How come cricket is not spreading to other countries?

[Uppercut]

They race in circuits mostly within Europe, but for two in the Americas, four in Asia and the one in Australia. That's hardly global.

Bahaha. "Apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation, the roads...."

There's actually six in Asia ftr, seven if you count Turkey.

 

[Arjun]

Bahaha. "Apart from the aqueduct, the sanitation, the roads...."

There's actually six in Asia ftr, seven if you count Turkey.

Singapore and Turkey only came in the last two years.

 

[andyc]

Richard, given that many of your cricketing theories are drastically different to the 'norm,' surely it's a bit rich (ha!) to claim your argument is correct because it's the most common.

 

[brackenNY]

Look at Formula 1, supposedly the most popular sport worldwide, after football.

 

[Richard]

Dunno, obviously if there's quantative research fair enough, but I know plenty that don't fall into this category at all. My dad hates cricket, I started watching aged about 12 but even then didn't really become a fanatic where cricket took equal footing to football until I was about 19 and Steve Harmison ruled the world (). And my best mate who watched the bulk of the Ashes with me wasn't really a fan at all when he went off to uni but has always watched with me since coming back.

As I say - don't get the impression that I'm suggesting the other type are in a minority that includes a few hundred.

BTW you were 20 in March 2004, UIMM. Or maybe you turned 20 in June 2004, when Harmison still "ruled the world".

 

[Richard]

That's just a load of common fallacies and weasel words. "It's true because the overwhelming majority of people know it" or "the only people who disagree with it are ridiculous". The short answer was "there is no sauce". You're going by anecdotal evidence, probably exclusively your own.

Truth is only truth because the overwhelming majority of people know it. That's pretty simple. There are those who'd deny that it's true that the sky is blue, or that the street is not the street it's the ceiling, or that murder is wrong, but it's still accepted as truth by all bar an infinitessimal number.

I'm going by evidence I've heard many mention of. If that's "exclusively my own" then yes, but I wouldn't really class it as such TBH.

 

[Richard]

Richard needs to find me one though, instead of saying "lots of reliable cricket writers say it, it's an accepted fact" when I have read innumerable amounts of articles by reliable cricket writers and never once encountered anyone ever saying anything about cricket being a sport that you either get into when you're young or not at all.

I didn't say that, quite - I said the large majority of cricket fans have got into it when pretty young - and no I didn't neccessarily mean 7-8 young.

 

[Richard]

Richard, given that many of your cricketing theories are drastically different to the 'norm,' surely it's a bit rich (ha!) to claim your argument is correct because it's the most common.

My argument is that something is the case because lots of evidence has been conducted suggesting so, and that many others have based similar opinions to mine on said evidence.

Just because no shortage of my cricket theories are drastically different to accepted norms (despite identical evidence - which is interpreted differently) doesn't change the fact that countless of them are also accepted-norm standard. You can't really say "well you disagree lots with __ so you can't also agree with __ lots" (where __ is the same or has much in common), because, well, it just doesn't work that way. Each case is different.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Look at Formula 1, supposedly the most popular sport worldwide, after football. We find that the drivers are predominantly European. The cars they drive, or the teams they represent, are mostly European, or Japanese (only one left now). They race in circuits mostly within Europe, but for two in the Americas, four in Asia and the one in Australia. That's hardly global. Yet, it is considered an internationally popular sport, and there seems no need to get involvement of other countries in it. There's no need to complain about the lack of globalisation of cricket, when it has often resulted in making a mockery of the game. They need to establish themselves in their core base and keep it strong there itself. Leave the globalisation aspect to the marketing staff in the game. If something as heavily technical as F1 is so popular, cricket shouldn't be too far behind.

I think F1 is a bit different though - I'd have thought there are plenty of F1 fans who wouldn't classify themselves as sports fans because it is completely different from just about all the other internationally popular sports, which rely so much more on human sporting skill than engineering. You can't take part in F1 yourself, unlike cricket/footbal/basketball/rugby/tennis...and just about every other internationally popular sport.

A couple of other reasons why it's an invalid comparison - the car is pretty much universal, so everyone can understand it as the peak of a branch of technology that they can relate to; any spread to Asia is primarily the result of money, not a desire to access a wider fanbase; F1 has a fairly unique niche - although other forms of motorsport exist, F1 is the natural pinnacle - whereas cricket must compete with other mass participation team/ball sports, all of which are underpinned by very similar physical demands and skills.

Also I think your final line doesn't really add up. While F1 is 'technical', there is no real need to understand the science behind the cars. It is still a fairly simple sport at its roots - whoever goes round the circuit a set number of times in the fastest time is the winner.

 

[Uppercut]

Truth is only truth because the overwhelming majority of people know it. That's pretty simple. There are those who'd deny that it's true that the sky is blue, or that the street is not the street it's the ceiling, or that murder is wrong, but it's still accepted as truth by all bar an infinitessimal number.

I think that's called the fallacy of appeal to popularity. It's bollocks, in short, not so long ago the overwhelming majority of people thought the world was flat, but that didn't make it so. But it goes nicely with the appeal to ridicule you used earlier.

I've still seen no sauce, so I think you should accept that there isn't one. An Italian history lecturer said today that the only person who can get away without quoting sauces (for reasons unknown) is Silvio Berlusconi.

 

[Uppercut]

My argument is that something is the case because lots of evidence has been conducted suggesting so, and that many others have based similar opinions to mine on said evidence.

Where?! Where is this evidence or all these others that have based similar opinions to yours? I've seen none. Nor as stumpski, and I believe he's been around a pretty long time.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Yeah, I'd echo all those who have pointed out that from experience, cricket is a sport that people can get into at an older age than most others. Certainly you hear about a number of famous people, regularly interviewed at tea on TMS, for example, who stress how they only discovered a love of cricket later in life.

If there's overwhelming statistical evidence, then fair enough, but you can't claim its existence if you can't actually provide it.

 

[GIMH]

As I say - don't get the impression that I'm suggesting the other type are in a minority that includes a few hundred.

BTW you were 20 in March 2004, UIMM. Or maybe you turned 20 in June 2004, when Harmison still "ruled the world".

With all due respect I know when I was born, and I was definitely 19 in March 04.

And just to clarify my earlier statement, basically the 03-04 winter was the first one where I bothered myself to stay up in the night deliberately etc. If that makes sense. I was a student, after all.

 

[thierry henry]

I honestly don't see how cricket is that complicated

Rugby Union is far more complicated imho

I know you can say "sure, Union has a lot of hard to follow rules at the breakdown etc, but essentially it's two teams trying to carry the ball over the opponents' line"......but you could equally say of cricket that "it all boils down to one guy bowling a ball and the other guy hitting it"

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

I honestly don't see how cricket is that complicated

Rugby Union is far more complicated imho

I know you can say "sure, Union has a lot of hard to follow rules at the breakdown etc, but essentially it's two teams trying to carry the ball over the opponents' line"......but you could equally say of cricket that "it all boils down to one guy bowling a ball and the other guy hitting it"

Not really, that doesn't explain how you win the game, or what 'bowling' consists of, or why there are another 20 players involved in the game. You could watch a game of rugby for the first time ever and, after being told the basic principle of scoring tries, have a fairly good idea of what is going on, even if there are continual interruptions. Cricket is just a strange, strange game. I often find myself watching a game and realising just how absurd the design of the game is.

 

[Richard]

I think that's called the fallacy of appeal to popularity. It's bollocks, in short, not so long ago the overwhelming majority of people thought the world was flat, but that didn't make it so.

No of course it didn't, but that's a completely irrelevant matter. What I said wasn't that cricket is overwhelmingly a game which is got into when young or not at all because lots of people think it is, but because evidence exists pointing that way - evidence in the form of lots of people's comments on their route into fandom. At one point no evidence existed as to what shape Earth was so one guess was as good as another, and the prevailing guess turned-out to be wrong. There is no guesswork involved in what I and others have written.

But it goes nicely with the appeal to ridicule you used earlier.

When exactly did I use such a thing?

I've still seen no sauce, so I think you should accept that there isn't one. An Italian history lecturer said today that the only person who can get away without quoting sauces (for reasons unknown) is Silvio Berlusconi.

If by sauce you mean evidence, no, of course you haven't - as I say, I'm not aware of any being available to widescale consumption. But I am aware of the existence of plenty.

 

[Richard]

Where?! Where is this evidence or all these others that have based similar opinions to yours? I've seen none. Nor as stumpski, and I believe he's been around a pretty long time.

Well I've heard of plenty, and no, I can't cite it. So you can take my word, or you can go on your own experiences, both of which are fair enough. I can't shake the feeling that I know a fair few more cricket fans than you though TBH, and that's not an attempt to paint myself as superior in any way, just how I suspect matters are.

 

[Richard]

If there's overwhelming statistical evidence, then fair enough, but you can't claim its existence if you can't actually provide it.

Well I can, because I myself know of it, but I don't neccessarily blame others for not believing it without seeing it for themselves. In fact I don't blame them at all, it's entirely natural and right to react that way.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

Okay, I appreciate the exact evidence itself is unlikely to be available on the net, but could you at least suggest what form this evidence took and where it was from? Seeing as there is "plenty", you must be able to recall vague details. It seems to run contrary to the perceptions of many on this board.I just can't see how you can put forward a statistically-based argument, without any stats.

EDIT: Plus, if it's "entirely natural" to react as many have done, your slightly accusational and dismissive tone doesn't sit too pretty with this supposedly sympathetic understanding.

 

[thierry henry]

Not really, that doesn't explain how you win the game, or what 'bowling' consists of

Ermmm, you win the game by scoring more than the opposition, just like baseball. And just like in baseball, you run from point A to point B to accumulate points. It's just simplified (imo) to the back and forth type of running, rather than the 4-base system.

And you'd know what "bowling" was the moment you saw someone bowl....

or why there are another 20 players involved in the game.

You have fielders, and take turns to bat (just like baseball). I don't see how it could work any other way.

You could watch a game of rugby for the first time ever and, after being told the basic principle of scoring tries, have a fairly good idea of what is going on, even if there are continual interruptions.

How much rugby have you watched lately?

There is more scrummaging, kicking, and kicking for goals than running and passing.

It's all over the show.

Cricket is just a strange, strange game. I often find myself watching a game and realising just how absurd the design of the game is.

Still don't see it