How come cricket is not spreading to other countries?

[thierry henry]

If I was designing a "propel the ball---------> hit the ball" game, but wanted to throw in the extra element of using the ground to bounce the ball off, and wanted to leave it up to batsmen to stay in as long as they wanted and accumulate points rather than having one turn each (which imo makes a lot more sense and is much more interesting than the "one swing each" baseball system), I'd like to think I'd pretty much come up with cricket. If there was anything plainly absurd or illogical about the design of the game I'd complain about it.

Personally I don't think cricket is unpopular because it's illogical, I think it's because

(a) It takes a long time to play/watch
(b) It has a reputation for being snobby, upper-class etc. The funny terminology and "culture" of the game add to this.

For many people, time consuming + snobby= it must be boring. I strongly refute that there is anything plainly illogical in the design of the game.

 

[slugger]

an easy way to explain the game is to just say if you played a baseball game in which one team bats first and only fields after 27 outs, which is like playing all your 9 innings in a row. the team that bats first sets the score. the other team then bats its 9 innings in row (27 outs) and have to beat the team batting first by one more run and before the loss of all 27 outs.

 

[Uppercut]

Ermmm, you win the game by scoring more than the opposition, just like baseball.

You win the game by scoring more runs than the opposition and getting all of their batsmen out inside five days, unless it's a limited overs game, in which case you have to score more runs than the opposition inside a set number of overs (which is when one bowler bowls six balls from one end of the pitch), but if all your batsmen get out in that time you don't get to bat for as long as that set number of overs.

It's really pretty complicated.

 

[Jungle Jumbo]

You win the game by scoring more runs than the opposition and getting all of their batsmen out inside five days, unless it's a limited overs game, in which case you have to score more runs than the opposition inside a set number of overs (which is when one bowler bowls six balls from one end of the pitch), but if all your batsmen get out in that time you don't get to bat for as long as that set number of overs.

It's really pretty complicated.

Yeah that's pretty much my point. Football, rugby, basketball, netball, handball, American football, hockey, ice hockey are all essentially the same form of game, just with variations of pitch, what parts of the body you can control the ball with and the size of the goal. The actual design of the game (except maybe in the case of gridiron) is more or less the same - goalscoring. The underlying ideas behind cricket and baseball are much more complex and, especially in cricket's case, pretty illogical, even absurd. The actual format is very contrived, unlike in the case of the sports listed above, which all seem quite natural to play.

It doesn't exclusively explain why cricket hasn't caught on - I think the imperial argument is the strongest, although others have suggested otherwise - but it does provide a significant reason as to why cricket hasn't caught on. If you presented any of the above sports to a martian, I reckon they'd catch onto them, before they caught onto cricket.

 

[thierry henry]

You win the game by scoring more runs than the opposition and getting all of their batsmen out inside five days, unless it's a limited overs game, in which case you have to score more runs than the opposition inside a set number of overs (which is when one bowler bowls six balls from one end of the pitch), but if all your batsmen get out in that time you don't get to bat for as long as that set number of overs.

It's really pretty complicated.

I honestly don't think that's complicated at all. Obviously you've tried to word it to sound complicated, but it isn't. The concept is still just a variation on baseball imo. As for the different formats of the game, well, that doesn't mean the game is more complicated, just that we've tinkered with different formats to encourage different types of play- anyone who is actually interested in sports would get that.

Agree to disagree I guess as everything about cricket pretty much makes sense to me. Which aspects of cricket do you actually think are illogical?

 

[Uppercut]

The way that no team is ever actually "winning" until the match is complete. Is there an equivalent in other sports? I can't think of many.

There's a lot of confusion around terms too. You can talk about an innings to mean a team's innings, or a batsman's innings. You can talk about a wicket as in when you get a batsman out, or you can call the pitch a wicket (i.e. "a good cricket wicket"). It's not immediately obvious to a big cricket fan just how awkward it can be conceptually to someone with only a passing interest, but it does certainly put people off. Try watching it with someone who has barely any idea about cricket whatsoever and you'll see what I'm talking about.

 

[thierry henry]

The way that no team is ever actually "winning" until the match is complete. Is there an equivalent in other sports? I can't think of many.

Yeah but that's not really illogical, it just means one team has a go at accumulating their score, than the other team tries to beat it. Really quite straightforward.

There's a lot of confusion around terms too. You can talk about an innings to mean a team's innings, or a batsman's innings. You can talk about a wicket as in when you get a batsman out, or you can call the pitch a wicket (i.e. "a good cricket wicket"). It's not immediately obvious to a big cricket fan just how awkward it can be conceptually to someone with only a passing interest, but it does certainly put people off. Try watching it with someone who has barely any idea about cricket whatsoever and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Yeah, and tbh the "innings/innings" and "wicket/wicket" is pretty stupid, just kinda bad grammar I guess. But all sports have silly terminology, I know cricket has some classics, but I don't really think that's a big thing that would put people off the game.

And tbh the funny thing is, when I think about it, I have some friends who just don't care much about sport full stop, and then some who do care about sport and therefore like cricket- I'm not really acquainted with a single "sports fan" who doesn't have a basic understanding of cricket, so of course I haven't had much first hand experience trying to explain it to people.

 

[Uppercut]

Yeah, the wicket/wicket innings/innings thing was just an example, you encounter all kinds of questions you just don't even consider because you've been watching it so long. Stuff like, "if test matches last five days why is it over already?" and, "why do two people bat at once?". It really is a much more awkward game than it seems when you've been watching it for a long time.

 

[Richard]

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.

Yeah, I recall vague details - there've been pieces I've read, a fair few, suggesting about 90% of cricket followers, in the UK, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and West Indies (obviously it's a bit different in the subcontinent), tend to have gotten into the game because their parents played\watched it and because they were introduced to it before becoming an adult (and often before coming terribly close).

I've already said where said evidence is from - surveys of known cricket followers (usually in the form of questionnaires to cricket clubs or some other form of community-based cricket institution) by various cricket enthusiast organisations - not sure exactly which ones, but along the lines of Wombwell Cricket Lovers Society.

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.

Not really, don't feel I've deployed such a tone at all.

 

[slugger]

The way that no team is ever actually "winning" until the match is complete. Is there an equivalent in other sports? I can't think of many.

this is the point in introducing innings splits in 50 overs game... i think it will go along way in making moves in other countries..

 

[brackenNY]

TBH, I've been watching cricket for years and I still have trouble naming all the fielding positions and cricket shots.

 

[Black_Warrior]

You win the game by scoring more runs than the opposition and getting all of their batsmen out inside five days, unless it's a limited overs game, in which case you have to score more runs than the opposition inside a set number of overs (which is when one bowler bowls six balls from one end of the pitch), but if all your batsmen get out in that time you don't get to bat for as long as that set number of overs.

It's really pretty complicated.

not to mention when it rains and we have to turn to Duckworth and Lewis :P

 

[Isura]

Coz it's cricket. When players can't get their own girlfriends to watch them play, what chances to strangers have of enjoying the bloody thing?

This is very true (speaking from experience )

 

[jashan83]

Cricket is Spreading

Well I do not agree with the Thread that cricket is not spreading. Cricket definitely is spreading beyond the regular bastion of cricket. Infact work done by ICC is credible as it expands cricket much more than other sports like Baseball, NFL etc. Only other sports which has done a similar credible job is Rugby.

But as it is spreading I would like to mention 2 things
1. We all expect miracles, like cricket would suddenly be competing with other sports in USA. We have to be patient on that aspect. Here I would like to take an example of Football (Soccer to make myself clear) in US. Football was gradually established in US. Then slowly due to infrastructure there 94 Football WC happened (A Risk taken by FIFA) and then in 2 3 years US had it's own professional league. US team from then has improved leaps and bound. Certainly still not at the highest level but have got a decent level. (Yest they drew the match with England. England is rated one of the best teams). Hence it was a long term plan. Started in 1990 and now its 2010. Maybe another 5 more years to make US the big boy. It takes time

2. Cricket can never compete with Football. That's a fact. Football just requires a ball. Cricket requires a decent size of ground, a ball, a bat, wickets. So the aim of Cricket should be to be one of the focus games of Nation (There can be 4 5 Focus games in a nation - Eg Aus has a good Cricket, Hockey, Rugby team and are Decent in Football. Then they have individual sports like Tennis). Hence being one of the major sports has many advantages in form of Sponsorships, fan following

3. To spread cricket needs to change it structure. In football for example the WC has been expanded regularly. Big boys play against other teams. This gives a much expected exposure to the developing teams. In cricket due to test structure the top associate end up playing against each other. This should be changes. A 3 Tier system can be introduced where in there is Promotion & relegation. The Top bracket may have 10 nations with 2 or 3 relegation and a second tier with also 10 teams and similar process. A bottom Tier 3 would be there for other teams. Matches between teams of same Tier can be stated as Test Matches or ODI's. With Teams from Tier 2 moving above and playing say just 10 tests in 2 years against teams like Aus, India or South Africa would add a great value to their cricket. It would also bring excitement with teams playing more aggressively to avoid relegation.

4. ICC should take more risks. Football WC in US was a risk. ICC can take similar risks. Champions trophy or 20 20 WC should be held in Associate nations and let them join in playing as Hosts. This would bring local interest in the game. For Example is the next 20 20 WC is held in Netherlands (There are presently 3 ODI approved stadiums in Netherlands by ICC and one 2 more may be developed) then the huge Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi expatriate population would definitely watch. Also would be coming people from England and some other parts of world. This would invoke interest in Media, and some local people maybe curious to join in. This would do game a huge good in spreading to the local born population. Giving 1 or 2 matches from WC is not the solution. The possible locations for such events can be USA, UAE, Netherlands, Ireland, Scotland, Kenya, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, China (Give China a target, they ll definitely prove themselves like they did in Hockey for Olympics preparation).

In last I will say cricket definitely is spreading but certain more changes can spread it further at a faster rate. Cricket is the second most popular game in the world. ICC needs to make it a popular game in second highest no of countries after Football.

 

[morgieb]

Because 1. all the countries involved in cricket were once owned by England and 2. it's too long for Americans and those types of people.

 

[jashan83]

Because 1. all the countries involved in cricket were once owned by England and 2. it's too long for Americans and those types of people.

1. We have to break that legacy. Some progress is there. With some more better decisions & risks cricket may be expanded beyond these countries

2. 20 20 can be the focus to make the games popular. Once the interest there then it can be gradually expanded to other areas

 

[Somerset]

4. ICC should take more risks. Football WC in US was a risk. ICC can take similar risks. Champions trophy or 20 20 WC should be held in Associate nations and let them join in playing as Hosts. This would bring local interest in the game. For Example is the next 20 20 WC is held in Netherlands (There are presently 3 ODI approved stadiums in Netherlands by ICC and one 2 more may be developed) then the huge Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi expatriate population would definitely watch. Also would be coming people from England and some other parts of world. This would invoke interest in Media, and some local people maybe curious to join in. This would do game a huge good in spreading to the local born population. Giving 1 or 2 matches from WC is not the solution. The possible locations for such events can be USA, UAE, Netherlands, Ireland, Scotland, Kenya, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Singapore, China (Give China a target, they ll definitely prove themselves like they did in Hockey for Olympics preparation).

Countries like New Zealand and Australia haven't hosted a world tournament in 18 years, and you'd rather a country like Netherlands or the UAE hosted it? I think a better alternative would be for Scotland, Ireland and the Netherlands to host a couple of World Cup games each when England host the tournament, and Kenya and Zimbabwe to be allotted matches when South Africa host the tournament (as it did happen in 2003). Having those countries solely host it is a recipe for disaster though.

As I alluded to in the earlier topic from another new poster, if you think giving one of those countries the hosting of a World Cup is the way to ensure they'll be a competitive cricket nation, I think you're dreaming. The crowds in the United States for the New Zealand vs Sri Lanka matches were average and the pitches were pathetic. I certainly don't want the biggest cricket tournament to have to put up with that when the test playing nations should invariably do a better job as the main host.

 

[jashan83]

Countries like New Zealand and Australia haven't hosted a world tournament in 18 years, and you'd rather a country like Netherlands or the UAE hosted it? I think a better alternative would be for Scotland, Ireland and the Netherlands to host a couple of World Cup games each when England host the tournament, and Kenya and Zimbabwe to be allotted matches when South Africa host the tournament (as it did happen in 2003). Having those countries solely host it is a recipe for disaster though.

As I alluded to in the earlier topic from another new poster, if you think giving one of those countries the hosting of a World Cup is the way to ensure they'll be a competitive cricket nation, I think you're dreaming. The crowds in the United States for the New Zealand vs Sri Lanka matches were average and the pitches were pathetic. I certainly don't want the biggest cricket tournament to have to put up with that when the test playing nations should invariably do a better job as the main host.

First I never said World Cup. I said a 20 20 WC or Champions trophy (They happen every 2 years. If Aus NZ get very desperate ICC can give them one ). Kindly read carefully. Aus and New Zealand can have their WC in 2015. A one of series with 2 matches can never be compared with the like of a full series and excitement of a full world cup. The Australasia cup in UAE had full pack houses. Though mostly these were of Indians Pakis living there but the locals also picked up the game and UAE began to grow as a team. After ODI tournaments were banned in Sharjah the fortunes of UAE team have also been not good.

Another stat is that the costlier tickets both in 07 WC and 2010 20 20 WC we bought by the fans coming from USA. If people don't the aptitude to take risk then we will have these many countries playing the WC. It ll lead to BCCI having more money and hence more muscle to delay world cup to Australia.

 

[Somerset]

First I never said World Cup. I said a 20 20 WC or Champions trophy (They happen every 2 years. If Aus NZ get very desperate ICC can give them one ). Kindly read carefully. Aus and New Zealand can have their WC in 2015. A one of series with 2 matches can never be compared with the like of a full series and excitement of a full world cup. The Australasia cup in UAE had full pack houses. Though mostly these were of Indians Pakis living there but the locals also picked up the game and UAE began to grow as a team. After ODI tournaments were banned in Sharjah the fortunes of UAE team have also been not good.

Another stat is that the costlier tickets both in 07 WC and 2010 20 20 WC we bought by the fans coming from USA. If people don't the aptitude to take risk then we will have these many countries playing the WC. It ll lead to BCCI having more money and hence more muscle to delay world cup to Australia.

Last I checked, the T20 World Cup is a World Cup - so I think you've confused yourself with your first point. I have no idea what you mean by your last paragraph either - without having the figures to back me up did all that many people from the USA really travel down for the tournament? Would've thought that the majority were local West Indians or touring fans.

The Australiasia Cup hasn't been held since the mid-1990s, and cricket's changed an aweful lost since then so I'm not sure how good an example it is. I'd also be a bit hesitant to say that the UAE grew as a team based on that tournament - they've only played 11 ODIs in their history! I would say the growth would be their playing of international cricket around that time, rather than the location of that particular tournament.

 

[jashan83]

Last I checked, the T20 World Cup is a World Cup - so I think you've confused yourself with your first point. I have no idea what you mean by your last paragraph either - without having the figures to back me up did all that many people from the USA really travel down for the tournament? Would've thought that the majority were local West Indians or touring fans.

First of all when in Cricket we talk of World Cup its the ODI world Cup. That is the one on which all the ICC qualification league's are based on. It's on which the teams are quoted. The 20 20 World Cup is an recent addition like was the Champions trophy.

For the figures just make a search on Google and check for yourself what stats you get. I need no say anything on that. It is well known how many US Indians , Pakis and Bangladeshi's traveled to the Windies.

[/QUOTE]The Australiasia Cup hasn't been held since the mid-1990s, and cricket's changed an aweful lost since then so I'm not sure how good an example it is. I'd also be a bit hesitant to say that the UAE grew as a team based on that tournament - they've only played 11 ODIs in their history! I would say the growth would be their playing of international cricket around that time, rather than the location of that particular tournament.[/QUOTE]

You are absolutely right. Australasia cup was last time held in mid 90's. It was also the last time when UAE played a WC ( 96 WC). It was around that time only they won ICC trophy and ACC trophy. After that check how many tournaments they have won. The point of this example was they played these 11 ODI due to the contributions of interest of cricket developed by the tournaments. Yes it was 11 ODI's only coz at that time ICC structure did not give ODI status to teams like now it is given to additional 6 teams. If that had been the case there no would have been higher. So just by giving 11 ODI's a no does not summarize the whole situation. It's the whole background behind it.

I believe there are many such people who are risk averse. I am not saying that a 20 20 World Cup would be hit and next day we replace baseball. What I am saying is it will generate interest. Add more players and over time say 10 years a decent US team will come up. People just simply assume that it will fail without even trying. The World Cup ( Let me clarify- ODI WC) is a precious tournament. It should be exclusive right of Test Nations and may be some ODI's may be given here and there as you suggested.

We need to experiment before assuming we fail. The ground you mentioned were bad in US can always be improved by investments. These are the things that make a permanent difference