• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

wat changes cricket needs to be a world sport???

bestfriendh

Cricket Spectator
hi guys
dunno if this has been discussed...but anyways.....as we all know cricket is largely a colonial sports.........and even after soo many years we still have the same teams competing all over again.........y isnt cricket catching on in say usa or brazil..wat changes are required in cricket to make it a real world sports???................. :D 8-)
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
bestfriendh said:
hi guys
dunno if this has been discussed...but anyways.....as we all know cricket is largely a colonial sports.........and even after soo many years we still have the same teams competing all over again.........y isnt cricket catching on in say usa or brazil..wat changes are required in cricket to make it a real world sports???................. :D 8-)
Change the size of the ball. Mke it much bigger and softer.

Do away with the three stumps. Have two big poles with a horizontal pole on top of them.

Do away with the wicket and place the poles at either end of the ground let the whole ground be the wicket.

Do away with the domination of batsmen or bowlers. Level the playing field.

Bowlers and fielders cant touch the ball with their hands and the batsmen cant use bats.

Let their be no batting order. Let all the batsmen come to the ground at the same time.

Let the batsmen and fielders defend one set of poles each while they try to kick the ball through the opposite set !
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
bestfriendh said:
hi guys
dunno if this has been discussed...but anyways.....as we all know cricket is largely a colonial sports.........and even after soo many years we still have the same teams competing all over again.........y isnt cricket catching on in say usa or brazil..wat changes are required in cricket to make it a real world sports???................. :D 8-)
The USA competed (loosest sense of the word) in the Champions Trophy.

The Brazilian Cricket Board was founded in 2000. There are around 90 ICC members. It's growing.
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
twctopcat said:
Bit narrow minded for you sjs?? But i like your message.
I really dont understand why a game should be changed to get other countries to play it.

Will the few baseball playing countries change it and make it similar to cricket so that 1 billion Indians should play it ? There is this ridiclous talk of cricket not being a global game like soccer. So what their are so many others that are played by fewer countries. Baseball, Rugby, American football are just a few examples. No one talks of changing those games.
 

twctopcat

International Regular
SJS said:
I really dont understand why a game should be changed to get other countries to play it.

Will the few baseball playing countries change it and make it similar to cricket so that 1 billion Indians should play it ? There is this ridiclous talk of cricket not being a global game like soccer. So what their are so many others that are played by fewer countries. Baseball, Rugby, American football are just a few examples. No one talks of changing those games.
Exactly my point, no changes necessary, if so many people like it then shame on everyone else for missing out.
 

bestfriendh

Cricket Spectator
hi

hey sjs
ur point is taken but then if cricket is so perfect in the present sense can u plz temme y various cricket formats r bein invented to make it more "fun" for those enlglish blokes???............. :D 8-)
 

bestfriendh

Cricket Spectator
heya

twctopcat said:
Exactly my point, no changes necessary, if so many people like it then shame on everyone else for missing out[/COLOR].

well imo thts not how we should think ........the reason i started this thread is as i feel cricket has a true potential to become a world game........so wat if tht means changnig a few rules here and there and lettin the core remain intact.....juss think abt it............... :D 8-)
 

twctopcat

International Regular
bestfriendh said:
well imo thts not how we should think ........the reason i started this thread is as i feel cricket has a true potential to become a world game........so wat if tht means changnig a few rules here and there and lettin the core remain intact.....juss think abt it............... :D 8-)
But is that a need to change the rules when it has been so successful for so long? New formats aren't all bad but it's just a matter of people getting involved with the currrent rules and realising it's not such a dull game!!! :)
 

bestfriendh

Cricket Spectator
hi

ok even ur points valid.........but we do need an international image dont we........as far as the post tht usa..........all have played im talkin abt real countries with real players...not a team made up of 7 indian.........and remanin pak players.............. :D 8-)
 

Hit4Six

U19 Debutant
bestfriendh said:
ok even ur points valid.........but we do need an international image dont we........as far as the post tht usa..........all have played im talkin abt real countries with real players...not a team made up of 7 indian.........and remanin pak players.............. :D 8-)
theyre not 7 indians...

they were 2 and 5 west indian c-team people the rest were pak
 

Neil Pickup

Cricket Web Moderator
I point out that the early West Indian sides and also sub-continental cricket was filled with British ex-pats, so that's totally invalid. Sports will be brought by cultures who will initially play them before the indigenous roots set firm.

So what changes do you suggest? All that's changing with Twenty20 is the number of overs...
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
To make cricket a "world sport" does not involve changing the rules but merely how they promote and advertise the game in other countries. 20-20 will certainly help but its all about the image. whats the point in changing rules, just so we get a few more "bangladesh" countries playing.

Oh yeah STOP using dots after every few words, its really annoying :p
 

bestfriendh

Cricket Spectator
hi

GoT_SpIn said:
To make cricket a "world sport" does not involve changing the rules but merely how they promote and advertise the game in other countries. 20-20 will certainly help but its all about the image. whats the point in changing rules, just so we get a few more "bangladesh" countries playing.

Oh yeah STOP using dots after every few words, its really annoying :p
oh come on here i was thinkin i was being cool.....u had to spoil it didnt ya.......... :D 8-)
 

bestfriendh

Cricket Spectator
heya

GoT_SpIn said:
To make cricket a "world sport" does not involve changing the rules but merely how they promote and advertise the game in other countries. 20-20 will certainly help but its all about the image. whats the point in changing rules, just so we get a few more "bangladesh" countries playing.
Oh yeah STOP using dots after every few words, its really annoying :p

hey thnks for pointing tht out...imo its better to have a few "bangladesh" sides....rather than have a usa which isnt a usa at all........and even srilanka and india begun like banglas..no un can be a aus so soon.... 8-) :D
 

Dizzy #4

International 12th Man
For a start, introduce more international exp for those teams


Like

More

AUS VS CAN
ENG VS HOL
SRI VS ITA

ECT,ECT........Give them training!
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
yeah lets do that and see them get bowled out for 10 and 500 runs scored against them, good idea buddy
 

marc71178

Eyes not spreadsheets
Dizzy #4 said:
For a start, introduce more international exp for those teams


Like

More

AUS VS CAN
ENG VS HOL
SRI VS ITA
I don't see how that would benefit it at all!

Maybe one option would be for the ICC to get together a veteran side of recently retired players, and get them to tour the World playing games against the associate nations?
 

SJS

Hall of Fame Member
bestfriendh said:
hey sjs
ur point is taken but then if cricket is so perfect in the present sense can u plz temme y various cricket formats r bein invented to make it more "fun" for those enlglish blokes???............. :D 8-)
I think 20/20 etc is coming up because England is strugling to fill in the grounds. I dont know if changing the rules of the game are a solution. If they want to start a new type of game which is a 'spoof' )for want of a better word) on cricket, like 20/20, thats fine. But for Gods sake lets not call it cricket.

As I always say, Pool is Pool and Snooker is Snooker. Just because not enough people were playing(or could afford to/have access to) snooker, did not mean change snooker. Pool is a fifferent game.

If they want to fill their grounds (read make money for the game of cricket) by organising other games, let them do whatever they want. But you cant play one cricket to bring money to the longer version so that the latter may survive, and then play an even smaller version so that the one day version may survive. finally we may end up playing baseball so that some 10/10 version may survive.

This is ludicrous.

Of course something needs to be done if the game is dying or there is a lack of interest in the younger generation but you cant try to build their interest in cricket by not playing cricket but something else. this is not bringing crowds to cricket, this is enouraging people to LEAVE cricket and watch something elsethat they want to call a newer version of the game.

Tennis is struggling today because the game hgas changed and the serve and volley game is dying and IS dead amongst women. this has come about because of the change in equipment and the change to synthetic surfaces.

It is being realized and they are contemplating change in raquet headsize, gradually from 12 1/2 inches to 10" to redress the imbalance now favouring baseliners. They are talking of increasing the number of grass court tornaments and get rid of the slow abrasive hard courts.

They are doing this because they realise that the contrasting styles creat great contests such as McEnroe and Borg or Agassi and Sampras Or Martina and Chris. They also realise that a staple diet of baseline hitting will become so monotonous that day in and day out serving of this stuff will eventualy mean a slow death of the game and it is the return of the serve and volley, the passing shots and cleverly disguised lobs will enhance the game.

cricket needs to realise this too. We cant listen to the ignoramous riff-raff that are appear to matter from the viewing public. The fact of the matter is that the limited over game is already becoming too similar to the last game and the one before that. The first 15 overs and the last 10 are all that hold the viewer. This should have been a warning. Making it shorter means what ? Let the restriction remain throughout the fifty overs then. But is this a solution.

Fifty overs of slam bam, slam bam, slam bam will eventually peter out into nothing. Same with thirty overs or twenty.

If you want the game to survive, try and understand why the spectators are staying away. Foolhardy schemes like 20/20 will benefit only mediocrity and Shaz and Waz shows will only provide much neded kicks to middle aged ex cricketers while doing nothing for those who genuinly love the game.
 

Top