Unpopular Cricket Opinions

[Phone]

Rugby world cup is more important to the code, cricket world cup is far bigger while having enough importance to not make it a joke

 

[Plugger35]

The Cricket World Cup is definitely bigger than the Rugby World Cup, if India was a major rugby country it might be different.

 

[The Passenger]

I used to be a big rugby head. I'm now a casual viewer at best such is the boring nature of modern rugby.

But Rugby is possibly the second most widely played sport in the world. Maybe basketball or baseball are quite widespread.

Surprisingly rugby is played in well over 100 countries. Even though most have no chance of qualifying, let alone winning the thing, there was 84 countries that started the rugby world cup qualifying for 2015, in addition to the 12 teams that automatically qualified. I can't imagine too many sports have more than that. Obviously soccer does, but that should go without saying.

Don't know whether that makes the rugby world cup bigger or smaller than any other tournament.

India and the passion they have for cricket certainly skews the number of people who watch the cricket world cup. Basketball is also very popular in China, but I don't think they have the rabbid passion that Indian's have for cricket.

 

[chargers 09]

Yet only one of those countries has won the thing.

How much do you know about the code mate? Not as old as the CWC (think the first one was in 1987), so 3 less world cups have been contested. France have come seriously close winning a few times as have the Irish and Wales who at their time have won plenty of 6 nations titles (look it up if you haven't heard of it).

 

[chargers 09]

France also has the the richest professional rugby competition in the world.

 

[ioppolo]

Surprisingly rugby is played in well over 100 countries. Even though most have no chance of qualifying, let alone winning the thing, there was 84 countries that started the rugby world cup qualifying for 2015, in addition to the 12 teams that automatically qualified. I can't imagine too many sports have more than that. Obviously soccer does, but that should go without saying.

Geez, if one the lower ranked 84 nations ever played the All Blacks or Springboks...records will be broken.

 

[Plugger35]

The Rugby World Cup isn't even that big in England, I was there for it in 1999 and apart from England games it was hard to find coverage of it there, it still took a backseat to football coverage. Most people there don't really follow the sport unless England are successful like in 2003 when they all jump on the bandwagon. You could probably say the same for Ireland and Scotland, it's only Wales and Southern France where rugby is more popular than football in the Northern Hemisphere.

Cricket has more widespread popularity in England than rugby, being played in summer it doesn't have to compete as much with football which helps.

 

[KissKiss]

America won the last final by 37 points.

When you think that it is probably one of the sports played by the most countries and people behind soccer the gap between the US and everyone else seems to make it less of an event. A bit like the olympic medal for mens bball. Even if the US only take it slightly serious they are a long way ahead of everyone else. It just makes it less interesting as there is no contest

 

[The Passenger]

Geez, if one the lower ranked 84 nations ever played the All Blacks or Springboks...records will be broken.

In cricket there are 10 full members nations, about 40 associates, and about 50 affiliates. But there is only about a dozen of the associates who go into the qualifying for the world cup. I imagine there are numerous national teams outside of the 84 that start rugby qualifying that aren't considered good enough. Plus there is a genuine safety factor in rugby. The qualifying takes places over stages. Each continent has about 3 or 4 stages, with the winner of each stage progressing to the next one before eventually only a couple of qualifiers are left. It's pretty rare for a team to even just make it through 2 stages of qualifying, let alone doing anything else. I.e. It's rare for a team that starts at stage 1 to make it through to stage 3.

 

[The Passenger]

You could probably say the same for Ireland and Scotland, it's only Wales and Southern France where rugby is more popular than football in the Northern Hemisphere.

Rugby is generally very well followed in Ireland, particularly in the east (Leinster) and the south (Munster). If the national team is struggling it might take a bit of a back seat, but it's never too far from the public consciousness. Obviously when it's doing well people will also get on the bandwagon. I was living there in 2007 when they didn't qualify for the quarters and struggled to beat Georgia and the s**t performances of their national team were very much front and centre of the newspapers.

 

[ioppolo]

In cricket there are 10 full members nations, about 40 associates, and about 50 affiliates. But there is only about a dozen of the associates who go into the qualifying for the world cup. I imagine there are numerous national teams outside of the 84 that start rugby qualifying that aren't considered good enough. Plus there is a genuine safety factor in rugby. The qualifying takes places over stages. Each continent has about 3 or 4 stages, with the winner of each stage progressing to the next one before eventually only a couple of qualifiers are left. It's pretty rare for a team to even just make it through 2 stages of qualifying, let alone doing anything else. I.e. It's rare for a team that starts at stage 1 to make it through to stage 3.

Pretty much the exact same in the FIFA world cup qualifying.

 

[The Passenger]

Pretty much.

The RWC qualifying gets pretty lopsided. As an example, in Oceania Australia, NZ, Tonga and Samoa qualified for the Cup automatically, with one more spot up for grabs.

Fiji automatically went into the final qualifying match to play the winner of a group between Cook Islands, PNG, Solomon Islands and Tahiti. Cook Islands won the group, but in the qualifying match Fiji beat Cook Islands 108-6.

 

[carnthemlions]

Still massive in other countries, just to name a few
Probably second most popular sport in Wales and Ireland, massive in France, Scotland and England.

It tends to be popular in certain regions or in certain sections of society.

 

[eth-dog]

I used to be a big rugby head. I'm now a casual viewer at best such is the boring nature of modern rugby.

But Rugby is possibly the second most widely played sport in the world. Maybe basketball or baseball are quite widespread.

Surprisingly rugby is played in well over 100 countries. Even though most have no chance of qualifying, let alone winning the thing, there was 84 countries that started the rugby world cup qualifying for 2015, in addition to the 12 teams that automatically qualified. I can't imagine too many sports have more than that. Obviously soccer does, but that should go without saying.

Don't know whether that makes the rugby world cup bigger or smaller than any other tournament.

India and the passion they have for cricket certainly skews the number of people who watch the cricket world cup. Basketball is also very popular in China, but I don't think they have the rabbid passion that Indian's have for cricket.

Rugby isn't even in the top 3 played sports in the world, let alone 2nd. Football, Basketball, Taekwondo are currently the top 3.

How much do you know about the code mate? Not as old as the CWC (think the first one was in 1987), so 3 less world cups have been contested. France have come seriously close winning a few times as have the Irish and Wales who at their time have won plenty of 6 nations titles (look it up if you haven't heard of it).

How likely in the next World Cup is it that a team outside of the 4 precious winners is going to get it? None of the other nations are less than 10/1 for the title! Yet in the CWC, the 2nd and 3rd favourites are teams that haven't even made a final beforehand.

When you think that it is probably one of the sports played by the most countries and people behind soccer the gap between the US and everyone else seems to make it less of an event. A bit like the olympic medal for mens bball. Even if the US only take it slightly serious they are a long way ahead of everyone else. It just makes it less interesting as there is no contest

Basketball is the 2nd biggest sport in the world, but the WC isn't a big deal because nowadays the only interesting thing is who America will beat in the final.

 

[chargers 09]

Rugby isn't even in the top 3 played sports in the world, let alone 2nd. Football, Basketball, Taekwondo are currently the top 3.

How likely in the next World Cup is it that a team outside of the 4 precious winners is going to get it? None of the other nations are less than 10/1 for the title! Yet in the CWC, the 2nd and 3rd favourites are teams that haven't even made a final beforehand.

Basketball is the 2nd biggest sport in the world, but the WC isn't a big deal because nowadays the only interesting thing is who America will beat in the final.

France and Ireland are massive chances.
That's because NZ All Blacks are by far the best team currently. No one in world cricket is as dominant as they have been.

FWIW CWC is perhaps bigger on the world stage, just think you were dismissing how large the RWC is.

 

[chargers 09]

It tends to be popular in certain regions or in certain sections of society.

Fair point. The corporate dollars involved in Rugby in Australia would dwarf most sports in Australia, probably only comparisons would be footy and cricket.

Back to the cricket talk though, I would rather have Shivnarine Chanderpaul in my best XI over Brian Lara. Especially the Shiv thats been playing since Lara has retired.

 

[eth-dog]

France and Ireland are massive chances.
That's because NZ All Blacks are by far the best team currently. No one in world cricket is as dominant as they have been.

FWIW CWC is perhaps bigger on the world stage, just think you were dismissing how large the RWC is.

For me its the 3rd largest, but from a casual POV, it's hard to see anybody outside of England, SA, Australia and NZ winning it.

 

[The Passenger]

I'm not sure why you have your knickers in such a knot over rugby. The world cup is a big event and, give or take, one of the biggest sporting events in the world.

Just cause four teams have won it doesn't mean much. Only five teams have won the cricket world cup. In both comps, the top 8 are largely set in stone before the tournament save for an upset here or there. But any of those 8 teams can win it once they make it. France and Wales played off in a semi final last time and France arguably should've won the final. The world cup before, France and Argentina were knocked out at the SF stage, France only by a few points.

 

[Plugger35]

For me its the 3rd largest, but from a casual POV, it's hard to see anybody outside of England, SA, Australia and NZ winning it.

France are definitely capable of winning it, they've made the final 3 times. Wales have finished in the top 4 a couple of times so aren't without a chance and Ireland, Scotland and Argentina at their best can knock off the top teams but they are less realistic chances of winning it. It's fair to say though that it's not as wide open as the Cricket World Cup where at least 8 teams are a genuine chance of winning it.

 

[ioppolo]

Don't know how unpopular/popular this is, but I think the CA fitness staff are too hell bent on how our players bodies look, skinfolds etc.

I don't personally care if they're carrying extra meat or a bit of a beer belly, if they can perform and last 5 days in a test match and play multiple internationals on end then let them go on. Our young fast bowlers are all injured anyway and Clarke's back is beyond ruined. Bring back the days of Merv, Marsh, Ranatunga...

 

[The Passenger]

Don't know how unpopular/popular this is, but I think the CA fitness staff are too hell bent on how our players bodies look, skinfolds etc.

I don't personally care if they're carrying extra meat or a bit of a beer belly, if they can perform and last 5 days in a test match and play multiple internationals on end then let them go on. Our young fast bowlers are all injured anyway and Clarke's back is beyond ruined. Bring back the days of Merv, Marsh, Ranatunga...

There is definitely an undercurrent of thought from cricketing types, mostly of the older generation, who are of the belief that there is to much time being put into gym work then just bowling.

I have spoken to a number of younger cricketers - not professionals, but first and second graders who are good players, some who are striving to be come professionals - who believe that the current path is the right path to go down, but never have I seen so many injuries in bowlers. It extends right down the into the amateurs as well. They talk about what they can deadlift, strengthening your back, core strength etc,. which all sounds good in theory but I'm not so sure the practicalities of it are working.

Fast bowling is about the most unnatural sporting motion there is. IMO The best way to build your body up against the stress is to bowl overs, and build up to it. A 16 year old bowling 300 overs over a season and about the same number in net sessions is not a smart idea. But by about 20 or so you should be aiming to be able to take on that sort of workload. I also don't think anyone should be bowling "fast" until they are about 18 or 19, even if they are capable of doing so at 16. Who cares if you can bowl 145k/h at 16. What you can do in junior cricket means SFA. Just about every guy that bowled genuinely quick during their mid teens has had a bad run with injury.

Maybe a better method with young talented quick bowlers is for coaches to have the knowledge this guy has the ability to send down rockets, but keep them bowling within themselves, build up their body and their strengths, build up their bowling workloads, and maybe by the time they are 20-22 they'll have a near fully matured body, not have put their teenage self through tremendous strain, and be ready to hit the domestic scene at full force. Would this method work? Maybe not, but the current method is not working. I'm also well aware it's hard to say to a 16 year old "Hey I know you can launch grenades at these guys and blast them out, but how about just bowling within yourself for the next four years while we build your body up..." They'll most likely tell you to get bent. The precociousness of youth and all that.

This is also gonna be slightly controversial but I also reckon there is an element of "Over diagnosis". Now I know someone coming into the system and telling youngsters "you just gotta push through the pain" is likely to be told to * off. And fair enough. But at the same time, a guy gets a niggle and we don't see him for the rest of the summer. I'm not sure that helps them either. And this also permeates through to the amateur ranks as well. If your only gonna bowl when your 100% then you're not gonna get the overs under your belt for your body to handle the rigours of it. It's just gonna become a downward spiral.

Also teenage cricketers (particularly fast bowlers) should be playing less cricket. The amount of junior competitions around now is mind blowing. Club cricket, school cricket, rep cricket, grade cricket, green shield (u/16), Friday night T20, rep T20, summer holidays comps. When I u/16, which is only 15 years ago, we had junior club cricket sundays, about half a dozen rep games on sundays where you couldn't play club cricket anyway, so it wasn't an additional fixture. For the better u/16 players there was 7 games of green shield in the school holidays. Green shield is the highest level of u/16 cricket in Sydney. And that was it for most youngsters. For some, like me, there was also compulsory school cricket on Saturday.

My nephew followed the same path as me - same junior club competition, same school - and he would have played about 30-40% more games of cricket than I did at the same age. Subsequently this season due to burn out he dropped out of everything except school cricket, and he probably would've dropped out of that if he could. It's a shame cause he is u/15 this year and could have easily played green shield this season, and he was a far more accomplished cricketer at the same age then I was. Speaking to other junior coaches around and he is far from the only one.

On Green shield - it's a great platform for junior cricketers. The standard is very strong, and it's a clear pathway into a grade club. But when I heard some clubs started trials in August I couldn't believe it. The comp starts late December, and runs through January.

You put all that together, and no wonder you've got kids completely burnt out by the time they leave school, and quick bowlers who are crippled by 21.

/rant (That turned out way longer than I expected)

 

[Kram]

Don't know how unpopular/popular this is, but I think the CA fitness staff are too hell bent on how our players bodies look, skinfolds etc.

I don't personally care if they're carrying extra meat or a bit of a beer belly, if they can perform and last 5 days in a test match and play multiple internationals on end then let them go on. Our young fast bowlers are all injured anyway and Clarke's back is beyond ruined. Bring back the days of Merv, Marsh, Ranatunga...

iirc big Merv's weight and fitness levels probably stopped him from playing a lot more cricket at the highest level.

 

[ioppolo]

iirc big Merv's weight and fitness levels probably stopped him from playing a lot more cricket at the highest level.

Yeah you'll get that, but he played 53 tests and 33 ODI's. I doubt Pattinson & Cummins will get close to that, Ryan Harris has only played 20 odd.

 

[peternorth]

Guys

can we just all agree that the cricket WC is the second biggest sporting event in the world after the FIFA world cup as we are posting on the cricket board?

Then we can move to the basketball board and proclaim that sport as the 2nd biggest.

Afterwards to the rugby board!

etc

 

[The Passenger]

What about the Aussie Rules World Cup? Surely it becomes the second biggest. That chick had a 2000 post thread just about her, let alone how much else there was written about the whole event.