Money, money, money.

Money, money, money.

Post by The Ghos » Fri, 11 May 2001 00:52:27


    I've often lamented at how little cricketers get paid to play their
sport.  However, I don't know where the ACB is getting the money from (after
all, crowds have not increased in recent years in anyway the same measure
that the player's salaries will) but I'm glad it does have the money.

    Like it or not, money is the root of sport.  Gold Medal Olympians from
Australia such as Simon Fairweather (Who?) are struggling big time after
Sydney.  That's because the Olympics is basically a collection of sports
people generally don't care about which when brought together at the one
time in the one place amounts to something greater than the sum of the
parts.  This is what irks the likes of Raylene Boyle who recently needled
(putting it mildly) Brett Lee for playing a sport which only a few countries
play but still gets a lot of media coverage.

    Anyway, today was the best news about cricket I've heard for a few years
now.

 
 
 

Money, money, money.

Post by Richar » Fri, 11 May 2001 07:43:56


Quote:
>     I've often lamented at how little cricketers get paid to play their
> sport.

I think you should be more specific and say "..get paid by their cricket
boards.."

 
 
 

Money, money, money.

Post by Robert Flemin » Fri, 11 May 2001 08:58:50

The crowds in Australia have not increased significantly in recent years,
but they have increased slightly, attendances are up in almost all forms of
the game including shield (not that you would notice if you went to a match)
and the cost of tickets is up as well. However, that is not the key area of
concern here. Corperate sponsors see the potential for cricket to really
take off (it is already Australia's most popular team sport by a long way)
with scandels and league problems in Rugby, and AFL just being plain boring,
they see youngsters attracted to sports where a solid financial future can
be obtained, and by offering Australian crickets such high saleries they are
trying to boost the popularity of interstate cricket, and imporve grass
roots level cricket. So where is the money going to come from: go out and
buy more beer and fly on dodgy airlines! You will be doing our cricketers a
very good job.

 
 
 

Money, money, money.

Post by Dianne van Dulke » Fri, 11 May 2001 09:03:53


Quote:
> The crowds in Australia have not increased significantly in recent years,
> but they have increased slightly, attendances are up in almost all forms
of
> the game including shield (not that you would notice if you went to a
match)
> and the cost of tickets is up as well. However, that is not the key area
of
> concern here. Corperate sponsors see the potential for cricket to really
> take off (it is already Australia's most popular team sport by a long way)
> with scandels and league problems in Rugby, and AFL just being plain

boring,

<snip>

Hahahahahaha!
I have nothing against more sponsorship of cricket, but that last comment is
surely a joke.  AFL has sponsorship and a fan base that domestic cricket
dreams of.

Now, if the bad beer or the dodgy airlines actually sponsored the WOMENS
comp......

Cheers

Di

 
 
 

Money, money, money.

Post by kynoc » Fri, 11 May 2001 11:25:25


Quote:
> The crowds in Australia have not increased significantly in recent years,
> but they have increased slightly, attendances are up in almost all forms
of
> the game including shield (not that you would notice if you went to a
match)
> and the cost of tickets is up as well. However, that is not the key area
of
> concern here. Corperate sponsors see the potential for cricket to really
> take off (it is already Australia's most popular team sport by a long way)

Interesting the ABS has Ausie Rules as the most popular sport and as it is
also a team sport then one could asume that Aussie Rules is the most popular
team sport (I am assuming you mean as a watched sport otherweise the
corporate sponsorship is somwhat irrelevant) Aussie Rules also has had the
highest amount payed for television rights.

Quote:
> with scandels and league problems in Rugby, and AFL just being plain

boring,

See you have never watched it then

Quote:
> they see youngsters attracted to sports where a solid financial future can
> be obtained, and by offering Australian crickets such high saleries they
are
> trying to boost the popularity of interstate cricket, and imporve grass
> roots level cricket.

Salaries are higher generally in both the two rugbies and Aussie Rules.

<snip>

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

Money, money, money.

Post by Robert Flemin » Fri, 11 May 2001 14:43:56

Quote:
> Interesting the ABS has Ausie Rules as the most popular sport and as it is
> also a team sport then one could asume that Aussie Rules is the most
popular
> team sport (I am assuming you mean as a watched sport otherweise the
> corporate sponsorship is somwhat irrelevant) Aussie Rules also has had the
> highest amount payed for television rights.

Interesting, I am still going on my ABS brochure I got in 1997, but them
cricket was the most popular team sport by a long way for participation and
players. As I read the list it goes :
1.Swimming
2.Cricket
3.Tennis
4.Netball
5.Rugby (both codes listed together)
6.AFL
7.Basketball
8.Soccer
9.Lawn Bowls - unbelievable! (guess the seniors boost this)
10.Athletics

Quote:
> > with scandels and league problems in Rugby, and AFL just being plain
> boring,

> See you have never watched it then

As Dianne correctly pointed out this was a mini troll. I love the "Footy"
debate here, I was actually expecting to catch me a big squirming Rugby fan,
they nomally hook first......
I have both played at a reasonably high level and watched AFL, and whilst it
does have appealling elements ie high marking, and I don't really think it
is boring, high scoring sports such as Basketball and AFL don't really
appeal to me, as there is more emphasis on the scoring than the playing.
Rugby and soccer appeal more as there is more "infield" contest. I also
think the degree of individual skill in soccer is far more appealing - what
is comaparable to a soccer player juggling the ball from his knee to chest
to thigh to foot, flicking it over an opponent, pulling it through his own
legs dribbling untouchablly past three or four defenders before turning to
shoot from thirty metres out and perfectly placing it in the top corner of
the goal, in AFL? Any body who is strong, aerobically fit, and has a certain
degree of hand eye, hand foot co-ordination can play AFL (not at top level
perhaps) but the same cannot be said for soccer.
What year is your ABS stats from? I will log onto their website and check,
as I have made this assertion in RSC before.
 
 
 

Money, money, money.

Post by kynoc » Fri, 11 May 2001 16:16:10

Quote:



> >> The crowds in Australia have not increased significantly in recent
years,
> >> but they have increased slightly, attendances are up in almost all

forms
of
Quote:
> >> the game including shield (not that you would notice if you went to a
match)
> >> and the cost of tickets is up as well. However, that is not the key

area
of

Quote:
> >> concern here. Corperate sponsors see the potential for cricket to
really
> >> take off (it is already Australia's most popular team sport by a long

way)

Quote:
> > Interesting the ABS has Aussie Rules as the most popular sport and as it
is
> > also a team sport then one could assume that Aussie Rules is the most
popular
> > team sport (I am assuming you mean as a watched sport otherweise the
> > corporate sponsorship is somwhat irrelevant) Aussie Rules also has had
the
> > highest amount payed for television rights.
> Interesting, I am still going on my ABS brochure I got in 1997, but them
> cricket was the most popular team sport by a long way for participation
and
> players.

Participation is not really a valid statistic when one is talking about
corporate sponsors as the are far more interested in who is watching the
sports.

That list as at 1999 is as follows number of people over 15 who attended
matches (excluding school and junior competitions)

1. Aussie Rules 2,509,200
2. Horse Racing 1,756,400
3. Motor Sports 1,574,300
4. Rugby League 1,501,100

5. Cricket 942,500

6. Soccer 621,200
7. Harness racing 534,800
8. Basketball 526,000
9. Rugby Union 446,200
10. Tennis 444,000

found at
http://SportToday.org/%40.nsf/5e3ac7411e37881aca2568b0007...
f8fac9c2c7b1623ca2568a900139417!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,sport

 As I read the list it goes :

Quote:
> 1.Swimming
> 2.Cricket
> 3.Tennis
> 4.Netball
> 5.Rugby (both codes listed together)
> 6.AFL
> 7.Basketball
> 8.Soccer
> 9.Lawn Bowls - unbelievable! (guess the seniors boost this)
> 10.Athletics

> > > with scandels and league problems in Rugby, and AFL just being plain
> > boring,

> > See you have never watched it then
> As Dianne correctly pointed out this was a mini troll. I love the "Footy"
> debate here, I was actually expecting to catch me a big squirming Rugby
fan,
> they nomally hook first......
> I have both played at a reasonably high level and watched AFL, and whilst
it
> does have appealling elements ie high marking, and I don't really think it
> is boring, high scoring sports such as Basketball and AFL don't really
> appeal to me,

Why then does cricket as it would be the highest scoring sport of the lot?

Quote:
> as there is more emphasis on the scoring than the playing.
> Rugby and soccer appeal more as there is more "infield" contest.

Now that's funny.

Quote:
>I also
> think the degree of individual skill in soccer is far more appealing -
what
> is comaparable to a soccer player juggling the ball from his knee to chest
> to thigh to foot, flicking it over an opponent, pulling it through his own
> legs dribbling untouchablly past three or four defenders before turning to
> shoot from thirty metres out and perfectly placing it in the top corner of
> the goal, in AFL?

A player taking a great mark, playing on and shruging two or three tackles,
runing down the wing bouncing two or three times, baulking an opponent and
then slotting the ball through the goals on the run from 55 metres out on a
45 degree angle.

It is no wnder there is a much higher degree of crowd *** at the soccer
as the game is so ***y frustrating to watch.

Quote:
>Any body who is strong, aerobically fit, and has a certain
> degree of hand eye, hand foot co-ordination can play AFL (not at top level
> perhaps) but the same cannot be said for soccer.

the level of skill you are referring to in soccer is somewhat rare and you
can go many games without seeing that sort of play.  Only players of the ilk
of Maradona and Pele seem to be able to have performed like you suggest with
any degree of consistancy.  And y7es I do watch quite a bit of soccer
(Thanks to Austar) and as a spectacle it isn't anywhere as good as Aussie
Rules, as for RL, anyone who is built like a bouncer at a nightclub and with
a subnormal IQ can play that.

Quote:
> What year is your ABS stats from?

1999

Quote:
> I will log onto their website and check,
> as I have made this assertion in RSC before.

Colin Kynoch
 
 
 

Money, money, money.

Post by Yuk Tan » Fri, 11 May 2001 19:41:14


Quote:


> >I also
> > think the degree of individual skill in soccer is far more appealing -
> what
> > is comaparable to a soccer player juggling the ball from his knee to
chest
> > to thigh to foot, flicking it over an opponent, pulling it through his
own
> > legs dribbling untouchablly past three or four defenders before turning
to
> > shoot from thirty metres out and perfectly placing it in the top corner
of
> > the goal, in AFL?
> >Any body who is strong, aerobically fit, and has a certain
> > degree of hand eye, hand foot co-ordination can play AFL (not at top
level
> > perhaps) but the same cannot be said for soccer.

> the level of skill you are referring to in soccer is somewhat rare and you
> can go many games without seeing that sort of play.  Only players of the
ilk
> of Maradona and Pele seem to be able to have performed like you suggest
with
> any degree of consistancy.  And y7es I do watch quite a bit of soccer
> (Thanks to Austar) and as a spectacle it isn't anywhere as good as Aussie
> Rules, as for RL, anyone who is built like a bouncer at a nightclub and
with
> a subnormal IQ can play that.

Perhaps this is the case in Australia, but Europeans, South Americans and
Africans tend to produce players of that ilk more regularly than you
suggest.  And if you think the likes of Michael Owen, Robbie Fowler, Ole
Gunner Solsjaer, etc. are built like bricks, then you need to look again.
Soccer and cricket are the two major sports which do not require conformity
in physique.  In both, a fast brain and nimble footwork are more than a
match for brute bulk and speed.  A 6ft+ height and an ability to cover 100m
in 10 seconds certainly helps, but not if the game swims around the
periphery of one's eye.

BTW, Owen and Fowler, perhaps the two most celebrated strikers in the
English setup, are 5'8" and 5'9" respectively with physiques to match, and
Solsjaer the ManU super-sub is 5'10" and has the bulk of a piece of card.

Cheers, ymt.

 
 
 

Money, money, money.

Post by kynoc » Fri, 11 May 2001 21:59:48


Quote:




> > >I also
> > > think the degree of individual skill in soccer is far more appealing -
> > what
> > > is comaparable to a soccer player juggling the ball from his knee to
> chest
> > > to thigh to foot, flicking it over an opponent, pulling it through his
> own
> > > legs dribbling untouchablly past three or four defenders before
turning
> to
> > > shoot from thirty metres out and perfectly placing it in the top
corner
> of
> > > the goal, in AFL?
> > >Any body who is strong, aerobically fit, and has a certain
> > > degree of hand eye, hand foot co-ordination can play AFL (not at top
> level
> > > perhaps) but the same cannot be said for soccer.

> > the level of skill you are referring to in soccer is somewhat rare and
you
> > can go many games without seeing that sort of play.  Only players of the
> ilk
> > of Maradona and Pele seem to be able to have performed like you suggest
> with
> > any degree of consistancy.  And y7es I do watch quite a bit of soccer
> > (Thanks to Austar) and as a spectacle it isn't anywhere as good as
Aussie
> > Rules, as for RL, anyone who is built like a bouncer at a nightclub and
> with
> > a subnormal IQ can play that.

> Perhaps this is the case in Australia, but Europeans, South Americans and
> Africans tend to produce players of that ilk more regularly than you
> suggest.  And if you think the likes of Michael Owen, Robbie Fowler, Ole
> Gunner Solsjaer, etc. are built like bricks, then you need to look again.

I watch European soccer quite regualrly, probably two premier league and one
or two from say spain or germany per week, and these are usually top sides,
I enjoy soccer, but I don't see the sort of play that Robert described that
often. Also the comments i made about physique were in relation to Rugby
League, not socer.

<snip good comments on physique in soccer and cricket>

Colin Kynoch

 
 
 

Money, money, money.

Post by Yuk Tan » Fri, 11 May 2001 22:30:24


Quote:

> I watch European soccer quite regualrly, probably two premier league and
one
> or two from say spain or germany per week, and these are usually top
sides,
> I enjoy soccer, but I don't see the sort of play that Robert described
that
> often.

That kind of thing usually fails because (surprise surprise) defenders tend
to intervene.  But they are attempted, and occasionally they are
successfully executed.  Examples include Weah's goal for AC Milan when he
rounded an entire Serie A defence, Barnes' equivalent when he went past the
Brazilian team in Rio, etc.  The most famous (partial) example is the goal
that Gascoigne scored against Scotland at Wembley.  The Scots miss a
penalty, and the resultant corner is cleared upfield where Gascoigne chased,
dobbed the ball over Hendry's head and slammed an 18-yarder into the bottom
corner.  Very satisfying.

Quote:
> Also the comments i made about physique were in relation to Rugby
> League, not socer.

Sorry, my mistake.

Cheers, ymt.

 
 
 

Money, money, money.

Post by MCC » Fri, 11 May 2001 22:33:50

Please take your discussion somewhere else.
This is a group devoted to rubbishing Australian culture
(sic) and also others eating preferences. This is not a
group for talking about sport, least of all sport of fat old
limeys chasing (and puffing) after their balls

Regards,
Michael Creevey

 
 
 

Money, money, money.

Post by Moby » Sat, 12 May 2001 08:44:26

On Thu, 10 May 2001, kynoch submitted to the Inquisition's torture and said:

Quote:
> > > Interesting the ABS has Aussie Rules as the most popular sport and as it
> is
> > > also a team sport then one could assume that Aussie Rules is the most
> popular
> > > team sport (I am assuming you mean as a watched sport otherweise the
> > > corporate sponsorship is somwhat irrelevant) Aussie Rules also has had
> the
> > > highest amount payed for television rights.

> > Interesting, I am still going on my ABS brochure I got in 1997, but them
> > cricket was the most popular team sport by a long way for participation
> and
> > players.

> Participation is not really a valid statistic when one is talking about
> corporate sponsors as the are far more interested in who is watching the
> sports.

> That list as at 1999 is as follows number of people over 15 who attended
> matches (excluding school and junior competitions)

> 1. Aussie Rules 2,509,200
> 2. Horse Racing 1,756,400
> 3. Motor Sports 1,574,300
> 4. Rugby League 1,501,100

> 5. Cricket 942,500

> 6. Soccer 621,200
> 7. Harness racing 534,800
> 8. Basketball 526,000
> 9. Rugby Union 446,200
> 10. Tennis 444,000

> found at
> http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/5e3ac7411e37881aca2568b0007...
> f8fac9c2c7b1623ca2568a900139417!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,sport

That's an interesting stat.  What it proves though is beyond me.  It
doesn't include television audience, and how on earth do you count
attedances of people over 15??  Have season ticket holders been assumed to
go to every game??  Which levels of matches for each sport were covered??
Does it include when the national team is playing over-seas rather than at
home?  Has soccer managed to include all the teachers that watch
lunch-time soccer matches, or counted attendances as per the number of
balls sold and multiplied the number by pi??

In excluding school competitions, you've effectively taken out the second
tier of swimming competition and of tennis.

What that list shows to me is that AFL is a very popular sport with a lot
of games played that has its top level at a regional level rather than an
international level.  Beyond that you'd need not only more information,
but something other than a few numbers that's likely to be as complicated
as the duckworth-lewis system.

And you'd have to take into account the number of people who have such an
interest in the game that they'd play it..

Quote:
>  As I read the list it goes (participation):
> > 1.Swimming
> > 2.Cricket
> > 3.Tennis
> > 4.Netball
> > 5.Rugby (both codes listed together)
> > 6.AFL
> > 7.Basketball
> > 8.Soccer
> > 9.Lawn Bowls - unbelievable! (guess the seniors boost this)
> > 10.Athletics

Of course, as with the other list, I'd like to know exactly what they were
counting.  Just because you jump in the pool once a week doesn't mean you
are a competative swimmer.

Moby.
The revolution is dead.  Long live the revolution.

 
 
 

Money, money, money.

Post by kynoc » Sat, 12 May 2001 15:04:53


Quote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2001, kynoch submitted to the Inquisition's torture and
said:

> > > > Interesting the ABS has Aussie Rules as the most popular sport and
as it
> > is
> > > > also a team sport then one could assume that Aussie Rules is the
most
> > popular
> > > > team sport (I am assuming you mean as a watched sport otherweise the
> > > > corporate sponsorship is somwhat irrelevant) Aussie Rules also has
had
> > the
> > > > highest amount payed for television rights.

> > > Interesting, I am still going on my ABS brochure I got in 1997, but
them
> > > cricket was the most popular team sport by a long way for
participation
> > and
> > > players.

> > Participation is not really a valid statistic when one is talking about
> > corporate sponsors as the are far more interested in who is watching the
> > sports.

> > That list as at 1999 is as follows number of people over 15 who attended
> > matches (excluding school and junior competitions)

                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

> > 1. Aussie Rules 2,509,200
> > 2. Horse Racing 1,756,400
> > 3. Motor Sports 1,574,300
> > 4. Rugby League 1,501,100

> > 5. Cricket 942,500

> > 6. Soccer 621,200
> > 7. Harness racing 534,800
> > 8. Basketball 526,000
> > 9. Rugby Union 446,200
> > 10. Tennis 444,000

> > found at

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/5e3ac7411e37881aca2568b0007...

Quote:
> > f8fac9c2c7b1623ca2568a900139417!OpenDocument&Highlight=0,sport

> That's an interesting stat.  What it proves though is beyond me.  It
> doesn't include television audience, and how on earth do you count
> attedances of people over 15??

That would be up to the ABS, who as a rule provide pretty good statistical
information

Quote:
>  Have season ticket holders been assumed to
> go to every game??  Which levels of matches for each sport were covered??

See the underlined bit.

Quote:
> Does it include when the national team is playing over-seas rather than at
> home?

No it is only sport in Australia.

Quote:
>  Has soccer managed to include all the teachers that watch
> lunch-time soccer matches,

No if you read it carefully you would see that school sports were excluded.

Quote:
>or counted attendances as per the number of
> balls sold and multiplied the number by pi??

> In excluding school competitions, you've effectively taken out the second
> tier of swimming competition and of tennis.

And of football

- Show quoted text -

Quote:
> What that list shows to me is that AFL is a very popular sport with a lot
> of games played that has its top level at a regional level rather than an
> international level.  Beyond that you'd need not only more information,
> but something other than a few numbers that's likely to be as complicated
> as the duckworth-lewis system.

> And you'd have to take into account the number of people who have such an
> interest in the game that they'd play it..

> >  As I read the list it goes (participation):
> > > 1.Swimming
> > > 2.Cricket
> > > 3.Tennis
> > > 4.Netball
> > > 5.Rugby (both codes listed together)
> > > 6.AFL
> > > 7.Basketball
> > > 8.Soccer
> > > 9.Lawn Bowls - unbelievable! (guess the seniors boost this)
> > > 10.Athletics

> Of course, as with the other list, I'd like to know exactly what they were
> counting.  Just because you jump in the pool once a week doesn't mean you
> are a competative swimmer.

No and it doesn't say competing it says participating

Colin Kynoch