Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

Re:Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer? by brudgers on Sunday June 07, 2026 @09:01PM (#48440265)

Cricket also does not require a lot of running and because the defense controls the ball, it fills a lot of time at a slow pace.

Like Baseball, a Sunday afternoon game has a low risk of an injury that prevents work on Monday.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer? by brigandish on Sunday June 07, 2026 @09:41PM (#48440461)

My mate broke someone's arm bowling at him. Cricket always has an element of danger, for both the fielders and the batters.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer? by stevekemp on Monday June 08, 2026 @12:31AM (#48441358)

Getting hit in the face/neck by a cricket ball moving at 150mph can cause serious injuries, even death.

For example

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_Hughes

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer? by sometimes_all on Monday June 08, 2026 @02:18AM (#48441869)

Minor nit: Fastest ever recorded ball bowled was 100 mph. I believe you were thinking 150 kmph.

Also, if we're talking about street/amateur cricket, or even higher-level cricket a couple of levels removed from international, you are rarely going to have rockets hurled at you. Most will be 120 kmph tops.

[ Parent | on HN ]