Test cricket in Bangladesh

[neville cardus]

This is fast becoming a very frustrating discussion. P'rhaps we ought to rewind and remind everyone how we reached this impasse:

Nev (on the just-concluded Test in Bangladesh): "There's also a correlation between the quality of the wicket and the fact that this game drew a crowd. Not a huge one, by any means, but the atmosphere they generated was wonderful. Contrast and compare this with what we get in [...] the Caribbean, where the surfaces are as lifeless as the stands."
TheJediBrah: "Well you can't exactly compare other places where Cricket is a minor sport indulged by a minority of people to the Subcontinent where it's a way of life. Of course they're going to have a bigger following."
Nev: "Erm, cricket does have fairly deep roots in the Caribbean, you know. The book on our sport was written by a Trinidadian, and the West Indies played their first Test Match before any subcontinental nation."
Starfighter: "You people need to remember that it's not 1985 anymore. Things have changed in the Caribbean since then."

That cricket is struggling now doesn't disprove my point about its having deep roots in the region. If anything, it validates my point about how the era of flat surfaces has killed off the crowds.

 

[Marius]

This is fast becoming a very frustrating discussion. P'rhaps we ought to rewind and remind everyone how we reached this impasse:

Nev (on the just-concluded Test in Bangladesh): "There's also a correlation between the quality of the wicket and the fact that this game drew a crowd. Not a huge one, by any means, but the atmosphere they generated was wonderful. Contrast and compare this with what we get in [...] the Caribbean, where the surfaces are as lifeless as the stands."
TheJediBrah: "Well you can't exactly compare other places where Cricket is a minor sport indulged by a minority of people to the Subcontinent where it's a way of life. Of course they're going to have a bigger following."
Nev: "Erm, cricket does have fairly deep roots in the Caribbean, you know. The book on our sport was written by a Trinidadian, and the West Indies played their first Test Match before any subcontinental nation."
Starfighter: "You people need to remember that it's not 1985 anymore. Things have changed in the Caribbean since then."

That cricket is struggling now doesn't disprove my point about its having deep roots in the region. If anything, it validates my point about how the era of flat surfaces has killed off the crowds.

Would be interesting to know whether club cricket and school cricket is still strong in the Caribbean or if guys are playing soccer, basketball etc? And does WI still get good crowds for ODIs and T20s?

 

[Starfighter]

There have always been flat or otherwise unfavourable surfaces in the West Indies though. The 1957/58 series vs Pakistan produced some enormous totals, although being the days of six day tests it was still possible to get a result, and somewhat spin friendly surfaces weren't uncommon either. If anything I'd say that pitches on the flatter side have generally been the norm there.

 

[TheJediBrah]

This is fast becoming a very frustrating discussion. P'rhaps we ought to rewind and remind everyone how we reached this impasse:

Nev (on the just-concluded Test in Bangladesh): "There's also a correlation between the quality of the wicket and the fact that this game drew a crowd. Not a huge one, by any means, but the atmosphere they generated was wonderful. Contrast and compare this with what we get in [...] the Caribbean, where the surfaces are as lifeless as the stands."
TheJediBrah: "Well you can't exactly compare other places where Cricket is a minor sport indulged by a minority of people to the Subcontinent where it's a way of life. Of course they're going to have a bigger following."
Nev: "Erm, cricket does have fairly deep roots in the Caribbean, you know. The book on our sport was written by a Trinidadian, and the West Indies played their first Test Match before any subcontinental nation."
Starfighter: "You people need to remember that it's not 1985 anymore. Things have changed in the Caribbean since then."

That cricket is struggling now doesn't disprove my point about its having deep roots in the region. If anything, it validates my point about how the era of flat surfaces has killed off the crowds.

Sorry there I had no intention of causing any frustration. But from what I see, regardless of its roots in the Caribbean, Cricket can quite accurately be described as a "a minor sport indulged by a minority of people" in that part of the world right now. Especially when compared to the Sub-continent.

And that will always be the case. Even in Australia (and I'm assuming NZ, England are in a similar boat) the proportion of the population that has any interest in cricket is very low these days, and sports like Soccer, AFL in Australia, Rugby (especially in NZ), Tennis and so on will always be dominant and a competition to cricket.

That's not so much the case in India, Sri Lanka & Bangladesh. Other than cricket there's nothing much else. Certainly nothing else where they compete at an international standard.

 

[neville cardus]

Sorry there I had no intention of causing any frustration. But from what I see, regardless of its roots in the Caribbean, Cricket can quite accurately be described as a "a minor sport indulged by a minority of people" in that part of the world right now. Especially when compared to the Sub-continent.

And that will always be the case. Even in Australia (and I'm assuming NZ, England are in a similar boat) the proportion of the population that has any interest in cricket is very low these days, and sports like Soccer, AFL in Australia, Rugby (especially in NZ), Tennis and so on will always be dominant and a competition to cricket.

That's not so much the case in India, Sri Lanka & Bangladesh. Other than cricket there's nothing much else. Certainly nothing else where they compete at an international standard.

Again, you've rather lost track of the context in which you made this point. We were talking about crowds, and you were offering your "minority" argument to explain their paucity in the Caribbean. When you lump England into this category, you fatally undermine that explanation. England, uncontroversially (and despite the minority status of its cricket), has better crowds for Test Matches than any Asian country, India included. I don't see how your position can sustain this fact.

 

[the big bambino]

I don't think its reasonable to call a sport minor just because it has competition. That's certainly the case here and cricket cant be described as a minor sport in Australia. I don't even know it can be called that in the WI right now. I think the game is popular still but the players and fans like the shorter formats and the drop in attendances at tests are a reflection of that preference.

I don't necessarily agree that flat pitches has led to the unpopularity of tests in the Carribean. Consistent failure at that level by them is the more likely culprit. There is a case the sub standard pitches of the 80s and 90s that suited their fast bowlers eventually eradicated their batsmen and their competitiveness at test level.

 

[neville cardus]

There is a case the sub standard pitches of the 80s and 90s that suited their fast bowlers eventually eradicated their batsmen and their competitiveness at test level.

I don't see how that holds three decades down the line, when their pitches are arguably the flattest in the world, and have been for a good long while. Surely, on this logic, their batsmen ought to be among the best?

 

[the big bambino]

Have they been flat though? I don't know. Besides the effect of glorifying fast bowlers and killing off batting with sub standard pitches could take a generation to recover.

 

[neville cardus]

Have they been flat though? I don't know.

I thought this was generally accepted. Not sure that there's any objective measure I could use to convince you. Can only go off the years I've spent watching on television.

Besides the effect of glorifying fast bowlers and killing off batting with sub standard pitches could take a generation to recover.

Perhaps. But we're now multiple cricketing generations beyond the 1980s.

 

[the big bambino]

I suppose statsguru comparison (WI average vs international ave for the last 10 or so years) would give us an answer but I'm feeling too lazy to check. The demise of the WI at test level can be attributed to a number of reasons. Generally speaking the WI came to prominence when their cricket was played on true surfaces and started to disintegrate when the surfaces did too. I don't recommend roads though I don't mind seeing them occasionally. They are a part of cricket's diverse appeal. But i suspect that pitches that favour batsmen and allow them to perfect their technique also produces resourceful bowlers. Anything that biases toward bowling or batting for an extended period undermines skills imo. As can be seen with the West Indies then and the flat track bullies produced by Australia lately.

 

[Starfighter]

I don't see how that holds three decades down the line, when their pitches are arguably the flattest in the world, and have been for a good long while. Surely, on this logic, their batsmen ought to be among the best?

Their pitches aren't flat in the Australian, good paced, easy to score runs sense though, and have not been for a while. Currently at the domestic level they tend towards dry surfaces with low bounce and slow turn that favour quickish finger spinners like Nikita Miller and are difficult to score runs on and learn to construct an innings properly, hence why so few batsmen average above 31-32 in the WI domestic fc comp.

Pitches in the West Indies have often been flat. Currently there is a lack of variety with slow, low surfaces being the rule on formerly quick pitches such as Kingston and Bridgetown. I don't think you've really done the research here.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Again, you've rather lost track of the context in which you made this point. We were talking about crowds, and you were offering your "minority" argument to explain their paucity in the Caribbean. When you lump England into this category, you fatally undermine that explanation. England, uncontroversially (and despite the minority status of its cricket), has better crowds for Test Matches than any Asian country, India included. I don't see how your position can sustain this fact.

I'm really not sure where you're going with this? The point I was made is that crowds in the West Indies are poor due to failing popularity. This isn't my opinion, it's just a simple fact so I don't understand what you could possibly disagree with?

If you reread my post, you'd see when I mentioned England I was going off on a but of a tangent about the relative popularity of the sport of cricket, not necessarily as a direct response to the discussion re. crowds, though it is what sparked said tangent.

I trust this clears up any confusion you have

Their pitches aren't flat in the Australian, good paced, easy to score runs sense though, and have not been for a while. Currently at the domestic level they tend towards dry surfaces with low bounce and slow turn that favour quickish finger spinners like Nikita Miller and are difficult to score runs on and learn to construct an innings properly, hence why so few batsmen average above 31-32 in the WI domestic fc comp.

Pitches in the West Indies have often been flat. Currently there is a lack of variety with slow, low surfaces being the rule on formerly quick pitches such as Kingston and Bridgetown. I don't think you've really done the research here.

Yeah not sure where the idea that current West Indian are "flat" comes from. Generally they are just slow, low and actually quite hard to score on. They definitely don't promote strokeplay or ideal development of a batsman's game IMO

 

[cnerd123]

I think the death of cricket in various parts of the world has more to do with incompetent adminstration/leadership. Just look how professional and accessible other sports have become (American sports, Rugby, Football) in contrast to Cricket

Cricket hasn't held on to the lessons learned from Kerry Packer

 

[Marius]

I think the death of cricket in various parts of the world has more to do with incompetent adminstration/leadership. Just look how professional and accessible other sports have become (American sports, Rugby, Football) in contrast to Cricket

Cricket hasn't held on to the lessons learned from Kerry Packer

Yup.

Sports like rugby union are trying to make their world cups bigger, while cricket is making their world cup smaller because of reasons.

 

[srbhkshk]

imo the fact that Cricket has refused to even try for an Olympics spot is a ******** move, chances of medals at olympics always brings money in bulk and gives you a chance to showcase the sport to the whole world, why should a guy in Brazil be excited about an India - England series?, it doesn't mean diddly squat to him or his country....

and then there is the whole crap about TV rights and streams and stuff..

 

[TheJediBrah]

Anyway we can blame all this on the BCCI?

 

[Daemon]

Yeah the olympics decision was ridiculous. I mean we even have cricket in the SEA games with teams like Vietnam playing who barely have a turf wicket in their country. The coverage and articles surrounding the team has been immense and random people who know **** all about cricket have been commenting on the live videos.

The olympics would bring so much great exposure to the sport.