Best performing cricket nations per capita & other factors considered...

[Zinzan]

Pretty surprised NZ is considered a clear cut winner here (assuming we're talking tests).

I was talking overall which means Tests, ODIs & dear I say it...T20s

 

[Redbacks]

Who'd believe that alcohol consumption would be such a major part of competitive sport

senator fielding for those playing at home

I'd say NZ then Sri Lanka

 

[Redbacks]

I think genetics play a huge factor in this regard. Indians are naturally not built for the sort of athletic sports westerners play. It's really rather different. I'm probably gonna cop a lot of **** for saying this, but it's true.

Maybe, however being short can be an advantage to a batsman, the zone of a good lenght delivery gets bigger the taller a player is. As advancements are made and more talented youngsters in remote areas get a better diet during development, more and more tall athletic bowlers might be found.

 

[Zinzan]

Obviously a pis-take the vote for India

 

[Evermind]

NZ, SL and WI - the fact that these countries are even competitive is a miracle. Definitely the best of the lot.

Australia is first world, SL is not. In spite of this, SL performs only a few notches below Aus at their best.

India, Pak and Bang are way too huge to factor in.

SA > Eng in spite of the smaller population, and far lower GDP (factor of 10?). No excuse.

I'd say the worst are India, Bang and Eng.

 

[Goughy]

First World and GDP are not relevant.

 

[Migara]

After all the recent criticism of the New Zealand cricket team in this Indian series; and a lot of it justified I might add, it did get me thinking..........By rights, should NZ with their population slightly over 4 million people be expected to compete with a cricketing-mad nation like India with nearly 300 times as many people? And maybe its worth looking at the resources available to each country which may put things in perspective a little more & give us all a better understanding of the challenges each nation faces in producing their top XI's

I'd also like to point out that the straight population statistics don't tell the whole story. i.e. there is a high level of poverty in some cricketing countries meaning a high proportion of the population don't get the opportunities they would in fully developed countries like Eng, Aust & NZ.

Then there are some other factors to consider; such as where cricket stands as a priority- sport in these respective nations, the politics involved i.e. South Africa and their quota system amongst other factors...

All that said, I'm interested in everyone's thoughts........


Rank these countries of the cricketing strength per capita based on the below population stats, but also considering other factors such as socio-economic factors, politics etc

Populations....

India 1,160,910,000 (or 1.16 billion)
Pakistan 165,899,500 (165 million)
Bangladesh 162,221,000 (162 million)
United Kingdom 61,612,300 (62 million)
South Africa 48,697,000 (48 million)
Australia 21,707,964 (21 million)
Sri Lanka 20,238,000 (20 million)
Zimbabwe 12,800,000 (12.8 million)
West Indies 5,900,000 (5.9 million) (includes Antigua & Babuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St Kitts, St Lucia, St Vincent & Trinidad & Tobago)
New Zealand 4,301,785 (4.3 million)

..

How about adding per capita income to the picture as well? While sub coninent cricketers come out just raw without any coaching or tarinig facilities compared to their more wealthy counterparts?

 

[Evermind]

First World and GDP are not relevant.

Well, they should be, because it makes a ****load of difference.

Those who don't think so should go to India and watch the kids in villages play the "cricket". It has as much in common with international cricket as women's tennis.

 

[Fusion]

First World and GDP are not relevant.

Strongly disagree. Population is not the only factor that should be considered here (and as the title of the thread also makes clear). First World means better facilities and opportunities. So even a considerably less populated nation can have as much a chance to field a successful team than say Bangladesh. I would actually say that the GDP is one of the biggest reasons for a nation’s long term success in a particular sport.

 

[Athlai]

Australia and England would have many many times more funding in cricket than New Zealand though, I'd say India would too.

 

[Son Of Coco]

There was a fascinating 'per capita' medal table for the Olympics, where Jamaica were absolutely miles ahead.

Roy and HG used to do some interesting variations on these sorts of tables.

 

[Goughy]

Strongly disagree. Population is not the only factor that should be considered here (and as the title of the thread also makes clear). First World means better facilities and opportunities. So even a considerably less populated nation can have as much a chance to field a successful team than say Bangladesh. I would actually say that the GDP is one of the biggest reasons for a nation’s long term success in a particular sport.

Thats nothing but an excuse. West Indies had low GDP and low population and were successful based on high interest levels, a culture of sport and a good structure.

They are the 3 required aspects. Interest levels, culture of sport and good structure.

Money may help with the 3rd aspect but plenty of places have done all three without high income levels. WI and early Yorks, I have already mentioned, but look at China as a model. On the flip-side the USA is the biggest economy in the world and has more cricketers than some Test nations but that does not guarantee a good structure or success.

There are two big cop-outs that I hear used and that is resources and genetics.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Goughy, you could substitute the first of your 3 required aspects with resources, and it'd be as valid (as proven by NZ) as you make out your 3 to be. You're fixating on one example and trying to mould the factors to suit that, which is doing it the incorrect way. There are many factors at play, and while the relative importance of each factor vis a vis the others may vary, it would be fallacy to pretend that resources are a cop out. Do you think it is a negligible factor when a proper cricket ball costs 1/10th of what the average Indian earns in a month? Do you think the average West Indian had it that bad?

 

[Goughy]

Goughy, you could substitute the first of your 3 required aspects with resources, and it'd be as valid (as proven by NZ) as you make out your 3 to be. You're fixating on one example and trying to mould the factors to suit that, which is doing it the incorrect way. There are many factors at play, and while the relative importance of each factor vis a vis the others may vary, it would be fallacy to pretend that resources are a cop out. Do you think it is a negligible factor when a proper cricket ball costs 1/10th of what the average Indian earns in a month? Do you think the average West Indian had it that bad?

I am? Which?

Balls and equipment in poor areas are usually provided by clubs set up by their own communities. Every mining village in Yorkshire had a cricket club with a committed junior section and a strong committee made up of locals that fund raised and provided coaching.

The club system in WI was (I believe) the same.

GDP counts for **** when there is good system in in place, run by committed people. Zimbabwe is the poorest country in the world ($200 GDP pc) and has a GDP per capita 1/10th of that of India. Despite that, and despite chasing off all their best players and being corrupt as hell, there is still a system in place for bringing black and white cricketers through.

I dont expect people to provide their own equipment. However, I expect them to sacrifice to be a cricketer and their communities to provide a structure.

Everything is local and elsewhere around the world these probelms have been addressed.

 

[G.I.Joe]

I am? Which?

The West Indies.

Balls and equipment in poor areas are usually provided by clubs set up by their own communities. Every mining village in Yorkshire had a cricket club with a committed junior section and a strong committee made up of locals that fund raised and provided coaching.

The club system in WI was (I believe) the same.

So Yorkshire had a system in place which accounts for their success. India doesn't. In the absence of a system, people are forced to pay more out of their pockets which doesn't work if the pockets aren't deep enough.

GDP counts for **** when there is good system in in place, run by committed people. Zimbabwe is the poorest country in the world ($200 GDP pc) and has a GDP per capita 1/10th of that of India. Despite that, and despite chasing off all their best players and being corrupt as hell, there is still a system in place for bringing black and white cricketers through.

There is still a system in place because they were already put in place before their economy went to the dogs. Zimbabwe and India had pretty smilar Per capita income levels in 2003. Have there been any significant improvements in sporting infrastructure since the economy nose dived? They benefitted from better infrastructure than India in the past because they were set up by an immigrant population that brought with them a sporting culture and who enjoyed a much better standard of living than the native population. They're still producing good cricketers because that system still exists, and compensates for the poor economy now.

 

[Uppercut]

The West Indies.


So Yorkshire had a system in place which accounts for their success. India doesn't. In the absence of a system, people are forced to pay more out of their pockets which doesn't work if the pockets aren't deep enough.

I think that's the cause and effect nailed already without having to concern over economic well-being.

 

[Jigga988]

Based on population and the popularity of the sport NZ is a good shout

Windies is also a good shout, taking in to consideration the resources available to many other test countries... our FC system was only passable this year all the other years it did not nearly have enough matches in due to the lack of financial resources and even the current year is having some trouble, not to mention the IPL decreasing the amount of test played in the Windies resulting in even less income...

 

[Evermind]

It is absolutely laughable to compare the "economically backward" Yorkshire to India. Only someone who doesn't have the slightest idea about what the economic and social conditions in India are like would make a comparison like that.

 

[BoyBrumby]

So Yorkshire had a system in place which accounts for their success.

One county championship in 40 years makes that something of a backhanded compliment, actually.

 

[Goughy]

Only someone who doesn't have the slightest idea about what the economic and social conditions in India are like would make a comparison like that.

And Im sure you are an expert in industrial pre-war Yorkshire history and the social-history of mining villages.

Way to miss the point.

Poverty is relative. Yorkshire produced good cricketers due to the passion and the poverty compared to other places in England.

People had zero disposable income. The community supported the cricket, not the individual.

As Ive said, it is a cultural and structure issue rather than a financial one. Structures can be in place to cover the expenses of the penniless and provide cricket and coaching.