Do they have the Asian and West Indian immigrant and second/third generation population to sustain any spark? Because I cannot see the other major population groups devoting time to a sport they have no modern day ties to when they have plenty of other options.
It is really infuriating that the ICC tries to grow the sport in a country that has been completely refractory to most attempts when there are other nations with more interest struggling only with infrastructure and/or limited player pools, both of which could be improved massively with proper funding and smart management.
Maybe then it would feel like a World Cup again. Hated the format of the last tournament, it needed the tournament favourites to have a mini-wobble to even make the group stage interesting.
Do they have the Asian and West Indian immigrant and second/third generation population to sustain any spark? Because I cannot see the other major population groups devoting time to a sport they have no modern day ties to when they have plenty of other options.
It is really infuriating that the ICC tries to grow the sport in a country that has been completely refractory to most attempts when there are other nations with more interest struggling only with infrastructure and/or limited player pools, both of which could be improved massively with proper funding and smart management.
Do they have the Asian and West Indian immigrant and second/third generation population to sustain any spark? Because I cannot see the other major population groups devoting time to a sport they have no modern day ties to when they have plenty of other options.
It is really infuriating that the ICC tries to grow the sport in a country that has been completely refractory to most attempts when there are other nations with more interest struggling only with infrastructure and/or limited player pools, both of which could be improved massively with proper funding and smart management.
Post automatically merged:
Maybe then it would feel like a World Cup again. Hated the format of the last tournament, it needed the tournament favourites to have a mini-wobble to even make the group stage interesting.
I think the US has the biggest Indian diaspora in the world. How much sustained interest generationally, as you have in England, I'm not sure. But even if they were able to tap into some of that market - and people of other backgrounds that would be from cricket playing nations - the US would be more profitable than some test playing nations.
A lot of times when the US in relation to cricket the arguments are 'it'll never be as big as baseball/football/basketball' but it doesn't have to be. Even if it became half as popular as soccer, it'd still have the potential to be a big source of income when compared with many established cricketing nations.
It's similar reason I think there are efforts to support Nepal more - (I think they expanded the World T20 qualifier so Nepal could get in - because it'd boost the TV money). 28m population - bigger than Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, larger than countries that make up the West Indies.
I think the US has the biggest Indian diaspora in the world. How much sustained interest generationally, as you have in England, I'm not sure. But even if they were able to tap into some of that market - and people of other backgrounds that would be from cricket playing nations - the US would be more profitable than some test playing nations.
A lot of times when the US in relation to cricket the arguments are 'it'll never be as big as baseball/football/basketball' but it doesn't have to be. Even if it became half as popular as soccer, it'd still have the potential to be a big source of income when compared with many established cricketing nations.
It's similar reason I think there are efforts to support Nepal more - (I think they expanded the World T20 qualifier so Nepal could get in - because it'd boost the TV money). 28m population - bigger than Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, larger than countries that make up the West Indies.
I agree with your point, however i think the ICC is making the USA the centrepiece of their globalisation project, when China probably presents a better opportunity, due to not having as much entrenched support for other sports as the USA.
I agree with your point, however i think the ICC is making the USA the centrepiece of their globalisation project, when China probably presents a better opportunity, due to not having as much entrenched support for other sports as the USA.
I think your point about cricket in the Olympics would raise the interest in China. From a country that is all about projecting a strong image it would likely see more funding into a sport that would see them represented on a global scale.
They're a bit behind their goals (from 2006):
2015: Have 20,000 players and 2,000 coaches
2019: Qualify for the World Cup
2020: Gain Test status
Olympic participation and having a tournament that is inclusive (not just a Champions Trophy in the Olympics) is crucial because it will mean many countries will receive some level of government funding. And, there's loads of sports I only ever watch during the Olympics, but there's probably a lot of people who continue to sustain an interest in sports they discover that way.
$1 billion is being invested into cricket in the US. The Major League Cricket tournament will be a big indicator of the potential. It won't happen overnight and making it sustainable is the big challenge. But, I remember hearing/reading something that speculated that in 20 years the US will have as much influence on cricket as England or Australia do now.
I think the US has the biggest Indian diaspora in the world. How much sustained interest generationally, as you have in England, I'm not sure. But even if they were able to tap into some of that market - and people of other backgrounds that would be from cricket playing nations - the US would be more profitable than some test playing nations.
A lot of times when the US in relation to cricket the arguments are 'it'll never be as big as baseball/football/basketball' but it doesn't have to be. Even if it became half as popular as soccer, it'd still have the potential to be a big source of income when compared with many established cricketing nations.
It's similar reason I think there are efforts to support Nepal more - (I think they expanded the World T20 qualifier so Nepal could get in - because it'd boost the TV money). 28m population - bigger than Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, larger than countries that make up the West Indies.
That is an interesting way to look at it that I hadn't really considered. My concern is that after all these years of wooing, the US still does not have a competent cricket team. At some point, there has to be self sufficiency. I think it was just a few years ago when the ICC stepped in and essentially set up a new board after the former one was beyond corrupt. Other cricket playing nations have been banned for far lesser.
Nepal is honestly one of those sides that I was alluding to. They've got a massive cricket craze going on in recent times, their team has some star names that are likeable and they're geographically close to a cricket hotbed.
Sanity should prevail and the ICC must go with at least 14 teams for the next ODI World Cup. 10 teams World Cup with 2 Test sides missing out is a glorified Champions Trophy.
Seeing posters here pitch ideas about spreading the game to Russia, the USA, and China, brings me to a question I always thought of; why doesn't ICC try to spread the game to the Central Asian Republics like Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia etc.? Football is a little popular there, but it is still an untapped market with massive potential rewards. Afghanistan being a massively successful example.
There are nearly half a million Tajik and Uzbek immigrants in Pakistan (and a couple of former ethnically Tajik first-class Cricketers), and okay-ish numbers in India. Cricket spread in Afghanistan through immigrants too. No reason why that can't be replicated, especially with the growing Pakistani trade and influence in Central Asia. ICC just needs to pump money, and I believe Central Asian countries will have better rewards for the ICC compared to the US, Russia and China.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
