Predictions for cricket in the 2010s.

http://www.cricinfo.com/decadereview2009/content/story/443194.html

I was stunned by the first thing in there - a voice of dissent about the future of t20 on cricinfo.

There's others saying similar things as well.

Martin Williamson says some sensible stuff about technology. Well, sensible to my mind, in that he says what I've been bleating about. If you're going to use technology, saying it's definitive, then use it to be definitive. Piss off the 'doubt' side of things wherever possible with technology.

Harsha Bhogle says t20 will become number one. In the past two years, I've gone right off him as a sensible voice about the game.

Bhogle is not necessarily wrong, and it doesn't mean that he thinks his preditcion is a good idea.

I reckon the amount of ODI's will be reduced, if not obliterated in the next 10 years.

No team will be far and away the best team in the world. India, South Africa, England, and Australia will tussle for the top spot.

I'm not sure T20 will become all dominant. There are already signs that the overkill is reducing interest amongst spectators, with crowds falling off. It's still very new - 30 years ago everyone said ODIs would kill Tests as well.

I think T20's will become more domestic based, but a feeling of loyalty needs to be developed. It's a bit silly that Chris Gayle is playing for WA in Australia, but he'll then be playing for the Calcutta Knight Riders in the IPL in a couple of months. Who'll take the champions league T20 competition seriously if half of the players are lining up against teams they helped to make the competition?

That's part of the big problem. The IPL for example will continue to do well domestically, but the idea it'll be a global thing won't happen because the world doesn't give a stuff about the franchises. They might talk about the Premier League (football), but it isn't the same.

That hoary old chestnut about cricket in the USA surfaced as well. Ain't gonna happen.

No, I don't know why they keep saying that. It has interest amongst ex-pats, that's it.

In the same way that no matter how hard they try, the NFL isn't going to break Britain, cricket isn't going to break the USA.

Here's a few predictions:

The 50 over game will be extinct by 2020
Test cricket will be split into two divisions with a proper world championship
Technology routinely used for the majotity decisons certainly in televised games
Surrey will not win the County Championship
Bucky will continue to be an arse.

Basil wrote:Bucky will continue to be an arse.

Going out on a limb there....

Shoeshine wrote:No, I don't know why they keep saying that. It has interest amongst ex-pats, that's it.

In the same way that no matter how hard they try, the NFL isn't going to break Britain, cricket isn't going to break the USA.

Be interesting to see as a niche market though how much the game could grow. With all the American's of Caribbean origin or from the Indian subcontinent there could be room for growth. The statistics for the US in 2000 suggested there was nearly 2 million South Asians living there and i'm sure this figure has grown since in the last decade.

Over half a million of these live in New York State and New Jersey, and from my time there I know that there are 4 or 5 cricket leagues that stretch out into the suburbs. My team mates would be from all over the place - India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Trinidad, Jamaica, England, South Africa, Ireland, etc.

The organisation of the league was shambolic and the facilities threadbare but the enthusiasm is there. In fact the NYPD were even teaching their officers how to play cricket as a way of building bridges with the Asian and West Indian communities.

I guess you would need someone with the money to build some prime-time exposure on one of the sports channels - other than that fool Stamford that is. Perhaps the US could have a team based in Miami that could take part in the domestic Caribbean 20/20 tournament. Its funny that the perception most American's have of cricket is completely wrong - they imagine a bizarre slow game with lots of fat guys wearing white and where nothing actually happens most of the time. Which is baseball, they already have that. Cricket is far, far superior.


Similarly - I reckon if one of the terrestial broadcasters was brave enough to buy the NFL rights and showed it at prime time it would build a following. Is definitely a very entertaining game - and they have managed to sell out Wembley several times.

The sell out of Wembley is fascinating, given that the profile of the game remains so low. Anecdotal evidence is that it is a combination of ex-pats and Europe wide fans making a special effort to come to London. And Channel 4 used to show NFL remember, and the BBC show the Superbowl. It gets lousy figures because as a nation we aren't interested.

what i would like to see is

- Death of D/N cricket(especially for ODIs where the game starts at 2:30 pm)
- Return of cricket in PAK( but PLEASE have better pitches)
- Half as many ODIs as the 00s.

........last but NOT least
- BETTER fast bowlers

Shoeshine wrote:The sell out of Wembley is fascinating, given that the profile of the game remains so low. Anecdotal evidence is that it is a combination of ex-pats and Europe wide fans making a special effort to come to London. And Channel 4 used to show NFL remember, and the BBC show the Superbowl. It gets lousy figures because as a nation we aren't interested.

Hardly lousy figures - checked and the total figure last year was just under 900,000. By comparison the 4th test between England and Australia had an average figure of 450,000 on the 3rd Day.

At 3am there was still 300,000 viewers watching, as opposed to the 290,000 peak audience for the 1st day of that Headingley Test.

Gary 111 wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:The sell out of Wembley is fascinating, given that the profile of the game remains so low. Anecdotal evidence is that it is a combination of ex-pats and Europe wide fans making a special effort to come to London. And Channel 4 used to show NFL remember, and the BBC show the Superbowl. It gets lousy figures because as a nation we aren't interested.

Hardly lousy figures - checked and the total figure last year was just under 900,000. By comparison the 4th test between England and Australia had an average figure of 450,000 on the 3rd Day.

At 3am there was still 300,000 viewers watching, as opposed to the 290,000 peak audience for the 1st day of that Headingley Test.

900,000 for what starts at peak time, on a Sunday evening on the main terrestrial channel, versus something on a subscription satellite channel? Nice comparison there.

Shoeshine wrote:

Gary 111 wrote:

Shoeshine wrote:The sell out of Wembley is fascinating, given that the profile of the game remains so low. Anecdotal evidence is that it is a combination of ex-pats and Europe wide fans making a special effort to come to London. And Channel 4 used to show NFL remember, and the BBC show the Superbowl. It gets lousy figures because as a nation we aren't interested.

Hardly lousy figures - checked and the total figure last year was just under 900,000. By comparison the 4th test between England and Australia had an average figure of 450,000 on the 3rd Day.

At 3am there was still 300,000 viewers watching, as opposed to the 290,000 peak audience for the 1st day of that Headingley Test.

900,000 for what starts at peak time, on a Sunday evening on the main terrestrial channel, versus something on a subscription satellite channel? Nice comparison there.

200,000 of the 900,000 were watching on Sky, its on both.

11pm is hardly 'peak time' most people are getting ready for bed that time on a Sunday. Especially when you know that you're not going to see the end unless you stay up until 3am.