CaliAtenza
Topic Author
Posts: 1631
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:43 pm

Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sat May 16, 2009 5:18 pm

Lately ive become a big fan of cricket, especially Twenty/20. I always thought it was such a boring game, but Twenty/20 is loads of fun to watch. I think i only became a fan after i moved to india for school. I can see how Test cricket can be viewed as boring and slow (its SLOW!), but even the 50 over matches are fine. Is it cause Baseball just superseeded cricket in the states? cause i was reading up on the history and it seems like the US had a very sporting cricket history...I know they are plans now to create a twenty/20 league in the US modeled on the IPL, but i dunno if its gonna get off the ground  Sad.
 
David L
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sat May 16, 2009 5:33 pm

On this one I'm going to have to come to the defence of the USA and point out that cricket has never exactly been popular in most of the world.

People who think cricket's too boring tend to be judging it on what it is not, rather than what it is. In case anyone's in any doubt, cricket was never meant to be one or two hours of non-stop excitement. It's a whole occasion, a day or few out with something else going on. It's not unusual for people to take a book or MP3 player to a full game or generally enjoy a day talking to their mates and tune in and out of the match as they see fit. I guess a lot of people in the USA and Europe already have golf for that.
 
BAViscount
Posts: 1975
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:01 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sat May 16, 2009 5:53 pm

I guess my first thought was that cricket's just so depressingly boring...but then I realised that's just my personal opinion. I just have horrible childhood memories of returning from summer Sundays spent at the coast (the fact that we were returning home in the first place was bad enough), only to have my Dad insist on listening to cricket on the car radio!! Try listening to cricket on AM radio and see if you still think it's interesting! Big grin
Ladies & gentlemen this is Captain Tobias Wilcock welcoming you aboard Coconut Airways flight 372 to Bridgetown Barb
 
imiakhtar
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:35 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sat May 16, 2009 6:21 pm



Quoting David L (Reply 1):
On this one I'm going to have to come to the defence of the USA and point out that cricket has never exactly been popular in most of the world.



Quoting David L (Reply 1):
I guess a lot of people in the USA and Europe already have golf for that

I guess these are probably the main reasons.

If you look at the current list of ICC members (Pak, Ind, Aus, NZ, SA, WI etc), almost all of them were colonies for long periods of time, which allowed cricket to get established.

In the US, you have the NFL, NBA and baseball. For some of these countries, cricket is the only sport they've ever known. Most kids in Pakistan and India can hold a cricket bat before they can talk Big grin
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky?
 
CaliAtenza
Topic Author
Posts: 1631
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:43 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sat May 16, 2009 9:46 pm



Quoting Imiakhtar (Reply 3):

true, but i think twenty/20 is just as exciting as baseball. Dont get me wrong, i love baseball, the nfl, nba, et all...but i think cricket has its place as well. I dont watch Test matches though, and even 50 overs are boring now.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9102
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sat May 16, 2009 9:59 pm

Could it be that we used to shoot at people who played?  boggled 
 
imiakhtar
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:35 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sat May 16, 2009 10:47 pm



Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 4):
true, but i think twenty/20 is just as exciting as baseball. Dont get me wrong, i love baseball, the nfl, nba, et all...but i think cricket has its place as well. I dont watch Test matches though, and even 50 overs are boring now.

I agree. Twenty/20 can be just as exciting (the recent SA vs Aus were ace!), but I'm a bit of a purist myself and prefer the ODI and test matches. In 20/20, In my opinion, there's no real test of skill. It doesn't take much to swing the bat and middle it (I guess in that sense it's not too dissimilar from baseball!).

My friends seem to think I'm slightly strange in that I can spend whole summer's day (weather permitting  Wink) at the village green watching cricket.

Unfortunately, I won't be watching much cricket this summer. The tickets for the WI vs Eng game in a couple of weeks In Brum are £60  Sad.
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky?
 
Stealthz
Posts: 5549
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sat May 16, 2009 10:58 pm



Quoting CaliAtenza (Thread starter):
Is it cause Baseball just superseeded cricket in the states?

Likely, cricket was reasonably widely played in the USA before the development of modern baseball. I think baseball became somewhat of a craze in NYC around the middle of the 1850s and as that was where media etc was largely based at the time that is where the publicity was and it just grew from there.
It is not widely known that the first ever international cricket match was played between the USA and Canada, in 1844.
The first international tour by an English national cricket side was in 1859 to the United States then to Australia in 1862.

It has been mentioned, at least anecdotaly that baseball became popular with the more Irish leaning US population because it was "un English" (which is kind of funny because it largely originated in parallel with cricket in England)

Cheers
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
IH8BY
Posts: 758
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:39 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sat May 16, 2009 11:01 pm



Quoting David L (Reply 1):
It's not unusual for people to take a book or MP3 player to a full game or generally enjoy a day talking to their mates and tune in and out of the match as they see fit.

Or drink. A lot.

I've been working at the Test match in County Durham today, and a lot of drinking was going on, much of it by people who had dressed up in fancy dress. I think it's as much about the occasion as the cricket!
Have you ever felt like you could float into the sky / like the laws of physics simply don't apply?
 
BMIFlyer
Posts: 8065
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:11 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 17, 2009 1:20 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 5):
Could it be that we used to shoot at people who played?

LOL, good point!
Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3402
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 17, 2009 2:06 am



Quoting CaliAtenza (Thread starter):
Is it cause Baseball just superseeded cricket in the states?

That is probably the reason which is also why we play American football over Rugby. Also Cricket isn't that popular in Canada either because we are a country that baseball is pretty popular as well.

Quoting BAViscount (Reply 2):
I guess my first thought was that cricket's just so depressingly boring...but then I realised that's just my personal opinion

Yeah and people who love cricket and hate baseball hate baseball because they think it is boring.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
User avatar
n229nw
Posts: 2028
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 17, 2009 2:57 am



Quoting CaliAtenza (Thread starter):
Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Cuz it's boring and the rules are flat out *^%$&^* impossible to understand?

But wait, that's largely true of baseball as well...  duck 

Never mind...
All Glory to the Hypnotoad!
 
CaliAtenza
Topic Author
Posts: 1631
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:43 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 17, 2009 6:25 am



Quoting N229NW (Reply 11):

hehehe...point taken  Wink.
 
ThirtyEcho
Posts: 1409
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2002 1:21 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 17, 2009 7:47 am



Quoting N229NW (Reply 11):
Cuz it's boring and the rules are flat out *^%$&^* impossible to understand?

OK, cricket rules are hard to understand.

Now, explain baseball's Infield Fly Rule. And don't forget the exceptions valid only on Tuesdays when a runner named O'Malley has his left foot tagging second base. the field is wet, an odd number of fans are drinking beer and it is not, yet, September.

Baseball stopped being fun when the umpires stopped wearing top hats and stopped smoking cigars.
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 17, 2009 9:33 am



Quoting IH8BY (Reply 8):
I've been working at the Test match in County Durham today, and a lot of drinking was going on, much of it by people who had dressed up in fancy dress. I think it's as much about the occasion as the cricket!

I wouldn't be surprised if that was more to do with the weather though  Wink

Poor West Indies players, I'm sure a fair lot of them would rather be back home in the Caribbean, rather than cold, grey and windy County Durham Big grin (and of course, Captain Gayle would rather be in a third country altogether...)
 
David L
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 17, 2009 1:18 pm



Quoting IH8BY (Reply 8):
Or drink. A lot

Of course! I can't believe I forgot that one.  Smile
 
TransIsland
Posts: 1826
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 9:22 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 17, 2009 1:40 pm



Quoting David L (Reply 1):
On this one I'm going to have to come to the defence of the USA and point out that cricket has never exactly been popular in most of the world.

But it's popular pretty much in all the old colonies (main exception I can think of is prolly Canada), so it should be popular in the US.  Wink

I think the problem is that Twenty/20 and 50 Overs (my favourite) are fairly new additions, and for the longest time cricket meant that "long, boring game" (to this day the only form of the game that my father will accept). My guess is that Americans changed that to baseball, because their attention span simply wasn't long enough.  devil 

In fact, all games with a mass audience in the U.S. seem to be designed around commercial breaks. One reason why football (you know, the proper football, played with a ball that is generally kicked with the feet) will never be really big in the U.S. either.
I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3454
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 17, 2009 1:46 pm



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 16):
In fact, all games with a mass audience in the U.S. seem to be designed around commercial breaks. One reason why football (you know, the proper football, played with a ball that is generally kicked with the feet) will never be really big in the U.S. either.

It's how the clubs make the revenue they need to pay some of the obnoxious player salaries.... IMHO it doesn't help the game any....
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
David L
Posts: 8552
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:26 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 17, 2009 5:32 pm



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 16):
But it's popular pretty much in all the old colonies (main exception I can think of is prolly Canada), so it should be popular in the US.

When they see the error of their ways and come crawling back, we'll give it another go.  duck 

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 16):
for the longest time cricket meant that "long, boring game"

It's boring compared to soccer or American football, yes, but soccer and American football are boring compared to a shuttle launch and cricket is less boring than golf and Monopoly to a great many people, including me. Comparing cricket to soccer, baseball, basketball or American football is just meaningless. Cricket is a completely different concept.
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 17, 2009 7:14 pm



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 16):
and for the longest time cricket meant that "long, boring game" (to this day the only form of the game that my father will accept).

The thing is, Test cricket can be awfully exciting at times as well. Just look at first two tests (which were actually played, disregaring the debacle at the Viv Richards stadium) of Englands recent series in the West Indies, the former seeing England absolutely collapse in a display of excellent bowling and the latter having an absolutely nail-biting ending.

Or the Boxing Day test between Australia and South Africa, with JP Duminy and Dale Steyn completely saving South Africas bacon in an excellent ninth wicket stand.

Or the Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka test played at the same time, where Bangladesh fought for their lives and nearly succeeded in getting a sensational win, despite starting their second innings 520 runs behind.

Sadly, all of that is spread out a bit, and I often find you end up with a contest where it appears that neither side is interested in doing much besides playing for a draw.

Personally, Twenty20 doesn't interest me very much, as it seems like 75% is just down to batsmen trying to slog as much as possible, and that eventually gets boring to watch.
 
imiakhtar
Posts: 611
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:35 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 17, 2009 9:50 pm



Quoting StealthZ (Reply 7):
It is not widely known that the first ever international cricket match was played between the USA and Canada, in 1844.

Well, StealthZ's post got me thinking. A quick google revealed the scorecard on the day. Suffice it to say, there weren't many that made it to double figures  Wink

http://cricketclub.org/can_usa.html
Whatever happened to Leon Trotsky?
 
SmithAir747
Posts: 1696
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 3:30 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Mon May 18, 2009 4:18 am

When I moved to London for 3 years (2004-2007), I got really interested in cricket. Every chance I got, I watched cricket on TV.

It was not until May 2007 that I finally got to see a cricket match (it was a Test match between England and the West Indies) at Lord's. For a souvenir, I bought myself a cricket bat and a red Lord's logo ball.

I even played a cricket match once--an impromptu game in my Hall's lounge, with a makeshift bat and a barstool for a wicket. I got to bat for one over, and I got to bowl for an over.

Just like US baseball does not get beamed over to UK TV, neither does cricket get beamed over to US TV. So I do not get to watch cricket at all here in California! If it were possible, I would catch some cricket on TV. Is there any way?

I love both baseball and cricket; that makes me sort of unusual doesn't it?

Since I lived in England for 3 years, I feel it is my "2nd home country". So naturally I still have an interest in how things are over there, including cricket.

SmithAir747--still a Londoner to this day (at least at heart)!
I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made... (Psalm 139:14)
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Mon May 18, 2009 7:31 am



Quoting SmithAir747 (Reply 21):
Just like US baseball does not get beamed over to UK TV, neither does cricket get beamed over to US TV. So I do not get to watch cricket at all here in California! If it were possible, I would catch some cricket on TV. Is there any way?

Depending on your internet connection, you can watch it online via http://www.willow.tv who has the rights to show most cricket online. It's a bit pricey, but they allow you to replay all the matches on-demand for a fair period afterwards.
 
User avatar
MillwallSean
Posts: 861
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:07 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Mon May 18, 2009 9:17 am

Cricket and the colonial spread of sports is quite interesting.
I enjoy Cricket, its fun to watch and even more fun to play. 20-20 is something I remain sceptical about though. I can see that its probably the sports only chance of finding a new "TV audience" but to me it doesnt quite make it.

Its rather interesting to note that football is by far the biggest sport in Britain. Nothing even comes close.
Yet football wasnt the sport that the British took with them to their colonies. Sailors and factory workers brought football it to many parts of the world but within the empire itself, where university educated servants of the empire ruled football never succeeded.

I am of course generalising a bit, football is huge in Africa, enormous in the middle east and a religion in SE Asia. All parts of the world where the empire ruled.

But
India, Pakistan, Bangla and Sri Lanka became cricket hotbeds and so did the West Indies. The West indies still has quite a bit of football too though.

Australia became everything but football (It was the southern European immigrants that reallt lifted football in that country - greeks, italians and criatians etc)... cricket is huge in Aussie, they invented their own football that caught on in most of the country and Rugby league is favoured in two Australian states where Aussie Rules didnt catch on.

New Zealand choose rugby union and so did the white people of South Africa. The SA blacks tend to be just like most of Africa completely football crazy. (The nicknames of the South African rugby and football teams says it all; The national rugby side is called "the Springboks", the national football team is called "bafana bafana"...)

Canada, well they went icehockey nuts, not to sure what that has to do with Britain but its a real good sport to watch so never mind that.

The Verdict must be that the empire failed miserably when it comes to sport.
They brought the upper class sports to the far corners of the world, rugby with its extreme boarding class background and Eton tradition became popular with farmers in the far corners of the world.
Cricket, a sport where you dress in white and have a teabreak became the sport on the subcontinent.

The British did bring football to South America and continental Europe though, mainly through sailors, so its not all doom.
No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
 
User avatar
allrite
Posts: 2402
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Tue May 19, 2009 5:44 am

While cricket may often be slow to the spectator, I personally think that its much more fun than baseball for players, especially when it comes to batting. In baseball you basically get one hit per innings. In cricket you can (hopefully) hit the ball multiple times, staying in as long as your skill allows*.

I read recently that the Belgians are supposed to have invented cricket.

* Subject to not running out of batting partners/captain declaring/match running out of time

Quoting BAViscount (Reply 2):
I just have horrible childhood memories of returning from summer Sundays spent at the coast (the fact that we were returning home in the first place was bad enough), only to have my Dad insist on listening to cricket on the car radio!! Try listening to cricket on AM radio and see if you still think it's interesting!

No, that's the wonderful thing about test cricket! It gives you something to listen to on long summer drives.  Smile It's a perfect game for the Australian summer, when it's too hot to do anything much. You can leave the cricket on in the background while you do something else or just veg in front of the TV. You can look away, fall asleep, go to another room for a while and know that you have probably missed nothing, but even if you have you will see endless replays anyway.

Not like there is anything else to watch during summer anyway.  Smile
I like artificial banana essence!
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Tue May 19, 2009 7:05 am



Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 4):
I dont watch Test matches though, and even 50 overs are boring now.

You see, the form of cricket that is quick and in some ways requires less skill than the other 2 forms is the one in favour. A lot of people don't like tests or ODIs. From a bowler's perspective, I think that the T20 form of the game benefits those bowlers who can avoid being slogged and that's about it. The strategy required for T20 is extremely different to that of 50 over games or test matches.. I like seeing more cricket and that means 50 over matches. Ok I admit it gets a bit boring sometimes when you team is either underperforming or isn't playing but I guess that goes with quite a few sports in the world.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 10):
Yeah and people who love cricket and hate baseball hate baseball because they think it is boring

Like me.. Seriously.. How much interest can you have in a game which has so many innings breaks it's not funny? And the skill required in cricket is much greater than baseball in the sense that the 11 players do both the bowling and batting.

Quoting TransIsland (Reply 16):
(to this day the only form of the game that my father will accept).

I guess it's a completely different story when you've been brought up alongside the likes of Sir Viv Richards, Brian Lara, Michael Holding and the likes. Spending a whole day watching Lara smashing the ball into all corners of the park is something special.

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 19):
Or the Boxing Day test between Australia and South Africa, with JP Duminy and Dale Steyn completely saving South Africas bacon in an excellent ninth wicket stand.

And then the test before or after that one when Graeme Smith went out with a broken hand to try and stop them from losing in the last few overs.. And got out in the last over

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 19):
Personally, Twenty20 doesn't interest me very much, as it seems like 75% is just down to batsmen trying to slog as much as possible, and that eventually gets boring to watch.

I agree to some extent but you gotta admire some of that strength required to hit that ball so far. The most unorthadox shots such as the upper square cut for 6 or the shovel are rather interesting. But yeah I still like seeing the straight drive along the ground, one shot that I was kinda good at..

Quoting Allrite (Reply 24):
No, that's the wonderful thing about test cricket! It gives you something to listen to on long summer drives. It's a perfect game for the Australian summer, when it's too hot to do anything much. You can leave the cricket on in the background while you do something else or just veg in front of the TV. You can look away, fall asleep, go to another room for a while and know that you have probably missed nothing, but even if you have you will see endless replays anyway.

Yep, something to do when in the car on a long journey. At least it's more easily followable by radio than a lot of sports if you know what they're talking about. The language used can frustrate a lot like "cow corner". But imagine how the players cope with playing in 40+ degree temperatures!

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 23):
I am of course generalising a bit, football is huge in Africa, enormous in the middle east and a religion in SE Asia. All parts of the world where the empire ruled.

You forgot South America!


How many other competing summer sports are there to compete against baseball in the States? Winter has NHL, NBA, NFL.. And it sounds like MLB is the only main known sport.
None of the stadiums are really right for cricket..
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
SA006
Posts: 1818
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 3:28 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Tue May 19, 2009 9:35 am

I've seen some REALLY boring soccer (football, whatever  Smile ) matches sometimes. Goes for any sport I guess. I thoroughly enjoy cricket soccer and rugby , both as a spectator and player. Cricket can be boring sometimes but hell it can be exciting. Still prefer the 50 over format and Tests to the 20/20 format but the 20/20 format, especially the IPL here, has done extremely well. Everyone in SA cannot stop talking about the IPL. It seems like there is more hype for the IPL than there is for the Confederations Cup in June.

Quoting Allrite (Reply 24):
It's a perfect game for the Australian summer, when it's too hot to do anything much. You can leave the cricket on in the background while you do something else or just veg in front of the TV. You can look away, fall asleep, go to another room for a while and know that you have probably missed nothing, but even if you have you will see endless replays anyway.

Exactly what I do up here in Joburg  Wink Nothing better when you got nothing to do.

-SA006
Proudly South African
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13091
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Tue May 19, 2009 8:08 pm

Quoting CaliAtenza (Thread starter):
Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

For the same reason it has never become popular in most of the world: It's too damn boring and can't even be considered a sport.  

Seriously, it's not just because it's boring, but because the rules are so damn difficult to understand. Baseball, which is largely based on Rounders, is much more fast paced (it takes on average 3.5 to 4 hours to play a whole game instead of sometimes days in Cricket), the rules are much easier to understand, and it's a game that is not considered by many something for the rich, but it's a game for everyone.

And also, it's not as exclusive regionally as cricket. Baseball is played not just by Americans and Canadians, but also by Latinos and by the Japanese (and in Europe, we have the Dutch as one of the major forces in Baseball, and the Italians seem to have become regulars in the Little League World Series). In Cricket, most of the countries where the game is great are linked with the UK in some form.

Even in Rugby-Union, where all members of the Six Nations and Three Nations (except for France and Italy) have links to the UK, the game is much more fast paced, takes almost as long to play as football, and it's also much more popular worldwide than Cricket will ever be (e.g., the rise of Argentina as a major Rugby-Union nation).

[Edited 2009-05-19 13:12:35]
 
User avatar
allrite
Posts: 2402
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:28 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Wed May 20, 2009 5:03 am



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 27):
Seriously, it's not just because it's boring, but because the rules are so damn difficult to understand.



Quoting LTU932 (Reply 27):
Even in Rugby-Union, where all members of the Six Nations and Three Nations (except for France and Italy) have links to the UK, the game is much more fast paced, takes almost as long to play as football, and it's also much more popular worldwide than Cricket will ever be (e.g., the rise of Argentina as a major Rugby-Union nation).

I don't know how you can say the rules of cricket are difficult to understand then praise rugby. There's a reason why the latter has traditionally been the domain of proto-lawyers and merchant bankers!  Smile
I like artificial banana essence!
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13091
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Wed May 20, 2009 5:06 am



Quoting Allrite (Reply 28):
I don't know how you can say the rules of cricket are difficult to understand then praise rugby.

In comparison, rugby is much easier to understand, especially if you also saw lots of American Football (e.g. NFL, College Football), a sport which descends from Rugby.
 
CPH-R
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Wed May 20, 2009 8:36 am

I've always found the basic rules of cricket fairly simple, the only thing I've given up on figuring out is the various fielding positions Big grin

Oh, and you do realise that Germany is an Associate member of the ICC? http://www.cricket.de/  Wink
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Wed May 20, 2009 2:29 pm

Helluva interesting question, CaliAtenza......

I suppose that it boils down to the difference between 'Three strikes and you're out!' and 'If you manage to stay there all bloody day, and just put the bad balls away, you'll probably make a century!"

The games are 'cousins,' but they've evolved very differently. Baseball has an 'urgency' the cricket lacks - but, on the other hand, if a baseball pitcher throws a ball outside the 'zone' he's penalised - if a bowler in cricket bowls a short ball that jags off a length and hits you right in the teeth (never happened to me, but it very nearly did, as it did to most cricketers), all you got was 'retired hurt' in the scorebook.........

Same thing if you busted a hand trying to take a catch (which DID happen to me). I don't know whether the laws of cricket forbid the wearing of gloves (except for the wicket-keeper) but it never occurred to any of us to try it.........

Baseball is 'designed' to be all over in one evening. Batters get lots of chances, pitchers get as many as they're good enough for. Cricket (at test level) is a five-day contest in which batsmen get two chances, bowlers get plenty (but suffer on the basis that the batsman gets 'the benefit of the doubt' in all close decisions).

Once played a USMC unit at cricket, and then baseball. They won both games - basically because they 'pitched,' baseball-style, at shoulder height, in both matches. We tried to explain that, in cricket, you're not allowed to bend your elbow - or 'intimidate.' And especially not to bowl 'beamers' - 'head-high full tosses'....

They were well-meaning, friendly, and 'fair-minded' to an extent - but they simply didn't know how to propel any sort of ball without bending their elbows....or aim it to bounce before it reached the batsman........

We survived - and got on well with them. Didn't lead to a re-run of the American War of Independence, anyway........

[Edited 2009-05-20 07:33:59]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
CaliAtenza
Topic Author
Posts: 1631
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:43 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sat May 23, 2009 8:35 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 31):

very interesting reply  Smile. I think people back home in the states would enjoy T20 cricket..especially the way IPL has been setup (similar to the american style of conducting franchise sports). I know people in SA this year are going crazy for IPL (SA006 as u've already mentioned..and you prolly can give first hand experience). My home town team is in the finals this year as well. I played baseball as a kid...its a lot more fun to play then to watch on the TV unless its the pennet race or the world series. Ive taken a liking to cricket ever since i shifted to India...but i still cant bear to watch tests; 50 overs are ok i guess hehe. Yes, the rules are still confusing to me though  Sad..i still cant figure out what is a wide exactly and i just figured out what a "powerplay" is. The whole offside, leg side thing doesnt make any sense to me..and how they describe from what side the bowler comes from (golf course??? huh??).
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2608
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 24, 2009 2:40 pm



Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 32):
what is a wide

Law 25.1(b) The ball will be considered as passing wide of the striker unless it is sufficiently within his reach for him to be able to hit it with his bat by means of a normal cricket stroke.

Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 32):
The whole offside, leg side thing doesnt make any sense to me

Leg side/Off side: perhaps best explained as the right side of the field for a right-handed batsman, and the left side for a left-handed batsman.

Likewise, leg side is the left of the field for a right handed batsman, and right for a left handed batsman.

You may have noticed that one umpire stands at square leg of the batsman. That umpire is known as the square leg umpire, and his position changes depending on whether the batsman is right or left handed, so he is always at square leg to the batsman.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 24, 2009 2:57 pm

Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 32):
very interesting reply . I think people back home in the states would enjoy T20 cricket..especially the way IPL has been setup (similar to the american style of conducting franchise sports).

Interesting this end too, CaliTenza. Baseball (like 50-over or 20/20 cricket) is 'designed' to produce a result within a timescale which suits easily-bored spectators. Test cricket arguably errs the other way - on the face of it, a game that can take FIVE eight-hour days to produce a result (and quite often ends in a draw) has no place in the modern world......

Thing is, though, the long timescale and apparently 'leisurely' pace can occasionally produce the most incredible tension. Best example I can think of (easy for me, as an Anglo-Australian, to cite it  ) was England's defeat of Australia in 1981.

Until late on the fourth day, England looked like being bowled out in their second innings for less than Australia's first-innings score. But a prodigious cricketer called Ian Botham, aided by some devoted tail-enders, scored enough runs to ensure that Australia would have to bat again. Though they would only have to score about 130 runs - no problem for any world-class test cricket team, everyone (in England AND Australia) expected the match to be over soon after lunch on the fifth day.

This - thanks mainly to a marvellous 6' 6" England fast bowler called Bob Willis, who took eight wickets for 48 runs - is what actually happened. No need for me to comment further - you'll be able to see for yourself the amount of tension and excitement and drama that cricket, at its very best, can generate:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hs7amQlJqs0

All Australia ever needed to win was just four 'sixes' - 'home runs' in baseball terms. But they couldn't get them. Lots of matches of almost equal excitement, but that one probably remains among a short list of the very best.......

Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 32):
but i still cant bear to watch tests; 50 overs are ok i guess hehe. Yes, the rules are still confusing to me though ..i still cant figure out what is a wide exactly and i just figured out what a "powerplay" is. The whole offside, leg side thing doesnt make any sense to me..

50 overs is basically OK. Despite the 'artificial' rules designed to produce a quick result, players who do well in it can still do well in the 'real thing' - test cricket. 20/20, in my opinion, is a 'step too far' - as we correspond, the West Indies are currently being defeated by England (largely, in my opinion, because they've been earning good money in a distorted game in which a batsman who can score 20 runs off ten balls is worth more than one who can score 100 runs off two hundred)..........

The greatest thing about cricket, of course, is its international character. I'm sitting here listening to England playing (and almost certainly winning) that one-day match against the West Indies in Bristol, England. If you get on in the next couple of hours, you can hear radio commentary on it here:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/sol/new...793.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm&news=1&bbcws=1

As to leg side, off-side, etc., all that means is whether the bowler aims down the side the batsman's legs are on, or the side the bat is on. A leg-side delivery is more difficult to score off - so it's a no-ball in one-dayers. Otherwise, all any team would have to do to win is bowl everything down the legside.

"Wides' - a ball bowled outside the batsman's normal reach - are also 'no-balls,' in all three forms of the game. Exactly the same principle as a pitch 'outside the hitting zone' in baseball.

[Edited 2009-05-24 08:13:56]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 24, 2009 4:14 pm



Quoting NZ107 (Reply 25):
And the skill required in cricket is much greater than baseball in the sense that the 11 players do both the bowling and batting.



In Major League Baseball, the National League still allows the pitcher to bat. In the American League, you have the "Designated Hitter" where the pitcher never has to bat and you can blame Charlie Finley for that abberation.

Quoting StealthZ (Reply 7):
It has been mentioned, at least anecdotaly that baseball became popular with the more Irish leaning US population because it was "un English" (which is kind of funny because it largely originated in parallel with cricket in England)

Actually, it is thought that baseball came from the English game of "rounders" which much more closely resembles baseball than does cricket. Perhaps rounders was played more by the common man than was cricket and this is what appealed to the Americans.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13091
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 24, 2009 7:34 pm



Quoting Mayor (Reply 35):
In Major League Baseball, the National League still allows the pitcher to bat. In the American League, you have the "Designated Hitter" where the pitcher never has to bat and you can blame Charlie Finley for that abberation.

I just like to state for the record that I agree that the Designated Hitter thing is an abomination in baseball. If you play a baseball match, then please play it according to NL rules, with the pitcher batting as well and not getting someone into the game who does nothing for most of the game except batting.
 
SA006
Posts: 1818
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 3:28 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 24, 2009 8:35 pm



Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 32):
The whole offside, leg side thing doesnt make any sense to me..and how they describe from what side the bowler comes from (golf course??? huh??).

Haha thats not a rule necessarily  Smile When at a stadium a commentator will state the bowler is bowling from, for example at Johannesburg, the Corlett Drive end, which means that is the direction from which the bowler is bowling from.

The Corlett Drive end is the Southern side of the stadium which hosts the main stand.

-SA006
Proudly South African
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 24, 2009 9:30 pm



Quoting TransIsland (Reply 16):
In fact, all games with a mass audience in the U.S. seem to be designed around commercial breaks.

Funny you mentioned that. I went to my first NFL game ever last season. Decided I probably won't go to another one. It's just a hell of a lot better on TV. Live, there are all these random breaks that I couldn't make sense of, until I realized they were TV commercial breaks.

At least in baseball, they put the commercial breaks in between innings and such, and I've never seen them actually hold up a game for TV commercials.

Quoting David L (Reply 18):
When they see the error of their ways and come crawling back, we'll give it another go.

May have to wait a few (hundred) years. Like you said in that other thread, there's no accounting for taste!  Wink

Quoting CPH-R (Reply 19):
Or the Bangladesh vs Sri Lanka test played at the same time, where Bangladesh fought for their lives and nearly succeeded in getting a sensational win, despite starting their second innings 520 runs behind.

See, that's a problem for me right there. 520 fricken runs??? I can barely comprehend that many runs in a game.

Hell, I don't even really like watching the NBA, and they only go up to just over 100 points, typically.

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 25):
Like me.. Seriously.. How much interest can you have in a game which has so many innings breaks it's not funny? And the skill required in cricket is much greater than baseball in the sense that the 11 players do both the bowling and batting.

I dunno - in most cricket matches I've seen on TV, the batters hit many more bowls than batters hit pitches in baseball. So you might say it takes more skill to actually hit the ball in baseball than it does in cricket.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
CaliAtenza
Topic Author
Posts: 1631
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:43 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Sun May 24, 2009 9:35 pm



Quoting SA006 (Reply 37):

ahhh ok..now it makes sense to me  Smile
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Mon May 25, 2009 3:26 am



Quoting Mayor (Reply 35):
In Major League Baseball, the National League still allows the pitcher to bat.

But still doesn't require the pitchers to bat etc.. In cricket, generally the bowlers aren't the best of batsmen so the teams end up being evened out by the lack of batting skill which in some games can end up being very interesting to watch. Less skill is required in baseball where you basically have to hit it in a designated area in order to save you or the runners from getting out and all they do is run in one direction, not back and forth like in cricket.
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Mon May 25, 2009 4:50 am



Quoting NZ107 (Reply 40):
But still doesn't require the pitchers to bat etc.. In cricket, generally the bowlers aren't the best of batsmen so the teams end up being evened out by the lack of batting skill which in some games can end up being very interesting to watch. Less skill is required in baseball where you basically have to hit it in a designated area in order to save you or the runners from getting out and all they do is run in one direction, not back and forth like in cricket.

Well, either the pitcher has to bat, or he has to be removed from the game.

Most games, the starting pitcher will have at least one or two at-bats. Starters typically pitch into the 6th inning at least, if they're having a decent game. But occasionally they'll pitch into the 8th, or a complete game, if they're really on their game. So in that situation, they easily could have 3 or 4 at-bats.

For relievers, it's less likely they'll actually bat, as the manager may opt to have a pinch hitter bat and have a new pitcher the next inning.

Obviously, this only applies to the National League.

And just the same as in cricket, in baseball, pitchers typically aren't the best of batters.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
HAWK21M
Posts: 29929
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:05 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Mon May 25, 2009 10:39 am

Out here cricket is extreamly popular.....I prefer the 2 minutes highlights though.
I play the game too.bat well & bowl quite fast.but its been five years now since I last played a match.

regds
MEL.
I may not win often, but I damn well never lose!!! ;)
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Mon May 25, 2009 1:28 pm

Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 38):
I dunno - in most cricket matches I've seen on TV, the batters hit many more bowls than batters hit pitches in baseball. So you might say it takes more skill to actually hit the ball in baseball than it does in cricket.

Thing is, Vikkyvik, a baseballer only has to hit the ball in a restricted arc - basically, in cricketing terms, "between point and square leg"  . If it flies off behind him, it is ruled a 'foul ball' and he gets another chance. A cricketer has the freedom to hit the ball in any direction - but there are fielders all round him to catch it as well (many, even most, of them behind him).

The other major difference is the ball. A cricket ball is hard polished leather, with a single seam and six rows of stitching. What's more, there is only ONE ball - unless it goes seriously out of shape, the fielding side has to bowl 80 overs - over 480 deliveries, or most of the day - with it. The ball is a 'two-edged sword' - at first it tends to travel fast and straight, and bounce high (except that really-gifted bowlers can hold the prominent seam at a very slight angle, and use it as a 'rudder' to make the new ball swing early). But as it wears, it first begins to swing in the air (favouring the bowlers) and later softens up, slows down, and bounces less (favouring the batsmen).

The other big diiference is that all baseball pitches are 'full tosses' in cricketing terms - the vast majority of cricket deliveries hit the pitch and bounce up at the batsman in the last spilt second. Batsmen in cricket have to develop a sixth sense which kind of 'tells them' what the ball is going to do - swing in or out, bounce high or low, 'go on with the arm' or 'jag back' - and play their stroke accordingly.

Not my personal forte', fast bowling - or even batting, really. But - as primarily a medium-pace bowler in the middle overs, and a 'supporting' batsman - I had the best job on the field really. If the ball I had to bowl with was a 'good 'un' - meaning that if even I didn't have the faintest idea of what it was going to do next - swing in, swing out, keep straight, jag back off the pitch, or 'leave' the batsman - the guy holding the bat had even LESS chance of guessing right.........

You are also allowed to spin the ball, which can make it swing or deviate or both (as in baseball) - but that's a whole 'nother story.....

The two games are 'cousins' - they have lots in common. Both are fun to watch. But, in the end, they differ quite profoundly.

[Edited 2009-05-25 06:48:06]
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Mon May 25, 2009 2:17 pm

It definitely is a niche game in the US, mainly among those who are expats from areas like the Caribbean and the Subcontinent. Here in the Atlanta area (as well as the Southeastern US), we have some active leagues and teams:

http://www.atlantacricket.org/
http://www.atlantacricketleague.org/
http://www.atlantacricket.com/
http://www.uccatlanta.com/


Heck, we've even got rugby, Aussie Rules Football, Gaelic football, and hurling clubs and leagues in Atlanta and in the Southeast,.
 
User avatar
mayor
Posts: 6218
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 3:58 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Mon May 25, 2009 2:19 pm



Quoting Vikkyvik (Reply 38):
At least in baseball, they put the commercial breaks in between innings and such, and I've never seen them actually hold up a game for TV commercials.

Well, baseball has the advantage of built in commercial breaks.....between innings and also sometimes when there's a pitching change during the inning. Basketball and American football don't have that advantage and have to fit the commercials in whenever they can.
"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8029
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Mon May 25, 2009 3:05 pm

Based on my personal memory, I think cricket was popular in many British colonies because it was considered THE sport to play at the British "public schools" like Eton and Harrow, and as such when graduates from these schools went into business or the civil service they brought the game with them to the British colonies.

American baseball evolved from a game called rounders. Since rounders was VERY popular with the Irish, when the Great Famine that devastated Ireland from 1845 to 1852 caused a massive emigration of Irish to the USA, they brought the their love of the rounders game to the USA, where combined with the "town ball" already being played in the USA began the evolution to the modern baseball game we know today.

It would been an interesting to wonder what would have happened to cricket if the Great Famine of Ireland never happened. It's almost possible that cricket would have become more and more popular in the USA, since cricket was fairly commonly played in the USA up until the 1840's.
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Mon May 25, 2009 5:24 pm



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 43):

The two games are 'cousins' - they have lots in common. Both are fun to watch. But, in the end, they differ quite profoundly.

 checkmark  (well, except for the "both are fun to watch" part  Wink )

I think it's generally useless to compare the amount of skill necessary between different sports. I was just
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
User avatar
NZ107
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 6:51 pm

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Tue May 26, 2009 5:45 am



Quoting Srbmod (Reply 44):
Aussie Rules Football,

Now that's a game that no one really gets apart from Victorians and South Australians!
It's all about the destination AND the journey.
 
Bartonsayswhat
Posts: 355
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:42 am

RE: Cricket--Why Did It Never Become Popular In The US

Tue May 26, 2009 9:32 am



Quoting ThirtyEcho (Reply 13):
Now, explain baseball's Infield Fly Rule

I can't belive that no one has explained this yet. It's really pretty simple. The rule was designed to stop a player, say F4 (2nd base) from intentionaly not catching the ball to make a really easy double play. For ease on my brain trying to figure out the best way to word the rule, I'll quote the Softball Canada rule book.

Fastpitch
Rule 1 Sec. 52 INFIELD FLY
a. Is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive or a bunt):
1) When first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied.
2) That can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort.
3) Before two are out

b. The pitcher, catcher, and any outfielder that positionshimself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule.

NOTE
1. When it seems apparent that a batted ball will be an infield fly, the umpire shall
immediately declare, "INFIELD FLY, IF FAIR - THE BATTER IS OUT," for the benefit
of the runners.
2. The ball is live and runners may advance at the risk of the ball being caught, or
retouch and advance after the ball is touched, the same as any fly ball.
3. If the hit ball becomes a foul ball, it is treated the same as any foul.
4. If a declared infield fly is allowed to fall untouched to the ground, and bounces
foul before passing first or third base, it is a foul ball.
5. If a declared infield fly falls untouched to the ground outside the baseline and
bounces fair before passing first or third base, it is an infield fly.

If anybody has any questions regarding infield fly, or any other of the riddiculous rules (there are a few ones) PM me and let me know. I answer both baseball and softball (fastpitch and slo-pitch)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 1337Delta764, aerlingus747, Calder, einsteinboricua, Polot and 7 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos