IPL criticisms

[oitoitoi]

Last year the IPL attendance was 58,000, making it the second most attended league in the world (after the National Football League in the US), so a very strong baseline interest is there. Now its up to the organizers to keep that up and not ruin it with two hour long commercial breaks and things like that.

Guarantee those are figures released my Modi and co, definitely not true, pretty sure the Feroz Shah Kotla and Eden Gardens are the only grounds in India big enough to accomodate 58,000 anyway. They're building some massive grounds for the world cup (Chennai to seat 90,000) but they're not ready yet. Suprised at how high the attendance was at NFL games, that said the stadiums are almost universally massive and the 2007 season was a good un. Suprised Bundesliga is above the Premiership too.

 

[oitoitoi]

Just checked:

Eden gardens seats 90,000 (used to be 120,000 before renovations).
DY Patil Stadium that seats 60,000 was used for only some Mumbai Indians matches.
Nehru Stadium in Kocchi seats 60,000 but wasn't used in the IPL
Chinnaswamy in Bangalore seats 55,000
Sardar Patel Stadium in Ahmedebad seats 55,000 but wasn't used
Rajiv Gandhi in Hyderabad seats 55,000
Chidambaram in Chennai seats 50,000
The Feroz Shah Kotla seats just 40,000
Mohali seats 40,000 too
Wankhede seats 40,000
Jaipur wasn't even on the list, looks not much bigger than an average county ground on tv.

I reckon 58,000 attendance is pretty optimistic to say the least, especially considering contrary to what the tv screens were showing, not many matches were sell outs, people in India don't have the time!

Quite suprisingly (to me at least) the biggest stadium in India and 2nd biggest non motor sport venue in the world is the salt lake stadium in kolkata, mainly used for football. There are actually quite a few large football venues in India, didn't realise it had such a big following in the homeland.

Very interesting list actually: List of stadiums by capacity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some of those motor sport venues are insanely big, do that many people really go watch it? It doesn't even seem that interesting on the tv never mind at the park where the cars are going too fast to focus on and are miles away anyway. And Indianapolis at that, it's an endurance race round an oval! Expandable to 400,000, and they can't even fill the Riverside....Those yanks and their crazy ways....Imagine going to a India Pakistan match with 400,000 spectators, would be epic.

Glad to see St James's Park's comfortably bigger than Anfield and Stamford Bridge, and we fill it every week!

 

[GIMH]

You won't next season though

 

[silentstriker]

Yeah, I didn't say otherwise...

I was agreeing with you.

 

[honestbharani]

Irrelevant.

It was the answer.

 

[archie mac]

I have not read the whole thread but it seems on the highlights that the crowds are dropping off?

 

[silentstriker]

Not sure, but I'd think that was likely. SA public only has a few South African stars to watch. I thought it was a mistake to hold it outside of India. Atmosphere is a big part of what made the IPL.

 

[aussie]

Not a go at Pasag specifically by any means, I've just quoted him since it is the most recent post I've come across on this issue. This is for all those who think the BCCI are nothing more than money-grabbing copycats. Just wanting to put an end to the chicken and egg argument that seems to crop up so often in ICL-IPL comparisons.

The basic premise of the IPL has been in existence in the BCCI corridors for a long time. Jagmohan Dalmiya's ouster and his struggles to hold onto power in the BCCI meant the idea was put on the backburner. All the ICL did was fast-track the implementation of Dalmiya's idea by the BCCI, in the form of the IPL. And it could be argued that the BCCI might even have looked to cash in on the concept after the 2007 T20 WC win regardless of the existence of the ICL. All Lalit Modi has had to do is dust off the old files and claim complete credit for Dalmiya's idea.

Cricinfo - Dalmiya looks to transform Indian cricket

In conclusion, the BCCI are not money grabbing copycats. They're just money grabbers. And Lalit Modi is a smellier skunk than generally believed.

Even if the BCCI in the Dalmiya era had plans for an IPL tournament before Dev & ICL orchestrated it in late 07. I dont think the criticism has ever been that the BCCI "generally" where money-grabbing copycats" (although the idea was thrown around).

But rather they misued their power in the game to commence the IPL as an promotion of Indian cricket, instead of not trying to make contruct the IPL as a global brand, in this relatively small cricket community.

 

[SJS]

I have not read the whole thread but it seems on the highlights that the crowds are dropping off?

Read this article

The original picture in the news paper was much more dramatic. They are just putting the cameras on the areas with more people everytime they want to show the crowds.

Here is the original picture from that day;s Indian Express. . .

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Yea, well the excitement is high, but passion is a more iffy prospect. I think the quality of cricket is higher than some give it credit for though - if only something like this was commercially viable for FC cricket, it would be my wet dream. With that said, I don't buy players being more passionate about Somerset than Rajasthan, if they played for both. That doesn't mean they are particularly 'passionate' about either.

Most professional sports players are highly competitive, so in any competitive environment, they generally go all out. Money is a good motivator though, and you can already hear whispers of people quitting their Test career for their country early and choosing IPL. A trend that is both dangerous and upsetting.

Last year the IPL attendance was 58,000, making it the second most attended league in the world (after the National Football League in the US), so a very strong baseline interest is there. Now its up to the organizers to keep that up and not ruin it with two hour long commercial breaks and things like that.

Noticed that the AFL has dropped back from second to fourth on that list since I last looked at it (couple of years probably). Also noticed in a caption to a picture that it refers to the AFL being played in cricket stadiums; this is around the wrong way. The MCG mayhave cricket in it's name but is very much a football stadium that hosts cricket games and not the other way around.

 

[Uppercut]

Noticed that the AFL has dropped back from second to fourth on that list since I last looked at it (couple of years probably). Also noticed in a caption to a picture that it refers to the AFL being played in cricket stadiums; this is around the wrong way. The MCG mayhave cricket in it's name but is very much a football stadium that hosts cricket games and not the other way around.

Hmm. Care to elaborate?

 

[archie mac]

Read this article

The original picture in the news paper was much more dramatic. They are just putting the cameras on the areas with more people everytime they want to show the crowds.

It would not let me open it. I will try again later

 

[vic_orthdox]

Hmm. Care to elaborate?

It would host a lot more days of football than cricket over the year, I guess. And it's where it would make all its money.

 

[Uppercut]

It would host a lot more days of football than cricket over the year, I guess. And it's where it would make all its money.

Hmm. Don't really agree. If Wembley hosts more rock concerts over the course of a year than football matches, does that make it a music stadium?

The MCG was built exclusively for cricket, it's designed specifically for cricket, it's most well-known for cricket and it has "cricket" in its name. It was at one stage banned from hosting any other sport, it was the scene of the very first test match and the very first ODI and has a really, really long history and tradition in the sport of- guess what- cricket. How on earth is the Melbourne Cricket Ground a football ground just because they've started playing a lot of football there lately?

 

[Goughy]

Hmm. Don't really agree. If Wembley hosts more rock concerts over the course of a year than football matches, does that make it a music stadium

I agree. If Croke Park had more days of Union than Gaelic football, would that make it a Rugby stadium?

 

[pasag]

Hmm. Don't really agree. If Wembley hosts more rock concerts over the course of a year than football matches, does that make it a music stadium?

The MCG was built exclusively for cricket, it's designed specifically for cricket, it's most well-known for cricket and it has "cricket" in its name. It was at one stage banned from hosting any other sport, it was the scene of the very first test match and the very first ODI and has a really, really long history and tradition in the sport of- guess what- cricket. How on earth is the Melbourne Cricket Ground a football ground just because they've started playing a lot of football there lately?

Lately? Try the past 150 years.

And I could go on forever listing its traditions with footy, but I won't because I dont think it's a contest.

It's the absolute Mecca for Australian football and the reason why it's the size it is today.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Lately? Try the past 150 years.

And I could go on forever listing its traditions with footy, but I won't because I dont think it's a contest.

It's the absolute Mecca for Australian football and the reason why it's the size it is today.

First game played on the G in 1869; first offical VFA game in 1879.

 

[honestbharani]

Read this article

The original picture in the news paper was much more dramatic. They are just putting the cameras on the areas with more people everytime they want to show the crowds.

Here is the original picture from that day;s Indian Express. . .

tbh, SJS, the crowds in most places seems decent and it always looks like the stands juz behind the stumps on either side are generally empty.. Maybe they were the most expensive????

 

[honestbharani]

Lately? Try the past 150 years.

And I could go on forever listing its traditions with footy, but I won't because I dont think it's a contest.

It's the absolute Mecca for Australian football and the reason why it's the size it is today.

that's interesting.


Was it always designed for Aussie Rules football or was it designed for cricket but used for AFL?

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

Hmm. Don't really agree. If Wembley hosts more rock concerts over the course of a year than football matches, does that make it a music stadium?

The MCG was built exclusively for cricket, it's designed specifically for cricket, it's most well-known for cricket and it has "cricket" in its name. It was at one stage banned from hosting any other sport, it was the scene of the very first test match and the very first ODI and has a really, really long history and tradition in the sport of- guess what- cricket. How on earth is the Melbourne Cricket Ground a football ground just because they've started playing a lot of football there lately?

yeah I will elaborate.

The MCG has been constantly evolving and the two grandstands that stand there now were built in the late 80's and early naughties, both with football in mind and NOT cricket. (I don't think the wembley thing stands as a comparison because it was built for football and not rock concerts).

It may be more well known for cricket in England, and that is perfectly understandable, but in Melbourne, it certainly is more sinonimous (no idea how to spell that) with footy. Its a fact, the stadium even markets itself as "The home of Football"

"It was at one stage banned from hosting any other sport" - this I've never heard before in my life (spent living in the vicinity of the great stadium). You need to clarify!

Yes it has a very, very distinguished history associated with Cricket. That is not at all in dispute with me. In fact I would trumpet it far and wide. But to make it more special for those (read you) less familiar with the ground, is it's other fabulous claims to history: Olympic Stadium 1956, Hosted almost every AFL (well VFL pre 1990) Grand final since the late 1800s (yes football was played there before test cricket even), hosted the first action at the 2000 Olympics (Aust v Italy, football) {yeah thats 2 Olympics if counting}, 2006 Comm Games, and some of the most historic matches of footy ever played.

"just because they've started playing a lot of football there lately" - well this was the bit that made me confident that you didn't know much about the stadium. That statement could actually apply to both the SCG and Gabba, but not the G (thats what we call it). Lately is before your great grandfather was born.

We of Melbourne love our sport and pay to see it in numbers that (popn adjusted) would outstrip any other city in the world, but do you really think we would build (then rebuild) a 100,000 seat stadium for Cricket?

I hope this doesn't come across as agressive (hopefully more just upity). I've actually enjoyed writing about a place I'm passionate. What you wrote in the post I quoted (although mostly factually wrong), was actually really good at focusing me on answering your previous post of "please elaborate"

cheers