...but, in practice the boundary is NEVER an equal distance from the wicket on a round or oval boundary...so there's no technnical reason why a square boundary would not be also possible.
2006-11-13 09:49:20
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You have to remember that the pitch is rectangular and isnt a dot on the field. If that was so then it would not matter if the ground is square or circular, since the boundaries would all be at the same distance from the pitch. The ground being circular gives a better chance of the boundaries being at the same length. Fair to every1. Being circular ensures efficient use of space.
2006-11-12 06:04:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by EriseDesire 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
If they were rectangular/squarish, football clubs across the world would have easily tried to take over these grounds. To keep these away, criciket grounds are circular. Look what is happening to Old Trafford.
When a sport has two teams - each given their own half - like football, hockey, basketball, badminton, volleyball etc, the grounds are rectangular. But cricket doesn't need halves. Teams use the same playing areas over different periods of time. So, they do not need to be squarish. Circular makes a lot more sense.
2006-11-12 11:32:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by pressurekooker 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
The cricket grounds are circular as the pitch is rectangular, boundaries of any side of the pitch will be of equal distance. .
2006-11-12 14:45:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by vakayil k 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
There Oval,apart from the Basin Reserve in Wellington,New Zealand.
2006-11-12 11:14:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by $GET SOME$ 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
as it is circular, the boundaries are at equal distance from the pitch
if it were square, things would have been different
2006-11-12 04:14:05
·
answer #6
·
answered by music_lover 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
It is to make it's radius same. u know that in the circle from centre all of it's length is equal.
2006-11-12 06:38:46
·
answer #7
·
answered by Baashah 2
·
0⤊
0⤋