Best performing cricket nations per capita & other factors considered...

[Zinzan]

After all the recent criticism of the New Zealand cricket team in this Indian series; and a lot of it justified I might add, it did get me thinking..........By rights, should NZ with their population slightly over 4 million people be expected to compete with a cricketing-mad nation like India with nearly 300 times as many people? And maybe its worth looking at the resources available to each country which may put things in perspective a little more & give us all a better understanding of the challenges each nation faces in producing their top XI's

I'd also like to point out that the straight population statistics don't tell the whole story. i.e. there is a high level of poverty in some cricketing countries meaning a high proportion of the population don't get the opportunities they would in fully developed countries like Eng, Aust & NZ.

Then there are some other factors to consider; such as where cricket stands as a priority- sport in these respective nations, the politics involved i.e. South Africa and their quota system amongst other factors...

All that said, I'm interested in everyone's thoughts........


Rank these countries of the cricketing strength per capita based on the below population stats, but also considering other factors such as socio-economic factors, politics etc

Populations....

India 1,160,910,000 (or 1.16 billion)
Pakistan 165,899,500 (165 million)
Bangladesh 162,221,000 (162 million)
United Kingdom 61,612,300 (62 million)
South Africa 48,697,000 (48 million)
Australia 21,707,964 (21 million)
Sri Lanka 20,238,000 (20 million)
Zimbabwe 12,800,000 (12.8 million)
West Indies 5,900,000 (5.9 million) (includes Antigua & Babuda, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St Kitts, St Lucia, St Vincent & Trinidad & Tobago)
New Zealand 4,301,785 (4.3 million)

..

 

[Zinzan]

I vote Australia marginally over NZ

 

[silentstriker]

It doesn't necessarily work that way. People's abilities are on a bell curve, and there is an upper limit. The more people you have, the better chance you have obviously, but you get diminishing returns quite quickly, in terms of added ability per extra individual.

So the top 1% of the population in a country of 10 million, may not be all that different to the top 1% of people in a country of 1 billion. The latter has more people with that ability, but that doesn't equate to a lot better ability. They can pick the top 1% of the 1%, so they should produce superior teams, but the difference in ability, in absolute terms, of 1% vs. 1% of 1% isn't overwhelming. It can be significant at the elite level, but its being outclassed hopelessly.

I would say that the population of people who play cricket, with real cricket balls and bats, and on real pitches, in India, is not much more than in England. I know I had never held a real cricket ball in my hand growing up, we couldn't afford it and there wasn't a cricket pitch anywhere around. It was tennis balls all the way.

 

[Zinzan]

It doesn't necessarily work that way. People's abilities are on a bell curve, and there is an upper limit. The more people you have, the better chance you have obviously, but you get diminishing returns quite quickly, in terms of added ability per extra individual.

SS, I'm not actually suggesting it works any particular way, just interested in everyone's thoughts

So the top 1% of the population in a country of 10 million, may not be all that different to the top 1% of people in a country of 1 billion. The latter has more people with that ability, but that doesn't equate to a lot better ability. They can pick the top 1% of the 1%, so they should produce superior teams, but the difference in ability, in absolute terms, of 1% vs. 1% of 1% isn't overwhelming. It can be significant at the elite level, but its being outclassed hopelessly.

Thats a fair point and yes, you can only send eleven players on to the field at any given time, but the depth of class players is the big advantage when you have a bigger pool of players to choose from

I would say that the population of people who play cricket, with real cricket balls and bats, and on real pitches, in India, is not much more than in England. I know I had never held a real cricket ball in my hand growing up, we couldn't afford it and there wasn't a cricket pitch anywhere around. It was tennis balls all the way.

I'm not sure about that, someone may have the stats. But your right that playing numbers at the top level is also a big factor that needs to be considered in all this

 

[silentstriker]

Yea, mine is a guess based on anecdotal experience in India. I'd love to see if there are actual numbers, and I hope I'm completely wrong .

 

[Pratters]

Best is NZ easily. Cricket is not even their major sport. Rugby is..

 

[four_or_six]

There was a fascinating 'per capita' medal table for the Olympics, where Jamaica were absolutely miles ahead.

 

[Zinzan]

There was a fascinating 'per capita' medal table for the Olympics, where Jamaica were absolutely miles ahead.

Yup, population only 2.8 million in Jamaica itself. Incredible natural athletes ...no doubt

 

[Pratters]

There are still wayyyyy more people playing real cricket in India than in NZ. Hell there are more kids practising real cricket in Mumbai than in NZ.

 

[silentstriker]

NZ? Yea, I'm sure.

 

[Noble One]

How about Bermuda? Fair effort to make the World Cup with a population of 65,000.

 

[Zinzan]

How about Bermuda? Fair effort to make the World Cup with a population of 65,000.

I was meaning out of the test-paying nations, but didn't realise Bermuda was so scarcely populated tbh

 

[Nishan]

NZ have done very well population wise also the amount of people who actually play cricket seriously. But the facilities etc NZ have high quality facilities. India are also in the process of having lot of money in cricket hence greater prepartions for the domestic players. What about Sri Lanka? 20 million people, basically only half the country can take part in compeetitve cricket due to the war. I think they also have done remarkably well to produce match winners.

So i am going to sit on the fence

 

[Jono]

Even taking into account socio-economic factors, I'd say NZ still take this.

Sri Lanka are close though.

 

[Zinzan]

Lol, so vote then Jono

 

[Zinzan]

NZ have done very well population wise also the amount of people who actually play cricket seriously. But the facilities etc NZ have high quality facilities. India are also in the process of having lot of money in cricket hence greater prepartions for the domestic players. What about Sri Lanka? 20 million people, basically only half the country can take part in compeetitve cricket due to the war. I think they also have done remarkably well to produce match winners.

So i am going to sit on the fence

The more I think about it, the more I agree that SL are right up with Aust & NZ in this respect.

 

[Trumpers_Ghost]

This all sounds like a very analytical question, so therefore it needs quantative treatment. An equation would need to be developed. I'd suggest the following variables:

- a = number of registered players
- b = wealth factor (an equation for this might also be needed)
- c = performance factor (again need an equation)
- d = local funding ($$ invested in cricket in said nation)

so, something like

c/(axb)/d

or whatever

Seems like to much work

 

[Zinzan]

This all sounds like a very analytical question, so therefore it needs quantative treatment. An equation would need to be developed. I'd suggest the following variables:

- a = number of registered players
- b = wealth factor (an equation for this might also be needed)
- c = performance factor (again need an equation)
- d = local funding ($$ invested in cricket in said nation)

so, something like

c/(axb)/d

or whatever

Seems like to much work

I was thinking of developing a formula that would give an adjusted population based on Gross Domestic Product, no of top grade cricketers, % of population below the poverty-line amongst other factors , but realised it would still be subjective regardless.I figured that each person who votes will be considering the factors important to them anyway.

 

[steve132]

What's the period over which this comparison is to be made? Are we evaluating current performance or all-time performance? This makes a huge difference for some teams, notably England and the West Indies.

 

[Zinzan]

What's the period over which this comparison is to be made? Are we evaluating current performance or all-time performance? This makes a huge difference for some teams, notably England and the West Indies.

I was meaning current, if we were talking all-time, surely the WI would be >>>>>>>>>>> above the rest of the world based on this criteria.

Not sure how it would change things for England tbh