> > Let's face a few facts, people:
> > 1. First class cricket all over the world is one of the most
> > attended sports in the world.
> And how many do you think turn up to watch club swimming.... obviously
> swimming is on the way out on the international level too.. just look at
> those shocking ratings...
Australia is about the only country in the world that considers swimming
to be a spectator sport. Even the Americans like Gary Hall Jnr are amazed
at the following swimming has in this country. Australians love the sports
they are good at and they are good at the sports hadly any one else plays.
Tennis is probably the one exception.
> > 2. Only Test cricket in Australia is well attended. Graeme
> > lamented this on ABC radio this week. Perhaps the only exceptions are
> > England (where the grounds are tiny compared to the population) and
> > (where the grounds are also tiny compared to the population - even more
> > than England)
> So it's only well attended in Australia, except for all the other places
> it's well attended.
My point was that in places like India and England were the full house
sign goes up regularly, the relationship between the capacity of the grounds
and the size of the population gives a misleading impression of those
> > 3. This might not be a fact, but it is a reasonable assumption.
> > Australia were performing badly, Test cricket would not be well attended
> > here.
> Like in the 80s, right?
Attendances in the 80's were poor. 1982-83 was a bumper year but after
that, things went down. The bosing day match between Australia and NZ in
1987 got 51,000 on the first day. Back then, that was considered
outstanding. Even the attendances for the Centennary match in 1977 were
below expectations for such a prize match-up.
> > 4. Were it not for one-day cricket, what would a ticket to Test
> > matches cost? I'd say more. If the price went up, how well attended
> > our Test matches be? Also, if as I presume ODI cricket is subsidising
> > and domestic cricket, how incredibly prosperous would cricket be if it
> > didn't have to support the longer version of the game?
> Some would suggest that ODIous cricket takes attendances away from test
Even more suggest that the audiences are two different demographics
> > 5. The only time Test cricket is a crowd puller is when it takes
> > the characteristics of a one-day game. Those characteristics being,
> > runs, plenty of wickets and a no blocking to play out the clock.
> That's funny, because I could have sworn the best attendance figures have
> been the first day of games. (taking week-ends into account)
Hey, enough people said the only thing that made the Brisbane Test this
year interesting was the "manufaturing" of a result on the final day. Would
anyone have given a hoot if they just played out the last day.
> > So I ask you all, why do we bother with Test cricket if few people
> > really interested in it and the greater population will only watch it if
> > mimics ODI cricket?
> That was a quick leap from opinion to fact.
> > The only answer I can come up with is tradition. I like Test
> > But I realise I am an insignificant minority.
Just becuase I really like soemthing doesn't mean I am blind to it's
shortcomings...and when I say shortcomings, I am talking about those things
which non-fans (which 95% of people are) see about Test cricket that we
don't. Hell, even Billy Birmingham - who Tony Greig has repeatedly said has
been a great adverti***t for the game in this country - has often said he
can't stand to watch Test cricket. Why do you think he (almost) never
parodies Test matches? Even his "Ray Warren" recently said the ODI game is
just too boring for him.
Mark Taylor and Steve waugh have done a great job of making Test Match
cricket more appealing and attractive. A game like baseball is considered
too long and boring if the clock ticks past the two hour mark. What hope
does ODI cricket (let alone Test cricket) have of gaining the world wide
acceptance of baseball when it takes at least SIX hours to get a result?
And before you say cricket has a wider acceptance than baseball, at
least baseball is represented at the Olympics. Playing cricket at the
COMMONWEALTH games is considered too hard these days. Cricket is a very
insular sport whose population base is firmly rooted in the third world.
> Could have fooled me.