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

[Kweek]

Holland surely

ooh wait we lose to Bermuda

 

[Zinzan]

The more I think about it, the more I think SL is second to Australia in this respect.

They really do produce some phenomenal cricketers from that tiny Island with just over 20 million people

 

[zaremba]

Antigua and Barbuda
Population: 85,000
Notable cricketers: Andy Roberts, Curtley Ambrose, Richie Richardson, Sir Viv Richards

 

[Zinzan]

Antigua and Barbuda
Population: 85,000
Notable cricketers: Andy Roberts, Curtley Ambrose, Richie Richardson, Sir Viv Richards

Haha, trust you to complicate things, but technically you're correct. The West Indies as a whole (if we could call it a nation) would definitely be the All-time best in this respect.

 

[Cevno]

Voted for India,because in a generally poor country which does not have a sporting culture ,the amount of interest and money that Cricket generates is phenomenal.

And the thread title says as per "per capita income" which is low in India compared to the developed countries many a times.

 

[smash84]

Voted for India,because in a generally poor country which does not have a sporting culture ,the amount of interest and money that Cricket generates is phenomenal.

And the thread title says as per "per capita income" which is low in India compared to the developed countries many a times.

This would make a strong case for Pakistan. Their per capita income is somewhat lower than India's and until 2000 their performance has been better than India's.

 

[Slifer]

Antigua and Barbuda
Population: 85,000
Notable cricketers: Andy Roberts, Curtley Ambrose, Richie Richardson, Sir Viv Richards

Barbados
Population 270,000
166 sq miles
Notable cricketers: Hunte,Greenidge, Haynes, Weekes, Worrell, Walcott, Sobers, Marshall, Garner, Hall, Griffith, S Clarke, Wayne Daniel,

 

[vic_orthdox]

Voted for India,because in a generally poor country which does not have a sporting culture ,the amount of interest and money that Cricket generates is phenomenal.

And the thread title says as per "per capita income" which is low in India compared to the developed countries many a times.

Just says per capita in the title, for the record.

 

[Dissector]

Yeah it's Barbados. The quality of cricketers it produced between 1950 to 1990 is quite astonishing for a country which has the population of a city suburb. I am sure many Barbados teams in that period would have been quite competitive with the leading test teams.

 

[Zinzan]

Voted for India,because in a generally poor country which does not have a sporting culture ,the amount of interest and money that Cricket generates is phenomenal.

And the thread title says as per "per capita income" which is low in India compared to the developed countries many a times.

Incorrect, the thread say 'best performing nations per capita' (in which case i was actually implying population & not income) 'along with other factors' (which may include income and where cricket stands as a priority sport in the countries etc etc).

I'm assuming you're kidding about India as it's absolutely nonsensical to compare India's population (1.1 Billion) & resources compared to say Sri Lanka (20 million). To put in perspective India has over 50 times the population, and I may be wrong, but am guessing that the likes of GDP per capita and standard of living across the two countries would be fairly similar. Happy to be corrected however.

 

[honestbharani]

After all the recent criticism of the New Zealand cricket team in this Indian series; and a lot of it justified I might add, it did get me thinking..........By rights, should NZ with their population slightly over 4 million people be expected to compete with a cricketing-mad nation like India with nearly 300 times as many people? And maybe its worth looking at the resources available to each country which may put things in perspective a little more & give us all a better understanding of the challenges each nation faces in producing their top XI's

I'd also like to point out that the straight population statistics don't tell the whole story. i.e. there is a high level of poverty in some cricketing countries meaning a high proportion of the population don't get the opportunities they would in fully developed countries like Eng, Aust & NZ.

Then there are some other factors to consider; such as where cricket stands as a priority- sport in these respective nations, the politics involved i.e. South Africa and their quota system amongst other factors...

All that said, I'm interested in everyone's thoughts........


Rank these countries of the cricketing strength per capita based on the below population stats, but also considering other factors such as socio-economic factors, politics etc

Populations....

India 1,160,910,000 (or 1.16 billion)
Pakistan 165,899,500 (165 million)
Bangladesh 162,221,000 (162 million)
United Kingdom 61,612,300 (62 million)
South Africa 48,697,000 (48 million)
Australia 21,707,964 (21 million)
Sri Lanka 20,238,000 (20 million)
Zimbabwe 12,800,000 (12.8 million)
West Indies 5,900,000 (5.9 million) (includes Antigua & Babuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St Kitts, St Lucia, St Vincent & Trinidad & Tobago)
New Zealand 4,301,785 (4.3 million)

..

NZ.. I think this is the answer the thread is looking for..

 

[Zinzan]

NZ.. I think this is the answer the thread is looking for..

Nah, I voted Australia myself. Despite the fact they have 5 times NZ's population and better resources for cricket, they're that much better than NZ -particularly in Tests -(remembering NZ haven't beaten them in a test since 1993) that they're my no.1 based on those considerations & I don't think there's much between SL, WI or NZ in 2nd place. The quality of cricketers SL continue to produce considering all these things still astounds me.

 

[G.I.Joe]

AWThonestbiryani.

 

[zaremba]

Barbados
Population 270,000
166 sq miles
Notable cricketers: Hunte,Greenidge, Haynes, Weekes, Worrell, Walcott, Sobers, Marshall, Garner, Hall, Griffith, S Clarke, Wayne Daniel,

Yup - the two are comparable in terms of per capita production of outstanding players. Really quite astonishing.

And if we look at the last 40 years or so, perhaps A&B even has the edge, given that Barbados' population is more than 3 times as large?

 

[G.I.Joe]

Best is obviously East Africa. WAC (What a Country). Performed so well in the initial World Cup(s) despite the notable handicap of not existing as a country.

 

[Dissector]

Incidentally if you combine Barbados and Antigua/Barbuda you would get an all-time team like:

Haynes
Greenidge
Worell (captain)
Viv Richards
Weekes
Sobers
Walcott (keeper)
Marshall
Garner
Roberts
Ambrose

This team coming from a total population of less than half a million would be quite competitive with an all-time team drawn from the rest of the world's population. Unbelievable.

 

[Xuhaib]

Incidentally if you combine Barbados and Antigua/Barbuda you would get an all-time team like:

Haynes
Greenidge
Worell (captain)
Viv Richards
Weekes
Sobers
Walcott (keeper)
Marshall
Garner
Roberts
Ambrose

This team coming from a total population of less than half a million would be quite competitive with an all-time team drawn from the rest of the world's population. Unbelievable.

wow.

 

[jashan83]

Incidentally if you combine Barbados and Antigua/Barbuda you would get an all-time team like:

Haynes
Greenidge
Worell (captain)
Viv Richards
Weekes
Sobers
Walcott (keeper)
Marshall
Garner
Roberts
Ambrose

This team coming from a total population of less than half a million would be quite competitive with an all-time team drawn from the rest of the world's population. Unbelievable.

Simply amazing.....they are the winners......NZ, Aus or SL cannot match them

 

[Flem274*]

Incidentally if you combine Barbados and Antigua/Barbuda you would get an all-time team like:

Haynes
Greenidge
Worell (captain)
Viv Richards
Weekes
Sobers
Walcott (keeper)
Marshall
Garner
Roberts
Ambrose

This team coming from a total population of less than half a million would be quite competitive with an all-time team drawn from the rest of the world's population. Unbelievable.

Proof that population means nothing.

 

[morgieb]

Used to be the West Indies by far. Now it's more debatable.