*Official* India Tour of Australia 2018/19

[OverratedSanity]

Always amuses me how n00bs don't realise how huge football is in China.

 

[ishqiya]

Nah..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_in_China#Football

Difference between spectator sport and something that kids see as a career. Football is immensely popular in India too and played everywhere as well as lots of support for clubs like ManU, Real Madrid etc but there is a difference between playing something casually and playing it professionally. A bit of a cyclical thing - our team is no good so no point in getting into the team.

 

[Starfighter]

If disinterest and population were the main factor in cricket then NZ wouldn't currently be ranked no. 3.

 

[srbhkshk]

Iceland managed to make it to the Football World Cup - and Drew with Argentina too. Population is just one factor among a myriad of others, it doesn't ensure anything.

 

[ishqiya]

Also 'India population theory' strongly fails to account for the fact that Australia has generally been the dominant team in cricket despite having a much smaller population and much less professional structure than England. If it were true then IPL teams would dispense with the need for overseas players.

It's not 'population' theory. It's 'population X money/resources X interest' theory. India also had a huge 'population' but not much money/resources while Australia always had better resources/money. Now Australia is a first world country so that 'money/resources' has more or less peaked. But India since 1991 has been growing at 7% so that 'money/resources' factor is just increasing day by day. 'Interest' lets assume it to be same for both countries throughout time (extremely high in India, decent in Oz). It's only in the last few years or so the 'population X money X interest' factor for India has finally overtaken Australia and as time passes will keep growing larger.

England has a lower 'interest' than Oz due to other sports like football where they are better plus more Olympic medals etc.

 

[ishqiya]

Iceland managed to make it to the Football World Cup - and Drew with Argentina too. Population is just one factor among a myriad of others, it doesn't ensure anything.

Population X Resources X Interest for sport. We've always had 1 and 3, now 2 is also growing.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Eng/Aus/NZ have hit their peaks. They are first world countries and popularity won't grow. They will have good teams and bad teams as they have throughout their history.

SA will become better I believe as they are still growing economically and their pool of potential players now include black players as well thus expanding the pool.

Bangladesh will become better (as they have) due to growing economy and craze for cricket.

Pakistan is as crazy as India but post 9/11 and war on terror their economy has been very weak thus impacting resources etc plus no home games.

SL is a small country so they have peaked I believe (maybe become a bit better as their economy is also growing). Will have good and bad teams throughout time.

I think you're pretty spot on except for SA. I think they will always be competitive but political issues always seem to be affecting them (look at the huge exodus of players). It seems that given a choice, a lot of people would rather live elsewhere than stay in SA. I don't see then improving on the results of the last few decades, which isn't terrible, they've been pretty much top 2 for the last 20 odd years.

 

[Chrish]

Difference between spectator sport and something that kids see as a career. Football is immensely popular in India too and played everywhere as well as lots of support for clubs like ManU, Real Madrid etc but there is a difference between playing something casually and playing it professionally. A bit of a cyclical thing - our team is no good so no point in getting into the team.

This is rubbish. Football is HUGE in China and comparison with its popularity in India makes no sense whatsoever. You might wanna do more research before writing these posts.

 

[Starfighter]

I expect a lot of articles to be written about this, but the changes needed such as less sanctimonious admins, better pitches in both tests and domestically (especially more variety of pitches), better attention to the Shield (and One day cup too), reforms to pathways to ensure that young players get to play against more experienced ones and so on, well I don't expect anything to come of them.

 

[TheJediBrah]

Iceland managed to make it to the Football World Cup - and Drew with Argentina too. Population is just one factor among a myriad of others, it doesn't ensure anything.

Not really a great comparison. Winning/drawing a few games of soccer isn't the same as dominating a sport with much less of a luck factor, for years.

 

[srbhkshk]

It's not 'population' theory. It's 'population X money/resources' theory. India also had a huge 'population' but not much money/resources while Australia always had better resources/money. Now Australia is a first world country so that 'money/resources' has more or less peaked. But India since 1991 has been growing at 7% so that 'money/resources' factor is just increasing day by day. It's only in the last few years or so the 'population X money' factor for India has finally overtaken Australia and as time passes will keep growing larger.

He is comparing England vs Australia - England have a larger population , better structure, and for most part of the history probably similar levels of interest. So why was Australia > England so many times in the history.

 

[ishqiya]

If disinterest and population were the main factor in cricket then NZ wouldn't currently be ranked no. 3.

Financial resources have also got to be taken into consideration. NZ is a first world country hence allowing more good players from the smaller available pool.

 

[srbhkshk]

Not really a great comparison. Winning/drawing a few games of soccer isn't the same as dominating a sport with much less of a luck factor, for years.

The drawn game is just one game - they qualified for it over many bigger nations.

 

[TheJediBrah]

He is comparing England vs Australia - England have a larger population , better structure, and for most part of the history probably similar levels of interest. So why was Australia > England so many times in the history.

Genetic and cultural superiority tbh

The drawn game is just one game - they qualified for it over many bigger nations.

Often happens in soccer though. All it takes is a few wins and the best team in soccer doesn't always win.

 

[Starfighter]

Financial resources have also got to be taken into consideration. NZ is a first world country hence allowing more good players from the smaller available pool.

NZ cricket has a pittance compared to Indian cricket (and probably has had for a while) and has a domineering competitor in the form of Rugby.

 

[ishqiya]

He is comparing England vs Australia - England have a larger population , better structure, and for most part of the history probably similar levels of interest. So why was Australia > England so many times in the history.

Naah, Australia has way higher interest in cricket. Cricket is one of the main sports of Australia. Cricket is on the public's mind during the Australian summer.

Most Englishmen won't even know the name of their captain. It enjoys a status similar to hockey in India. Only diehard fans watch it. Football is numero uno.

 

[srbhkshk]

Naah, Australia has way higher interest in cricket. Cricket is one of the main sports of Australia. Cricket is on the public's mind during the Australian summer.

Most Englishmen won't even know the name of their captain. It enjoys a status similar to hockey in India. Only diehard fans watch it. Football is numero uno.

That's how it is now - not true historically.

 

[Starfighter]

Naah, Australia has way higher interest in cricket. Cricket is one of the main sports of Australia. Cricket is on the public's mind during the Australian summer.

Most Englishmen won't even know the name of their captain. It enjoys a status similar to hockey in India. Only diehard fans watch it. Football is numero uno.

You don't get it do you, actually try answering the question. Cricket has historically been much more popular in England than currently, so address his question.

 

[Burgey]

He is comparing England vs Australia - England have a larger population , better structure, and for most part of the history probably similar levels of interest. So why was Australia > England so many times in the history.

Let’s stop beating around the bush here. The answer is our unique combination of genetics, climate, testosterone, fresh produce and ample red meat.

 

[srbhkshk]

Let’s stop beating around the bush here. The answer is our unique combination of genetics, climate, testosterone, fresh produce and ample red meat.

What's happened to them genes now? :P