Sport Today

by **The Ghos** » Mon, 07 Jan 2002 13:54:43

Let's face a few facts, people:

1. First class cricket all over the world is one of the most poorly
attended sports in the world.

2. Only Test cricket in Australia is well attended. Graeme Pollock
lamented this on ABC radio this week. Perhaps the only exceptions are
England (where the grounds are tiny compared to the population) and India
(where the grounds are also tiny compared to the population - even more so
than England)

3. This might not be a fact, but it is a reasonable assumption. If
Australia were performing badly, Test cricket would not be well attended
here.

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 would
our Test matches be? Also, if as I presume ODI cricket is subsidising Test
and domestic cricket, how incredibly prosperous would cricket be if it
didn't have to support the longer version of the game?

5. The only time Test cricket is a crowd puller is when it takes on
the characteristics of a one-day game. Those characteristics being, lots of
runs, plenty of wickets and a no blocking to play out the clock.

So I ask you all, why do we bother with Test cricket if few people are
really interested in it and the greater population will only watch it if it
mimics ODI cricket?

The only answer I can come up with is tradition. I like Test Cricket.
But I realise I am an insignificant minority.

by **Moby** » Mon, 07 Jan 2002 14:53:02

Quote:

> Let's face a few facts, people:

> 1. First class cricket all over the world is one of the most poorly
> 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...

Quote:

> 2. Only Test cricket in Australia is well attended. Graeme Pollock
> lamented this on ABC radio this week. Perhaps the only exceptions are
> England (where the grounds are tiny compared to the population) and India
> (where the grounds are also tiny compared to the population - even more so
> than England)

So it's only well attended in Australia, except for all the other places
it's well attended.

Quote:

> 3. This might not be a fact, but it is a reasonable assumption. If
> Australia were performing badly, Test cricket would not be well attended
> here.

Like in the 80s, right?

Quote:

> 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 would
> our Test matches be? Also, if as I presume ODI cricket is subsidising Test
> 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
cricket.

Quote:

> 5. The only time Test cricket is a crowd puller is when it takes on
> the characteristics of a one-day game. Those characteristics being, lots of
> 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)

Quote:

> So I ask you all, why do we bother with Test cricket if few people are
> really interested in it and the greater population will only watch it if it
> mimics ODI cricket?

That was a quick leap from opinion to fact.

Quote:

> The only answer I can come up with is tradition. I like Test Cricket.
> But I realise I am an insignificant minority.

Could have fooled me.

Moby.

by **The Ghos** » Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:23:07

Quote:

> > Let's face a few facts, people:

> > 1. First class cricket all over the world is one of the most
poorly
> > 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.

Quote:

> > 2. Only Test cricket in Australia is well attended. Graeme
Pollock
> > lamented this on ABC radio this week. Perhaps the only exceptions are
> > England (where the grounds are tiny compared to the population) and
India
> > (where the grounds are also tiny compared to the population - even more
so
> > 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
attendance figures.

Quote:

> > 3. This might not be a fact, but it is a reasonable assumption.
If
> > 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.

Quote:

> > 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
would
> > our Test matches be? Also, if as I presume ODI cricket is subsidising
Test
> > 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
> cricket.

Even more suggest that the audiences are two different demographics
anyway.

Quote:

> > 5. The only time Test cricket is a crowd puller is when it takes
on
> > the characteristics of a one-day game. Those characteristics being,
lots of
> > 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.

Quote:

> > So I ask you all, why do we bother with Test cricket if few people
are
> > really interested in it and the greater population will only watch it if
it
> > 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
Cricket.
> > 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.

Quote:

> Could have fooled me.

> Moby.

by Ro » Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:53:44

says...

Quote:

> 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.

Absolutely dead on correct with that comment. One of the things that holds
cricket back is the attitude towards countries that are not at the test level.
For instance, why can't Kenya and Scotland play a test match? The reason being

soccer match and it's still considered an international, yet a one day cricket
match between 2 associate or affiliate nations doesn;t even attract one day
international status. So for a player that comes from Holland, he can not
*ever* play test or ODI cricket unless he plays for another country.

We all know why this is the case, because it supposedly maintains the integrity
of individual averages at the highest level. In a team sport. How backward
thinking can you get?

The ICC must be the only major sporting controlling body that puts the
worldwide success and development of the game at a low priority level.

by **The Ghos** » Mon, 07 Jan 2002 15:54:27

I used to think this was a good enough reason to keep "lesser" sides
out. I was very disappointed when Zimbabwe was given Test status. Then I
realised how cricket was falling behind others sports...and I changed my
view.

Quote:

> We all know why this is the case, because it supposedly maintains the
integrity
> of individual averages at the highest level. In a team sport. How backward
> thinking can you get?

by **Mang** » Mon, 07 Jan 2002 16:14:16

Quote:

> Let's face a few facts, people:

> 1. First class cricket all over the world is one of the most poorly
> attended sports in the world.

Mainly because it's been superceded by one day cricket. We hjaven't had a
crowd at a first class game in 30 years or so (apart from shome sheild
finals).

Quote:

> 2. Only Test cricket in Australia is well attended. Graeme Pollock
> lamented this on ABC radio this week. Perhaps the only exceptions are
> England (where the grounds are tiny compared to the population) and India
> (where the grounds are also tiny compared to the population - even more so
> than England)

Nice to see you exempt the main markets.

Quote:

> 3. This might not be a fact, but it is a reasonable assumption. If
> Australia were performing badly, Test cricket would not be well attended
> here.

Sydney crowds would probably be around 20,000 a day early in the test (this
is what they were in the 80's when we were shit).

Quote:

> 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
would
> our Test matches be? Also, if as I presume ODI cricket is subsidising
Test
> and domestic cricket, how incredibly prosperous would cricket be if it
> didn't have to support the longer version of the game?

You presume incorrectly. Test cricket is not subsidised. First class
cricket is.

Quote:

> 5. The only time Test cricket is a crowd puller is when it takes on
> the characteristics of a one-day game. Those characteristics being, lots
of
> runs, plenty of wickets and a no blocking to play out the clock.

So how come it's generally the first day that is the best attended and
crowds are smaller when sides are setting up a run chase later in the game.

Quote:

> So I ask you all, why do we bother with Test cricket if few people are
> really interested in it and the greater population will only watch it if
it
> mimics ODI cricket?

Lot's of people are interested in test cricket. They go to games and talk
about it. If this group is a cros section of the cricket supporting
audience then we seem to spend more time discussing test cricket rather than
the limited overs form. Or maybe there is a rec.sport.cricket.odi ng that I
haven't heard about.

Quote:

> The only answer I can come up with is tradition. I like Test Cricket.
> But I realise I am an insignificant minority.

You're right about the insignificant part but you should have written troll
rather than minority.

Cheers

Mango

by **Allstarn** » Mon, 07 Jan 2002 18:42:12

Quote:

> Let's face a few facts, people:

> 1. First class cricket all over the world is one of the most poorly
> attended sports in the world.

> 2. Only Test cricket in Australia is well attended. Graeme Pollock
> lamented this on ABC radio this week. Perhaps the only exceptions are
> England (where the grounds are tiny compared to the population) and India
> (where the grounds are also tiny compared to the population - even more so
> than England)

> 3. This might not be a fact, but it is a reasonable assumption. If
> Australia were performing badly, Test cricket would not be well attended
> here.

> 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
would
> our Test matches be? Also, if as I presume ODI cricket is subsidising
Test
> and domestic cricket, how incredibly prosperous would cricket be if it
> didn't have to support the longer version of the game?

> 5. The only time Test cricket is a crowd puller is when it takes on
> the characteristics of a one-day game. Those characteristics being, lots
of
> runs, plenty of wickets and a no blocking to play out the clock.

> So I ask you all, why do we bother with Test cricket if few people are
> really interested in it and the greater population will only watch it if
it
> mimics ODI cricket?

> The only answer I can come up with is tradition. I like Test Cricket.
> But I realise I am an insignificant minority.

The issue that particularly interests me is the idea about 'Test Status'. I
think in some ways it is being a bit unfair not allowing countries like
Holland/Kenya etc not play tests, BUT I think though there is one big reason
for this. Take Bangladesh as an example, they are new to Test cricket and
currently getting thrashed. They are not the worst ODI side either. They
have not learned yet how to adapt their skills to a longer style of the
game.

These 'non-test' playing teams need a buildup of playing longer games
against similar opposition before making the step up. Maybe something like
a second tier championship could be set up in the same sort of format as the
top tier 'world test championship'. Then teams like Kenya, Holland,
Scotland and so on could get used to how the 5 day format runs as it is
vastly different from the 1 day format.

Test cricket does need to be preserved. Nuff said.

Allstar

by **Colsen** » Mon, 07 Jan 2002 20:22:18

Quote:

> 2. Only Test cricket in Australia is well attended. Graeme Pollock
> lamented this on ABC radio this week. Perhaps the only exceptions are
> England (where the grounds are tiny compared to the population) and India
> (where the grounds are also tiny compared to the population - even more so
> than England)

You have obviously never watched a game of cricket in India, where they fill
the stadium for everyday, not just the first day. Or England where it is
sold out in advance.

by **Colsen** » Mon, 07 Jan 2002 20:33:30

Quote:

> 2. Only Test cricket in Australia is well attended. Graeme Pollock
> lamented this on ABC radio this week. Perhaps the only exceptions are
> England (where the grounds are tiny compared to the population) and India
> (where the grounds are also tiny compared to the population - even more so
> than England)

You have obviously never watched a game of cricket in India, where they fill
the stadium for everyday, not just the first day. Or England where it is
sold out in advance.

by **ranjo** » Mon, 07 Jan 2002 23:00:31

Quote:

> Absolutely dead on correct with that comment. One of the things that holds
> cricket back is the attitude towards countries that are not at the test
level.
> For instance, why can't Kenya and Scotland play a test match? The reason
being

a
> soccer match and it's still considered an international, yet a one day
cricket
> match between 2 associate or affiliate nations doesn;t even attract one
day
> international status. So for a player that comes from Holland, he can not
> *ever* play test or ODI cricket unless he plays for another country.

IMHO I believe Steve Tikolo to be as good as many players who have commanded
regular spots in the England test side. For the ICC it must be the easiest
thing in the world to keep saying no to the smaller cricket countries. The
only way these coutries will get anywhere near test recognition would be to
start playing unofficial tests against each other. It doesn't have to be the
full 5 day marathon, but perhaps a three/four day game.

by **zRah** » Mon, 07 Jan 2002 23:50:30

Quote:

> So I ask you all, why do we bother with Test cricket if few people are
> really interested in it and the greater population will only watch it if it
> mimics ODI cricket?

> The only answer I can come up with is tradition. I like Test Cricket.
> But I realise I am an insignificant minority.

I would like to quote Former India Captain Bedi " Test match cricket
is like a marriage whereas One Day cricket is like a one night stand"

It all comes down to personal preferences.

by **Simon Pleasant** » Tue, 08 Jan 2002 00:14:06

Quote:

>> So I ask you all, why do we bother with Test cricket if few people are
>> really interested in it and the greater population will only watch it if it
>> mimics ODI cricket?

>> The only answer I can come up with is tradition. I like Test Cricket.
>> But I realise I am an insignificant minority.

>I would like to quote Former India Captain Bedi " Test match cricket
>is like a marriage whereas One Day cricket is like a one night stand"

>It all comes down to personal preferences.

I think times have changed. Society moves faster than it used to,
people are busier and we are entering an age where instant
gratification is becoming more and more important and the boredom
threshold is getting higher and higher. Children that once played
with tin soldiers and now playing with Sony Playtstations etc. People
no longer want to wait for things, they want them to happen quickly,
they want everything yesterday.

As much as I like it, I cannot honestly see test cricket being around
in 50 years time and I can't see cricket being around at all in 100
years. I hardly know anyone that is interested in it, to most people
it is the most boring sport on Earth. I always counter this by
explaining it is amazingly tactical and if you understand it, it is
fascinating. But the fact is most people don't and have no interest
in learning to. Some moves have been made to broaden the appeal, by
presenting ODI cricket more like baseball (pyjamas, floodlights, loud
music etc) and I think this is the way the game is going to have to
continue if it wants to survive.

I also agree with the idea suggested elsewhere that, at least with ODI
cricket, more countries are brought into the fold and encouraged to
play each other. Slowly this might generate more interest in the
countries concerned and more media coverage. It is only by doing this
that cricket will maintain an interest in years to come. Cricket is
still an exclusive club and "exclusive clubs", in whatever walk of
life, are increasingly disliked by modern society.

Simon

by **David Butter** » Tue, 08 Jan 2002 02:56:14

Quote:

> Let's face a few facts, people:

> 1. First class cricket all over the world is one of the most
> poorly attended sports in the world.

Absolute rubbish. Have you ever been to a club motor race on a wet day
in April, where you'd be lucky to get 1000? Or Scottish lower division
football (500 is a big crowd for many teams)? What you mean is "gets a
lot fewer spectators than top-flight football" - what doesn't?

Quote:

> 2. Only Test cricket in Australia is well attended. Graeme
> Pollock
> lamented this on ABC radio this week. Perhaps the only exceptions
> are England (where the grounds are tiny compared to the population)
> and India (where the grounds are also tiny compared to the
> population - even more so than England)

The Ashes is regularly sold out weeks in advance, even though we know
we'll get stuffed again :-) First-calss cricket has tiny crowds, true.
And I don't think you can ignore Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka - a
firend who's recently visited Bangladesh was amazed at the intensity of
their interest in the game.

Quote:

> 3. This might not be a fact, but it is a reasonable
> assumption. If Australia were performing badly, Test cricket
> would not be well attended here.

Not sure about that - English Test crowds (with a few exceptions) held
up well during the worst patches of the 80s and 90s. Of course, our
many immigrant populations help a lot here.

Quote:

> 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 would our Test matches be? Also, if as I presume ODI
> cricket is subsidising Test and domestic cricket, how incredibly
> prosperous would cricket be if it didn't have to support the longer
> version of the game?

Wouldn't make much difference. The only way cricket could make a *lot*
more money (outside the subcontinent) is for the US to become
interested - and that wouldn't happen without so many changes it would
effectively be a different sport.

Quote:

> 5. The only time Test cricket is a crowd puller is when it
> takes on
> the characteristics of a one-day game. Those characteristics
> being, lots of runs, plenty of wickets and a no blocking to play
> out the clock.

In other words, when it attracts people who aren't normally interested
in it. The same happens in any sport - look how many people will turn
up for the FA Cup final, even if the teams in question aren't normally
corwd-pullers.

Quote:

> So I ask you all, why do we bother with Test cricket if few
> people are
> really interested in it and the greater population will only watch
> it if it mimics ODI cricket?

You might as well ask why we bother with the Human Genome Project -
very few people are really interested in anything beyond the tabloid
"Dolly gets arthritis!" stories, yet almost no-one would seriously
suggest abandoning it and closing down the website. Are you going to
say that no sport with an average crowd under 5000 should continue?

Quote:

> The only answer I can come up with is tradition. I like Test
> Cricket.
> But I realise I am an insignificant minority.

I like it too. And tradition is important. So let's carry on.

--
"After all, a mere thousand yards... such a harmless little knoll,
really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh.

The GPL Scrapyard: bits 'n' bobs at http://www.hillclimbfan.f2s.com

by **Mick Didda** » Tue, 08 Jan 2002 04:41:15

On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 14:54:43 +1000, "The Ghost"

Quote:

>Let's face a few facts, people:

> 1. First class cricket all over the world is one of the most poorly
>attended sports in the world.

That has been the case for many years for cc in England and also
shield cricket in Australia I believe, but as the cc the only source
of test players there is in England it is something that has to be
lived with, possibly the same is true of shield (pardon Pura Milk)
cricket.

Quote:

> 2. Only Test cricket in Australia is well attended. Graeme Pollock
>lamented this on ABC radio this week. Perhaps the only exceptions are
>England (where the grounds are tiny compared to the population) and India
>(where the grounds are also tiny compared to the population - even more so
>than England)

> 3. This might not be a fact, but it is a reasonable assumption. If
>Australia were performing badly, Test cricket would not be well attended
>here.

Test match attendances in England, IMO, depend more on who England are
playing than how well they are playing.

Quote:

> 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 would
>our Test matches be? Also, if as I presume ODI cricket is subsidising Test
>and domestic cricket, how incredibly prosperous would cricket be if it
>didn't have to support the longer version of the game?

Methinks you got it wong way round, test matches take more gate money
the ODI's, hardly surprising when there a possible maximum of 35 days
of test cricket compared to a maximum of 10 ODI's at moment , most of
the subsidy fc counties receive comes from test match receipts.

Quote:

> 5. The only time Test cricket is a crowd puller is when it takes on
>the characteristics of a one-day game. Those characteristics being, lots of
>runs, plenty of wickets and a no blocking to play out the clock.

That may be true of Australia but I would strongly disagree it is of
England.

Quote:

> So I ask you all, why do we bother with Test cricket if few people are
>really interested in it and the greater population will only watch it if it
>mimics ODI cricket?

Once again, IMO, there is more overall interest in test cricket here
than in fancy dress one-day circus cricket.

Quote:

> The only answer I can come up with is tradition. I like Test Cricket.
>But I realise I am an insignificant minority.

Once again I presume you are only talking of Australia...

"Aye well, Ah wouldn't dispute that - there's nowt to stop it, is there?"
John Jackson's (Notts fast bowler) comment when told, whilst looking at
Niagra Falls in 1859, that 1,500,00 gallons flowed over it every second.

by DM » Tue, 08 Jan 2002 05:13:18

Quote:

> The issue that particularly interests me is the idea about 'Test Status'.
I
> think in some ways it is being a bit unfair not allowing countries like
> Holland/Kenya etc not play tests, BUT I think though there is one big
reason
> for this. Take Bangladesh as an example, they are new to Test cricket and
> currently getting thrashed. They are not the worst ODI side either. They
> have not learned yet how to adapt their skills to a longer style of the
> game.
> These 'non-test' playing teams need a buildup of playing longer games
> against similar opposition before making the step up. Maybe something
like
> a second tier championship could be set up in the same sort of format as
the
> top tier 'world test championship'. Then teams like Kenya, Holland,
> Scotland and so on could get used to how the 5 day format runs as it is
> vastly different from the 1 day format.

In the ICC's defence time is undoubtedly a factor. I think the integrity of
the 5 day game has to be preserved, and if you agree then you must also
agree that only so many games can be played in any one year.

However, your suggestion of a second tier of test nations is an excellent
one, and one which could bring the game to new countries eventually. For
that is the ICC's real crime, namely, the game's continued exclusivity.

And while they're at it......why not promotion and relegation too?

Sport Today

The Future (What future?) for Test Cricket

The Future (What future?) for Test Cricket

The Future (What future?) for Test Cricket

The Future (What future?) for Test Cricket

The Future (What future?) for Test Cricket

The Future (What future?) for Test Cricket

The Future (What future?) for Test Cricket

The Future (What future?) for Test Cricket

The Future (What future?) for Test Cricket

The Future (What future?) for Test Cricket

The Future (What future?) for Test Cricket

The Future (What future?) for Test Cricket

The Future (What future?) for Test Cricket

The Future (What future?) for Test Cricket

The Future (What future?) for Test Cricket

The Future (What future?) for Test Cricket