the new zealand dilemma

[Flem274*]

I for one am interested to hear Scaly's thoughts on this issue

He actually said over the summer there is no reason why we can't be a competent mid-table cricket team.

He's actually been very active in NZ threads this summer has ol' Scaly.

 

[unam]

A lot people are saying their population is too small. I don't think population is an issue. If we go by that logic India should have dominated the cricket, which is clearly not true. Also Sri Lanka and West Indies have small population too.

 

[Howe_zat]

People are banging on about rugby, but outside of Asia cricket just isn't that popular. In the UK, the vast majority of state schools never introduce cricket, and If I were to ask my class of year 10's I seriously doubt any of them would be able to name a single cricketer. Of all the people I've lived with at uni or my schoolfriends growing up, I'm quite sure I'm the only one to have watched cricket regularly.

 

[Furball]

Rugby certainly doesn't help but the AFL comparison is an interesting one seeing as it near monopolises the attention of Victoria - not so many Australian fast bowlers coming from Victoria at present are there?

Both Peter Siddle and James Pattinson are Victorians.

 

[Howe_zat]

Don't forget McKay

 

[BoyBrumby]

Think NZ do pretty well, generally. Should be noted that not only are they world champions in both rugby codes but that their association football team was the only undefeated side at the last world cup, so there's a fair bit of competition for their sporting talent.

Benchy's point about winter and summer sports is well made, but nowadays young fellas have to make a choice which sport they'll pursue professionally and, as often as not, they'll follow the money. Phil Neville was, by every account, an absolute prodigy with the bat as a youth, century for Lancs 2nds at 15 and all but gave it away to be a solid, workmanlike, but very well remunerated fullback-***-defensive midfielder for Man U, Everton and England. I'd imagine many young NZders face a similar choice and the majority end up playing union.

 

[straw man]

Both Peter Siddle and James Pattinson are Victorians.

Slipped through the gaps. Siddle once put on a pair of those shorts but AFL said that's not allowed

AFL monopolises Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia and as much as NT as possible really.

Didn't realise AFL was that big in WA or Tas tbh.

This happens everywhere!

There are dozens of AFL players currently playing who could have been state cricketers.

That's more what I meant. I can think of a few promising cricketers who gave up in their mid-late teens for rugby. Kieran Read for one. Also I read that Doug Bracewell (don't quote me, I might be confoooosed) was considering giving up cricket for rugby until he was picked out of nowhere for NZ.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Is it true you end up having some higher standards played on synthetic wickets early on in the year until the turf can get up? I thought I remembered someone on this site saying that years ago.

It certainly happens in Wellington. That said, it's a case of play on astroturf wickets or don't play at all.

 

[Immenso]

As a NZer, who has also spent a decent amount of time living in the UK and Australia (both Sydney & Melbourne). My observations;

People may be surprised at how 'unpopular' cricket is in NZ. But then I was also surprised at indifference of the majority of English also. Soccer really does dominate all over there. In Australia however, I think cricket has a much deeper penetration of both media and public attention (and playing numbers). While I think AFL is more popular in Melbourne than Rugby is in NZ - I also think that Australia has a much better scheduling/structure where there is a clear window from the end of Spring Carnival in November to about the end of February where cricket pretty much dominates.

 

[Immenso]

As for NZ specifically. The playing numbers:

Cricket has really declined in popularity alarmingly since I was kid in the 80s. In fact all traditional summer sports have declined.

Softball used to be cricket's major competitor in NZ. Softball was reasonably popular in the major centres, in the working class suburbs, and especially the choice of the Maori and Pacific Islander populations.

At the amateur playing numbers point of view. Softball's decline has been so much more dramatic than cricket's. The main reason has been Touch Rugby. There is no televised or professional touch rugby. It is not competing for spectators but it has decimated participation. (As has the deregulation of working hours, but that is all sport and not unique to NZ)

Cricket has retreated back into it's traditional fan base. That is amongst middle class/white population. Although plenty of them don't 'get' cricket ....

The growing Indian population may be the only bright spot on NZ cricketing horizons.
The 'powerbase' of NZ cricket are among the private schools and the large state schools in the main provincial centres (E.g. Tauranga, Palmerston, Napier) etc

From an ethnic demographic POV. Approx 30% of the population would appear to have no historical interest in the sport. Actively choosing and excelling in other sports. While NZ's current captain is a Pacific Islander, I think there is only one other in all First Class cricket, and a handful of Maori.

I grew up in provincial NZ and moved to Wellington. I am suprised at NZ's second largest city's (admittedly with an awful climate for cricket) apathy for the game. The fields are crap, the pitches are crap, There are bugger all clubs (only about 12 with a Senior men's team). I as in Eastern Suburbs clubrooms recently (most or second most powerful club in Wellington). Their clubrooms are a dive and they haven't even updated their honours board for 21 years. Porirua, with a population similar to Napier or Rotorua has just a single club (Norths).

 

[Furball]

Think NZ do pretty well, generally. Should be noted that not only are they world champions in both rugby codes but that their association football team was the only undefeated side at the last world cup, so there's a fair bit of competition for their sporting talent.

Benchy's point about winter and summer sports is well made, but nowadays young fellas have to make a choice which sport they'll pursue professionally and, as often as not, they'll follow the money. Phil Neville was, by every account, an absolute prodigy with the bat as a youth, century for Lancs 2nds at 15 and all but gave it away to be a solid, workmanlike, but very well remunerated fullback-***-defensive midfielder for Man U, Everton and England. I'd imagine many young NZders face a similar choice and the majority end up playing union.

Bit harsh on a guy with close to 500 Premier League appearances, over 50 caps for his country as well as the medals that he won. I don't think Phil Neville will be looking back on his career and saying "I wish I'd stuck in at cricket."

 

[Immenso]

As for NZ's at International level. I am not in the camp that thinks NZ overachieves for their size/resources. Yes, we do well at Limited Overs, make world cup semi-finals, but who gives a crap.

All you need is XI good players to compete, and too often NZ don't even have competent players.

While I don't think we can do much about the general apathy for the game, I do think administration at the top level can be improved and this is where NZ fails miserably, IMO.

NZ's problems;
- Administrators who think being competitive at Limited Overs level should be a priority, and shift resources and effort away from development at Test/FC level
- Money. Limited Overs produces the money. (see above)
- Personalities. NZ's succesful cricketers have been 'strong' personalities (E.g Turner, Hadlee, Crowe, Bracewell etc). There is a lot of clashing when these guys move into admin/coaching. Some of them have been disastrous.
- Weather. The season is often weather effected. Especially makes pitch preparation at club/school level difficult
- Scheduling (a 76 day gap in the FC season to fit in Limited Overs cricket (see points above)
- Grounds/stadiums. No test matches in Auckland or Christchurch due to lack of proper cricket grounds. Small grounds discourage spin bowling and pace bowling.
- Injuries. Bowling injuries, we are cursed. (may be related to the concrete artificial pitches mentioned in earlier posts .....)
- crackpot lunatics in charge of the NZC Academy. A complete failure which has now been dis-continued

The only light at the end of the tunnel, IMO, I do believe the quality and standard of NZ's FC cricket is improving. This is mainly due to;
- the Pitch quality being monitored (Warrant of Fitness)
- Contracting of 12 players per province
The down side is that due to the 76 day gap in the season - the competition takes place in Spring when the pitches can be too fresh, and then Autumn when conditions can be too placid. But a lot more runs are scored these days and the comp is dominated by military-medium seam bowlers like it historically has been.

 

[Furball]

Cricket isn't as big in Australia as people think it is ftr.

What would a top name cricketer like Michael Clarke hope to earn per year from CA, and how does that compare to a top level AFL or NRL player? Who would earn more money from endorsements?

And similarly, what would a good solid Shield pro earn - someone like, say, Chris Rogers, and how would that compare to his counterparts in AFL and NRL?

 

[Immenso]

Got this idea from the thread recently closed by Flem.
There have been phases of brilliance here and there,some fantastic players,but they have never truly developed a team that was the best in the world at a given point in time.If they had such a team pre-1990,please correct me..

They were the second best team for much of the 80s. They have the second best record over that decade to the mighty Windies. Were unbeated in a home test series from 1980 to 1992.

That is the closesest NZ got.

The 70s were alright (building to the 80s)

A brief period around 99-03 was quite good (But scuppered by injuries and lack of depth once Cairns, Bond, Nash were crippled)

Also around WWII was reasonably good (but unsuccesful). Ironically NZ's perhaps only other golden generation played so little due to the war (Cowie, Donnelly, W Hadlee) plus Dempster and Grimmett of around that generation but missing for other reasons.

 

[benchmark00]

What would a top name cricketer like Michael Clarke hope to earn per year from CA, and how does that compare to a top level AFL or NRL player? Who would earn more money from endorsements?

And similarly, what would a good solid Shield pro earn - someone like, say, Chris Rogers, and how would that compare to his counterparts in AFL and NRL?

The base salaries of shield players range from about $40k to $110k. They also then get match payments, I think it's $5k for a shield match and $2k for one day.

CA contracts are much more lucrative obv. Ranging from $100k to $1m.

I think the top 3 are on about $1m. Then you get endorsements. I think Clarke would be on about $3m at the end of the day including endorsements. Though that's a rough estimate.

Average wage of an AFL player is about $230k a year. The top paid players are on a $1m+ a year. That's not including endorsements.

Remembering that there are 18 teams each with about 40 players on their list each. Much more attractive to go into footy if you're tossing it up.

Playing in front of 100,000 people or playing in front of 4 blokes and a dog in a shield match.

 

[Furball]

The base salaries of shield players range from about $40k to $110k. They also then get match payments, I think it's $5k for a shield match and $2k for one day.

CA contracts are much more lucrative obv. Ranging from $100k to $1m.

I think the top 3 are on about $1m. Then you get endorsements. I think Clarke would be on about $3m at the end of the day including endorsements. Though that's a rough estimate.

Average wage of an AFL player is about $230k a year. The top paid players are on a $1m+ a year. That's not including endorsements.

Remembering that there are 18 teams each with about 40 players on their list each. Much more attractive to go into footy if you're tossing it up.

Playing in front of 100,000 people or playing in front of 4 blokes and a dog in a shield match.

So basically if money was your only motivation, then if it came to a choice between AFL and cricket, it would be a complete no-brainer to plump for the former?

 

[benchmark00]

So basically if money was your only motivation, then if it came to a choice between AFL and cricket, it would be a complete no-brainer to plump for the former?

Yes.

 

[Burgey]

Come to Australia and pick up the Herald Sun. I bet there's more football coverage in that than there is Rugby coverage in the NZ papers.

It's no excuse. Football is a winter sport. The people who don't play cricket so they don't pick up injuries aren't serious about cricket and won't make it anyway. Stop using that as an excuse.

Lol. The Herald Sun.

I'd strongly counsel against picking it up.

 

[Burgey]

So basically if money was your only motivation, then if it came to a choice between AFL and cricket, it would be a complete no-brainer to plump for the former?

Absolutely. Same with League.

Even if you become an elite FC cricketer, they're not as well paid as people imagine. Basically there's 11-20 odd well paying spots for cricketers here. For AFL players there's about 25-30 at each of the clubs. Same for NRL, plus there's cross-code and international transfers to the English SL available.

 

[Burgey]

Is cricket popular among the Maori population in NZ?