Best performing cricket nations per capita & other factors considered...

[four_or_six]

Yeah, as Goughy points out they were effective drawing from a population of no more than 125,0000 (I don't think Zimbabwe's white population was ever much over a quarter of a million, even back in the days of Rhodesia) and were able to compete with and even beat the best in the world.

The trouble is that with such a shallow player base they were always at the mercy of external and internal factors, as has been tragically proved over the last decade or so.

NZ do very well tho. Obviously union is king, but they're also the current rugby league world champions and a two-legged play-off away from the football world cup too, so the black caps have a lot of other team sports to compete with for their talent.



Cuts both ways tho; facilities and better coaching available in youth play a big factor in adult sporting success. Of the current England team Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Prior, Broad & Panesar all went to public (fee-paying) schools which only 7% of the population attend, so there's a huge over representation there.

Agree to a certain extent about over-representation from fee-paying schools. Although Pietersen is a special case, and Panesar only went on a scholarship in the sixth form, he was in a state school in Luton until age 16.

 

[Uppercut]

Cuts both ways tho; facilities and better coaching available in youth play a big factor in adult sporting success. Of the current England team Strauss, Cook, Pietersen, Prior, Broad & Panesar all went to public (fee-paying) schools which only 7% of the population attend, so there's a huge over representation there.

Certainly, yes. I'd take issue with the statement:

Poverty is a huge advantage in all sports

particularly when looking at the economic background of Britain's Olympic medalists. But i don't think Goughy really meant that literally. I'd say cricket falls roughly in between football, which seems to thrive on poverty, and tennis, for which money is a huge advantage.

In any case, it's not at the stage where you can give "credit" to a country for producing good cricketers despite being poor. Economic factors shouldn't come anywhere near this particular analysis IMO.

 

[G.I.Joe]

If a critereon like population comes into it, I think social and economic factors should too, for it to make any sense that is.

 

[Uppercut]

If a critereon like population comes into it, I think social and economic factors should too, for it to make any sense that is.

Social factors sure, but when we can't agree with each other on whether economic factors help or hinder cricketing development it's probably best to leave them alone.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Social factors sure, but when we can't agree with each other on whether economic factors help or hinder cricketing development it's probably best to leave them alone.

Well, too late now that I've been spending some time on google From what I find, Yorkshire had a per capita income in 2005 of GBP 21,000 compared to GBP 22,000 for the whole of the UK. I don't know the past history of Yorkshire, but that doesn't seem awfully poor to me India in comparison has a per capita income of INR 38,000. The conversion is 72.3 INR to the Pound. It doesn't even out even in PPP terms, since rough calculations show that a single Dukes ball costs around 1/218th of what a Yorkshireman earns in a month, while an SG ball costs 1/10th of what an Indian earns in a month. So obviously it doesn't make sense to extrapolate the sporting achievements of Yorkshire's poor to the subcontinent.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Well, too late now that I've been spending some time on google From what I find, Yorkshire had a per capita income in 2005 of GBP 21,000 compared to GBP 22,000 for the whole of the UK. I don't know the past history of Yorkshire, but that doesn't seem awfully poor to me India in comparison has a per capita income of INR 38,000. The conversion is 72.3 INR to the Pound. It doesn't even out even in PPP terms, since rough calculations show that a single Dukes ball costs around 1/218th of what a Yorkshireman earns in a month, while an SG ball costs 1/10th of what an Indian earns in a month. So obviously it doesn't make sense to extrapolate the sporting achievements of Yorkshire's poor to the subcontinent.

Yorkshire's a huge county (as English counties go) tho, lot of contrast within that brute stat. North Yorkshire generally is rather well to do (IIRC Richmond has some of the most expensive real estate prices outside of London, when comparing like for like), but some parts of south Yorks (step forward Barnsley and Rotherham) are the sort of places where you wipe your feet when you leave rather than enter the house.

 

[Goughy]

Well, too late now that I've been spending some time on google From what I find, Yorkshire had a per capita income in 2005 of GBP 21,000 compared to GBP 22,000 for the whole of the UK. I don't know the past history of Yorkshire, but that doesn't seem awfully poor to me India in comparison has a per capita income of INR 38,000. The conversion is 72.3 INR to the Pound. It doesn't even out even in PPP terms, since rough calculations show that a single Dukes ball costs around 1/218th of what a Yorkshireman earns in a month, while an SG ball costs 1/10th of what an Indian earns in a month. So obviously it doesn't make sense to extrapolate the sporting achievements of Yorkshire's poor to the subcontinent.

haha, good investigative skills. Unfortunately not relevant at all to this conversation. 2005 had nothing to do with the periods Im talking. Im talking pre-1960s when UK industry still had a pulse.

The old expressions are no longer relevant because the situation is no longer the same'

- If you want to find a fast bowler then shout down a coal mine.
- They used to say that when the opposition batted in Sheffield, the factories burned more coal to lower visibility.

I'm talking about the period where Yorkshire was the industrial center of the UK and when 'working class' really meant working class. Those days are long gone.

There is a new working class involved in new commercial activities but it isnt comparable as the interest levels in cricket are not the same.

I should have mentioned I was talking about past days, same with West Indies.

 

[Evermind]

I think genetics play a huge factor in this regard. Indians are naturally not built for the sort of athletic sports westerners play. It's really rather different. I'm probably gonna cop a lot of **** for saying this, but it's true.

Training facilities are also a factor, and so is the climate. Monsoon in India means playing any outdoor sport is incredibly difficult, and try playing cricket in the insane heat and humidity of the Indian summer. Australia, NZ and England are much more suited to outdoor sports, temperature wise.

 

[Chubb]

The white population of Rhodesia, at the pre-Chimurenga peak, was around 250,000. As Goughy pointed out, by 1992 that was down to c. 100,000. It's now probably less than 15,000. Zimbabwe were able to compete in the 80s and early 90s because of the schools and the fact that sport was and is a huge part of white life there. These days, however, cricket is actually the second-most popular sport in the country. Football is way out in front of course, but the fact remains cricket is the sport Zimbabwe has had most success in. How many currently active Zimbabwean footballers can you name? Benjani, Dickson Choto and that's it for me. Rugby players? Victor Olonga (and that is just because he is Henry's brother) Other sports? Cara Black, Wayne Black, Kevin Ullyett, old for tennis players these days; Kirsty Coventry, who is very popular in her homeland; the sprinter Brian Dzingai who made an Olympic final; and Nick Price, who is long past it. How many other sports has Zimbabwe had equivalent success to cricket in? None. There is no reason why if the situation improves Zimbabwe cannot become better than they ever have been at cricket. So I think, "per capita" Zimbabwe are actually underachieving due to the social, economic and political factors affecting the country whereas they once overachieved thanks to their social structure (i.e. the schools, the culture of sport). what needs to happen is melding the popularity of the game- which produces all the black players really- with the school system and the sports culture that produced the stand-out Zimbabwean cricketers, your Streaks and Flowers. I've said before that Masakadza, Chigumbura and most of the other national team players are as good as most white Zimbabweans ever were. No reason why they can't produce top-quality players again, black men this time, if and when things start to get better.

That is basically why I would vote for NZ ahead of Zim in this poll. In NZ the dominance of rugby, population size and climactic conditions militate against cricket being successful; and yet it is and has been for more than thirty years now. The pre-mid 70s NZ record is the record you'd expect of a country where cricket faces those problems; the fact that we/they have eclipsed that is a real feat.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Yorkshire's a huge county (as English counties go) tho, lot of contrast within that brute stat. North Yorkshire generally is rather well to do (IIRC Richmond has some of the most expensive real estate prices outside of London, when comparing like for like), but some parts of south Yorks (step forward Barnsley and Rotherham) are the sort of places where you wipe your feet when you leave rather than enter the house.

haha, good investigative skills. Unfortunately not relevant at all to this conversation. 2005 had nothing to do with the periods Im talking. Im talking pre-1960s when UK industry still had a pulse.

The old expressions are no longer relevant because the situation is no longer the same'

- If you want to find a fast bowler then shout down a coal mine.
- They used to say that when the opposition batted in Sheffield, the factories burned more coal to lower visibility.

I'm talking about the period where Yorkshire was the industrial center of the UK and when 'working class' really meant working class. Those days are long gone.

There is a new working class involved in new commercial activities but it isnt comparable as the interest levels in cricket are not the same.

I should have mentioned I was talking about past days, same with West Indies.

Ah okay, didn't know that. Its a slow Sunday and I'm stuck at home resorting to googling stuff in my spare time On an unrelated note, why is Yorkshire referred to as France on OT?

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ah okay, didn't know that. Its a slow Sunday and I'm stuck at home resorting to googling stuff in my spare time On an unrelated note, why is Yorkshire referred to as France on OT?

Ha, it's because our esteemed Lancastrian posters refuse to acknowledge Yorkshire as being part of England.

 

[Goughy]

I think genetics play a huge factor in this regard. Indians are naturally not built for the sort of athletic sports westerners play. It's really rather different. I'm probably gonna cop a lot of **** for saying this, but it's true.

I dont believe that.

Cultural and social reasons are the prime factors in sporting development. British sport was founded on 'muscular Christianity' and was spread through the world on the back of that message.

There are reasons why certain groups (ethnic or otherwise) do better in certain industries or endeavors and its virtually always cultural.

 

[Zinzan]

I think genetics play a huge factor in this regard. Indians are naturally not built for the sort of athletic sports westerners play. It's really rather different. I'm probably gonna cop a lot of **** for saying this, but it's true.

You may actually have something there, whilst there are some great athletes at the top level in India, perhaps they're few a far between after that

 

[thierry henry]

I think NZ, not just because of population, but because I don't think people appreciate just how small cricket is in NZ.

Cricket still gets plenty of media attention in NZ, but in terms of participation I don't know if it's even in the top 10?

Cricket really is irrelevant to most NZers. Pretty much no-one plays it. I guess you'd have to live here a while to get your head around what I mean.

 

[HeathDavisSpeed]

Cricket really is irrelevant to most NZers. Pretty much no-one plays it. I guess you'd have to live here a while to get your head around what I mean.

The big change in recent times has been the change of law (late 80s/early 90s?) allowing later opening at pubs. I was speaking to the Chairman of my cricket club the other day. These days we're considered a big club - we have a Pearce Cup side, a Hazlett side, Senior 3, 2A, 2B and two 1A teams (7 teams). Back in 1989, the club had Twenty-Two teams. Apparently, the main reason was that you were allowed to drink in sports club rooms as long as you were a club member until the small hours. As soon as pub opening hours were extended, 10 teams were lost pretty much overnight!

Who'd believe that alcohol consumption would be such a major part of competitive sport

 

[Nishan]

I think NZ, not just because of population, but because I don't think people appreciate just how small cricket is in NZ.

Cricket still gets plenty of media attention in NZ, but in terms of participation I don't know if it's even in the top 10?

Cricket really is irrelevant to most NZers. Pretty much no-one plays it. I guess you'd have to live here a while to get your head around what I mean.

Sadly thats the feeling i get as well, 1 out 10 person on the street you can talk to about cricket i would say.

 

[Flem274*]

Sadly thats the feeling i get as well, 1 out 10 person on the street you can talk to about cricket i would say.

8/10. Sadly most of those with brains are on here.

 

[Ausage]

Pretty surprised NZ is considered a clear cut winner here (assuming we're talking tests). Obviously they have many things stacked against them (low general interest, dominance of Rugby, small population), but they're hardly setting the world alight in spite of it. They're dead last barring Bangladesh, and they only just managed to get on top of them as well. To me they're performing more or less as you would expect considering the challenges they face. Maybe slightly better considering they produce some world class players and actually manage to stay competitive.

If we're talking ODIs that's another matter. NZ is clearly the winner in the shorter form of the game.

If we're only taking population into account I don't think you can go past Aus. They've come back to the pack recently, but they're still the official no 1 and arguably in a dead heat for best team in the world. All of this done with a pop of only 20m.

If we're taking every single possible factor into account the question becomes far too complex imo.

 

[Burgey]

SA have done well, considering so large a portion of their population was disenfranchised for so long.

 

[Matt79]

Surely in historic terms, and even today, by population and even moreso by the combination of politics, economics and population, the West Indies must come out on top.