Cricket in the USA and other Minnow Countries

Top Contributors
B

Boris

Active Member
In this thread some pretty good banter arose that came up with some strategies to get these countries involved.

A new article just lately from cricinfo has gotten me thinking again. It is here.

Do you think it's a good move? Anybody got any strategies to increase participation and spectator/viewer numbers in these countries, in particular the US and Canada?
 
I read through some of the posts there at the start and you made a point about the fact that the Seppo's of Anglo Saxon origin are really negative about the prospects of cricket, but what about football (Soccer) back in the 60's and 70's I'm pretty certain that it was almost non-existent and yet they've got that pratt Beckham over there playing for LA Galaxy or someone or other and he's treated like a God almost and it's growing. So perhaps cricket could make in-roads over a long period of time and eventually like the Seppo's in soccer have an international team that has some impact?

I think some of the points that Bariaga made about the TV rights are spot on, if the ICC want people to engage with cricket on a far wider scale they're going to have to speculate to accumulate and that'll mean letting it go free to air, so that everybody can get a look at it.

It's like the Ashes at the minute, of all the people I know and I'm 50 so I know a shed load of people there's only one bloke that talks to me about cricket and he's a SKY subscriber. Whereas last time it was on terrestrial TV for free everyone was talking about it.
 
Boris said:
Do you think it's a good move?
Click to expand...

Depends on what "it" is referring to: trying to expand to new countries or dismissing Lockerbie.

If you're referring to the effort to try to grow cricket in new countries, yes I still believe that it is a good move.

If you're referring to the USACA releasing Lockerbie, then it is a mixed bag. As Peter Della Penna points out, Lockerbie's list of tangible accomplishments is negligible (he did forge the strategic partnership with New Zealand, although how much has actually come of that is debateable), his press quotes displayed a tenuous grip on practicality, and if the lawsuit filed in New York isn't frivolous, he may have actually made things worse. However, releasing Lockerbie, a man with some pull with the ICC, and a man who was generally touted as the ambitous go-getter who was needed to get cricket going in the US (really, try finding a negitive editorial of the man prior to last month), is going to increase the perception that the USACA is disfunctional and that the sport can't go anywhere in the US. The issue is whether the blow to perception is worth the potential upgrade in the pragmatism of leadership. And for that issue I don't know the answer.

Boris said:
Anybody got any strategies to increase participation and spectator/viewer numbers in these countries, in particular the US and Canada?
Click to expand...

Basically the same stategies as before, get games on TV (a huge loss leader), try to get cricket supported by University and high school athletic departments, and continually improve the US national team.

Actual TV broadcasts are likely out of the question in the short term, but online broadcasts may be a feasible alternative for people to cut their teeth on. ESPN, the largest and most widely available sports broadcaster in the States, has an onlive broadcasting service called ESPN3. It is available free of charge (provided you have the right internet provider) and carries both live streaming and archived events. It currently shows a limited amount of cricket, virtually all of it involving the Bangladeshis. While the cricket is available, this availablity is not widely promoted, so you have to go looking for it. If someone at the ICC or USACA could get ESPN to carry a larger and more varied amount online, and if the USACA could get ESPN to carry the USA cricket team's games (nearly all WCL at this point), that would be a good starting point. Then you could work on incrementally increasing promotion on the broadcast channels.

Getting support from school athletic departments is a long term goal, I'm not even sure where to begin.

Luckily, at least the national team is continuing to show improvements and climb the WCL ladder. One out of three isn't bad.
 
I don't have time at the moment to read or respond properly, but I found this article (you guys probably have as well) and thought I should share it on here before I forget.

More from me soon :)
 
Watch the USACA screw this up. It's good that they are on the verge of getting some serious sponsorship but this is the USACA we are talking about. I won't be confident of them getting ituntil I actually see the sponsor logo on their clothing.
 
Ljp86 said:
Watch the USACA screw this up. It's good that they are on the verge of getting some serious sponsorship but this is the USACA we are talking about. I won't be confident of them getting ituntil I actually see the sponsor logo on their clothing.
Click to expand...

Agreed, wait until the deal is signed before getting excited. I'm suprised that this sponsorship deal is still going to be honest. The sponsorship was "on the verge" of being signed a month ago, and I assumed that Lockerbie's firing meant the deal must have collapsed, otherwise why fire him then.

It will also be interesting to see what the terms of the sponsorship are, if it actually does go through. Cricinfo says it is "eight figures". Assuming that's in US dollars and not Indian rupees, the deal would be $10 million or more. Is that per year (unlikely), or $10 million total spread over a four or five year deal (far more likely)? We'll have to see.
 
MinuteWaltz said:
Agreed, wait until the deal is signed before getting excited. I'm suprised that this sponsorship deal is still going to be honest. The sponsorship was "on the verge" of being signed a month ago, and I assumed that Lockerbie's firing meant the deal must have collapsed, otherwise why fire him then.

It will also be interesting to see what the terms of the sponsorship are, if it actually does go through. Cricinfo says it is "eight figures". Assuming that's in US dollars and not Indian rupees, the deal would be $10 million or more. Is that per year (unlikely), or $10 million total spread over a four or five year deal (far more likely)? We'll have to see.
Click to expand...

Would be 10 million spread over a few years, might even be more than 10 million dollars. I'm hoping they get it cause it's the boost that cricket in the USA needs.

Nice to see you posting again by the way. It's good having an American perspective on cricket here.
 
Ljp86 said:
Would be 10 million spread over a few years, might even be more than 10 million dollars. I'm hoping they get it cause it's the boost that cricket in the USA needs.
Click to expand...

Assuming that the sponsorship deal does go through, the next big question is; what does the USACA spend the money on? There are two major areas where cricket in the US needs a boost, grassroots participation and high level professionalism. Grassroots participataion improvements would include things like free coaching clinics for youth coaches and school physical education (PE) teachers, equipment donations to school PE departments, or free/low cost youth leagues. Improving the professionalism of the top US players would involve things like organizing a US cricket academy for potential national teamers or paying salaries to current national team players to allow them to focus on cricket training full time (nearly everyone on the US cricket team works a full time job to support their families). Let's say the deal is in the neighborhood of 5 yr / $10 million, thats $2 million a year, that would be enough to make a decent impact in one area, or enough to make a marginal impact in both areas, but not enough to make major improvements in both needs. What the USACA chooses will show where their priorities lay.

Ljp86 said:
Nice to see you posting again by the way. It's good having an American perspective on cricket here.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I don't post too much because, being based in the US, all my cricket info for the rest of the world comes from Cricinfo or similar sites, and I figure that regurgitating that sort of information doesn't add anything to most threads. However, US and Canadian based topics I have some first hand perspective on, so I have something to add.

I will add though, good job pulling out the Perth Test:cool:.
 
Boris said:
I don't have time at the moment to read or respond properly, but I found this article (you guys probably have as well) and thought I should share it on here before I forget.

More from me soon :)
Click to expand...

From Dreamcricket.com, "Breaking News: USA Cricket inks historic commercial deal with New Zealand Cricket"

Sounds more like a marketing plan than a sponsorship. It also looks like there will be more T20 matches in the US featuring the Black Caps (like the matches last May against Sri Lanka). So unless there is some actual sponsorship revenue in here that isn't listed, it sounds like any revenue for the USACA is tied to TV rights and ticketing for cricket matches played in the US.

Ljp86 is right, at first glance I think the USACA screwed this up. Edit: After further thought, I'm cautiously optimistic about this. This deal will mean more matches being played in the US, which should help as an icebreaker for the sport, and if done correctly could generate enough revenue for the USACA to put some funds into growing the grassroots game. So in short, thanks NZC for lending your time and talent in the states, and USACA-DON'T BLOW THIS.
 
I wasn't much a fan of Lockerbie, he had plenty of long-term goals, but no short-term ones, a bit of a dreamer. I think it would have been better for Lockerbie to be on the board rather than the president. This Ahmed fellow is looking for a job and I don't mind the sound of him.

Nabeel Ahmed aims to guide USA cricket into new era

In reality I think the best governing board is not made up of Americans (past players and current administrators). I would like the ICC to donate a couple of very experienced, perhaps ex-board members of other countries that have been successful. The USACA makes too many mistakes and it doesn't take too many brain cells to work out that's because the wrong people are in control.


You've already shown an article on this MinuteWaltz, but thought I'd show the Cricinfo version:
USA and New Zealand sign deal to promote cricket

I like this, New Zealand are aiming to play a few series over there instead of at home. I guess it won't be much of a loss for the Kiwis because they don't get much home support crowd-wise. There are plenty of ex-pats from the subcontinent area living in America, so when India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka or Bangladesh play New Zealand play it in America and let the cricket-starved ex-pats see an international game. By series I mean Tests and all, I don't want to see just T20s played there.


The grounds have to be ready though, you cannot have only one international level ground and even then that one isn't very good. Games need to be able to be played at night and on pitches that will last the entire game and probably good batting pitches to show off the big hits (not for Tests, though, if they are ever played there). Playing cricket in Florida doesn't make much sense either, especially introducing the game to the public. It's most likely going to rain and show the biggest flaw of the game off.


Any money from sponsorship goes on a 75-25 cut. 75% goes to grassroots education, the rest goes to professional upgrades. Follow the road to success left by the growth of soccer in the states and see if they can mimic that for cricket.

In my opinion, though, I would prefer to see Canada targeted before the US. It's a smaller market but seems easier to get. The West Indies are helping them a little, but it would be good to see Canada playing ODIs.

Speaking of ODIs... can't believe the minnows are out of the 2015 World Cup...
 
MinuteWaltz said:
Assuming that the sponsorship deal does go through, the next big question is; what does the USACA spend the money on? There are two major areas where cricket in the US needs a boost, grassroots participation and high level professionalism. Grassroots participataion improvements would include things like free coaching clinics for youth coaches and school physical education (PE) teachers, equipment donations to school PE departments, or free/low cost youth leagues. Improving the professionalism of the top US players would involve things like organizing a US cricket academy for potential national teamers or paying salaries to current national team players to allow them to focus on cricket training full time (nearly everyone on the US cricket team works a full time job to support their families). Let's say the deal is in the neighborhood of 5 yr / $10 million, thats $2 million a year, that would be enough to make a decent impact in one area, or enough to make a marginal impact in both areas, but not enough to make major improvements in both needs. What the USACA chooses will show where their priorities lay.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of places where the money could go, they just need to choose which way they want to go. I'd look at developing grassroots cricket as this is where the next generation of cricketers will come from and the USA need to get away from having the majority of their side being made up of expats from other countries. Some true "home grown" players would be a start and perhaps the American public would get behind a side that contains a few Americans rather than guy who originate from other areas.

It will be very hard work developing the game with many other sports being much more known and popular and they'll need much more money to do it but if they can crack the market then the world will be their oyster. Hopefully this is just the start of what they need to do.

MinuteWaltz said:
Thanks. I don't post too much because, being based in the US, all my cricket info for the rest of the world comes from Cricinfo or similar sites, and I figure that regurgitating that sort of information doesn't add anything to most threads. However, US and Canadian based topics I have some first hand perspective on, so I have something to add.

I will add though, good job pulling out the Perth Test:cool:.
Click to expand...

I think Cricinfo are pretty good, the more news on here the better so feel free to post up anything American if you see it.

Perth test was a great performance, hopefully it can continue for the remaining two games.

MinuteWaltz said:
From Dreamcricket.com, "Breaking News: USA Cricket inks historic commercial deal with New Zealand Cricket"

Sounds more like a marketing plan than a sponsorship. It also looks like there will be more T20 matches in the US featuring the Black Caps (like the matches last May against Sri Lanka). So unless there is some actual sponsorship revenue in here that isn't listed, it sounds like any revenue for the USACA is tied to TV rights and ticketing for cricket matches played in the US.

Ljp86 is right, at first glance I think the USACA screwed this up. Edit: After further thought, I'm cautiously optimistic about this. This deal will mean more matches being played in the US, which should help as an icebreaker for the sport, and if done correctly could generate enough revenue for the USACA to put some funds into growing the grassroots game. So in short, thanks NZC for lending your time and talent in the states, and USACA-DON'T BLOW THIS.
Click to expand...

I think they've done okay, the USA needs more exposure to cricket and bringing a few international matches into the country for those who want to see is a good idea. New Zealand are a reasonable side and I'm sure they won't have too many problems finding some opponents for those games. It's all about advertising the game at the moment, few Americans would know what cricket is and exposing the game to them could create some interest.

Boris said:
Speaking of ODIs... can't believe the minnows are out of the 2015 World Cup...
Click to expand...

Very poor move by the ICC. Gives virtually no minnows a chance of making the World Cup unless the current rules are changed.
 
Boris said:
I wasn't much a fan of Lockerbie, he had plenty of long-term goals, but no short-term ones, a bit of a dreamer. I think it would have been better for Lockerbie to be on the board rather than the president. This Ahmed fellow is looking for a job and I don't mind the sound of him.
Click to expand...

Yes, some of the the stuff Lockerbie was advocating was a bit out there, however according to both articles on the deal with NZC, most of the basic framework was put together by him, so perhaps we are being a bit harsh on the man.

I agree Ahmed seems like a good guy, but he is running for Gladstone Dainty's job, not Lockerbie's. Lockerbie was the CEO of the USACA, a possition we'd never had before until new ICC regulations made it mandatory to recieve grants. While Lockerbie was the face of the organization, his sudden dismissal demonstrates that the real power still lies with the national board of directors, headed by the organization's president. Gladstone Dainty has held this possition since before the USACA's suspension period. So even if Ahmed manages to win the president's office, there won't necessarily be a direct replacement for Lockerbie.
Boris said:
New Zealand are aiming to play a few series over there instead of at home. I guess it won't be much of a loss for the Kiwis because they don't get much home support crowd-wise. There are plenty of ex-pats from the subcontinent area living in America, so when India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka or Bangladesh play New Zealand play it in America and let the cricket-starved ex-pats see an international game. By series I mean Tests and all, I don't want to see just T20s played there.
Click to expand...

I agree that putting some games out for people to see is a good thing, especially if the US cricket team can play the role of the "First Class/List A" team that touring squads get their practise matches against. I will caution though: the subcontinental expatriot population is not as overwhelming large as some seem to think, and it tends to be kind of regional, the greatest numbers are in the greater NYC area, in California, around Chicago, and randomly around Houstan Texas. Second, soccer took a long time to be stable, so will cricket. Expect the first couple years of these matches to lose money and have poor TV/streaming internet audiences. However, keep the pressure on and you will see results down the road.

Boris said:
The grounds have to be ready though, you cannot have only one international level ground and even then that one isn't very good. Games need to be able to be played at night and on pitches that will last the entire game and probably good batting pitches to show off the big hits (not for Tests, though, if they are ever played there). Playing cricket in Florida doesn't make much sense either, especially introducing the game to the public. It's most likely going to rain and show the biggest flaw of the game off.
Click to expand...

Defending the Central Broward Country Cricket Ground for a moment, I would say it held up during the NZ-SL matches last May. The pitch didn't deteriorate, it was consistant for both teams in both games, and wasn't a safety issue due to poor footing or erratic bouncing of the ball. It was just a low bouncer and a little slanted toward the bowling side, which to listen to everyone pan some of the more batter friendly pitches, seems like what cricket fans generally want. There do need to be more stadia however. The USACA could put some temporary bleachers and such around Woodley field outside of Los Angelos as a second venue, but other than that it may be awhile for there to be enough funding and public interest to build some more stadia.

Boris said:
In my opinion, though, I would prefer to see Canada targeted before the US. It's a smaller market but seems easier to get. The West Indies are helping them a little, but it would be good to see Canada playing ODIs.
Click to expand...

Yes, Canada would be an easier target due to the smaller and more concentrated population. They are scheduled to participate again in the 2011 Carribean T20 tournament in January. Both the US and Canada would benefit immensely
however from regular competition against each other. The disparity in quality is minimal as recent ICC Americas Championship results show, and it has been a colossal waste by both nations to not take advantage of a neighbor of similar playing strength. As I understand, travel budget has been a major sticking point in the past, and hopefully some of the benefits of the US-NZ pact will trickle down to allow an annual tour between Canada and the US.

Ljp86 said:
There's a lot of places where the money could go, they just need to choose which way they want to go. I'd look at developing grassroots cricket as this is where the next generation of cricketers will come from and the USA need to get away from having the majority of their side being made up of expats from other countries. Some true "home grown" players would be a start and perhaps the American public would get behind a side that contains a few Americans rather than guy who originate from other areas.

It will be very hard work developing the game with many other sports being much more known and popular and they'll need much more money to do it but if they can crack the market then the world will be their oyster. Hopefully this is just the start of what they need to do.
Click to expand...

Soccer's popularity in the US didn't really take off until the last ~10 years when the national team stopped being a doormat, so I agree that the national side should be a focus. However, I'm not as worried about the "home grown" player thing as you are. The only guy on the current roster I've got some problem with is Lennox Cush, mostly due to his continuing to represent Guyana in T20 competitions. Most of the team, while not born in the US, immigrated here in childhood or for college and took up full time residence afterward. If they choose to represent the US proudly, then they're American. Other than the occasional far-right nationalist (every country has them), I don't think anyone in the US would have a real problem with the make-up of the team. The team's non-existent profile and second-class citizen status (associate) is the problem.
Ljp86 said:
I think they've done okay, the USA needs more exposure to cricket and bringing a few international matches into the country for those who want to see is a good idea. New Zealand are a reasonable side and I'm sure they won't have too many problems finding some opponents for those games. It's all about advertising the game at the moment, few Americans would know what cricket is and exposing the game to them could create some interest.
Click to expand...

Agreed

Ljp86 said:
Very poor move by the ICC. Gives virtually no minnows a chance of making the World Cup unless the current rules are changed.
Click to expand...

Yes, though on the plus side, the ICC resently announced that the Intercontinental cup will be expanded back to eight teams, and that the top two finishers of next WCL division 2 competition in April will fill out the field along with the six ODI associate teams (Ireland, Afghanistan, Scotland, Kenya, Netherlands, Canada). This is a good chance for a couple more teams to play some four-day cricket.
 
MinuteWaltz said:
Soccer's popularity in the US didn't really take off until the last ~10 years when the national team stopped being a doormat, so I agree that the national side should be a focus. However, I'm not as worried about the "home grown" player thing as you are. The only guy on the current roster I've got some problem with is Lennox Cush, mostly due to his continuing to represent Guyana in T20 competitions. Most of the team, while not born in the US, immigrated here in childhood or for college and took up full time residence afterward. If they choose to represent the US proudly, then they're American. Other than the occasional far-right nationalist (every country has them), I don't think anyone in the US would have a real problem with the make-up of the team. The team's non-existent profile and second-class citizen status (associate) is the problem.
Click to expand...

I just think some home-grown American players would be great for things there cricket-wise. But if the players are playing for their country though then there's no real problem at all.

MinuteWaltz said:
Yes, though on the plus side, the ICC resently announced that the Intercontinental cup will be expanded back to eight teams, and that the top two finishers of next WCL division 2 competition in April will fill out the field along with the six ODI associate teams (Ireland, Afghanistan, Scotland, Kenya, Netherlands, Canada). This is a good chance for a couple more teams to play some four-day cricket.
Click to expand...

I think it's a terrible decision. There are 10 spots available at the 2015 World Cup and there are 10 test cricket nations. ICC rules state that all nations with test cricket status automatically qualify for the tournament so that means all spots in the tournament are taken which leaves no room for any ODI/associate members. It's a real kick in the teeth for the ODI and associate members who can't play anything higher than first-class cricket in the longer form of the game. The World Cup is what all countries aspire to win and now none of the lower ranked sides can win the tournament as they aren't even eligible anymore which might have a significant effect on the way the game is run and also it's progression in those countries.

What's the point in playing if they can't even qualify for the World Cup? The only way to change this would be to change the rules so that perhaps only the top six or eight teams are automatic qualifiers.
 
Guys, I hate to be the lone voice of reason but I think this USA deal has some big potential issues with it:
Number One: New Zealand being their ICC partner.. I like the fact that they are trying to help a minnow but they dont have the voting power to move this forward. The only way I see US cricket moving forward is by a strategic plan that has total ICC backing and not just the voice of a partner. The problem that I have is that this 20 over idea is aimed to a degree at the ex pats living in the US and will need marque players to get eye balls and full stadiums.

I am with MinuteWaltz on the venue thing, I liked the Florida series but the wicket was a low and slow one unfortunately. So funding in a perfect world should be going to venues and development.

The only way I think that US Cricket will move forward is by grooming young talent and stop picking ex West Indians for their national side. I think back to all the tours that the Irish, Scots and Dutch have done to South Africa and now understand the value of it. They had their best national team players either playing club cricket and or being part of local academies. The players will need to experience harder and faster conditions to move forward. I really want the minnows to get better and cause upsets at World Cups.

They need to exposed to the entire world to ensure funding.. and this partnership is a great first step but alot needs to be done still :)
 
In my opinion, the citizens of the respective nation, need to be introduced to cricket, and they need to develop a liking for the game. Now, conditions in a nation, may, or may not exist for the interest in cricket to develop. For a case in example, in India, the game of soccer is not a very popular game, even though Indian's have played soccer for a long time. What causes this interest to develop? The question is difficult to answer. Perhaps, the game needs to be perceived to have a stake in the national prestige, for the game to evince curiosity in the layman. It is easy for China to create a top notch cricket team. If for instance, cricket in China is made into a game with a high national priority, with national prestige involved, then the game will flourish, in that nation. In the case of democracies, the government cannot tell the citizen, what game to play. If China told it's citizens what to play, it would seem appropriate, but if the Indian government told it's citizens to play soccer, it would seem absurd.
In simple terms, what is right for Peter, may not be so for Paul. It is only the people on the cricket pitch, who decide the interest evinced in that game, at any given time. In Pakistan, people do not need a cricket pitch to play. There are many factors which develop interest, and influence interest in the game. Most of these factors are not recognized by the individuals who play the game, so it is difficult for the lay-person and serious scholar, alike, to find out what is the psyche of any nation, towards any game, at any given time.
 
MookerjeeAditya said:
In my opinion, the citizens of the respective nation, need to be introduced to cricket, and they need to develop a liking for the game. Now, conditions in a nation, may, or may not exist for the interest in cricket to develop. For a case in example, in India, the game of soccer is not a very popular game, even though Indian's have played soccer for a long time. What causes this interest to develop? The question is difficult to answer. Perhaps, the game needs to be perceived to have a stake in the national prestige, for the game to evince curiosity in the layman. It is easy for China to create a top notch cricket team. If for instance, cricket in China is made into a game with a high national priority, with national prestige involved, then the game will flourish, in that nation. In the case of democracies, the government cannot tell the citizen, what game to play. If China told it's citizens what to play, it would seem appropriate, but if the Indian government told it's citizens to play soccer, it would seem absurd.
In simple terms, what is right for Peter, may not be so for Paul. It is only the people on the cricket pitch, who decide the interest evinced in that game, at any given time. In Pakistan, people do not need a cricket pitch to play. There are many factors which develop interest, and influence interest in the game. Most of these factors are not recognized by the individuals who play the game, so it is difficult for the lay-person and serious scholar, alike, to find out what is the psyche of any nation, towards any game, at any given time.
Click to expand...

Surely the reason places like India and Pakistan play cricket and it's now a part of their culture is due to Imperialism and the possible fact that the English introduced aspects of our education system to their society and included in that would have been PE (Physical exercise) and therefore cricket as part of the curriculum. If you look at the UK now, cricket is no longer a part of the school curriculum and small boys (And girls) can barely run, let alone throw a ball in a normal manner and the idea that an average 10 year old would know how to bowl has been lost to the 1970's or perhaps even earlier.Through cricket being part of the school education process, the whole population of a country would be introduced to the sport and thus engage with it, given a generation or so and the sport would become familiar and popular. Surely if football was introdcued to the school curriculum in India, the popularity of the sport would grow? This process would have to be under-pinned by Government policy in order that space on the curriculum would be made available and the necessary resources be made available in schoold. Longer term field and stadia would have to be built. In essence through policy and some perceived national interest agenda India and similar countried could decide that their citizens will play football and in the longer term, they would play football and that would work. The key part of the equation as you've suggested is the need for the Government to see that there would be some positive social or financial affect that would either gain votes, make revenue or control society through the introduction of a new sport?
 
Soccer is more widely played in schools in India, than is cricket, at least in West Bengal. Cricket requires many pre-requisites which are more restrictive than in soccer. If one reads 'A Corner of a Foreign Field' by Ramachandra Guha,(A social history of the game of cricket in the sub-continent), then it becomes clear, that cricket became popular in India, because of the different religions in India. The Hindu's wanted to be the best cricket community, and wanted the Mohammedans, and Parsee's to be next best in competition. After the Independence of India, too,(I presume), this competition along communal lines, stoked the competitive fires of cricket, until the love of cricket matured. But, now, because India wants to be the best team in the world, that is the reason why Indian's give Cricket so much support. If India were to beat Brazil, in the World Cup of soccer, then perhaps, soccer would be as popular, no, more popular, than cricket. The great untold secret of sport, is that sport gives meaning to the achievements of the nation, in the sporting arena. This is a foolish way to look at sport. One should love sport for the cameraderie that it affords, even among rivals. Why look at parameters on which nation is the greatest in the sporting arena. This attitude toward sport, if one examines the psychology of the attitude, is meaningless. How is my nation any better or worse, if Usain Bolt belongs to my nation? Is it fair, if a man in dire straits believes that all is well, because India wins the World Cup? Is the man being fair to himself?
However, if sport can foster well meaning interaction with the opponent, then sport transcends all meaning, and is played for the sake of the sport. I believe the modern Olympics Games is a greater precursor to the ancient Olympic Games, in this regard. The ancient Olympic Games are reputed not to have been played in the correct spirit, but then, during the Cold War, so was not the modern games. The message behind the modern game should be, "it is not the taking part that matters, but taking joy in the sport, that is important, regardless of whether I, or my opponent is victorious."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top