The globalization of cricket

[Dissector]

The ICC seems quite serious about promoting cricket around the world even in countries without any serious tradition of the game. The recent discussion about 20/20 at the Olympics is part of that trend. There is no question that the format is quite well-suited to the Olympics and the presence of cricket there will promote the game globally.

So what are the prospects of cricket becoming more popular around the world? And how will it affect the balance between test cricket and 20/20?

Personally I seriously doubt that test cricket will ever catch on anywhere outside the existing countries; considering that its popularity is on the wane among several of the current test countries. If you haven't grown up watching test cricket, it's not a very accessible sport IMO.

OTOH I think 20/20 has huge potential in terms of global appeal. From the entertainment point of view 2-4 hours is probably the ideal length and it is the first cricket format which is down to that length. Its closest competitor is baseball and IMO 20/20 with its high scoring and greater variety of action is more accessible to someone who is new to both.

Once you have an entertaining format, cricket has a lot of obvious advantages when it comes to spreading globally. It makes a lot of money already and will probably make even more in the near future. Its existing base is nicely spread across the world in five continents

The bottom line is that I could see cricket becoming global but only for 20/20. The inevitable effect would be test cricket being overshadowed. Is that likely to happen? Is it a good thing? Obviously it will be sad for fans of test cricket but it will mean a lot more cricketers around the world able to make a living from cricket.

 

[Precambrian]

As they say, let 20-20 be the harbinger, the marketer for the cricket... people will come in... while test cricket will go on and on and on...

 

[Top_Cat]

The same thing stopping other sports from gaining in popularity around the world is the same thing stopping cricket I reckon. Soccer, all you need is a ball and a stretch of field. Cricket, you need equipment, a field and a pitch. Will always be up against that.

 

[andruid]

The ICC seems quite serious about promoting cricket around the world even in countries without any serious tradition of the game. The recent discussion about 20/20 at the Olympics is part of that trend. There is no question that the format is quite well-suited to the Olympics and the presence of cricket there will promote the game globally.

I doubt that the current hullabaloo about T20 at the Olympics has anything to do with real globalisation of cricket. Being as the ICC (its full members like Australia most visibly) already see China as a potential new cash cow and a counterweight to the BCCI within the ICC it could be seen as a means to sign them up as an ally and use their mass organisation to fast track them to test status

So what are the prospects of cricket becoming more popular around the world? And how will it affect the balance between test cricket and 20/20?

Personally I seriously doubt that test cricket will ever catch on anywhere outside the existing countries; considering that its popularity is on the wane among several of the current test countries. If you haven't grown up watching test cricket, it's not a very accessible sport IMO.

There is potential for Test cricket outside the current 10 as witnessed by the growth of the Intercontinental Cup but it is not getting the sort of Intensive attention and nurturing necessary for its participants to become proper test capable nations. One could even argue the fast money on hand to test teams in the T20 format of the game is drawing valuable resources away from programmes like these.

OTOH I think 20/20 has huge potential in terms of global appeal. From the entertainment point of view 2-4 hours is probably the ideal length and it is the first cricket format which is down to that length. Its closest competitor is baseball and IMO 20/20 with its high scoring and greater variety of action is more accessible to someone who is new to both.

True T20 is an excellent format to intoduce thebasic ins and outs of cricket to new places but it is where cricket is already established and T20 has come in where the impact has been biggest so far.The ICC really needs to step up and regulate the highly destabilizing effect of the huge amounts of unregulated cash flowing into so few places caused by T20 to remedy this.

Once you have an entertaining format, cricket has a lot of obvious advantages when it comes to spreading globally. It makes a lot of money already and will probably make even more in the near future. Its existing base is nicely spread across the world in five continents

I honestly cannot shake the feeling that the silly amounts of money we are seeing in T20 are part of a bubble that could burst at any moment and even bankrupt the organisations that are so dependent on T20 being valued money wise as it is now.

The bottom line is that I could see cricket becoming global but only for 20/20. The inevitable effect would be test cricket being overshadowed. Is that likely to happen? Is it a good thing? Obviously it will be sad for fans of test cricket but it will mean a lot more cricketers around the world able to make a living from cricket.

I think there is enough room and potential for as many as 30 countries with solid and self sustaining cricket structures that accommodate all forms of the game even if they never once see millions of dollars that we see with T20 today All they need is careful and considered investment.

 

[unccricket]

i think making t20 a part of the olympics would be a great vehicle to spread the game into larger, more lucrative markets.

i am a fan of test cricket as well, but all this garbage of t20 overshadowing and destroying test cricket is getting on my nerves. cricket needs a cash cow, and if t20 is promoted as a club sport with few international matches, it won't really do anything against tests.

the real problem is tours where you have 7 odis and only 2-3 test matches.

 

[zaremba]

Pls Click, Lets Promote:
http://cricket2012games.com/index.html

"The 2012 London Games in England" eh? And there was me thinking they were in London, Norway.

 

[Richard]

Pls Click, Lets Promote:
http://cricket2012games.com/index.html

Easy goes it, there's no need to post this in every thread.

Anyway I don't see cricket (ie, Test cricket) being popular in all that many places where it isn't already, though hopefully there might be a few at some point. Twenty20 might do, but that remains to be seen.

What's for sure is that more effort is invested in the attempts to globalise than is worth. I$C$C are trying for it to an extent they have no hope of managing. I've quoted this Matthew Engel line a fair few times, but it remains neccessary: "it is time to stop wrecking the game we have in the vain pursuit of the one we don't".

 

[andruid]

Easy goes it, there's no need to post this in every thread.

Anyway I don't see cricket (ie, Test cricket) being popular in all that many places where it isn't already, though hopefully there might be a few at some point. Twenty20 might do, but that remains to be seen.

What's for sure is that more effort is invested in the attempts to globalise than is worth. I$C$C are trying for it to an extent they have no hope of managing. I've quoted this Matthew Engel line a fair few times, but it remains neccessary: "it is time to stop wrecking the game we have in the vain pursuit of the one we don't".

Shame on me for using such poor logic but if Golf can do it I don't see why Multi innings cricket can't

 

[Richard]

There's all sorts of reasons why it might well not be able to (as well as a few why it might). The most pertinent is perhaps the equipment factor.

 

[andruid]

There's all sorts of reasons why it might well not be able to (as well as a few why it might). The most pertinent is perhaps the equipment factor.

Golf kits aren't exactly cheap. If we can get snobs from all the world into the idea then I reckon FC cricket could end up with a similar niche market across non-traditional cricket countries even if it never becomes an en masse sport.

 

[Richard]

They're certainly not cheap, but golf is at least an individual sport - so it requires 1 person to spend above their limits, rather than 14 or 15.

 

[andruid]

They're certainly not cheap, but golf is at least an individual sport - so it requires 1 person to spend above their limits, rather than 14 or 15.

Trust me playing golf by one self is no fun...It need a quorum and absolutely everybody has to have their own set of clubs, whereas a whole team can share 3-4 sets of bats, pads and gloves and still have a fairly functional game

 

[Chemosit]

approximate cost of outfitting a junior cricket team in Nairobi using locally sourced materials:
5 bats @ ksh 50 each: ksh: 250
5 sets of pads made locally using bamboo, rope, cloth & laquer: @ ksh 100 each: ksh 500
2 sets stumps + bails: ksh 100
5 pairs of pads (4 batting, 1 wckt keeping) @ksh 1000 each: ksh: 5000
4 pairs of batting gloves @ ksh1000: ksh 4000
1 pair wkt kpg gloves: ksh 1000
Total: ksh10850 - equivalent of 85 pounds sterling or 163 US$

Balls are one item that can blow the budget right out, but if these can be paid for by a sponsor as well, there is really not a big outlay needed to get a lot of kids started playing.

Bats are made really cheaply using local woods and I appreciate that as players move up in age/standard they will need proper bats, but by this stage the better players should be getting snapped up and offered scholarships by the clubs so this will not be a problem.

 

[Dissector]

Cricket requires quite a bit in terms of equipment and facilities but that has always been the case and it hasn't stopped it from spreading to poor countries in the subcontinent. Baseball is quite similar to cricket in terms of such requirements and it has spread to Latin America and Japan: the latter in the early decades of the 20th century when it was relatively poor. Plus the ICC has a lot of money it could use to subsidise kits and playing facilities if it wanted to treating it as an investment for the future.

The more I think about it the more I think TT has huge commercial potential around the world: certainly nowhere near football and probably not as much as basketball but a very strong no.3 when it comes to global team sports. I could see this happening over a 20-25 year horizon especially if TT gets Olympic exposure from 2020 as suggested. If and when it does happen it will undermine the primary of test cricket IMO but make cricket a far more lucrative sport than it is today.

 

[andruid]

Cricket requires quite a bit in terms of equipment and facilities but that has always been the case and it hasn't stopped it from spreading to poor countries in the subcontinent. Baseball is quite similar to cricket in terms of such requirements and it has spread to Latin America and Japan: the latter in the early decades of the 20th century when it was relatively poor. Plus the ICC has a lot of money it could use to subsidise kits and playing facilities if it wanted to treating it as an investment for the future.

The more I think about it the more I think TT has huge commercial potential around the world: certainly nowhere near football and probably not as much as basketball but a very strong no.3 when it comes to global team sports. I could see this happening over a 20-25 year horizon especially if TT gets Olympic exposure from 2020 as suggested. If and when it does happen it will undermine the primary of test cricket IMO but make cricket a far more lucrative sport than it is today.

Off course that is if my worst fears about the finances ofthe whole roject are not realised

 

[jashan83]

We should expand the base

People who say that 8-10 teams as test nations are enough and we should stay at that level should realize that this would kill cricket. Also I agree that matches like Aus vs Bermuda can also kill the interest. So what do I propose that ICC should have 3 Tiers in Cricket

Tier 1: Top 10 Test Nations presently are India, South Africa, Australia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, England, New Zealand, West Indies, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh

Tier 2: Next top 10 teams: Can be any of these 10 teams out of 20 teams listed based on performance: Kenya, Afghanistan, Canada, Ireland, Scotland, Netherlands, UAE, USA, Bermuda, Nepal, Namibia, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Argentina, Denmark, Argentina, Uganda

Tier 3:Next set of teams

Between these 3 Tiers every year top 2 teams upgrade to next tier and bottom 2 relegate. Why 3 and not 2 Tiers because the Tier 2 teams have more potential of becoming good teams, so ICC can have a focused approach.

The relegation and up gradation should happen every 2 years. This would force teams like Bangladesh and Zimbabwe to be more focused for performance and Tier 2 playing at their best seeing the benefit of good performance and joining the top class.

The better Tier 1 teams also would not have easy matches but play against teams who proved their mettle in Tier 2. Every 2 years seeing 2 new teams would also add excitement and also broaden the pool of nations who will have tasted the top boys.

Every time we keep seeing Ireland defeating Bangladesh every time they meet or Canada defeating them, this would ensure that if they are good, they go to top, and play good cricket.

Now let me take a case Bangladesh and Zimbabwe are relegated and Afghanistan and Ireland are promoted. Now for next 2 years these 2 teams have the privilege of playing against big boys. Even though they do not play every other 8 teams but say Afghanistan playing 4 teams say India, Pakistan, West Indies & Kiwi's would be more than a exposure that they could have thought of. Meanwhile is Bangladesh are so bad and in Tier 2 Zimbabwe and Netherlands top it, then the better teams prove their mettle. This would also keep interest in Tier 2, with teams fighting for Tier 2.

This Tier system should be valid for all 3 forms of Cricket Test, ODI & Twenty20. Each form should have different ranking which can even add more teams having a taste of International cricket.

After every 4 years ICC can have a review to check whether Tier 1 & 2 should have 10 teams or no should be increased.

I hope this system comes into play soon and benefit the cricket.

 

[Matt79]

ok, that's kind of weird, I made a post in this thread, it appeared, and then it disappeared. Was nothing any mod would be likely to delete either...

Jashan - why do you think that the current situation of having 8-10 test nations will "kill cricket", given that cricket has never been more popular or financially successful than it is at the moment?

 

[Furball]

ok, that's kind of weird, I made a post in this thread, it appeared, and then it disappeared. Was nothing any mod would be likely to delete either...

Jashan - why do you think that the current situation of having 8-10 test nations will "kill cricket", given that cricket has never been more popular or financially successful than it is at the moment?

jashan's post was deleted because it's a duplicate of several he's made this morning, yours was deleted along with it.

 

[GotSpin]

At least spell it globalisation. argggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

 

[jashan83]

Hey Matt yes present system of 10 test teams is good enuf. But there is one saying that only "one thing is permanent and that is Change". If this things continues then it may stale out. The present goodies maybe lost out. If tomorrow India fizzles out and sponsors loose interest. 10 is too few a number to be assumed as a safe base.

The solution, widen your base, make the game more widespread and more competitive. The present system makes a ceiling for the associate teams. The team have reportedly performed well and then fizzled out. This is true for Kenya, then Ireland and Afghanistan and in future for many teams. We need to create excitement and make things competitive. Non performers like Bangladesh or Zimbabwe should not be complacent of their Test status. They should be under a constant review. Good performers in the Associate world should be rewarded. The biggest shortcoming is the exposure. This system allows them to be competitive in their sphere and be rewarded for their good performance.