Cricket World Cup vs. World Baseball Classic

[BCWWF]

From each side, what do you think each event means in terms of the other sport?

My inclination is that cricket has always been predominantly a Commonwealth game and that its appeal has pretty much reached its peak on a global perspective. I feel like baseball is growing and has potential to create new markets in a way that cricket does not.

By this I don't mean that cricket is small or is going to see its appeal shrink in a place like India. I just mean people in a given country are more likely to pick up baseball before picking up cricket.

Do you agree or disagree that cricket has limited potential compared to baseball worldwide? Do you think the World Baseball Classic combined with the popularity of MLS will eventually draw fans away from cricket and toward baseball?

[GD]

I have grown up in a sub continent where people treat cricket as a religion so my inclination is def towards cricket.

I do play baseball with my American cousins but I am still a learner. It's way easy to bat though. In cricket you play with a straight bat.

[GD]

Soccer, Hockey and Basket Ball are the games which get priority.

[BCWWF]

But in general, do you think the rise of the World Baseball Classic puts a glass ceiling on cricket expanding outside of the limited countries it is already being played in?

[Londoner]

Baseball will never be as big as cricket over here,especially the world cup. Sorry, but cricket is like a religion to some countries,and that wont ever change.

[BCWWF]

That's not really what I'm saying though. I don't mean to imply that baseball will ever become bigger than cricket in India, but merely that cricket's global appeal is pretty at its peak. Countries that are looking to take up a new sport will more than likely choose baseball than cricket.

[Londoner]

Yeah i get ya, i was basically tryin to say, the rest of the world doesn't care about baseball much at all,so you could argue they've reached their peak to.

[BCWWF]

But baseball is growing, quite rapidly really.

[GD]

Everybody plays cricket say England, Ireland, Scotland, India, Sri Lanka, UAE, Pakistan, Bangladesh, New Zeland, Australia, South Africa, West Indies as a whole, Namibia (dunno how you spell it), Zimbabwe, Kenya and many other African nations. Hell even USA has its team.

[GD]

We have a baseball training facility in New Delhi.

[Londoner]

But baseball is growing, quite rapidly really.

In what countries? I have tried to get into baseball, but 1) we don't get enough coverage of it and 2) I have no reason to bother i guess.

[BCWWF]

I mean in general there are maybe two relevant baseball leagues in the world, Major League Baseball in the USA and Japanese Baseball League.

But countries everywhere are producing baseball players now. There is a huge presence in Latin America and a good presence in South America. Asia is big as well, and even Australia and New Zealand produce players on occasion.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

What huge presence in Latin America? I think you mean Central America.

I don't see baseball being in direct competition with cricket anyway, nor will it ever be as big. Perhaps it has the potential to get bigger but why would it? What appeal does it have for the world? Its image around the world is of beefed up steroid monsters standing around all day while fat people watch. The only press it gets worldwide is over drugs scandals.

Europe has many other sports, for one, so I can't see baseball making any headway into an already crowded market.

I've never heard of the World Baseball Classic either. What has MLS got to do with it?

[ct2k]

Baseball is only huge in very particular places in Latin America, ie Cuba, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and perhaps Venezuela and Panama if memory serves me correctly.

[BCWWF]

Besides Central America there is also a big presence in Venezuela and Peru now.

I just think cricket is such an obscure game and a game that is really only engrained in Commonwealth nations that it doesn't have the same potential to grow in places that it isn't already played.

And the World Baseball Classic is a new international tournament. It's not a big deal, but just shows where the game is internationally. On the same token, outside of the maybe 10 countries that follow cricket I don't think anybody even knew there was a Cricket World Cup going on a few years ago. If Bob Woolmer hadn't died it would be completely mute outside of the Commonwealth.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

But no one outside of the 3 or 4 countries which plays baseball knows about the baseball classic. The Commonwealth includes a huge number more people, you say it as if it's not a significant fraction of the world population. Much of Africa plays cricket, the Asian subcontinent. You really think baseball getting a presence in Peru means much on a global scale? Peru is an extremely poor country, you really think there is much scope for growth? The other countries you name, they're very small.

Baseball is only relevant as a world sport because the US plays it. Other than that, it is neglible on a global scale. It's doubtful it will get any bigger.

[BCWWF]

The problem is that your post is based more on your view and understanding of baseball and the lack of the sport in Ireland as opposed to actual facts. It's clear that baseball is growing, especially on the international level. International baseball competition is in its infancy, but Major League Baseball and it's minor leagues have a giant foreign percentage. The reason the World Baseball Classic (only the second tournament ever) is significant is because the United States is arguably not even the best team. The Dominican Republic and Japan are probably the favorites.

Your opinion also implies that the sport being big in the United States is relatively insignificant. It's simply not true. Look at what has happened in China since Yao Ming joined the Houston Rockets. The New York Yankees are also already on the same scale globally as Manchester United and Real Madrid. And the United States is the center of the entertainment industry, which includes highly efficient and profitable sports leagues. What happens in the United States is paid attention to much more closely than things that happen in the major Commonwealth countries such as India and Bangladesh.

It's also a bit misleading to simply say the Commonwealth includes a significant fraction of the world's population, because more than half of that is India. India has never been where the world looks for sports. In reality, India is almost isolated from the rest of the world of sports. Their delegation at the last Olympics was almost nothing, especially when compared to similarly sized countries like China and USA. The new Premier League in India might be big in India like MLB is big in the USA, but India is not as influential or as attractive as the US. How many people dream of living in New Delhi or Mumbai as compared to New York or Los Angeles?

Baseball is also much easier to understand and much more television friendly sport than cricket, which to me is the most significant detail. It is basically cricket but with more standard regulations. For that reason alone, I don't think cricket has the potential to grow into new countries whereas baseball does.

Again, I am not implying that I think cricket will die, but I don't think there will be much growth in any of the countries that currently don't follow the sport. I just don't think people really look toward India or Bangladesh for their sports in the same way they look to western Europe (EPL, Champions League) and USA (MLB, NFL, NBA). I don't know why anybody would be inclined to learn how cricket works unless it was already grandfathered into their culture.

[ct2k]

If the US was that influential in this regard the whole world would be playing baseball, gridiron and basketball already

[El Capitano Gatisto]

My world view is limited to Ireland? Are you absolutely serious here? Cricket is a non-sport in Ireland, for what it's worth, so the fact I like it is directly because I enjoyed watching it. I've tried watching baseball and find it utterly dull and I'm not interested enough to learn the rules. There is no cultural attachment to cricket for me, in fact it's the complete opposite, culturally I should be averse to cricket..

The New York Yankees are not on the same global scale as those teams, that is laughable. What you are ignoring is that football is a tribal sport with an enormous local following across the planet. The biggest teams globally in football compete at a local level with big clubs in every country. There is no point comparing the revenue of the New York Yankees on a global scale to those teams because there are no local baseball team affiliations on the vast majority of the planet. The New York Yankees international revenue is probably overwhelmingly from a minority of sources, whereas the influence of the likes of Real Madrid and Manchester United stretches throughout the Third World, where their popularity or name-recognition does little to increase revenue.

Being big in the United States sports-wise is, of course, relatively insignificant. What living there has to do with this is beyond me, people don't dream of going to the US to play their sports, they may dream of living in the cities but they bring their own culture with them. Additionally, there are large Asian and African diaspora populations throughout the world. Notably many of the players in the West Indies are of Asian descent. The Asian diaspora in the US even play cricket, there is a best-selling book about a New York cricket team, I believe.

What will probably happen with cricket is that the game will adapt and probably the shortened overs version will start to predominate. There is enormous room for growth here, but what needs to happen is that the authorities realise cricket's potential and organise it better. The last World Cup lasted too long and its schedule was too tortuous. There were other logistical and organisational problems that hit its success badly due to the policy of trying to make short-term revenue rather than achieve long term growth.

Arguing baseball is more television friendly and less complicated is ludicrous, too. That's purely based upon YOUR position as an American. As an objective neutral, I find cricket much more appealing.

[Hanso Amore]

BCWWF, its not worth even trying to get through to the Cricket Folks. They wont discuss anything, and dismiss everything you will try to say.

Right now, more countries play cricket than baseball. But you are correct, Baseball is expanding while Cricket is not. But I do not know if Baseball will ever reach the sheer number of countries playing Cricket, but it could match the numbers of actual players and fans if it continues to grow. Major League Baseball in America is putting a lot of money into spreading Baseball in Europe, they really want to start cultivating the game there.

Africa has seen a surge in Baseball recently, and like BCWWF said, South America as well. Actually, the first Black African ever was signed by Pittsburgh, they did a story about it, because it shows the growth in Africa (They are beginning to produce top notch athletes. Asia COntinues to be a hot spot, and if it spread through China more, it could become a major Baseball country.

The WBC has a LONG way to go before it can contend with the Cricket World Cup. This is only the 2nd WBC, and in time I think it will continue to grow.

China
Australia
Canada
Dominican Republic
Chinese Taipei
Cuba
Italy
Netherlands
Japan
Mexico
United States
Panama
South Korea
South Africa
Venezuela
Puerto Rico

LOok at the list of 16...I would say that it is nearly a rival of the Crickey World cup on paper. But the African, Australian, Euro and Asian teams just need to iprove their programs to ever catch Cricket.

[Hanso Amore]

Another thing that should be considered is that Cricket is a much older game, that has been spread aroudn the world for a much longer time. International Baseball is still in it's infantcy.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Baseball has no hope in Europe. We already play it in school in the UK. It's called rounders, it's seen as a girl's sport.

[Team Sheep]

Baseball has no hope in Europe. We already play it in school in the UK. It's called rounders, it's seen as a girl's sport.

Like soccer in the United States :lol:

[El Capitano Gatisto]

If you like, but who gives a shit?

[BCWWF]

Baseball has no hope in Europe. We already play it in school in the UK. It's called rounders, it's seen as a girl's sport.

But again, I think your whole opinion is skewed based on the European view of baseball. It's the same thing as soccer in the U.S., really. The fact of the matter is that baseball is growing to more and more countries.

People are only crazy about cricket in certain parts of the world, and those places are pretty much isolated from the rest of the sports world. Big-time world sports are generally drawn to Western Europe and North America. In soccer, players from Africa, South America, North America and Asia dream of playing for the biggest teams—teams which happen to play in cities like London, Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, Rome, Munich, Lyon, Torino... some of the most glamorous cities in the world. In basketball and ice hockey, the same is said for New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Toronto, Montreal, Denver, Miami, Dallas, Philadelphia and Washington D.C.

When it comes to baseball, people from Japan, Venezuela, Korea, Cuba, Dominican Republic and many other smaller countries dream of playing for the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Sox or the Los Angeles Dodgers or the Chicago Cubs. I can't honestly believe that many kids outside of India grow up dreaming to go there. (Isn't that where the new cricket Premier League is being created?)

Again, I am not suggesting that baseball is going to come into Europe and India and Australia etc., and convince them to give up cricket. I am implying that places like Brazil, Argentina, China, etc., who don't have a history in the a bat-sport, would be more inclined to play the American game than the Indian game.

And a big part of that is that baseball is indeed more suited for television, and is easier to pick up the rules. Cricket, from what I gathered in the casual forum thread, is incredibly nuanced. There are multiple kinds of games (some taking five days!), there are seemingly long periods of time between bowls and between different batters,

In baseball, each game follows a simple formula (9 innings, each team bats once per inning, three outs per inning, get around the bases to score). Nearly all of the games fall within about 2.5-3.5 hours, and the games are played in top-of-the-line stadiums in America's biggest cities.

I'm not naive to believe that American sports are the focal point of the rest of the world. I know gridiron and baseball pretty much do not exist in most countries. But outside of maybe five somewhat unstable countries (minus maybe Australia and New Zealand) cricket is either unknown or a country's third or fourth sport. In India, the only noteworthy sports seemingly are cricket and hockey, and it's a huge deal. In Canada, who competed in the last World Cup, cricket doesn't even rank.

All in all, there are reasons why the Olympics and World Cup are drawn to the United States. The facilities here are as nice as any in the world (Wembley Stadium in equalled or bettered by most NFL stadiums), we have some of the most important cities and glamorous in the world (New York, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles), and there is a lot of money here.

I'm not totally sure what you are trying to argue when you say the Yankees are not comparable to Real Madrid. The New York Yankees are a global brand. People wear Yankees hats in any industrialized country I've seen, which is all the more impressive considering baseball is still largely an American game. In football, a game played on every continent, it is expected that the biggest teams in the world would be some of the most well-known sports teams in the world.

But the real reason I made this thread was your last paragraph. Like you said, cricket needs to organize and streamline itself. I was wondering what should and will happen.

I was in London and had much of the 2007 World Cup on as I worked. It went on forever, conditions in the West Indies were terrible and the stands were often empty on TV. I know that it was in the West Indies, but it did not show a sport that looked anywhere near attracting a new audience. Baseball on the other hand is active right now, recruiting more and more countries. Other than cricket being huge in about four or five random countries, I don't see much evidence at all that it will capture the masses anywhere else.

[The Mackem]

Basically, you aren't going to find many countries with a popularity of one having the space to expand on the other. I don't really care about either but one long game of batting a ball is surely enough. If baseball can grow in the developing world, fair enough but I don't think the American public's attention will last while the rest try to catch up. I would imagine people would tire of watching a game where each team they play are thrashed or maybe not depending on what people like to see in a baseball game.

America really don't need baseball to catch on internationally as they can make plenty of money within the country itself. It's most likely that America will have the only major professional baseball league and that all players will end up there.

Cricket is already spread due to the former colonies, I mean you have the established test nations:

Australia
Bangladesh
England
India
New Zealand
Pakistan
South Africa
Sri Lanka
West Indies
Zimbabwe

Then you have the others that play as well

Argentina
Bermuda
Canada
Cayman Islands
Denmark
Fiji
France
Germany
Gibraltar
Hong Kong
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Kenya
Malaysia
Namibia
Nigeria
The Netherlands
Nepal
Papua New Guinea
Scotland
Singapore
Tanzania
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United States of America
Zambia

Baseball has a bigger prescence internationally but is more often than not only seen as an amateur sport. Cricket is established on the world stage and the fact that is has lasted this long and always finds ways to re-invent itself to keep itself fresh means that it won't go anywhere anytime soon. Baseball could be big but most likely never will be. It could take off in China but I doubt it.<!-- Containt End Here -->

[BCWWF]

That list of countries that plays cricket is almost irrelevant if you look at the results of the last World Cup. You might find 10 countries that take the sport very seriously if you are being generous.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

But again, I think your whole opinion is skewed based on the European view of baseball. It's the same thing as soccer in the U.S., really. The fact of the matter is that baseball is growing to more and more countries.

People are only crazy about cricket in certain parts of the world, and those places are pretty much isolated from the rest of the sports world. Big-time world sports are generally drawn to Western Europe and North America. In soccer, players from Africa, South America, North America and Asia dream of playing for the biggest teams—teams which happen to play in cities like London, Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, Rome, Munich, Lyon, Torino... some of the most glamorous cities in the world. In basketball and ice hockey, the same is said for New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Toronto, Montreal, Denver, Miami, Dallas, Philadelphia and Washington D.C.

When it comes to baseball, people from Japan, Venezuela, Korea, Cuba, Dominican Republic and many other smaller countries dream of playing for the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Sox or the Los Angeles Dodgers or the Chicago Cubs. I can't honestly believe that many kids outside of India grow up dreaming to go there. (Isn't that where the new cricket Premier League is being created?)

Again, I am not suggesting that baseball is going to come into Europe and India and Australia etc., and convince them to give up cricket. I am implying that places like Brazil, Argentina, China, etc., who don't have a history in the a bat-sport, would be more inclined to play the American game than the Indian game.

Cricket is popular mainly in the Commonwealth, yes, point has been made repeatedly. The issue for baseball, and for cricket actually, is that there is very little infrastructure anywhere else for the game to pick up in new nations.

They are not easy sports to play, where no culture exists to play them it is not a simple matter to organise grass roots cricket or baseball. Neither are particularly "pick up and play" games due to the equipment needed, the set-up of the sport. Most kids without a culture of either sport to look up to will get bored quickly of standing around swinging a bat or chasing after a ball that has sailed over their heads.

It's not like football where kids with nothing else can play a game of football on a field using two of anything as goals.


And a big part of that is that baseball is indeed more suited for television, and is easier to pick up the rules. Cricket, from what I gathered in the casual forum thread, is incredibly nuanced. There are multiple kinds of games (some taking five days!), there are seemingly long periods of time between bowls and between different batters,

In baseball, each game follows a simple formula (9 innings, each team bats once per inning, three outs per inning, get around the bases to score). Nearly all of the games fall within about 2.5-3.5 hours, and the games are played in top-of-the-line stadiums in America's biggest cities.

Again, I disagree. As a neutral observer I have tried to watch both and have only retained an interest in cricket. Baseball is tedious to me. On the other hand, I've come to see cricket as an ultimate test of skill and concentration, basically unmatched in any other sport. Of course, when it's bad it's really bad, but a close game of cricket is unlike anything else for sustained tension. And as I say, the room for cricket to expand comes in the form of its shortened overs games.

India took the first step with their IPL, but I believe the English are going to follow suit. For purists it is probably worrying, but for newcomers to the sport the 20/20 game represents a great way to get into it.

One thing baseball certainly has over cricket, however, is marketing and management. Though the fact that baseball is mainly known right now for drugs scandals is something that will have to be addressed.



All in all, there are reasons why the Olympics and World Cup are drawn to the United States. The facilities here are as nice as any in the world (Wembley Stadium in equalled or bettered by most NFL stadiums), we have some of the most important cities and glamorous in the world (New York, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles), and there is a lot of money here.

"Nice facilities" isn't really the point in football and it is drawn to the US because the US is the last major market to break. That's why the World Cup has went to Japan and will be going to Africa. But again, this means very little since the poor kids you talk about dreaming of going to play baseball in the US will not be able to afford to play the game.


I'm not totally sure what you are trying to argue when you say the Yankees are not comparable to Real Madrid. The New York Yankees are a global brand. People wear Yankees hats in any industrialized country I've seen, which is all the more impressive considering baseball is still largely an American game. In football, a game played on every continent, it is expected that the biggest teams in the world would be some of the most well-known sports teams in the world.

I thought it was fairly straightforward but I will explain it again. Real Madrid compete in every market in the world with established local (and the national) teams. Football has a strong local following almost everywhere. There is no such competition for the Yankees, where there are no local baseball teams to compete for disposable income for merchandising or for affiliations/loyalty. Real Madrid also compete with other hugely recognised names in the sport of football for international recognition, in addition to local sides.

Moreover, baseball caps and clothing can be merely fashion accessories without any real knowledge of the sport or team behind them, whereas football shirts are undoubtedly an expression of following or appreciating a team.


But the real reason I made this thread was your last paragraph. Like you said, cricket needs to organize and streamline itself. I was wondering what should and will happen.

I was in London and had much of the 2007 World Cup on as I worked. It went on forever, conditions in the West Indies were terrible and the stands were often empty on TV. I know that it was in the West Indies, but it did not show a sport that looked anywhere near attracting a new audience. Baseball on the other hand is active right now, recruiting more and more countries. Other than cricket being huge in about four or five random countries, I don't see much evidence at all that it will capture the masses anywhere else.

The conditions in the West Indies were fine, the stands issue was big, however. There were simply too many games and too many dead rubbers. The organisers got greedy by trying to string out short term revenue and ended up hurting the image of the sport. They also priced the locals out of going to games, something which the World Cup in South Africa probably threatens to do. This hurts the atmosphere at any international tournament, and atmosphere helps the image of the tournament coming across to everyone, those there and those watching at home, it helps form the experience.

I was at the World Cup in 2006 in Germany, and they did everything to accomodate the fans who couldn't go to the games. It created a carnival atmosphere which proved they knew how to put on a show.

[Hanso Amore]

That list of countries that plays cricket is almost irrelevant if you look at the results of the last World Cup. You might find 10 countries that take the sport very seriously if you are being generous.

Now remember, I am on your side here, but the same could be said about the WBC.

I mean, the MLB doesn't even allow all of the best in the world to play, so until they truly recognize the WBC in full, the world wont either.

[Hanso Amore]

Cricket is popular mainly in the Commonwealth, yes, point has been made repeatedly. The issue for baseball, and for cricket actually, is that there is very little infrastructure anywhere else for the game to pick up in new nations.

They are not easy sports to play, where no culture exists to play them it is not a simple matter to organise grass roots cricket or baseball. Neither are particularly "pick up and play" games due to the equipment needed, the set-up of the sport. Most kids without a culture of either sport to look up to will get bored quickly of standing around swinging a bat or chasing after a ball that has sailed over their heads.

It's not like football where kids with nothing else can play a game of football on a field using two of anything as goals.



Again, I disagree. As a neutral observer I have tried to watch both and have only retained an interest in cricket. Baseball is tedious to me. On the other hand, I've come to see cricket as an ultimate test of skill and concentration, basically unmatched in any other sport. Of course, when it's bad it's really bad, but a close game of cricket is unlike anything else for sustained tension. And as I say, the room for cricket to expand comes in the form of its shortened overs games.

India took the first step with their IPL, but I believe the English are going to follow suit. For purists it is probably worrying, but for newcomers to the sport the 20/20 game represents a great way to get into it.

One thing baseball certainly has over cricket, however, is marketing and management. Though the fact that baseball is mainly known right now for drugs scandals is something that will have to be addressed.




"Nice facilities" isn't really the point in football and it is drawn to the US because the US is the last major market to break. That's why the World Cup has went to Japan and will be going to Africa. But again, this means very little since the poor kids you talk about dreaming of going to play baseball in the US will not be able to afford to play the game.



I thought it was fairly straightforward but I will explain it again. Real Madrid compete in every market in the world with established local (and the national) teams. Football has a strong local following almost everywhere. There is no such competition for the Yankees, where there are no local baseball teams to compete for disposable income for merchandising or for affiliations/loyalty. Real Madrid also compete with other hugely recognised names in the sport of football for international recognition, in addition to local sides.

Moreover, baseball caps and clothing can be merely fashion accessories without any real knowledge of the sport or team behind them, whereas football shirts are undoubtedly an expression of following or appreciating a team.



The conditions in the West Indies were fine, the stands issue was big, however. There were simply too many games and too many dead rubbers. The organisers got greedy by trying to string out short term revenue and ended up hurting the image of the sport. They also priced the locals out of going to games, something which the World Cup in South Africa probably threatens to do. This hurts the atmosphere at any international tournament, and atmosphere helps the image of the tournament coming across to everyone, those there and those watching at home, it helps form the experience.

I was at the World Cup in 2006 in Germany, and they did everything to accomodate the fans who couldn't go to the games. It created a carnival atmosphere which proved they knew how to put on a show.

Hard to find anything wrong in any part of this. Right on.

[BCWWF]

I really don't disagree with anything substantial in that last post, and I did falsely imply that baseball is relevant outside of a few countries, but as far as I know right now I still think that baseball has the potential to expand more than cricket. And I don't mean to imply that cricket is a bad or boring sport, there's a reason people die over it. My point was more that outsiders would probably be lured to the more standardized version of the sport (baseball) played in a more appealing country (USA).

[Downunder]

Apperantly Australia beat Mexico in baseball - no one here cares but I think that makes us world champions now.

[Sting Fan]

The problem is that your post is based more on your view and understanding of baseball and the lack of the sport in Ireland as opposed to actual facts. It's clear that baseball is growing, especially on the international level. International baseball competition is in its infancy, but Major League Baseball and it's minor leagues have a giant foreign percentage. The reason the World Baseball Classic (only the second tournament ever) is significant is because the United States is arguably not even the best team. The Dominican Republic and Japan are probably the favorites.

Your opinion also implies that the sport being big in the United States is relatively insignificant. It's simply not true. Look at what has happened in China since Yao Ming joined the Houston Rockets. The New York Yankees are also already on the same scale globally as Manchester United and Real Madrid. And the United States is the center of the entertainment industry, which includes highly efficient and profitable sports leagues. What happens in the United States is paid attention to much more closely than things that happen in the major Commonwealth countries such as India and Bangladesh.

It's also a bit misleading to simply say the Commonwealth includes a significant fraction of the world's population, because more than half of that is India. India has never been where the world looks for sports. In reality, India is almost isolated from the rest of the world of sports. Their delegation at the last Olympics was almost nothing, especially when compared to similarly sized countries like China and USA. The new Premier League in India might be big in India like MLB is big in the USA, but India is not as influential or as attractive as the US. How many people dream of living in New Delhi or Mumbai as compared to New York or Los Angeles?

Baseball is also much easier to understand and much more television friendly sport than cricket, which to me is the most significant detail. It is basically cricket but with more standard regulations. For that reason alone, I don't think cricket has the potential to grow into new countries whereas baseball does.

Again, I am not implying that I think cricket will die, but I don't think there will be much growth in any of the countries that currently don't follow the sport. I just don't think people really look toward India or Bangladesh for their sports in the same way they look to western Europe (EPL, Champions League) and USA (MLB, NFL, NBA). I don't know why anybody would be inclined to learn how cricket works unless it was already grandfathered into their culture.


I pretty much agree with everything i nthis except Baseball being more television friendly and easy to understand.

I dont understand baseball any more than basicaly, mainly because everytime I try to watch I get bored shitless watching it.

Cricket has an advantage in that it is trying new things, one dayers are great if you have a day to waste, 20Twenty however is exhilirating and the future of cricket.

I really think 20Twenty alone give cricket an edge. For proof look to crowd numbers on tours, this is all off the top of my head but I think One dayers were getting an avg of about 7000 people to them over here. Recent 20Twenty day nighters have been getting in Excess of 15000, I think a coupleeven got 20 thou.

Even in a cricketning Nation like NZ thats a massive increase.

[ct2k]

Football is the biggest limiting factor to both cricket and baseball if you ask me, not any other bat sport. Neither game has a hope in most South American countries or many African nations now because the obsession with football there is so absolute, especially in Brazil and Argentina.

[BCWWF]

That's not entirely true. Argentina has emerged as probably the second best basketball producing nation in the world now.

Football will always be the main team sport that is truly played all over the world with every continent having some skill. A handful of other sports are not far behind though. Basketball could break out soon with top teams sprouting out in Spain, Italy, Greece, Russia, Argentina, China etc. It also fits into a similar category as football in that you don't need much equipment to play. The time is coming when another country will legitimately challenge USA, and when it does the sport will turn the corner.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Rugby is also growing in Argentina, their team is improving rapidly to become considered a "big" nation.

[BCWWF]

Gridiron is going to continue to grow in terms of world recognition, but I doubt you will see other countries start playing anytime soon. Unfortunately that also will forever limit rugby from being properly included into the American sports scene.

Ice hockey has a strong international foundation, the two main problems are that only a handful of countries can play (weather) and they don't have a marquee event, like the World Cup.

I'd love to see Team Handball become more popular, but I think it's current format isn't visually appealing enough. I was at the gold medal game at the Olympics and it was fun, but I feel like the whole sport could use a facelift to make it faster or make the court/uniforms look more interesting.

[BCWWF]

Rugby is also growing in Argentina, their team is improving rapidly to become considered a "big" nation.

I haven't heard talk of it lately, but there was talk of having an All-Blacks v. Australia match in Denver or Salt Lake City. As cool as that game can be, I would just hate to see it's significant diluted by playing a friendly on neutral turf. Don't they already play more times per year than to make it very special?

[Team Sheep]

I haven't heard talk of it lately, but there was talk of having an All-Blacks v. Australia match in Denver or Salt Lake City. As cool as that game can be, I would just hate to see it's significant diluted by playing a friendly on neutral turf. Don't they already play more times per year than to make it very special?

Australia played New Zealand in Hong Kong last year. I suppose a game in the US wouldn't harm anyone, they play each other competitively in the Tri Nations 2 or 3 times a year anyway, so an exhibition game abroad once a year would only be good for the game.

Argentina aren't gonna carry on improving until they enter a major tournament, like the 6 Nations or the Tri Nations. They achieved some amazing things at the '07 World Cup, beating the hosts France in the opening game, then beating big names like Ireland and Scotland. Quite extraordinary really. Just a shame that their geographical position bares a few issues.

[BCWWF]

I just think it's one thing to have AC Milan and Real Madrid play a meaningless friendly preseason in America, but it'd be something totally different if they tried to have an Old Firm friendly here or Man United-Liverpool, Milan-Inter, Real Madrid-Barca etc. Those are classic games that should only be played when they really mean something in front of their home fans.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

There's no such thing as a friendly in rugby. I don't see the problem with playing a game like that in a new country, it probably would just by-pass the general American public completely, however. Rugby needs close attention to pick up its rules and subtleties. The ref radio thing might help a bit, but otherwise newcomers to the sport with no emotional investment will wonder what the fuck's going on.

I'd gladly have Argentina in the 6 Nations (or 7 nations as it would be) with them based from Spain, but it may be difficult to work it into the fixture schedule with it already being packed for international rugby players. Probably best they join the southern hemisphere series.

[Team Sheep]

Argentina being based in Spain would be retarded. As would them having to fly all the way to Europe and back for every game, so I think that idea is out of the window. I don't think they'd ever be allowed into the Tri Nations, it's too prestigious amongst South Africa, Australia and New Zealand as they are the Southern Hemisphere super powers. Argentina being added just doesn't have the same ring to it, doubt they'd let it happen.

It is a really shitty situation for Argentina as they are just dieing to play regular competitive rugby and have proved that they deserve to compete on the world stage, but the options don't seem realistic.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Most of their squad plays in Europe. Possibly all of it. So where would they be flying back and forth to?

[Team Sheep]

To play home games maybe?

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Not if they were based in Spain.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

South American football teams already play their friendlies against each other in Europe, the fans show up.

[Team Sheep]

Not if they were based in Spain.

No shit. But I was talking about if their home games were based in their home land.

South American football teams already play their friendlies against each other in Europe, the fans show up.

Like you said, they're friendlies. We've seen friendly games played all over the place, it's not a big deal. It's not a question of whether the fans will turn up or not, it's a matter of home field advantage and showing some respect to their home fans, and I'm sure the players would absolutely love to play the likes of England, France, Wales and Ireland in one of the world's most prestigious tournaments in Buenos Aires in front of thousands of screaming, crazy Argentinians. Can't beat that for a hostile environment. Anything other than that would just be a slap in the face and seem pretty false.

But like I said, it's not really likely.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

Home field advantage is a mindset. You are simply suggesting an unworkable barrier. There is no real problem for them basing in Europe and playing in the 6 Nations.

Additionally, the crowds who pack Argentinian football grounds won't be the same people going to rugby games. Further, in the 6 Nations there's often more away fans than home in many games. Ireland always fill at least 2/3rds of the grounds away to Scotland and Italy.

[Cooler Tom Schuler]

I do play baseball with my American cousins but I am still a learner. It's way easy to bat though. In cricket you play with a straight bat.

I do not understand this. Sounds like your American cousins are terrible pitchers.

[SammyG]

Baseball>Cricket

K bye

[CSL]

:roll:

[The Mackem]

Not a big follower of Rugby but don't a decent amount of Argentinian rugby players end up playing for Italy?

[BCWWF]

There's no such thing as a friendly in rugby.

What would this game be? Would it have to be something significant, or do you just mean that the term "friendly" is specifically for football?

Just in general I have an issue with putting the world's biggest rivalries on display as a show in other countries. There is something special about that game that you should have to go to New Zealand or Australia to see.

Also, I think having England play in the game would be the most effective for any American.

[El Capitano Gatisto]

It would be a test match. In rugby, international games are always competitive. For example, when New Zealand tour Europe, they will play a series of test matches. There's no trophy on the line, but it still means everything to beat them.

[Team Sheep]

Home field advantage is a mindset. You are simply suggesting an unworkable barrier. There is no real problem for them basing in Europe and playing in the 6 Nations.

Additionally, the crowds who pack Argentinian football grounds won't be the same people going to rugby games. Further, in the 6 Nations there's often more away fans than home in many games. Ireland always fill at least 2/3rds of the grounds away to Scotland and Italy.

I didn't say they'd be football crowds. Have you ever seen a home Argentina rugby game? They fill their stadiums pretty well. I'm just saying that I personally would like to see Argentina compete in something where they can play in their home country. But hey if they can arrange an alternative and are happy with it, then good for them. Would just be a bit disappointing for the fans that's all.

Also how can you say home field advantage is a mindset? You honestly believe that they'll have no advantage playing in Argentina rather than in Spain?

[BCWWF]

Home field advantage in South America is probably the most significant that you'd find, I'd think. Granted, I don't know much at all about their rugby, but La Bombonera would probably be one of the toughest places in the world to play, due to crowd noise, danger factor and just general surroundings.

But for Argentina, wouldn't it almost be closer for them to go west instead and compete with Australia and New Zealand?

[Team Sheep]

Yeah would be closer. But I doubt they'd let them join the Tri Nations. Australia, South Africa and New Zealand are the big 3 in the Southern Hemisphere, and those three names are synonymous as the cream of world rugby, and that's the competition's main selling point. Adding Argentina would take away from the competition from a marketing standpoint IMO. They'd probably end up being the whipping boys of the tournament for the first few seasons, I think they'd learn and progress more by playing in the 6 Nations.

[Bad Company]

There has been talk for years about letting Argentina joing the Tri-Nations, it's just a logistical nightmare, especially with all their decent players in European club rugby.

[BCWWF]

Is there basically only 10 nations that matter in world rugby? Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, England, Scotland, Wales, France, Italy, Argentina and whoever the sixth team is? (Ireland?)

[Team Sheep]

Pretty much. You also have some Pacific Island teams like Tonga, Samoa and Fiji who kind of borderline matter.

[BCWWF]

There you go: One Nation and Three Islands. The third tournament.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

This is the first I've ever heard of this Baseball thingy.

Have they renamed the bullshit World Series yet?

[BCWWF]

I love how internationals get so offended by the name World Series.

[Team Sheep]

Lol and they hate the Super Bowl winners being called "World Champions".

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Well yeah, it creates a fake sense of grandeur that only Americans seem to fall for. May well of called it the galactic series because it sounds far more awesome.

[Cooler Tom Schuler]

This is the first I've ever heard of this Baseball thingy.

To add honest perspective, I'd never heard of the Cricket World Cup before this thread. :-\

[Downunder]

CTS you ahd never heard of Kangaroo burgers before you met me

[Downunder]

I love how internationals get so offended by the name World Series.

I wouldn't say offended, it's just bloody funny.

[Downunder]

There has been talk for years about letting Argentina joing the Tri-Nations, it's just a logistical nightmare, especially with all their decent players in European club rugby.

Yeah, and that's a bloody shame. I'd love to see the Pumas in an expanded tri-nations

[Cooler Tom Schuler]

CTS you ahd never heard of Kangaroo burgers before you met me

This is very true. You changed my world.