Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
- Thread starter Boris
- Start date
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
The two games (game 1, game 2 were low scoring and with only 2 sixes hit in each it probably wasn't the best start for cricket in the US after advertising the wham-bam of the format, with Americans probably looking for a few more 'home runs' to be hit (more home runs are hit in two baseball games than the amount of sixes hit from this series).
Low scoring games often prove to be the most intense and overall 'better' games, but not when you are trying to introduce it to those who aren't sure about.
All in all it's been done, international cricket has been played in the US.
How did you think the game went Bariaga? Enough to win some fans?
And yes, not having it on TV wasn't a good move. Should have been on TV.
The two games (game 1, game 2 were low scoring and with only 2 sixes hit in each it probably wasn't the best start for cricket in the US after advertising the wham-bam of the format, with Americans probably looking for a few more 'home runs' to be hit (more home runs are hit in two baseball games than the amount of sixes hit from this series).
Low scoring games often prove to be the most intense and overall 'better' games, but not when you are trying to introduce it to those who aren't sure about.
All in all it's been done, international cricket has been played in the US.
How did you think the game went Bariaga? Enough to win some fans?
And yes, not having it on TV wasn't a good move. Should have been on TV.
OhMyGodTheChips
Member
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
The pitch was always going to play average. ICC need to get a drop-in pitch through customs a year or two in advance or employ an international curator to prepare and rehabilitate the wicket 18 months in advance at least so that, the wicket can be flat quick road, that will offer runs and lots of them.
The pitch was always going to play average. ICC need to get a drop-in pitch through customs a year or two in advance or employ an international curator to prepare and rehabilitate the wicket 18 months in advance at least so that, the wicket can be flat quick road, that will offer runs and lots of them.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
The curator is a New Zealander and knows what he's doing, I think it's mostly the lack of games and funding that causes the pitch to be that way.
I like pitches like this that make batting harder, but for an exhibition like this hard and bouncy would have been good.
Maybe that's also just what this pitch is like. There are other pitches in the world that sound similar, with a little more maintenance it would probably be up to the standards of them.
But at least it does go to show a little that the pitch does play a big factor in cricket. Hopefully all the comments by players and commentators tells the few that watched it that cricket does depend on it, and different pitches are better for all different situations.
At least they got to see some great fielding and bowling.
The curator is a New Zealander and knows what he's doing, I think it's mostly the lack of games and funding that causes the pitch to be that way.
I like pitches like this that make batting harder, but for an exhibition like this hard and bouncy would have been good.
Maybe that's also just what this pitch is like. There are other pitches in the world that sound similar, with a little more maintenance it would probably be up to the standards of them.
But at least it does go to show a little that the pitch does play a big factor in cricket. Hopefully all the comments by players and commentators tells the few that watched it that cricket does depend on it, and different pitches are better for all different situations.
At least they got to see some great fielding and bowling.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
The games weren't that bad, would've been enough to win some fans if they were on TV. Most of the people that were at the stadium or followed on ESPN3.com I think were already fans of the game (at least casual) so not much gains to be had there, although the experience probably was satisfying for them. Any significant growth will come via TV exposer though and I can't stress that enough.
There are some relatively new networks in the US that are trying gain market share from ESPN and FOX and buying up rights for as many sports as they can. They can only use so much fillers and paid programmings in the late morning to early afternoon slots. They need and are looking for more attractive contents for those slots. But the network heads probably don't know much about cricket or see much future in it so they will not approach ICC for any cricket deals. The ICC will have to initiate any talk and probably will have to give the rights away for free in exchange for respectful coverage including hiring professional commentators and showing regular cricket highlights on their 'SportsCenter' type shows. Even buying air-time and keeping all the ad revenues to themselves would be better than the status quo. They may lose very small amount of money per telecast for the first few years but again, they'll recoup them back and a lot more within a decade or so as cricket develops a pretty big casual fan-base in America.
Boris;400439 said:
The games weren't that bad, would've been enough to win some fans if they were on TV. Most of the people that were at the stadium or followed on ESPN3.com I think were already fans of the game (at least casual) so not much gains to be had there, although the experience probably was satisfying for them. Any significant growth will come via TV exposer though and I can't stress that enough.
There are some relatively new networks in the US that are trying gain market share from ESPN and FOX and buying up rights for as many sports as they can. They can only use so much fillers and paid programmings in the late morning to early afternoon slots. They need and are looking for more attractive contents for those slots. But the network heads probably don't know much about cricket or see much future in it so they will not approach ICC for any cricket deals. The ICC will have to initiate any talk and probably will have to give the rights away for free in exchange for respectful coverage including hiring professional commentators and showing regular cricket highlights on their 'SportsCenter' type shows. Even buying air-time and keeping all the ad revenues to themselves would be better than the status quo. They may lose very small amount of money per telecast for the first few years but again, they'll recoup them back and a lot more within a decade or so as cricket develops a pretty big casual fan-base in America.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
Considering it was the first game, I actually think it was a good thing that they didn't televise it, now to think of it.
They didn't know what the pitch would play like and weren't sure how many people would come down to the ground (doesn't make for the best TV if there are 20 people in the stadium). Now that they know the problems with the ground and are assured that the stands will be at least half filled they can introduce it to TV.
What about the idea that all Pakistan 'home' games be played in the US, instead of England? This is obviously to cover the security issues.
Considering it was the first game, I actually think it was a good thing that they didn't televise it, now to think of it.
They didn't know what the pitch would play like and weren't sure how many people would come down to the ground (doesn't make for the best TV if there are 20 people in the stadium). Now that they know the problems with the ground and are assured that the stands will be at least half filled they can introduce it to TV.
What about the idea that all Pakistan 'home' games be played in the US, instead of England? This is obviously to cover the security issues.
hattrick
Member
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
@Boris mate not televised? I watched both matches here in South Africa, so it seems that rights had a deal where certain zones could see it and others not.
The Pearls Cup was a massive success in my book. The Venue is spectacular and has the potential to become a great home for US cricket. Commentary provided some interesting tidbits.
The idea it seems is that the US wants the ICC nations consider them as a stop over after a Caribbean tour.
@Bariaga I have a suspicion that ESPN might be the best for them.. firstly the matches were shown on ESPN-Star (Indian) and they have a very good relationship with the American broadcaster.
@Boris mate not televised? I watched both matches here in South Africa, so it seems that rights had a deal where certain zones could see it and others not.
The Pearls Cup was a massive success in my book. The Venue is spectacular and has the potential to become a great home for US cricket. Commentary provided some interesting tidbits.
- The US and New Zealand have a partnership that aims to help both parties. The US to get coaching help and guidance from the black caps and the New Zealand side to potentially play fixtures there. They mentioned that New Zealand is canvassing leading nations to stop over in the US.
- Indianopolis, Houston and New York are building purpose build stadiums for cricket.
- The US Cricket body wants a domestic competition based on the IPL idea(city based cricket) but the details are a bit sketchy
- This is the first of many of these neutral fixtures as USA Cricket have a plan called "Visit2012" and have aggressively tried to get cricket here. I suspect that India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka would be the main targets due to the expats being there from those nations.
The idea it seems is that the US wants the ICC nations consider them as a stop over after a Caribbean tour.
@Bariaga I have a suspicion that ESPN might be the best for them.. firstly the matches were shown on ESPN-Star (Indian) and they have a very good relationship with the American broadcaster.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
Well, ESPN would be a no-brainer IF you can get a deal with them. The problem is, a very popular network like that already has its plate full with more popular sports/contents. Every sport wants to be on it; some are even willing to take little less money than they could get from other networks, just to be on it. ESPN's ratings expectations are higher than the other networks as well. For a sport that is starting from scratch in America they may not be that patient with its ratings or sponsorship revenues. If you're not able to get a rights fee or revenue sharing deal, you'd have to buy air-time if they have slots open and their rates are sky high. All things considered cricket is probably not meant to be on ESPN just yet. One of the upstart networks that is spending a lot and taking on risks to build its brand may give cricket more bang for the money.
hattrick;400616 said:
Well, ESPN would be a no-brainer IF you can get a deal with them. The problem is, a very popular network like that already has its plate full with more popular sports/contents. Every sport wants to be on it; some are even willing to take little less money than they could get from other networks, just to be on it. ESPN's ratings expectations are higher than the other networks as well. For a sport that is starting from scratch in America they may not be that patient with its ratings or sponsorship revenues. If you're not able to get a rights fee or revenue sharing deal, you'd have to buy air-time if they have slots open and their rates are sky high. All things considered cricket is probably not meant to be on ESPN just yet. One of the upstart networks that is spending a lot and taking on risks to build its brand may give cricket more bang for the money.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
Bariaga says it wasn't televised in America, but it wasn't shown here. Only option would be pay TV, and I didn't see it anywhere, but I guess that doesn't rule it out if I didn't spot it.
What was it and the rest of the telecast like?
Also I agree with you, a very big step forward here.
Also I just read an article suggesting the USA's intention to hold the Champions Trophy. This would be one very good way of increasing American viewers for sure, if everyone wouldn't mind losing quite a bit of money over the entirety of it.
That wouldn't happen until 2015 at least because of concerns with the ground and the amount of grounds, and by then I would think they should have played a few more games than that.
I would also prefer that America get in on the longer formats. I think that's the very best thing about cricket is the different forms, sets it apart from every other sport, and I think it's important that that is put across to new viewers. Baseball goes for 3 hours and is very slow and actionless, so they have the patience over there to watch ODI cricket, but maybe not something that goes for 5 days.
hattrick;400616 said:
Bariaga says it wasn't televised in America, but it wasn't shown here. Only option would be pay TV, and I didn't see it anywhere, but I guess that doesn't rule it out if I didn't spot it.
hattrick;400616 said:
What was it and the rest of the telecast like?
Also I agree with you, a very big step forward here.
Also I just read an article suggesting the USA's intention to hold the Champions Trophy. This would be one very good way of increasing American viewers for sure, if everyone wouldn't mind losing quite a bit of money over the entirety of it.
That wouldn't happen until 2015 at least because of concerns with the ground and the amount of grounds, and by then I would think they should have played a few more games than that.
I would also prefer that America get in on the longer formats. I think that's the very best thing about cricket is the different forms, sets it apart from every other sport, and I think it's important that that is put across to new viewers. Baseball goes for 3 hours and is very slow and actionless, so they have the patience over there to watch ODI cricket, but maybe not something that goes for 5 days.
hattrick
Member
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
Boris the tidbits were:
@Bariaga I agree with your idea but the problem is that cricket needs to be shown away from the Internet to get more viewers in my mind. Putting it on FOX,CBS and or Versus could lead to only certain areas getting the coverage and others not.
Boris the tidbits were:
- The US and New Zealand have a partnership that aims to help both parties. The US to get coaching help and guidance from the black caps and the New Zealand side to potentially play fixtures there. They mentioned that New Zealand is canvassing leading nations to stop over in the US.
- Indianopolis, Houston and New York are building purpose build stadiums for cricket.
- The US Cricket body wants a domestic competition based on the IPL idea(city based cricket) but the details are a bit sketchy
- This is the first of many of these neutral fixtures as USA Cricket have a plan called "Visit2012" and have aggressively tried to get cricket here. I suspect that India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka would be the main targets due to the expats being there from those nations.
@Bariaga I agree with your idea but the problem is that cricket needs to be shown away from the Internet to get more viewers in my mind. Putting it on FOX,CBS and or Versus could lead to only certain areas getting the coverage and others not.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
I have no problem with the long ODI games but I don't think Americans would have the patience for it or the networks would spend 7-8 hours per cricket broadcast. Maybe in the distant future ODI will gain in popularity after Twenty20 gets people hooked but right now the short 3 hour version has the best chance of success here, IMO. One thing is for sure, the test matches that goes on for days have no chance here whatsoever.
Boris;400811 said:
I have no problem with the long ODI games but I don't think Americans would have the patience for it or the networks would spend 7-8 hours per cricket broadcast. Maybe in the distant future ODI will gain in popularity after Twenty20 gets people hooked but right now the short 3 hour version has the best chance of success here, IMO. One thing is for sure, the test matches that goes on for days have no chance here whatsoever.
MinuteWaltz
Member
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
Hello All,
Just thought I'd jump in here with a couple of things:
First, to anyone who was interested in the broadcast, it is available here. As I understand the games were on TV broadcast in a few countries, but were only available online in the US
Second, someone mentioned that the Central Broward Park Cricket Ground (where the games were played) is the only ICC sanctioned cricket ground in the US. This is correct. The previous tours of Australia-A, India-A, and others were played I believe at Woodley Cricket Park. Woodley Cricket Park is just that, a municipal park outside Los Angelos with a cricket field in it. It has no permanent seating or lighting, so temporary arrangements were made for the tours. It is used mostly for league play and is not ICC sanctioned, so full international sides cannot play there.
Third, the proposed cricket ground in Indianapolis was mentioned. I hate to be a downer, but I live in Indianapolis about two miles from the proposed site, and as of now nothing has been done. Not a shovelfull of earth has been moved, the city doesn't even have anything marked off or any signs saying "Future site of Indianapolis Cricket Ground". Given that the site is a municipal park and that cricket is not something that is going to get taxpayers excited, it may be years before groundbreaking.
Finally, I have to politely disagree with Bariaga that cricket's similarity to baseball is an asset. If anything, cricket is too similar to baseball to crack the US market. Soccer has grown over the last two decades in part because it is different from the other major sports in the US and offers something the others don't. Cricket, at least t20 cricket, is attempting to fill a niche that baseball already fills quite successfully. ODIs might work better, but even then I'm not sure.
Hello All,
Just thought I'd jump in here with a couple of things:
First, to anyone who was interested in the broadcast, it is available here. As I understand the games were on TV broadcast in a few countries, but were only available online in the US
Second, someone mentioned that the Central Broward Park Cricket Ground (where the games were played) is the only ICC sanctioned cricket ground in the US. This is correct. The previous tours of Australia-A, India-A, and others were played I believe at Woodley Cricket Park. Woodley Cricket Park is just that, a municipal park outside Los Angelos with a cricket field in it. It has no permanent seating or lighting, so temporary arrangements were made for the tours. It is used mostly for league play and is not ICC sanctioned, so full international sides cannot play there.
Third, the proposed cricket ground in Indianapolis was mentioned. I hate to be a downer, but I live in Indianapolis about two miles from the proposed site, and as of now nothing has been done. Not a shovelfull of earth has been moved, the city doesn't even have anything marked off or any signs saying "Future site of Indianapolis Cricket Ground". Given that the site is a municipal park and that cricket is not something that is going to get taxpayers excited, it may be years before groundbreaking.
Finally, I have to politely disagree with Bariaga that cricket's similarity to baseball is an asset. If anything, cricket is too similar to baseball to crack the US market. Soccer has grown over the last two decades in part because it is different from the other major sports in the US and offers something the others don't. Cricket, at least t20 cricket, is attempting to fill a niche that baseball already fills quite successfully. ODIs might work better, but even then I'm not sure.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
I'm sort of on the fence between both of your opinions. I think cricket is far enough away from baseball (they really aren't anywhere near the same thing, you can't compare them) to be able to carve its own niche, but I don't think it will be a very large one.
Have you moved to America MinuteWaltz, or have you lived there all/majority of your life? I ask because I think that the large majority of cricket viewers in the US will only be ex-pats only (still a large market), and I don't think it will crack too easily into the larger American market. Do you think the same way? If this is the case than ODIs and Tests are just as good as T20s if you have an already cricket loving market there.
MinuteWaltz;401182 said:
I'm sort of on the fence between both of your opinions. I think cricket is far enough away from baseball (they really aren't anywhere near the same thing, you can't compare them) to be able to carve its own niche, but I don't think it will be a very large one.
Have you moved to America MinuteWaltz, or have you lived there all/majority of your life? I ask because I think that the large majority of cricket viewers in the US will only be ex-pats only (still a large market), and I don't think it will crack too easily into the larger American market. Do you think the same way? If this is the case than ODIs and Tests are just as good as T20s if you have an already cricket loving market there.
MinuteWaltz
Member
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
I agree that cricket is significantly different from baseball when you get into the details, however at a superficial level, which is what people new to the game will first see, cricket and t20 cricket in particular is quite similar to baseball.
To give you an idea of what I meant about soccer offering something different than other major sports in the US, and what that might show about cricket, the following might be interesting for you: In the US there are four major team sports, Gridiron Football, Baseball, Basketball, and Ice Hockey. Gridiron is a high contact sport broken down into discreet play and features effectively no international competition, all the games are domestic. Baseball is a slow paced bat and ball game with again, little international competition until very recently. Basketball and Ice Hockey are both fairly free flowing back and forth games (with obvious differences in objectives) that feature limited international play, confined mostly to Olympics every four years, and otherwise rely on domestic competition. When soccer started to grow in the early 1990s (the history of the sport in the US is much longer, but the real modern growth of the game here is limited to the last twenty years) it was helped mostly by the international competative aspect of the game. The continued improvement of the Men's National Team, the dominance of the Women's National Team, hosting the 1994 World Cup, these are the things that made mainstream American sports fans slowly turn onto the game. Boris, you mentioned the "patriotism" of US sports, you were correct in a way, but not the one you meant. Very few in the US think "Because baseball is an American sport, is is automatically better than cricket", but alot of people in the US think "The US is better at playing baseball than any other country". That pride in US athletic achievements is something almost any sport can tap into. Almost no one in the US follows curling regularly, but in Vancouver, when John Schuster blew chances to win four separate curling games, people knew his name. Very few Americans follow competitive swimming regularly, but in August 2008 Michael Phelps was the most popular athelete in the US. Soccer experienced this same effect. While America's soccer league MLS has a small but loyal following and cable broadcasts of EPL matches garner only niche audiences, the World Cup is a major event. Everyone knows what the event is and when it is, the top players on the national team are household names. It is the international play of soccer that is what excites mainstream US sports fans, because it is a different side of sport from what the other four team games in the US offer. For cricket the best way to penetrate the US market is to tap into the rich depths of international competition the game has. Using an IPL type t20 model leaves a slow paced bat and ball sport centered around domestic franchise play. Superficially this is what baseball already has, only baseball offers more or it with greater roots in the nation.
Sorry that took so long...On to your other points.
I have lived in the US my whole life, specifically I've spent my whole life in the region of the country know as the Midwest, basically the central region of the nation. From my experience, what few cricket fans there are here are mostly first and second generation immigrants from cricket playing nations. I knew one girl in high school who played on a club team when she was younger and one teaching assistant in college who broke that generalization, but that was it. I don't ever see is played or talked about much at all to be honest. At college I once saw a couple of students practicing bowling the ball to each other and hitting it back, and a coffee shop on campus had a sign up during the 2007 World Cup advertising that the game would be shown inside, but again that's about it. I would like to second something Bariaga said earlier, that the problem cracking the US market is not so much active animosity toward the sport, but just that cricket is ignored. It isn't present enough to be worth forming an opinion on one way or the other. I agree that getting new participants to the game will be difficult and so in the short term the audience will have to be people already familiar with the game. The good news is that you don't really need to "convert" alot of people to be successful. Another parrallel from soccer: in the 1990's alot of soccer fans in the US thought that the growth path of soccer meant displacing some other sport and taking it's place. As the 2000's came and went it became apparent that none of the established sports were going anywhere, some in fact are stronger than they've every been, yet soccer kept growing in popularity. The reason was because soccer wasn't winning fans away from other sports, it was making them fans of soccer in addition to the other more established games. Many now see the growth trend of soccer involving growing to the point where it joins the ranks of the other sports and turns the "Big Four" as Gridiron, Baseball, Basketball, and Hockey are sometimes known, into a "Big Five". The same applies for cricket, the US is large and diverse enough to support many sports side by side. Eventually a carrying capacity will be reached, but it hasn't happened yet. So I guess my advise would be to start small, emphasize the things cricket has other US sports don't and go from there. ODIs I think would be well suited here, or at least T20Is.
I would caution though to not overestimate the expatriot population in the US. If you read cricinfo at all, I'm sure at one point you've seen the statistic that there are 15 million cricket fans in the US. Given that this would be one out of every twenty Americans, this seems a bit high to me from first hand experience. Nonetheless the following statistics:
West Indian Americans - 2,532,380
Indian Americans - 2,765,815
Pakistani Americans - 500,000
Bangladeshi Americans - 143,619
Total American Population of West Indian or South Asian Heritage - 5941814
Suggest that the number of expatriots from cricket playing nations is significantly smaller than the 15 million total would lead on to believe. Those numbers all come from wikipedia if you want to look them up. I couldn't find a value for the number of Sri Lankan Americans. Still, about six million people spread out over the fourth largest nation by land mass in the world. Just be careful about assuming that there is a massive cricket fanbase in the US that can keep the game going by themselves.
Boris;401203 said:
I agree that cricket is significantly different from baseball when you get into the details, however at a superficial level, which is what people new to the game will first see, cricket and t20 cricket in particular is quite similar to baseball.
To give you an idea of what I meant about soccer offering something different than other major sports in the US, and what that might show about cricket, the following might be interesting for you: In the US there are four major team sports, Gridiron Football, Baseball, Basketball, and Ice Hockey. Gridiron is a high contact sport broken down into discreet play and features effectively no international competition, all the games are domestic. Baseball is a slow paced bat and ball game with again, little international competition until very recently. Basketball and Ice Hockey are both fairly free flowing back and forth games (with obvious differences in objectives) that feature limited international play, confined mostly to Olympics every four years, and otherwise rely on domestic competition. When soccer started to grow in the early 1990s (the history of the sport in the US is much longer, but the real modern growth of the game here is limited to the last twenty years) it was helped mostly by the international competative aspect of the game. The continued improvement of the Men's National Team, the dominance of the Women's National Team, hosting the 1994 World Cup, these are the things that made mainstream American sports fans slowly turn onto the game. Boris, you mentioned the "patriotism" of US sports, you were correct in a way, but not the one you meant. Very few in the US think "Because baseball is an American sport, is is automatically better than cricket", but alot of people in the US think "The US is better at playing baseball than any other country". That pride in US athletic achievements is something almost any sport can tap into. Almost no one in the US follows curling regularly, but in Vancouver, when John Schuster blew chances to win four separate curling games, people knew his name. Very few Americans follow competitive swimming regularly, but in August 2008 Michael Phelps was the most popular athelete in the US. Soccer experienced this same effect. While America's soccer league MLS has a small but loyal following and cable broadcasts of EPL matches garner only niche audiences, the World Cup is a major event. Everyone knows what the event is and when it is, the top players on the national team are household names. It is the international play of soccer that is what excites mainstream US sports fans, because it is a different side of sport from what the other four team games in the US offer. For cricket the best way to penetrate the US market is to tap into the rich depths of international competition the game has. Using an IPL type t20 model leaves a slow paced bat and ball sport centered around domestic franchise play. Superficially this is what baseball already has, only baseball offers more or it with greater roots in the nation.
Sorry that took so long...On to your other points.
I have lived in the US my whole life, specifically I've spent my whole life in the region of the country know as the Midwest, basically the central region of the nation. From my experience, what few cricket fans there are here are mostly first and second generation immigrants from cricket playing nations. I knew one girl in high school who played on a club team when she was younger and one teaching assistant in college who broke that generalization, but that was it. I don't ever see is played or talked about much at all to be honest. At college I once saw a couple of students practicing bowling the ball to each other and hitting it back, and a coffee shop on campus had a sign up during the 2007 World Cup advertising that the game would be shown inside, but again that's about it. I would like to second something Bariaga said earlier, that the problem cracking the US market is not so much active animosity toward the sport, but just that cricket is ignored. It isn't present enough to be worth forming an opinion on one way or the other. I agree that getting new participants to the game will be difficult and so in the short term the audience will have to be people already familiar with the game. The good news is that you don't really need to "convert" alot of people to be successful. Another parrallel from soccer: in the 1990's alot of soccer fans in the US thought that the growth path of soccer meant displacing some other sport and taking it's place. As the 2000's came and went it became apparent that none of the established sports were going anywhere, some in fact are stronger than they've every been, yet soccer kept growing in popularity. The reason was because soccer wasn't winning fans away from other sports, it was making them fans of soccer in addition to the other more established games. Many now see the growth trend of soccer involving growing to the point where it joins the ranks of the other sports and turns the "Big Four" as Gridiron, Baseball, Basketball, and Hockey are sometimes known, into a "Big Five". The same applies for cricket, the US is large and diverse enough to support many sports side by side. Eventually a carrying capacity will be reached, but it hasn't happened yet. So I guess my advise would be to start small, emphasize the things cricket has other US sports don't and go from there. ODIs I think would be well suited here, or at least T20Is.
I would caution though to not overestimate the expatriot population in the US. If you read cricinfo at all, I'm sure at one point you've seen the statistic that there are 15 million cricket fans in the US. Given that this would be one out of every twenty Americans, this seems a bit high to me from first hand experience. Nonetheless the following statistics:
West Indian Americans - 2,532,380
Indian Americans - 2,765,815
Pakistani Americans - 500,000
Bangladeshi Americans - 143,619
Total American Population of West Indian or South Asian Heritage - 5941814
Suggest that the number of expatriots from cricket playing nations is significantly smaller than the 15 million total would lead on to believe. Those numbers all come from wikipedia if you want to look them up. I couldn't find a value for the number of Sri Lankan Americans. Still, about six million people spread out over the fourth largest nation by land mass in the world. Just be careful about assuming that there is a massive cricket fanbase in the US that can keep the game going by themselves.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
Well it looks like cricinfo was lying a little there then
.
As Baragia told me as well, obviously American 'patriotism' for sports isn't like Australia's. Australia will not play baseball because cricket is an Australian sport (well as Australian as you can get a sport anyway).
But working on your idea that America will take up/give up a sport on the merits of its own performance (or in your example of curling, non-performance), wouldn't that mean that the only way to get America to take up watching cricket is to get their performance levels up?
New Zealand has started training the US cricket team to boost their performance. And in light of recent results, the US and Canada are going very well in Division One of the associates league. So if the US cricket team gets some exposure on an international level and manage to win a game, surely that would much boost popularity?
On a non-serious note I think the ultimate way to get America involved is to let them play the 2011 World Cup, and then rig every game so that they win. That would get some viewers 
So from this thread, the answers lie with television and performance of the local team.
Also another question. The US sports system is very much different to all cricket playing countrys'. It is the same in other countries as it is in Australia, so I will outline what I mean using it. In Australia people of all ages and skill levels can go down the local cricket ground and play some club cricket just for fun on a Sunday afternoon. Then from there they can be picked to play in representative teams, all the way to state and international. In America, you have a much different system, don't you? You play sport in high school and then that determines whether you play sport in college, then from there you get picked for varying franchises. That is how the system works basically doesn't it? How can cricket fit into that? How are the cricket teams picked over there?
Well it looks like cricinfo was lying a little there then
.As Baragia told me as well, obviously American 'patriotism' for sports isn't like Australia's. Australia will not play baseball because cricket is an Australian sport (well as Australian as you can get a sport anyway).
But working on your idea that America will take up/give up a sport on the merits of its own performance (or in your example of curling, non-performance), wouldn't that mean that the only way to get America to take up watching cricket is to get their performance levels up?
New Zealand has started training the US cricket team to boost their performance. And in light of recent results, the US and Canada are going very well in Division One of the associates league. So if the US cricket team gets some exposure on an international level and manage to win a game, surely that would much boost popularity?
On a non-serious note I think the ultimate way to get America involved is to let them play the 2011 World Cup, and then rig every game so that they win.
That would get some viewers So from this thread, the answers lie with television and performance of the local team.
Also another question. The US sports system is very much different to all cricket playing countrys'. It is the same in other countries as it is in Australia, so I will outline what I mean using it. In Australia people of all ages and skill levels can go down the local cricket ground and play some club cricket just for fun on a Sunday afternoon. Then from there they can be picked to play in representative teams, all the way to state and international. In America, you have a much different system, don't you? You play sport in high school and then that determines whether you play sport in college, then from there you get picked for varying franchises. That is how the system works basically doesn't it? How can cricket fit into that? How are the cricket teams picked over there?
MinuteWaltz
Member
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
Not so much cricinfo as Don Lockerbie, CEO of the USA Cricket Association (USACA). Some of what Don says as far as projections and objective is a bit...overly optimistic. He mentions that 15 million statistic in virtually every interview he gives. And if someone repeats a statistic enough, eventually other people will start to repeat it too.
Maybe not the only way, but likely the surest. Keep in mind however that just because Americans will watch a sport as spectators (especially if the national team is doing well) does not mean participation will nessecarily rise. Michael Phelps didn't double the number of competative swimmers in the US. Lance Armstrong didn't make everyone a distance cyclist. To get participation up the ICC or the USACA or whoever is taking charge will have to couple an improving national team with a grassroots effort to get participation up. Even then everyone has to understand, cracking the US market is not a 3-5 year process. Even a decade is too short. Given that cricket is starting from basically nothing in the US, it is going to take 15-20 years to make significant inroads into a country this large.
As I said earlier, some of what Don Lockerbie says and does is a little less than pragmatic, however some of it is great. The strategic partnership with New Zealand is one of the latter things.
As far as results, you are right Boris, the US cricket team is doing okay for itself. The last ICC ranking I saw had the US as the 22nd best associate and only the 5th best in the Americas. However, six years ago the US qualified for the ICC Champions Trophy of its own merits (we got our butts kicked when we got there, but at least we qualified). At that point the US was a legitimate top 5-6 associate nation. Then the USACA was put on suspension by the ICC and was all but inactive for four years. During that time the ranking of the US cricket team slid so that now, I would argue we are massively underrated. The US won the 2008 ICC Americas Championship in one of our first events back from suspension, and finished 2nd in the 2010 version of the tournament. We earned promotion from WCL Division 5 to Division 4, finishing first in the pool play stage, and our U19 team qualified for the 2010 U19 World Cup in New Zealand this year. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see the US earning ODI status inside a decade.
That would garner some interest very quickly, though probably just a flash in the pan if the performance can't be sustained. So unless you're willing to rig every world cup from here on out...
A more serious suggestion would be to give the US cricket team (and any nation that wants it for that matter) T20I status. Currently on games between the 16 ODI nations count as T20Is, so any games in that format the US plays don't count for the purposed of record keeping and player statistics. Letting at least some of the US's games "count" in official records would be a good start to keep new fans interested beyond the first blush of curiosity.
Agreed.
You are correct. The first major step for an athelete in the US is to play for the sports team sponsered by his or her High School. High School athletics is conducted as an amateur enterprise. Players join the team by trying out at an open practise at the beginning of the season and earning a place on the team. Level of play and facility quality are generally high amatuer in quality and the team coaches are usually teachers at the school doing coaching work on the side. Funding comes from a combination of school activity funds and somethings fees paid by participants. Revenue is negligible, games are almost never televised, and attendence at games is limited to friends family and the student body. Most high schools offer sports simply to provide an after school activity for students (at a small school, half the student body might be on one team or another).
The next major step for an athelete in the US is to play for a sports team sponsered by his or her University. College athletics is nominally still amateur, but is conducted more as a professional enterprise in reality. Few college atheletes try out for their university teams, the top high school performer at their sport are sought out by university coaches and persuaded to join the team of a specific university. College atheletes frequently recieve a full university scholarship in exchange for playing for the university team. Despite this players are still considered "amateur" and great care is made to preserve this status. Players are not allowed to recieve compensation in excess of their scholarship, and they are required to carry a full class load and maintain a minimum grade level. Although players are considered amateur, the level of play and quality of facilities are professional or near-professional quality. Coaches are paid (sometimes highly paid) specialists who do nothing but coach a given team. Funding comes primarily from athletic revenue which can be substantial. Important college games are broadcast on national television and crowds in excess of 60,000 are common for gridiron football games at large universities. Most universities sponser these teams for a combination of the revenue they generate, for the advertisement the teams give by putting the name of the university out on national TV, or because university teams can serve as a focal point for school pride and create a sense of unity amongst the student body. University athletics in the US is governed by the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA). The NCAA sanctions dozens of sports and for each one provides and national championship meet/tournament. The NCAA also sets the standards for amateurism amongst student-atheletes and the lays groundrules for play between schools. Only a tiny portion of high school atheletes go on to play for a college team and only a tiny portion of college players go on to a professional team.
As for where cricket fits into this...it doesn't. Cricket is not one of the sports that the NCAA sanctions. You may hear from time to time about a university cricket club, but that is different. NCAA sanctioned teams recieve significant support from their university in funding, coaching, and facilities. Club teams are ususally unofficial student lead groups that typically foot their own bill for travel and equipment. Getting NCAA sanctioning would be the best thing that could happen to cricket in the US, it would increase the profile, level of respect, and participation of the sport all without the ICC having to do anything really. However the likelihood of NCAA sanctioning in the near future is next to zero, it simply isn't worth the effort for the NCAA. But, if the ICC and the USACA can get cricket to a critical mass where it becomes worth the NCAA's while to sanction the game, then grassroots participation will pick up with little additional help.
Currently most cricket players play on a local club team. As in most places in the world, outstanding players may be picked for a state team, then a regional team, and then the national team. The big issue is that since cricket in the US is almost all amateur, the level of coaching can vary significantly.
Boris;401253 said:
Not so much cricinfo as Don Lockerbie, CEO of the USA Cricket Association (USACA). Some of what Don says as far as projections and objective is a bit...overly optimistic. He mentions that 15 million statistic in virtually every interview he gives. And if someone repeats a statistic enough, eventually other people will start to repeat it too.
Boris;401253 said:
Maybe not the only way, but likely the surest. Keep in mind however that just because Americans will watch a sport as spectators (especially if the national team is doing well) does not mean participation will nessecarily rise. Michael Phelps didn't double the number of competative swimmers in the US. Lance Armstrong didn't make everyone a distance cyclist. To get participation up the ICC or the USACA or whoever is taking charge will have to couple an improving national team with a grassroots effort to get participation up. Even then everyone has to understand, cracking the US market is not a 3-5 year process. Even a decade is too short. Given that cricket is starting from basically nothing in the US, it is going to take 15-20 years to make significant inroads into a country this large.
Boris;401253 said:
As I said earlier, some of what Don Lockerbie says and does is a little less than pragmatic, however some of it is great. The strategic partnership with New Zealand is one of the latter things.
As far as results, you are right Boris, the US cricket team is doing okay for itself. The last ICC ranking I saw had the US as the 22nd best associate and only the 5th best in the Americas. However, six years ago the US qualified for the ICC Champions Trophy of its own merits (we got our butts kicked when we got there, but at least we qualified). At that point the US was a legitimate top 5-6 associate nation. Then the USACA was put on suspension by the ICC and was all but inactive for four years. During that time the ranking of the US cricket team slid so that now, I would argue we are massively underrated. The US won the 2008 ICC Americas Championship in one of our first events back from suspension, and finished 2nd in the 2010 version of the tournament. We earned promotion from WCL Division 5 to Division 4, finishing first in the pool play stage, and our U19 team qualified for the 2010 U19 World Cup in New Zealand this year. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to see the US earning ODI status inside a decade.
Boris;401253 said:On a non-serious note I think the ultimate way to get America involved is to let them play the 2011 World Cup, and then rig every game so that they win.
That would garner some interest very quickly
, though probably just a flash in the pan if the performance can't be sustained. So unless you're willing to rig every world cup from here on out...A more serious suggestion would be to give the US cricket team (and any nation that wants it for that matter) T20I status. Currently on games between the 16 ODI nations count as T20Is, so any games in that format the US plays don't count for the purposed of record keeping and player statistics. Letting at least some of the US's games "count" in official records would be a good start to keep new fans interested beyond the first blush of curiosity.
Boris;401253 said:
Agreed.
Boris;401253 said:
You are correct. The first major step for an athelete in the US is to play for the sports team sponsered by his or her High School. High School athletics is conducted as an amateur enterprise. Players join the team by trying out at an open practise at the beginning of the season and earning a place on the team. Level of play and facility quality are generally high amatuer in quality and the team coaches are usually teachers at the school doing coaching work on the side. Funding comes from a combination of school activity funds and somethings fees paid by participants. Revenue is negligible, games are almost never televised, and attendence at games is limited to friends family and the student body. Most high schools offer sports simply to provide an after school activity for students (at a small school, half the student body might be on one team or another).
The next major step for an athelete in the US is to play for a sports team sponsered by his or her University. College athletics is nominally still amateur, but is conducted more as a professional enterprise in reality. Few college atheletes try out for their university teams, the top high school performer at their sport are sought out by university coaches and persuaded to join the team of a specific university. College atheletes frequently recieve a full university scholarship in exchange for playing for the university team. Despite this players are still considered "amateur" and great care is made to preserve this status. Players are not allowed to recieve compensation in excess of their scholarship, and they are required to carry a full class load and maintain a minimum grade level. Although players are considered amateur, the level of play and quality of facilities are professional or near-professional quality. Coaches are paid (sometimes highly paid) specialists who do nothing but coach a given team. Funding comes primarily from athletic revenue which can be substantial. Important college games are broadcast on national television and crowds in excess of 60,000 are common for gridiron football games at large universities. Most universities sponser these teams for a combination of the revenue they generate, for the advertisement the teams give by putting the name of the university out on national TV, or because university teams can serve as a focal point for school pride and create a sense of unity amongst the student body. University athletics in the US is governed by the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA). The NCAA sanctions dozens of sports and for each one provides and national championship meet/tournament. The NCAA also sets the standards for amateurism amongst student-atheletes and the lays groundrules for play between schools. Only a tiny portion of high school atheletes go on to play for a college team and only a tiny portion of college players go on to a professional team.
As for where cricket fits into this...it doesn't. Cricket is not one of the sports that the NCAA sanctions. You may hear from time to time about a university cricket club, but that is different. NCAA sanctioned teams recieve significant support from their university in funding, coaching, and facilities. Club teams are ususally unofficial student lead groups that typically foot their own bill for travel and equipment. Getting NCAA sanctioning would be the best thing that could happen to cricket in the US, it would increase the profile, level of respect, and participation of the sport all without the ICC having to do anything really. However the likelihood of NCAA sanctioning in the near future is next to zero, it simply isn't worth the effort for the NCAA. But, if the ICC and the USACA can get cricket to a critical mass where it becomes worth the NCAA's while to sanction the game, then grassroots participation will pick up with little additional help.
Currently most cricket players play on a local club team. As in most places in the world, outstanding players may be picked for a state team, then a regional team, and then the national team. The big issue is that since cricket in the US is almost all amateur, the level of coaching can vary significantly.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
It's quite surprising the different in sports systems, and how they can both be just as effective as one another. That system wouldn't work here in Australia, but it does there.
So currently cricket operates through selections of people who have joined independent clubs around the place?
It's quite surprising the different in sports systems, and how they can both be just as effective as one another. That system wouldn't work here in Australia, but it does there.
So currently cricket operates through selections of people who have joined independent clubs around the place?
MinuteWaltz
Member
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
You know the weird thing is, the college sports system in the US just kind of developed that way over time. If the sports landscape in the US was blank and people had to come up with a system of talent development from scratch it is highly unlikely that anything like the current system would reoccur.
Pretty much. Without a pro league or formal collegiate support, there aren't too many other options.
Boris;401340 said:
You know the weird thing is, the college sports system in the US just kind of developed that way over time. If the sports landscape in the US was blank and people had to come up with a system of talent development from scratch it is highly unlikely that anything like the current system would reoccur.
Boris;401340 said:
Pretty much. Without a pro league or formal collegiate support, there aren't too many other options.