View Full Version : If Barry Bonds played cricket?

July 8, 2005, 06:36 PM
If he played cricket he''d brake every single batting record there. I honestly believe that. Theres no Fast bowler that can get him. AnyThing he hits would go for SIX. He coulld sinlge handedly give USA the ICC Trophy and win them Test Status.

His arms are bigger than Ashraful himself. All one would have to do is give him a bat and he'd know what to do. Do any of you guys agree with me?

July 8, 2005, 06:41 PM

'nuff said

Edited on, July 8, 2005, 11:41 PM GMT, by Zunaid.
Reason: stereoids? bah

July 8, 2005, 08:15 PM
HEprobably wont play well against spin bowling and he wont last long running arounden ev if he did take steroids. He wont be a good fielder as there are no gloves and in cricket and the ball is more unpredictable than in baseball because it hits the ground.

It would be funny to see him try though,

Edited on, July 9, 2005, 1:53 AM GMT, by Akib.

July 8, 2005, 10:30 PM
under new ICC rules he'd be a substitute so he wouldn't have to field. with him it's all about his arms spin or Pace balls won't bother him because all he does is wait on the ball.

He's the only baseball player that i would mention in paying cricket and being successful. If you stand next to this guy he's a freak(steriods we all know it).

If was a rich dude i'd pay the guy 1 million dollars just for one innings.

July 9, 2005, 08:51 AM
All these pro cricket players play years just to play at international level, even they can't master the game of cricket. And, you are saying that he will do it all in one inning. :lol:
Mark McGuire is much stronger than him. Believe me, I seen him play. With one filck of his bat the ball could leave the biggest stadium in MLB. Some people called him "The Ox".
By the way the both have used steriods.

July 9, 2005, 02:28 PM
i see him as a groundsman if he was involved in cricket in any sort of way.
I think Inzi wouldn't have such a poor running between the record, although the new ODI format would've helped Barry- he would've preferred Twenty20 cricket. Never would've been a test player.
Shane Warne would've had a competitor is womanizing and steroid taking! I'll post some more stuff- if i can think of any!

Carte Blanche
July 9, 2005, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by cricman
If he played cricket he''d brake every single batting record there. I honestly believe that. Theres no Fast bowler that can get him. AnyThing he hits would go for SIX. He coulld sinlge handedly give USA the ICC Trophy and win them Test Status.

His arms are bigger than Ashraful himself. All one would have to do is give him a bat and he'd know what to do. Do any of you guys agree with me?

Not necessarily. Baseball is all power, and of course some hand-eye co-ordination. But that is not as complicated as cricket. You are protecting a set of stumps and the ball is rarely a full toss. Pitch conditions, survival of overs, partnership etc contributes to the complexity of cricket. Just because he is a strong hitter in baseball doesn't mean he will be that good in cricket. And all that was excluding "steroids".

By the way, I always thought strong cricket players would make good baseball hitters. Afridi for example. When you shake hands with him, you can't wait to get it over with. I think Afridi, Flintoff, Klusener would make good baseball players.

July 9, 2005, 03:09 PM
Even though people like to bring the example of baseball when making a north-american familiar with cricket, and also some of the game's aspects are similar, but there's a vast difference in the techniques of the two games' players. Bonds isnt used to facing deliveries that pitches on the ground and bounces. Maybe he hits out some sliders and curveballs in baseball, but dont mistake that for an inswinger our outswinger of the quickies in cricket.

Cricket is too majestic a game to be compared to baseball's stats based display of power and athleticism. Heck, tell Bonds to take one of the high flyballs bare-handed when he plays in the outfield for the SF Giants.

July 9, 2005, 03:12 PM
oh yes, just to match voice with some of the other posters here, "steroids" happened to be an ignored issue when I posted my message. If that's brough in focus here, i say Dr. Zunaid's post says it all! :D

And yes, cricket players might make better baseball players. Its not because (we) love cricket more than baseball, but its just a fair hypothesis on our part, i say...

July 9, 2005, 04:36 PM
if barry bonds to play cricket he would suck. because there is a huge difference between pitcher throwing a bowl and a fast bowler bowling a bowl. in cricket the ball bounces in the ground before it gets to the batsman. in baseball the ball dont bounce. baseball is all about swinging the bat as hard as you can. only thing defensive about baseball is when the hitter is bunting. defense is essential part of cricket. if the bowl dont hit the ground we call it a full toss bowl in cricket, full toss bowl is the most easiest bowl to hit. barry bonds wont find too many full toss bowl in cricket.
it is true that in a alot of ways baseball and cricket is similar. but the science of the game is totally different. just because someone is a good baseball player doesnt make them a good cricket player, and ofcourse it goes the other way around too. i find cricket to be much more harder then baseball. because there are alot more techniques and thinking goes into cricket then it does in baseball.

July 18, 2005, 08:52 PM
If he plays cricket he will get bowled out all the time.

July 19, 2005, 11:51 AM
In both sports you need great hand-eye co-ordination to be great as a batsman/hitter.

Most likely he would be great. If he can hit a 95+mph ball with the round bat, he will be able to hit a 85+ mph ball with that flat bat also.

July 19, 2005, 04:36 PM
one has to consider that not only cricketers have to cope with the pace of the ball but also has to judge the bounce of the ball.
so far my american friends have not mastered the art of judging the bouce of the ball off the pitch which is why they are intrigued by this sport.

Carte Blanche
July 19, 2005, 05:20 PM

And we'll also have to see how fast the pitchers can bowl with a legal cricket arm action (without steroid of course). Let's not even get to spin bowling.

August 20, 2005, 10:09 PM
give ashraful some steroid, and he will send everyball out of the stadium. now give steroid to afridi, i don't know where the ball will go.

August 22, 2005, 08:54 AM
Mash to Bond, a yorker! wow Clean bowled him. bond had no idea on that one.

You can put any bowlers name and the result would be same. Cross batting is a no no in cricket.

Baseball players are not taught to bat straight. Oh! and there is no second strike either. So no second chance for him.

Edited on, August 22, 2005, 1:56 PM GMT, by Cats_eye.

August 22, 2005, 12:41 PM
For that matter, how fast will Lee or Shoaib be if they tried pitching a baseball?
I assume around 95-100 mph?

August 22, 2005, 01:10 PM
I don't know about Lee, but as for Shoaib I doubt it. He gains most of hos speed from long runup.

August 23, 2005, 12:59 PM
The only cricketer that comes to my mind who can play MLB is Jonty Rhodes of SA(retied). He can also be a good pitcher with his accurate throws.

September 16, 2005, 02:56 PM
he can hit the balls only in the fair ball range, pitch him a over pitch or good length .. he would have no idea on how to go about it.

baseball and cricket are really different ball games. leave alone getting out lbw's or anything. he wont survive one over in cricket.

November 9, 2005, 04:39 AM
if he had played cricket he would probably score 0 all the time because to play cricket you need skills not power

November 10, 2005, 11:41 AM
I agree with most of the people who said it is harder for a baseball player to play cricket than viceversa. Barry bond would be no exception. I would rather pick Derek Jeter as he doesnt only rely on power but has good sense of the ball and can hit opposite field real well.