mighty hit.
>
>>The commentators just can't keep their prattling mouths shut for 2 seconds.
>
>NBC tried a US football game with no commentators a few years ago. Really, really bad move.

Not saying they SHOULDN'T be there - they're necessary to fill us in with info as to what's just happened (the nuances), what happened off camera, players' histories, etc., but these guys just don't know when to shut up and let us watch. How'd you like sitting in the bleachers and some dip-stick sitting next to you has to keep commenting on the game all the time, without pause?
>
>There are lots of nuances to baseball. It takes a while to get the hang of it. For many years I called it boring ball because I couldn't stand watching it. Now that I've learned many of the nuances, it's very entertaining.

Perhaps it should be called nuance ball? Perhaps that's the problem with American games - it's all time-outs, discussing tactics, setting up for a move, stop-start-stop-start.