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
Canada to participate in Caribbean T20 tournament | West Indies Cricket News | Cricinfo.com
Here's a way to start off. This is for Canada, but it's the same principle as I think needs to be done with America.
Canada plays as a team in the domestic competition. Just think of the improvements these countries could get from being able to enter say an American team in the county competition in England. If there's enough space and time I think it is a great way to increase general skill level.
Canada to participate in Caribbean T20 tournament | West Indies Cricket News | Cricinfo.com
Here's a way to start off. This is for Canada, but it's the same principle as I think needs to be done with America.
Canada plays as a team in the domestic competition. Just think of the improvements these countries could get from being able to enter say an American team in the county competition in England. If there's enough space and time I think it is a great way to increase general skill level.
MinuteWaltz
Member
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
If I recall correctly, the US had a team in the West Indies 50-over competition a few seasons back. It was only a one or two year thing, and it isn't being done currently, but you are right that it is a good idea.
Also since we're kind of on the subject, I know all the discussion on this thread has been on how to get cricket to catch on in America, but it isn't as though the US is the only country that needs a hand getting cricket jump started. Most of the ideas people have put forward should be implemented in several other countries, not just in the US. So I guess basically, good for Canada. I hope it helps their continued improvement.
Boris;401694 said:
If I recall correctly, the US had a team in the West Indies 50-over competition a few seasons back. It was only a one or two year thing, and it isn't being done currently, but you are right that it is a good idea.
Also since we're kind of on the subject, I know all the discussion on this thread has been on how to get cricket to catch on in America, but it isn't as though the US is the only country that needs a hand getting cricket jump started. Most of the ideas people have put forward should be implemented in several other countries, not just in the US. So I guess basically, good for Canada. I hope it helps their continued improvement.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
America is the be all and end all of money these days, so it is only natural that it would be focused on more than others.
But you are completely right. One of the first countries I would target is the Netherlands, they have a large cricketing base, they have a decent domestic system and it wouldn't take much effort to get them into a position where they could be more competitive. What they have done with Zimbabwe is brilliant, especially on the part of South Africa, and perhaps the English team could help out them.
A strange thought occurred to me the other day. When Sri Lanka and New Zealand played in America, what is the percentage of Americans outside of cricket that actually knew where those countries were?
Maybe I'm stereotyping, but just wondering. 
MinuteWaltz;401717 said:
America is the be all and end all of money these days, so it is only natural that it would be focused on more than others.
But you are completely right. One of the first countries I would target is the Netherlands, they have a large cricketing base, they have a decent domestic system and it wouldn't take much effort to get them into a position where they could be more competitive. What they have done with Zimbabwe is brilliant, especially on the part of South Africa, and perhaps the English team could help out them.
A strange thought occurred to me the other day. When Sri Lanka and New Zealand played in America, what is the percentage of Americans outside of cricket that actually knew where those countries were?
Maybe I'm stereotyping, but just wondering.
MinuteWaltz
Member
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
I get the financial motivation, it just strikes me as unfair for everyone else. The Netherlands would be a good choice, but so would Ireland (to help them bump up to test status) or Scotland. The problem is all three would most naturally play in England, and I would worry about overloading the English competitions with all three at once. A really ambitious idea would be to have each test nation (or the top eight if you don't think Bangladesh and Zimbabwe could handle it right now) host one associate in their first class and list A competitions. Imagine how much assistance it would give the associates if say Ireland compeated in England, Kenya in South Africa, Afganistan in Pakistan or India, Scotland in Australia, the Netherlands in Sri Lanka, Canada in the West Indies, and the US in New Zealand. The geographic matchups kind of suck and so can be tinkered with, but it would offer significant assistance without much extra work or money.
As for your "what percentage of americans knew where SL and NZ were?" question, you are stereotyping, but there is a reason it became a stereotype in the first place
. Americans, as a rule, stink at geography; its a curse of the country's size. I don't have any research or polling to back this up, the following is just my sense of the matter, but that being said: I think most Americans (over 80%) know where New Zealand is, not the latatude and longitude mind you, but the general description of the location. Sri Lanka on the other hand, other than knowing that it is in Asia, most Americans probably couldn't tell you anything about its location. Probably only ~10% could locate it on a political map with the names removed. Just my two cents on the issue anyway.
Talk to you later Boris.
Boris;401730 said:America is the be all and end all of money these days, so it is only natural that it would be focused on more than others.
But you are completely right. One of the first countries I would target is the Netherlands, they have a large cricketing base, they have a decent domestic system and it wouldn't take much effort to get them into a position where they could be more competitive. What they have done with Zimbabwe is brilliant, especially on the part of South Africa, and perhaps the English team could help out them.
A strange thought occurred to me the other day. When Sri Lanka and New Zealand played in America, what is the percentage of Americans outside of cricket that actually knew where those countries were?
I get the financial motivation, it just strikes me as unfair for everyone else. The Netherlands would be a good choice, but so would Ireland (to help them bump up to test status) or Scotland. The problem is all three would most naturally play in England, and I would worry about overloading the English competitions with all three at once. A really ambitious idea would be to have each test nation (or the top eight if you don't think Bangladesh and Zimbabwe could handle it right now) host one associate in their first class and list A competitions. Imagine how much assistance it would give the associates if say Ireland compeated in England, Kenya in South Africa, Afganistan in Pakistan or India, Scotland in Australia, the Netherlands in Sri Lanka, Canada in the West Indies, and the US in New Zealand. The geographic matchups kind of suck and so can be tinkered with, but it would offer significant assistance without much extra work or money.
As for your "what percentage of americans knew where SL and NZ were?" question, you are stereotyping, but there is a reason it became a stereotype in the first place
. Americans, as a rule, stink at geography; its a curse of the country's size. I don't have any research or polling to back this up, the following is just my sense of the matter, but that being said: I think most Americans (over 80%) know where New Zealand is, not the latatude and longitude mind you, but the general description of the location. Sri Lanka on the other hand, other than knowing that it is in Asia, most Americans probably couldn't tell you anything about its location. Probably only ~10% could locate it on a political map with the names removed. Just my two cents on the issue anyway.Talk to you later Boris.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
Bangladesh has an alright domestic system I think, but don't know much about them. I've always thought of them as a fairly stable cricketing country, just never really had the skill. Zimbabwe on the other hand don't have a stable domestic system (and aren't a Test playing nation currently), so I wouldn't be playing anyone there, whereas Bangladesh may be capable.
I like the idea though, especially if tailored to suit the country. For example the associate nations are all different skill levels, so you play the appropriate skill level to the appropriate country. Following this, then the highest ranked associate would play in Australia as the domestic teams here regularly beat outside international teams when they are on tour. The domestic scene is very strong, as is England's, so the higher ranked teams can compete there. Any of the associate nations would very likely come last in any Australia or England domestic competitions. The one that plays in Bangladesh could be a nation such as the UAE.
Obviously, though, the geographical issue does have to come into it, so it does come down to who can afford to stay in another country for almost six months.
MinuteWaltz;401805 said:
Bangladesh has an alright domestic system I think, but don't know much about them. I've always thought of them as a fairly stable cricketing country, just never really had the skill. Zimbabwe on the other hand don't have a stable domestic system (and aren't a Test playing nation currently), so I wouldn't be playing anyone there, whereas Bangladesh may be capable.
I like the idea though, especially if tailored to suit the country. For example the associate nations are all different skill levels, so you play the appropriate skill level to the appropriate country. Following this, then the highest ranked associate would play in Australia as the domestic teams here regularly beat outside international teams when they are on tour. The domestic scene is very strong, as is England's, so the higher ranked teams can compete there. Any of the associate nations would very likely come last in any Australia or England domestic competitions. The one that plays in Bangladesh could be a nation such as the UAE.
Obviously, though, the geographical issue does have to come into it, so it does come down to who can afford to stay in another country for almost six months.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
Those of us that do know of its existence find the game so strange looking we don't usually even bother to look at the rules of how its played. All the action takes place between two lines in a little dirt strip and there's three little wood planks behind you? WTF?
I have a loose understanding of Cricket's rules but I really fail to see how it could possibly be deeper than Baseball when it comes to strategy.
The casual american sports fan wouldn't like the terminology of the game either. Bowling is a popular sport here, for instance. Wickets also is just a funny word that I can't imagine people using with a straight face.
Lastly, as for Americans liking "manly" sports, this is true. However, the American definition of manly is now how much GEAR you have on. Its all the rage.
Notice the helmet visor...
The gloves, the ridiculous forearm...things....the sweatbands above the elbows...the towel.
In basketball, you have your headband, your sleeve, and whatever those things are on Melo's legs....
and in baseball, its the batting gloves, the sun glasses, the socks, the elbow pad, and whatever is on A-Rod's forearm.
So no, barehanding it won't be seen as being more "manly." If anything, it'll probably be viewed as being less developed.
Hate to rain on your parade but I think 75% of Americans don't even know cricket exists. That number might actually be even higher. That's the honest truth -- not exaggerated at all.Boris;399820 said:
Those of us that do know of its existence find the game so strange looking we don't usually even bother to look at the rules of how its played. All the action takes place between two lines in a little dirt strip and there's three little wood planks behind you? WTF?
I have a loose understanding of Cricket's rules but I really fail to see how it could possibly be deeper than Baseball when it comes to strategy.
The casual american sports fan wouldn't like the terminology of the game either. Bowling is a popular sport here, for instance. Wickets also is just a funny word that I can't imagine people using with a straight face.
Lastly, as for Americans liking "manly" sports, this is true. However, the American definition of manly is now how much GEAR you have on. Its all the rage.
Notice the helmet visor...
The gloves, the ridiculous forearm...things....the sweatbands above the elbows...the towel.
In basketball, you have your headband, your sleeve, and whatever those things are on Melo's legs....
and in baseball, its the batting gloves, the sun glasses, the socks, the elbow pad, and whatever is on A-Rod's forearm.
So no, barehanding it won't be seen as being more "manly." If anything, it'll probably be viewed as being less developed.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
It is quite strange, isn't it.
As for the strategy thing, they are about even. As you would know, baseball's strategies are rather hidden, those outside the game don't see it very much. Cricket is quite similar, it's hard to notice the strategies without delving into the depths of that game.
Saying that, though, some are more pronounced. For example a baseball field setting compared to a cricket one. Baseball has the 7 moveable fielders, but they all play fixed positions. The only real movement are things like your third-baseman might come across a couple of metres when a left hander is at the plate and tends to hook quite often. As such most of baseball's strategy comes from who is actually playing. Having three different closing pitchers instead of one so that your RH pitchers will pitch to RH batters and so on. Cricket's however comes mostly from field placements. Baseball will see all 9 players in reasonably the same point every play, whereas two different fields to two different batsmen might see fielders having to run 50 metres to their new fielding position each ball. But anyway...
Cricket not being known in America is alarming but then not at the same time. Even if 75% of the population do not know what cricket is, that still leaves approx. 125 million people that do. That is approx. 6 times the population of Australia or double that of England, which is a heck of a lot of people. The problem is getting it to the people that do know about it, and may want to watch it. With so little people comparitively knowing about it, TV stations aren't willing to take up on it. But even though cricket is the second largest team sport in the world, that rough figure of 125 million people is still too luring to walk away from. Cricket will break into America sooner or later, the question more is whether it will in our lifetimes.
It is quite strange, isn't it.
As for the strategy thing, they are about even. As you would know, baseball's strategies are rather hidden, those outside the game don't see it very much. Cricket is quite similar, it's hard to notice the strategies without delving into the depths of that game.
Saying that, though, some are more pronounced. For example a baseball field setting compared to a cricket one. Baseball has the 7 moveable fielders, but they all play fixed positions. The only real movement are things like your third-baseman might come across a couple of metres when a left hander is at the plate and tends to hook quite often. As such most of baseball's strategy comes from who is actually playing. Having three different closing pitchers instead of one so that your RH pitchers will pitch to RH batters and so on. Cricket's however comes mostly from field placements. Baseball will see all 9 players in reasonably the same point every play, whereas two different fields to two different batsmen might see fielders having to run 50 metres to their new fielding position each ball. But anyway...
Cricket not being known in America is alarming but then not at the same time. Even if 75% of the population do not know what cricket is, that still leaves approx. 125 million people that do. That is approx. 6 times the population of Australia or double that of England, which is a heck of a lot of people. The problem is getting it to the people that do know about it, and may want to watch it. With so little people comparitively knowing about it, TV stations aren't willing to take up on it. But even though cricket is the second largest team sport in the world, that rough figure of 125 million people is still too luring to walk away from. Cricket will break into America sooner or later, the question more is whether it will in our lifetimes.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
25% = 75 million
Those are the people that have probably HEARD of Cricket but 99% of them wouldn't know a thing about it. Only that it kinda resembles baseball. Not saying people wouldn't watch it if you played a game here, but you have to understand, Cricket would be America's 7th team sport.
That's a long way down the depth chart here. Its a slow game like baseball, which has also been struggling to find younger fans, so it'd have a really hard time finding a market here I think.
There are only 300 million people in the USA.Boris;403730 said:
25% = 75 million
Those are the people that have probably HEARD of Cricket but 99% of them wouldn't know a thing about it. Only that it kinda resembles baseball. Not saying people wouldn't watch it if you played a game here, but you have to understand, Cricket would be America's 7th team sport.
That's a long way down the depth chart here. Its a slow game like baseball, which has also been struggling to find younger fans, so it'd have a really hard time finding a market here I think.
OhMyGodTheChips
Member
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
The reality is that USA isn't USA orientated when it comes to sport. Yes they get behind the Olympics and the soccer team, but when it comes down to year to year sports, it's very much the same as the English view the EPL as being what it is about and only have regard for the national team when it is in a major tournament.
This is where T20 can be an effective in breaking the market with a franchise orientated system.
The reality is that USA isn't USA orientated when it comes to sport. Yes they get behind the Olympics and the soccer team, but when it comes down to year to year sports, it's very much the same as the English view the EPL as being what it is about and only have regard for the national team when it is in a major tournament.
This is where T20 can be an effective in breaking the market with a franchise orientated system.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
It'd get 50k at the MCG, but only because if you called opening a wet bag sport and put it on the 'G you'd get 50k. We'll go to any sport in Melbourne, sport and Cafes is pretty much the local weekend pastime.
Boris;399888 said:Would be interesting to see if baseball is actually possible at the MCG, they have played it there before but a long, long time ago before the stadium itself was erected. Don't think it is possible given the size/shape difference between a cricket ground to a baseball park. Strange to think also that all of America's leading sports are played on specialised fields/courts, random thought there.
I couldn't see it pulling quite so much of a crowd, I would say 30k, but then again I don't know what it's thought of in Melbourne. How many people actually know of the Red Sox and the Yankees and the series they play in?
A trial game was played in China to boost popularity over there, so it is possible for them to travel a bit.
But anyway... long way off topic.
It'd get 50k at the MCG, but only because if you called opening a wet bag sport and put it on the 'G you'd get 50k. We'll go to any sport in Melbourne, sport and Cafes is pretty much the local weekend pastime.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
For instance, Soccer, which has a HUGGGGEEE head-start and advantage over cricket as far as familiarity goes, can only draw about 15,000 fans to their usual league games.
Cricket would be coming in under that.
As far as world cups and things, Americans LOVE to root for America...BUT since we consider our leagues for our sports to be the best in the world, we kinda have an attitude that they are the de-facto world championships. We don't want to see our players get hurt in some little tournament, even though in baseball and basketball, we have true global competition now.
The World Baseball Classic is an excellent example of this. The media and ex-players in the media from this country do nothing but blast it saying it'll just hurt players before the season starts. They hate it and our team always under-performs. Its an attitude that I would like to see changed but we'll see.
You could certainly set up a league here. It might struggle to survive though.OhMyGodTheChips;403770 said:
For instance, Soccer, which has a HUGGGGEEE head-start and advantage over cricket as far as familiarity goes, can only draw about 15,000 fans to their usual league games.
Cricket would be coming in under that.
As far as world cups and things, Americans LOVE to root for America...BUT since we consider our leagues for our sports to be the best in the world, we kinda have an attitude that they are the de-facto world championships. We don't want to see our players get hurt in some little tournament, even though in baseball and basketball, we have true global competition now.
The World Baseball Classic is an excellent example of this. The media and ex-players in the media from this country do nothing but blast it saying it'll just hurt players before the season starts. They hate it and our team always under-performs. Its an attitude that I would like to see changed but we'll see.
Caesar
Member
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
I don't particularly care about the US. Their obsession with fast-food style sport will never be conducive to cricket, even T20. Americans also have very little interest in anything they're not the best in the world at. Besides, their sporting market is already bloated with their domestic sports.
I'd rather efforts be focused on growing the game in countries like Scotland, Ireland, Namibia, Kenya and the various Asian associates.
I don't particularly care about the US. Their obsession with fast-food style sport will never be conducive to cricket, even T20. Americans also have very little interest in anything they're not the best in the world at. Besides, their sporting market is already bloated with their domestic sports.
I'd rather efforts be focused on growing the game in countries like Scotland, Ireland, Namibia, Kenya and the various Asian associates.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
The reason most of the rest of the world plays rugby and cricket is because the countries where those sports are most popular were former British colonies. India? Australia? South Africa? Connection?
In the case of Soccer, it too benefited from the British Empire spreading it around but also from the fact that it was the first major team sport and it was so cheap to play. Kinda gives it an inside track, ya know?
We obviously left the British Empire long before these sports came around, so we developed our own sports over here but after we were aware of the European sports. Basketball is really a global sport now and baseball has spread far and wide, too.
Football continues to lag because of the logistics of the game. 50+ men rosters for a team, the cost of all the equipment, and the rules of the game that makes it so strategic like chess...and then there's the brutality of it. haha Not hard to see why it hasn't set the world on fire.
Come on now, that's not true.Caesar;403804 said:
The reason most of the rest of the world plays rugby and cricket is because the countries where those sports are most popular were former British colonies. India? Australia? South Africa? Connection?
In the case of Soccer, it too benefited from the British Empire spreading it around but also from the fact that it was the first major team sport and it was so cheap to play. Kinda gives it an inside track, ya know?
We obviously left the British Empire long before these sports came around, so we developed our own sports over here but after we were aware of the European sports. Basketball is really a global sport now and baseball has spread far and wide, too.
Football continues to lag because of the logistics of the game. 50+ men rosters for a team, the cost of all the equipment, and the rules of the game that makes it so strategic like chess...and then there's the brutality of it. haha Not hard to see why it hasn't set the world on fire.
Caesar
Member
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
What's not true about my post?
Cricket is certainly not conducive to the close-minded American sportsfan. If you suggested to them the possibility of a game that lasts for 5 days and at the end there's a 20-30% chance you won't have a winner then they'd be completely bemused. Games that don't have high levels of action and a tiebreaker to always find a winner have a lot of difficulty getting traction.
I would hardly call baseball a global sport. The Japanese and a few Latin American countries are crazy about it but that's about it. Even ice hockey is more popular worldwide. Basketball is more successful but even then it's a poor cousin sport in almost every other country outside the US. I mean look at Australia - we're dominant in Women's and consistently top 6 or 7 in Men's, yet can barely sustain a league.
American football doesn't catch on because nobody else needs it. Rugby is more free-flowing and therefore of more interest to football-playing cultures (i.e. everywhere in the world besides the USA/Canada/Australia).
America's distate for anything they're not the best in the world at is pretty clear. I was in the US during their QF run at the 2002 FIFA World Cup. The bandwagoning was immense - and then when people realised that they'd actually fluked it to get that far, they lost complete interest when they went out. American sports fans can't be bothered supporting America unless they're going to win it all.
You blame the Commonwealth's advantage in spreading their sports around the world - well America has had a similar advantage since WWII. Ever stop to think there might be other reasons why their domestic sports are (by far) America's least successful cultural export in the last 60 years?
Anyway, this is all beside the point. I am not really trying to argue that cricket is better than pointyball or baseball or whatever. All I am saying is that I don't really care if cricket isn't successful there. The US is an irrrelevancy as far as the game goes, there are plenty of better places to grow the sport.
What's not true about my post?
Cricket is certainly not conducive to the close-minded American sportsfan. If you suggested to them the possibility of a game that lasts for 5 days and at the end there's a 20-30% chance you won't have a winner then they'd be completely bemused. Games that don't have high levels of action and a tiebreaker to always find a winner have a lot of difficulty getting traction.
I would hardly call baseball a global sport. The Japanese and a few Latin American countries are crazy about it but that's about it. Even ice hockey is more popular worldwide. Basketball is more successful but even then it's a poor cousin sport in almost every other country outside the US. I mean look at Australia - we're dominant in Women's and consistently top 6 or 7 in Men's, yet can barely sustain a league.
American football doesn't catch on because nobody else needs it. Rugby is more free-flowing and therefore of more interest to football-playing cultures (i.e. everywhere in the world besides the USA/Canada/Australia).
America's distate for anything they're not the best in the world at is pretty clear. I was in the US during their QF run at the 2002 FIFA World Cup. The bandwagoning was immense - and then when people realised that they'd actually fluked it to get that far, they lost complete interest when they went out. American sports fans can't be bothered supporting America unless they're going to win it all.
You blame the Commonwealth's advantage in spreading their sports around the world - well America has had a similar advantage since WWII. Ever stop to think there might be other reasons why their domestic sports are (by far) America's least successful cultural export in the last 60 years?
Anyway, this is all beside the point. I am not really trying to argue that cricket is better than pointyball or baseball or whatever. All I am saying is that I don't really care if cricket isn't successful there. The US is an irrrelevancy as far as the game goes, there are plenty of better places to grow the sport.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Oh and I'm sure its the American influence on the game that has the shorter T20 format decimating these 5 day matches in popularity.... Seems Cricket isn't conductive to the open-minded world sports fan. Hmm...imagine that?
USA men are ranked 13th (9th last year) but we average less than 15,000 people per game at our league that is only 14 years old. Our soccer stadiums don't even hold 20,000 people for the most part. What's that mean? Guess Soccer isn't a popular sport worldwide...oh wait...
Also, take out India, and Baseball countries, by population, probably dwarf Cricket. Furthermore, I'd bet baseball is more popular in more countries than Cricket. Cricket is really only popular in England, South Africa, Australia, India, and Pakistan. Is it even the most popular sport in any country that plays it? Maybe India? I'd also guess Baseball is far more popular than Hockey. Outside of USA(where its the 4th sport), Canada, Russia, and a few other nordic countries, no one else takes it seriously.
Basketball is by far the #1 (team) sport in China, #2 sport in Spain, #2 sport in Argentina, #3 sport in USA, Brazil and Russia. Also really popular in France, Germany, Italy, Greece and extremely popular in a bunch of the Eastern European countries. Really popular in much of Africa as well.
So I'm not sure what you're talking about on that one....
Furthermore, I bet you can easily find the Super Bowl on your tv...I wonder where I can find the...umm...what's one of your rugby leagues or cricket league championships called again? Oh yeah.
You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
You see nothing wrong with a 5 day sport with no actual winner? That's like reading a book aloud to thousands of people for 5 days and then declaring you won't read the ending....what would be the point?Caesar;403866 said:
Oh and I'm sure its the American influence on the game that has the shorter T20 format decimating these 5 day matches in popularity.... Seems Cricket isn't conductive to the open-minded world sports fan. Hmm...imagine that?
USA women are one of the most dominant soccer teams in the world.
USA men are ranked 13th (9th last year) but we average less than 15,000 people per game at our league that is only 14 years old. Our soccer stadiums don't even hold 20,000 people for the most part. What's that mean? Guess Soccer isn't a popular sport worldwide...oh wait...
Also, take out India, and Baseball countries, by population, probably dwarf Cricket. Furthermore, I'd bet baseball is more popular in more countries than Cricket. Cricket is really only popular in England, South Africa, Australia, India, and Pakistan. Is it even the most popular sport in any country that plays it? Maybe India? I'd also guess Baseball is far more popular than Hockey. Outside of USA(where its the 4th sport), Canada, Russia, and a few other nordic countries, no one else takes it seriously.
Basketball is by far the #1 (team) sport in China, #2 sport in Spain, #2 sport in Argentina, #3 sport in USA, Brazil and Russia. Also really popular in France, Germany, Italy, Greece and extremely popular in a bunch of the Eastern European countries. Really popular in much of Africa as well.
So I'm not sure what you're talking about on that one....
Yeah, and I see all your countries going wild for swimming and crap during the Olympics but they're nowhere to be found inbetween. Again what's your point? In America, the world cup and soccer is basically another Olympics. We root for the colors every four years and then go back to not caring.
Well, actually, that's more of a complement to our awesome culture which has been pretty damn dominant. Also, Basketball dwarfs Cricket(including India) and Rugby...so I'm not sure what you're talking about but I'll say ok.
Furthermore, I bet you can easily find the Super Bowl on your tv...I wonder where I can find the...umm...what's one of your rugby leagues or cricket league championships called again? Oh yeah.
Caesar
Member
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
As for T20 decimating Tests in terms of popularity, it depends on your definition. Total attendance for Test matches still regularly dwarfs that for individual T20s, which is boosted by the novelty value. Test players get paid more and it is still regarded as the highest level of the game professionally by players.
Besides, I didn't say that basketball wasn't a popular sport. I just said that most places outside of the US (China and maybe a couple of countries like Lithuania would be an exception) it lags behind other sports.
Anyway, all this is beside the point. What's a patriotic seppo like you doing on a cricket forum if you don't like cricket? I mean, it's not like we even have any USA cricket fans here. You'd be hard pressed to find a corner of the internet that cares less about the good 'ole US of A.
Like I said, you're the standard American sports fan, you don't get it.MattXG;403873 said:
As for T20 decimating Tests in terms of popularity, it depends on your definition. Total attendance for Test matches still regularly dwarfs that for individual T20s, which is boosted by the novelty value. Test players get paid more and it is still regarded as the highest level of the game professionally by players.
Your analogy is poor, because relative to the rest of the world basketball is more popular in Australia than football is in the US.MattXG;403873 said:
Besides, I didn't say that basketball wasn't a popular sport. I just said that most places outside of the US (China and maybe a couple of countries like Lithuania would be an exception) it lags behind other sports.
New Zealand, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Zamibia, Kenya, all the Carribean nations... how much do you actually know about cricket? And popularity by population was never my point.MattXG;403873 said:
My point is that the US is insular when it comes to sports. Most countries have at least one national sporting team that they support in international competition essentially all year round. Aside from the relatively small number of USA Soccer fans who follow the team outside the WC, America does not.MattXG;403873 said:
I'm saying that since things like American food, drink, TV, movies and music have been so eagerly adopted overseas it does kind of make you wonder why your sports have been so spectacularly unsuccessful. I mean, even the relatively popular basketball is vastly different to the bastardised version you play in the NBA.MattXG;403873 said:
Anyway, all this is beside the point. What's a patriotic seppo like you doing on a cricket forum if you don't like cricket? I mean, it's not like we even have any USA cricket fans here. You'd be hard pressed to find a corner of the internet that cares less about the good 'ole US of A.
Caesar
Member
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
Because of this, the flooded nature of the US sports market and the natural aversion of Joe Sixpack to 'furrin' sports sadly the ICC has never really bothered too much with trying to grow the game there. They have been more concerned with looking east and fostering the game in the African and Asian associates. For a time it looked like Allen Stanford would take it on his own shoulders to grow the game there, but we all know how that went.
It's very frustrating for American cricket fans but unfortunately that's the way it goes. For better or worse, nobody in world cricket really cares about the USA.
Bariaga - I'm not sure if you still post here, but a lot of the problems in the past have been to do with the incompetence and corruption in USA Cricket. They were excluded from the ICC for a long time, and even when they weren't they were a very amateurish operation that in a lot of ways did more to harm than help the game in the USA. I know a lot of American cricket fans who are exceptionally disillusioned with them.Bariaga;399619 said:
Because of this, the flooded nature of the US sports market and the natural aversion of Joe Sixpack to 'furrin' sports sadly the ICC has never really bothered too much with trying to grow the game there. They have been more concerned with looking east and fostering the game in the African and Asian associates. For a time it looked like Allen Stanford would take it on his own shoulders to grow the game there, but we all know how that went.
It's very frustrating for American cricket fans but unfortunately that's the way it goes. For better or worse, nobody in world cricket really cares about the USA.
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
There were no national teams in our sports history until about the 1950s. That's half a century after the Olympics because the only country in reasonable travel distance, yearly, was Canada. Mexico has never really been much of an option.
That's why the Olympics are seen as the holy grail of sports in America. That has long been the only relevant major international sporting competition for us because it was the only competition that featured some sports that we actually cared about.
You'll notice our biggest basketball stars will go to the Olympics but will completely ignore the World Championships in their own sport. It would be the same for baseball but the Olympics are held during the baseball season...
Though, the IOC has made it clear to MLB that they don't intend to reinstate baseball unless MLB let's their players go to the Olympics. So we'll see what happens there.
With something like a sport, its something that must be taught to a bunch of people at once, and they must pass it along, so on and so forth. It takes a lot more effort, money, and time. That's why if there's already games embedded in the culture, its so hard to supersede them. Soccer was the first out of the gate, its super cheap to play and it was an easy sport to pass along. That's why it enjoys the advantages it does but its been surpassed in many countries anyway.
There's a lot of disgusting and stupid things that goes on in the world that I don't get either....doesn't mean its right or a good idea.Caesar;403875 said:
Ok but in a lot of places, it only lags behind soccer. A common affliction for all sports that aren't soccer I'd say.
Its very much a cultural thing. We grew up with sports we created, while the rest of the world was getting sports via the British Empire, so we were used to being isolated. To compound that, Europe has a bunch of countries tucked right next to each other so it made sense to have national teams to play each other for them. So Europe always had a sense of national teams, something they exported to their colonies.
There were no national teams in our sports history until about the 1950s. That's half a century after the Olympics because the only country in reasonable travel distance, yearly, was Canada. Mexico has never really been much of an option.
That's why the Olympics are seen as the holy grail of sports in America. That has long been the only relevant major international sporting competition for us because it was the only competition that featured some sports that we actually cared about.
You'll notice our biggest basketball stars will go to the Olympics but will completely ignore the World Championships in their own sport. It would be the same for baseball but the Olympics are held during the baseball season...
Though, the IOC has made it clear to MLB that they don't intend to reinstate baseball unless MLB let's their players go to the Olympics. So we'll see what happens there.
A drink or a movie is something you instantly know you like or don't like.
With something like a sport, its something that must be taught to a bunch of people at once, and they must pass it along, so on and so forth. It takes a lot more effort, money, and time. That's why if there's already games embedded in the culture, its so hard to supersede them. Soccer was the first out of the gate, its super cheap to play and it was an easy sport to pass along. That's why it enjoys the advantages it does but its been surpassed in many countries anyway.
Bored. Waiting for Football season to get here....
Caesar
Member
Re: Speculation over NZ vs Pakistan matches to be held in USA
Ladies and gentleman, meet the average American. If I don't understand it, it's wrong.MattXG;403887 said:
Fair enough, welcome to BigCricket. But if you're just here to stir shit about the game, you'll have a fairly short stay.MattXG;403887 said: