India, Australia, England attempt to take control of Cricket

[aussie]

Manohar replaces Srinivasan as ICC chairman | Cricket | ESPN Cricinfo

 

[Chrish]

Isn't cricket popularity steadily declining in England among new generation? Read it many times

I would also like to know how cricket is doing overall in SA

 

[vic_orthdox]

Be interesting to see if CA softens their stance on taking more money from the smaller boards after this summer, assuming results go as expected from here.

In hindsight, it could be seen as the point where cricket ate itself.

 

[Furball]

Isn't cricket popularity steadily declining in England among new generation? Read it many times

I would also like to know how cricket is doing overall in SA

Cricket isn't actually that popular in England.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Isn't cricket popularity steadily declining in England among new generation? Read it many times

I would also like to know how cricket is doing overall in SA

Cricket is pretty much dead in England other than the Ashes.

Cricket is pretty much dead in Australia other than the home Ashes ( and sometimes other home games)

And even with the Ashes popularity, what's worrying is that it's mostly among a slightly older generation (say 30 +) who are aware of the legacy and care enough to watch.

This is exactly why cricket so badly needs newer nations and markets and which is why this Big 3 thing is so devastating for cricket because it is solely based on short term gains, without much care of how sustainable it is. What happens in a few decades when cricket is hardly watched in England and Australia?

And there are markets emerging. Look at the way Afghanistan treated it's cricket team after beating Zimbabwe. Look at Nepal after the ICC trophy and they didn't even win it.

But we are hellbent on keeping it a private club and are actively doing everything to restrict the growth into newer nations.

 

[Daemon]

Isn't T20 pretty well attended in England and Australia? Big Bash especially seems to be a pretty big success going by the crowds.

 

[Black_Warrior]

Isn't T20 pretty well attended in England and Australia? Big Bash especially seems to be a pretty big success going by the crowds.

Big Bash is fairly popular but it barely goes on for 4 weeks. Is it an independent and sustainable revenue stream?

 

[GotSpin]

To be honest, I don't know where this gloom and doom is regarding Australian cricket.

Cricket is the number one sport participation sport in Australia and has been steadily increasing over the past few years.

The biggest problem, as far as I see, is the inability of teams to play away from home. This just results in continuous one sided boring affairs. A highly competitive NZ and West Indies team, with drawcard players, would change everything.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Cricket is pretty much dead in England other than the Ashes.

Cricket is pretty much dead in Australia other than the home Ashes ( and sometimes other home games)

And even with the Ashes popularity, what's worrying is that it's mostly among a slightly older generation (say 30 +) who are aware of the legacy and care enough to watch.

This is exactly why cricket so badly needs newer nations and markets and which is why this Big 3 thing is so devastating for cricket because it is solely based on short term gains, without much care of how sustainable it is. What happens in a few decades when cricket is hardly watched in England and Australia?

And there are markets emerging. Look at the way Afghanistan treated it's cricket team after beating Zimbabwe. Look at Nepal after the ICC trophy and they didn't even win it.

But we are hellbent on keeping it a private club and are actively doing everything to restrict the growth into newer nations.

Your theory makes the assertion that India don't attract an audience in Eng and Aus despite being one of the Big 3. So how does that lead to the conclusion that expanding/disbanding the Big 3 would improve affairs?

 

[Black_Warrior]

Your theory makes the assertion that India don't attract an audience in Eng and Aus despite being one of the Big 3. So how does that lead to the conclusion that expanding/disbanding the Big 3 would improve affairs?

My theory does not make that assertion.

And I've seen you get defensive on this thread before, so just to clarify at the onset, I don't actually hold BCCI solely responsible for all this nor do I hold Srinivasan responsible. Most of the other cricket boards are just as much to blame, and if they had the chance and clout, they wouldn't think twice before doing the exact same thing.

 

[marc71178]

Cricket is pretty much dead in England other than the Ashes.

I'd love to know your definition of dead before calling out this comment as total bull****.

 

[G.I.Joe]

My theory does not make that assertion.

Cricket is pretty much dead in England other than the Ashes.

Cricket is pretty much dead in Australia other than the home Ashes ( and sometimes other home games)

And even with the Ashes popularity, what's worrying is that it's mostly among a slightly older generation (say 30 +) who are aware of the legacy and care enough to watch.

Quite.

And I've seen you get defensive on this thread before, so just to clarify at the onset, I don't actually hold BCCI solely responsible for all this nor do I hold Srinivasan responsible. Most of the other cricket boards are just as much to blame, and if they had the chance and clout, they wouldn't think twice before doing the exact same thing.

This is not being defensive. This is pointing out a lazy mentality that lays the blame for all ills at the door of the bogeyman that is the Big 3. The Big 3 was a reaction to market forces and audience preferences, not the other way round.

 

[Black_Warrior]

I'd love to know your definition of dead before calling out this comment as total bull****.

Sure.
Dead: No longer living, deprived of life; bereft of sensation;

 

[marc71178]

So your comment is total bull**** then, thanks

 

[Black_Warrior]

Quite.


This is not being defensive. This is pointing out a lazy mentality that lays the blame for all ills at the door of the bogeyman that is the Big 3. The Big 3 was a reaction to market forces and audience preferences, not the other way round.

I never disagreed with that. You are the one displaying a lazy mentality by making that assumption.

My entire point, which you quoted was that the market forces are weak for cricket and the outlook is not looking good.


Now here's the situation.

Market facts:
England and Australia only care about the Ashes
Both these countries have a significant Indian diaspora who love cricket.
India loves cricket.

There are two ways of responding to this.
1) Let's just exploit whatever life the market has by playing the Ashes every 2 years and having India come over in between so we just play each other which is what we know as the Big 3. You are absolutely right, it is a response to the market forces.

My point is it is not a very sustainable response and will ultimately prove to be devastating for cricket in the future.

Now here's the second response.

2) Ok, it's time to develop emerging markets, grow the game in new/emerging markets to create a more long term sustainable future for the game.
Let's develop the game in Afghanistan, Nepal. Let's try to get into China. Let's try to revive cricket in Kenya. Let's try to increase some interest in Ireland and Netherlands.


Both these are responses to market forces, one focused on short term gains which will ultimately not last, and the other focused on long term.

 

[Black_Warrior]

So your comment is total bull**** then, thanks

No, it's just that I am not interested in any conversation with you in particular. You have tried to attack me in the past and I know you are not actually interested in the topic, you're looking to pick on me no matter what the topic and my policy is to avoid such situations.

 

[harsh.ag]

Now here's the second response.

2) Ok, it's time to develop emerging markets, grow the game in new/emerging markets to create a more long term sustainable future for the game.
Let's develop the game in Afghanistan, Nepal. Let's try to get into China. Let's try to revive cricket in Kenya. Let's try to increase some interest in Ireland and Netherlands.

The most important emerging market that you may be missing out on in this analysis is the increasing sub-continent diaspora in England and Australia, which is also why the Big 3 works.

 

[Black_Warrior]

The most important emerging market that you may be missing out on in this analysis is the increasing sub-continent diaspora in England and Australia, which is also why the Big 3 works.

But that's the problem with having just one specific market segment for a 'world sport'. It works when these teams play each other but what about the rest?

What happens when Sri Lanka plays New Zealand? What happens when West Indies plays South Africa?

If cricket develops in those markets, imagine a Bangladesh vs Afghanistan contest. It will be no less than an India vs Australia game in terms of interest.

 

[harsh.ag]

But that's the problem with having just one specific market segment for a 'world sport'. It works when these teams play each other but what about the rest?

What happens when Sri Lanka plays New Zealand? What happens when West Indies plays South Africa?

If cricket develops in those markets, imagine a Bangladesh vs Afghanistan contest. It will be no less than an India vs Australia game in terms of interest.

But they aren't emerging markets as such. Very little revenue generating potential. No company would expand into these markets.

 

[harsh.ag]

A season long multi continent day-night Test Championship easily the best step to take next. Low hanging fruit.