County Crowds

[Swervy]

Why? No other country needs it.
Twenty20, by accounts of everyone, has been greeted with exactly the same ecstasy that surrounded 65-over cricket in 1963, and 40-over cricket in 1968. While both maintain more popularity than the First-Class game (which, I repeat, hasn't been well attended since the early 1930s - except in the post-war euphoria you mentioned, very briefly for 3 or 4 seasons) they've slipped, and most people of an age to remember it's initial popularity expect Twenty20 to do similar..

Part of the reason why one day cricket did well in the early days was beacuse the first class game was truley miserable to watch...I wasnt there but it is what I have read.

I guess there is no real way of knowing how attendances in domestic cricket really do relate to England performance a decade later..but I am certain there is some relationship between CC's popularity in the late 40's and the England resurgance of the mid to late 50's

One thing that hasn't changed in England, in over 80 years, is the popularity of the Test-match game; and in 32 years the popularity of the ODI game..

I think terst crickets popularity is actually through the roof compared to 10 or 20 years ago....take a look for example at footage from the 80's....empty seats galore...pretty much these days, you cant find a ticket coz they have gone in no time.There is no doubt in my mind as well that ODI popularity has soared recently
[/QUOTE]So in conclusion, England's most successful period had little to do with the popularity, nor the subsequent slide. There'd been slides before, and there have been little perks since (1968-1972; 1981; 2000-2000\01; 2004), but none have had the slightest to do with the popularity of attending the domestic game. Domestic cricket started falling by the wayside in the second half of the 1930s, as Tests took the limelight. I don't know what patterns were in the countries who joined the Test scene later was; I'm pretty sure the pattern in England, South Africa and Australia was fairly similar. Equally I'm not certain whether or not the domestic game was ever popular in Aus or SA..[/QUOTE]

I am not talking about minor blips in the otherwise downward slope of English international cricket in the last 30 years...the trend has been pretty much since the late 50's,apart from the odd series here and there, that England have been a pretty average test team, with some majorly low points in between...(its only really since the Asian tour a few years ago when England won in SL and Pak that they have started turning it around)....so the last successful time for England corresponds to when the team was full of players who may well have been involved more as spectators as children with domestic cricket..not saying its a fact that that is the reason, but I do think its a contributing factor

 

[aussie]

Lancashire have the most members in England, i can't find the exact figure but i think its about 13,000

yeah around that

 

[aussie]

Certainly we've always been up there.

but still below Lanchashire

 

[marc71178]

Rikki? Thats not what your mother said last night..

Touché

 

[Kiwi]

I just started my first season in England after playing in NZ for several year. NZ certainly has some catching up to do to match the fans. I am really suprised at the support for whatever team playing at my home club ground.. wouldn't matter if it 1st, 4ths or womens. they all get decent crowds it. NZ you would get 10 people max. It might have something to do with the bar we have though.

 

[Richard]

Part of the reason why one day cricket did well in the early days was beacuse the first class game was truley miserable to watch...I wasnt there but it is what I have read.

I guess there is no real way of knowing how attendances in domestic cricket really do relate to England performance a decade later..but I am certain there is some relationship between CC's popularity in the late 40's and the England resurgance of the mid to late 50's

I'm pretty sure it had to do with what all domination has to do with - the fact that the team was fortunate enough to have a coincidence of lots of good players while their opposition have none.
What I've read about the start of limited-overs cricket, and what I've experienced with countless things, is that it was a concept that was new and good, so experienced heavy popularity in it's inception.
However, it's still a good game, even while it's not new any more, so retains it's potential. Test-cricket, too, is certainly not new, but has retained it's popularity for 130-odd years. The domestic-First-Class game was popular for 100 years or so (mid-19th-century to 1930s) but hasn't been for a long time - anywhere in The World.

I think terst crickets popularity is actually through the roof compared to 10 or 20 years ago....take a look for example at footage from the 80's....empty seats galore...pretty much these days, you cant find a ticket coz they have gone in no time.There is no doubt in my mind as well that ODI popularity has soared recently

ODI popularity hasn't really soared recently, it was more in the early '90s. It's not really been possible for it to get more popular since then.
You still see plenty of empty Test-match seats in the subcontinent and South Africa these days, too - what have you been watching? I don't think it signals Tests are dying like some people do - partly because, as you say, it's nothing new at all, and partly because I know how much it's discussed.

I am not talking about minor blips in the otherwise downward slope of English international cricket in the last 30 years...the trend has been pretty much since the late 50's,apart from the odd series here and there, that England have been a pretty average test team, with some majorly low points in between...(its only really since the Asian tour a few years ago when England won in SL and Pak that they have started turning it around)....so the last successful time for England corresponds to when the team was full of players who may well have been involved more as spectators as children with domestic cricket..not saying its a fact that that is the reason, but I do think its a contributing factor

I really, really don't, because of the simple fact that domestic cricket in Australia and West Indies, the two sides who've dominated since the 1950s, hasn't been in the slightest better attended than ours has. What matters is not the attendances but the quality of the players taking part. In Australia and West Indies the quality has generally been high - there have been obvious exception periods (such as the current time in West Indies and the mid-1980s and late-1960s in Australia) but generally it has been high. But that hasn't been because of good attendances.

 

[Swervy]

I'm pretty sure it had to do with what all domination has to do with - the fact that the team was fortunate enough to have a coincidence of lots of good players while their opposition have none.
What I've read about the start of limited-overs cricket, and what I've experienced with countless things, is that it was a concept that was new and good, so experienced heavy popularity in it's inception.
However, it's still a good game, even while it's not new any more, so retains it's potential. Test-cricket, too, is certainly not new, but has retained it's popularity for 130-odd years. The domestic-First-Class game was popular for 100 years or so (mid-19th-century to 1930s) but hasn't been for a long time - anywhere in The World.

ODI popularity hasn't really soared recently, it was more in the early '90s. It's not really been possible for it to get more popular since then.
You still see plenty of empty Test-match seats in the subcontinent and South Africa these days, too - what have you been watching? I don't think it signals Tests are dying like some people do - partly because, as you say, it's nothing new at all, and partly because I know how much it's discussed.

I really, really don't, because of the simple fact that domestic cricket in Australia and West Indies, the two sides who've dominated since the 1950s, hasn't been in the slightest better attended than ours has. What matters is not the attendances but the quality of the players taking part. In Australia and West Indies the quality has generally been high - there have been obvious exception periods (such as the current time in West Indies and the mid-1980s and late-1960s in Australia) but generally it has been high. But that hasn't been because of good attendances.

forget about Australia and the West Indies...a lot of success of those two teams can be put down to a number of things, climate being one, competitive attitudes, social environments etc..we are talking about England

 

[Richard]

No, we're talking about the effect of attendances to domestic cricket on success in internationals.
And that's the same in Australia, West Indies, England, South Africa, you-name-it.

 

[Swervy]

No, we're talking about the effect of attendances to domestic cricket on success in internationals.
And that's the same in Australia, West Indies, England, South Africa, you-name-it.

This thread is about County Cricket..your arguement was that poor county attendances has done no harm what so ever to English cricket..mine is that it probably has had an adverse effect on English cricket.

Other countries have much different circumstances surrounding them...sport is pushed a lot more in Australia at a young age, as it probably is in SA, due to socio-economics situations in WI (amongst other reasons) sport (esp cricket years ago) was extremely important for kids becuase it offered a way out of poverty...Englands situation is different and need to be looked at independently of other countries

 

[Richard]

All countries are different - all countries share the same thing with cricket. It does not need large attendances to have a strong competition. Are you seriously suggesting that because Test crowds in India and Sri Lanka are generally very poor then their Test-cricket is weak? How come virtually no-one can win series there, then?
Attendances don't have the slightest impact on the quality of cricket played, whatever the country may be. Why do socio-economic factors have any effect on that? Why do you not have to attend domestic-First-Class cricket to be attracted to the game in certain socio-economic conditions and have to do so in others? Or why does the strength of domestic-First-Class-cricket depend on good attendances in some socio-economic conditions and not in others?
I can't think of any good reason.