Twenty 20 Cricket

Re: # 20
For any sport to succeed on the national, or any level for that matter, the sport needs to acquire a hegemonic status - level of emotional attachment - and a status of national-past-time. Twenty20 is an obvious solution with regards to cricket's diffusion, I agree.

Re: # 21
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Srilanka are poor nations all right, but they generate 75% of the cricketing revenue.

This is how it works: all the revenue goes to the ICC, which is then disbursed to the cricket playing nations. Cricket will die in New Zealand, for instance, if Sub Continent did not generate enough revenue. Same goes for Australia, South Arica, West Indies, UK and the remainig nations.

There is a lot of meny in cricket, especially in the sub continent. Did you hear this story, when India threatened to quit Australia's tour amid the issues with Ausies; Indians were ready to pay off Ausies with the penalties' money without putting a dent in BCCI's cash balances!

Not to mention the investment in IPL and ICL in India - Which other country did you think was capable of investing that much? The other biggest investment in the history of cricket has been from Kerrie Pecker in the 70s, which was just a fraction when compared with the amount which went in IPL and ICL. UK and Holand will eventually put money in cricket with respect to the degree and level of the past time that cricket will take on their national levels.

Finally, nations don't make investments in sports as such, but the private investors. Soccer, for instance is hugely financed through the investments that investers make by ways of taking its franchises.

Qaiser...
India, Pakistan and BD are poor nations. We need rich and powerful nations to promote it. Europeean block conributes fund towards promotion and development of football and Africa, South America along with Europe provides the skill and popularity of the game.
How much money Holland and UK spends on cricket?

If Cricket is to become popular amongst the Europeans and Americans, it will have to be 20-20. Anything longer than that and it won't take off.

Re: # 17 It really depends how look at cricket. For example, the number of hours that go towards cricket are more than any sport. On the other hand, football is followed by the most people in the world.

In the cricke playing culture, it does not take long for the kids to pick the sport up. However, in non-cricket-playing culture, it can take many years for a kid or any one to learn the game.

There is a real chance for cricket to grow in China, Japan, and USA through the twenty20.

Re: # 17
Agreed. Cricket will never be as popular as football! There can only be one sport as popular as football and that is football. However, cricket is almost a second most popular game - taking into account its popularity in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh - nearly two billion people are into it as their national pass time.

Yes, twenty-20 cricket has a potential to grow in USA - mind you the game was literally kicked out of the USA as Americans tend have shown more hegemony - emotional attachment - with the sports that they invented, such as basketball and baseball.

With regards to Dilmiyah, I think it is ICC which is dragging cricket against its popularity by discouraging the new coming investors in the game!

Re: # 15
Cricket, as Game will never be as popular as footbal. Cricket is too complex to be played by a small kid, without constant coaching.
Dalmiya have tried to expand the game and infuse more fund He was not very successful. We need much larger contribution from europe and involve Japan and China and central asian countries.
20-20 can revive cricket in USA...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_United_States_cricket

Re: # 15
It will be impossible for ICC to organise any sort of event with 10 more countries playing cricket to the level of current 10 core nations, except organizing some thing in twnety-20 format. It took almost two months to conclude world cup 2007 with 16 countries participating in it....

We all know that it took New Zealand almost forever to register their first ever win in test cricket! Countries like Bangladesh, Kenya, and Zimbabwe will eventually make their mark. Other emerging nations, such as Ireland, Scotland, UAE, Holland, Canada, USA should be slightly better in ICC with regards to their recognition.

It is worth noting that some nations might do very well in twenty-20 and possibly cause upsets as has been a case in the IRB Sevens!!!

I would like to initiate a discussion here: how would ICC manage if 10 more nations started to play cricket - I mean good cricket? Isn't it tough for the development of cricket when ICC and its core 'constituencies' make it so hard for the new entrants to come into their circle?

Re: # 3 see http://www.cricinfo.com/database/ABOUT_CRICKET/HISTORY/

Re: # 5

Thank you for putting the reference for me Qaiser. That is indeed helpful.

Re: # 8
Cricket is surely not simple game! It is considered to be one of the most complex sports around!

Re: # 6
I can agree to some extent that cricket is in some sort of trouble - it is declining in West Indies, where basket ball is taking over; declining in New Zealand fractionally; Ausies say that in 10 years' time cricket won't be a national past time there; cricket hasn't done very well in Pakistan due to security issues in the country; cricket has not been doing well in England as the national side has been underperforming for a while! However, Indians have done well and perhaps given the game a life line to some extent, especially through the fixtures such as ICL and IPL.

Re: # 7
1. If you are talking cricket in general, then cricket has been around since 18th century and well and truly evolved but did not spread as much as other sports of the same era have! If you are talking about twenty-20, then there is not doubt it will evolve. The question is: will it help spread cricket cross-cultures?

2. We must retain all forms of cricket including ODI. However, we should continue developing twenty-20 like ICL and IPL, as well as introduce cricket to the non-cricket-playing-nations via the twenty-20 format.

3. I must acknowledge that any country that has done a real service to cricket in these days is India - as mentioned earlier, 75% of the world's cricketing revenue comes from the sub-continent and the most of the 75% come from India.

Re: # 7
1. If you are talking cricket in general, then cricket has been around since 18th century and well and truly evolved but did not spread as much as other sports of the same era have! If you are talking about twenty-20, then there is not doubt it will evolve. The question is: will it help spread cricket cross-cultures?

2. We must retain all forms of cricket including ODI. However, we should continue developing twenty-20 like ICL and IPL, as well as introduce cricket to the non-cricket-playing-nations via the twenty-20 format.

3. I must acknowledge that any country that has done a real service to cricket in these days is India - as mentioned earlier, 75% of the world's cricketing revenue comes from the sub-continent and the most of the 75% come from India.

Re: # 1
"Cricket is a simple game. Bowl, hit. Run..."
Cricket is not simple game...