zimcricketforums.com • View topic - 2 Divisions for Test Cricket

Flakeman wrote:Eugene where do you get Basketball being 2nd most popular sport? It isnt even close to being in the top three. NFL is pretty cool even though no fitness is recquired to play it. Just have no interest in Basketball. Baseball is pure tripe. NHL seems ok but a bit of a madhouse

In continental Europe, most of Africa, South America, Basketball is the second most popular sport behind football. In the USA it is huge at both NBA and College level. What other sport would be more popular than basketball? CRicket is skewed just because of its popularity in one country with a billion people.

I go along with that. You need a ball, that's going to make it popular. If you ramp it up you need a pair of shoes. What's played on the street and in the park is a good indicator.

What a lot of people outside the USA don't realise is just how popular college sports are. I live in Kentucky where college basketball is the most popular sport, even more popular than football. Many people here have no interest in professional sport (KY has no professional franchises) and only follow University of Kentucky or University of Louisville sport.

Flakeman, no fitness required to play football? Have you seen the physique of a Odell Beckham Jr or a Cam Newton? The NFL draft combine has the most thorough measurables of any sport. 40 yard dash times, bench press reps, vertical leaps, and even measures hand sizes, among many other things. You don't realize how hard players go on each down. Its like arguing fast bowling is easy because no player full sprints in his runup.

eugene wrote:Test cricket should be left as it is. Some of the greatest tests have been drawn, why eliminate a possible outcome? The lower tier test nations will just fall further behind if this two tier system is implemented. The biggest things holding back cricket in the lesser nations can be fixed by the ICC without changing the face of the game, except for Pakistan which is a victim of wider political issues. Zim, WI, and SL suffer from poor governance, and thus lack of money. NZ needs more money to compete with rugby, Bangladesh just needs more time.

^This.

American football players are pretty unfit aerobically on the most part, and I don't like the incredibly stop start nature of it (derived from commercial interests),however I do appreciate the pinpoint segmented athleticism of the players. A sport that has the fastest of the fastest up against the most powerful of the powerful, combined with vision and skill. It's explosive. Can make the rugby codes look dull at times in the highlights reel. Still prefer the rugby codes over it though.

Baseball in the other hand I haven't got time for over cricket. I speak to a lot of yanks and to be honest, I think they are losing interest too. It's not as popular a game as I imagined as a kid. They just don't talk about MLB stars like they do NFL stars. I can't genuinely name any current superstar of the top of my head but I can run off a good ten NFL players.

I heard that it's become very Latino and kit as many Americans in the top league so they may e losing some interest that way. Not sure I believe that but.

And yes, they love their college sport over there, very very much.

eugene wrote:

Flakeman wrote:Eugene where do you get Basketball being 2nd most popular sport? It isnt even close to being in the top three. NFL is pretty cool even though no fitness is recquired to play it. Just have no interest in Basketball. Baseball is pure tripe. NHL seems ok but a bit of a madhouse

In continental Europe, most of Africa, South America, Basketball is the second most popular sport behind football. In the USA it is huge at both NBA and College level. What other sport would be more popular than basketball? CRicket is skewed just because of its popularity in one country with a billion people.

Golf?

Golf is big in the USA and parts of Europe and Asia, but it doesn't have the worldwide popularity of basketball.

Cricket is skewed but there are 3 countries that contribute to that, not just India. Pakistan and Bangladesh have populations of 200 and 170 million respectively.

They would be near unbeatable, I reckon. 250 million people and with so much money at hand they would have a huge advantage. Having said that, I don't think they have done very well against Cuba at baseball, which is really strange. They should include Cuba in their World Series!

American sports are great once you get into them. The strategy in NFL is unrivaled by any other sport I have seen. An appreciation of baseball is gained by understanding pitching. Basketball is the second biggest sport in the world and ice hockey has a large following also. Cricket will never take hold among everyday Americans, just like baseball or handball will never overtake soccer in the UK.

Regarding international baseball, MLB players rarely represent the USA, and when they do they are usually in pre-season mode so I would never read too much into results against the Cubans. The Cubans do well because they are professional level but amateurs playing against other countries minor league players.

Anyway, back to cricket.

Test cricket should be left as it is. Some of the greatest tests have been drawn, why eliminate a possible outcome? The lower tier test nations will just fall further behind if this two tier system is implemented. The biggest things holding back cricket in the lesser nations can be fixed by the ICC without changing the face of the game, except for Pakistan which is a victim of wider political issues. Zim, WI, and SL suffer from poor governance, and thus lack of money. NZ needs more money to compete with rugby, Bangladesh just needs more time.

Eugene is right about NFL. The x's and o's make american football the most strategically complex sport in existence. In fact, every head coach basically creates his own language in order to disguise common plays that all teams run. A simple 5 yard slant route will be called completely different things by each team so the defense is kept honest. Americans think cricket is complicated, which it is, but its not even 10% as complicated as football. Although I have lost interest in the NFL, football is the greatest sport ever played by humans. Cricket is merely a close second.

The Power of the ICC has been undermined by the big boys, to the detriment of the World game. Allowing nations to organise games bilaterally shows that they are not that powerful and is an admission that the world game is very unhealthy. Test cricket ideally needs a strong West Indian Test side, they were the bad boys of Test cricket for so many years and there was intense interest when teams had to face the music of their quartet of quicks. Waqar and Wasim and Shoaib also provided a similar challenge. Gross mismanagement and financial misappropriation by the smaller nations is probably one of the root causes of the decline of their cricket. It's probably not that their cricket has declined, but more because the big 3 have taken their cricketing structures to new levels, hence the widening gap.
There's no merit in the small guys playing the big boys at Test level, there's just too big a gap. Plus there's minimal interest by the paying public in watching it, thereby making it a loss maker most times, depending on who is hosting it. It's hard to "take positives" or learn anything from a game where you are losing by an innings and a margin, yet these weaker test teams still need to play test cricket, which surely indicates that a two tier system with promotion/relegation being what's at stake?
i guess the burning question really is whether there is a place for test cricket amongst the smaller nations. It is the ultimate test of one's cricketing ability and most agree, particularly the cricketers themselves (interestingly), but the spectators don't agree. Many that don't physically go and watch will turn on the TV (I'm definitely in this category. I love the cool of the house, the replays and the commentary)

I don't doubt NFL has huge strategies. I just struggle with the one pass, 5 seconds of intense off the ball destruction and then a break whilst they restrategize. There's no doubting their athleticism and power but I guess it's something you have to grow up with, like frog racing. Getting pulverised when you're not the ball carrier is something I find offensive, that's like being shot by a sniper when you're going shopping! When there's that much money in the game you clearly get the best of the best making a living from it, no doubt. I'm being facetious, it's not bad to watch.
There's huge money in baseball as well, but again they just hardly ever get bat on ball. If you look at the physics of hitting the ball with a rounded surface you are dealing with about 2mm and a horizontal bat shot. And you are dealing with pitchers that can do extraordinary things with the ball. It's minuscule odds And it's no wonder they hit a home run less often than sharks eat humans. I just looked up stats on Barry Bonds, the greatest of them all. 762 home runs in a career spanning 22 years and playing 162 games a year. That's a home run every 4.6 games. Most of the top batters go 10-30 games before they hit a six? That's right out there with watching dung beetles mate. I haven't started on that tobacco chewing thing yet either. That is fekkin terrible and should be outlawed. They've had a crack at a lot of baseball movies as well. The Kevin Costner one and the Robert Redford one were my two
Basketball is another game I struggle with, mostly coz I didn't grow up with it and I'm short. Watching 7 ft athletically superior back dudes doing amazing things whilst short fat white spectators cheer hysterically is a bit cultish for my liking.
Ya I'm rugby, cricket, drinking and fishing.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheo ... ing-sports’-popularity

Quite an interesting article. It depends how you rank sports. By popularity, by actual spectatorship, by revenue, or by participation- walking, fishing and swimming seem to be right up there, but that's surely a hobby or pastime as opposed to a sport?