If the population of England is 58 Million

[blackey]

Why can't they find eleven Kents that can play cricket ?

 

[Moonwatcher]

Why can't they find eleven Kents that can play cricket ?

I'd still back England to beat Australia in a ODI or T20 neglecting finals pressure. Test cricket is just not their priority. I suspect like Australia their young people are losing interest in cricket also.

 

[ioppolo]

England are half decent at soccer again, sporty youngsters may choose that path.

 

[Kappa]

England are half decent at soccer again, sporty youngsters may choose that path.

And we have kids choosing nrl and afl

 

[cricketnut14]

Test cricket is just not their priority.

i find that hard to believe.

They play more test cricket than anyone else and always have 6-7 tests per home summer.

They are also the only nation to play test cricket against a bigger nation (NZ) outside of the WTC.

 

[Scotland]

Cricket is a toff sport in England and it rains half the time anyway. We take for granted here how accessible sports like tennis, cricket, golf are to the average Joe.

There don't seem to be reliable stats available but it wouldn't surprise me if there are more registered players here than there.

Cricket is cultural. I was never particularly great at it but I played in the backyard and at school and in the nets after school etc. Pretty common to finish school and then go down to the basketball courts or the tennis courts or the nets/oval and play for a few hours until it got dark. Go to the beach and you take a bat and tennis ball and either an esky or a set of stumps. It's not fanatical like it is in India or soccer is in many parts of the world but it is ingrained.

 

[Plugger35]

England isn't really suited to playing a summer sport like cricket despite them inventing the game and having a bigger population

 

[PhatBoy]

Reminder that Australia couldn’t beat the West Indies for nigh on 20 years who aren’t even a country let alone one boasting a population of any note

 

[katana]

And we have kids choosing nrl and afl

soccer is much bigger, there's more professional leagues and the gap between what a cricketer can earn and a footballer can earn is enormous.

 

[Gough]

England are half decent at soccer again, sporty youngsters may choose that path.

Half decent might as well sum up post war England.

 

[Peter Bixley]

One big reason behind it is the fact that test matches have been behind a paywall for nigh on 20 years. The 2005 Ashes was a golden egg for cricket in England - 10 million watched the last day at The Oval on a Monday and cricket goods outsold football goods that Christmas for the first time ever. Fast-forward 20 years and you're lucky to get 1.5m people watching the dramatic final day against India with the one-armed Woakes. A whole generation of kids can't even name a single cricketer and don't even know anything about the sport, save for a select few who belong to families that are steeped in cricket and able to afford Sky TV. Very few state schools play cricket anymore.

There are still enough people around to make cricket profitable but they're all getting older. This is why the ECB can throw money at it to a point. But outside of the subcontinent, we're all seeing other sports trying to muscle cricket out of the way.

 

[Scotland]

What isn't behind a paywall in the UK? The Premier League is arguably the most popular sporting competition in the world and that sure as hell isn't free.

Every Ashes tour since 2005 has been sell out crowds every full day of every test. Yes a sell out in England is 20-30k but while I could be wrong I don't recall tours from the mid 90s to early 2000s generating as much interest. Watching on TV the games in England always seem better supported than anywhere else except here and India. Some of the tests in South Africa and West Indies look like Shield games and no one in any of the Emirates cares about Pakistan "home" tests.

I think where cricket struggles is that like anything here that isn't footy or rugby league it's fighting for column inches. England can get knocked out of the World Cup in the group stage and Man City can win the league by Christmas and every kid will still be kicking a football around the schoolyard the next day. When England are beating Australia and Stokes is making WC final 100s kids want to play but that's not the norm.

 

[Rabish Binney]

Reminder that Australia couldn’t beat the West Indies for nigh on 20 years who aren’t even a country let alone one boasting a population of any note

Clive Lloyd deserves every accolade available for bringing that team together, keeping in mind that there were tensions between the islands and to that, between some of the individual players in that mid 1970's test squad initially.

I think Frank Worrell had a similar effect when he was captain in the early 60's.

Not sure if there are too many respected in world cricket more than Sir Frank and Sir Clive. .

 

[Rabish Binney]

Why can't they find eleven Kents that can play cricket ?

One would think that India with over 1bn people just would dominate world cricket with that overwhelming population.

Imagine being a kid with great potential trying to make it up the ladder and having to complete with 20mm others who have the same dreams and potential.

 

[Jim Prideaux]

I'd still back England to beat Australia in a ODI or T20 neglecting finals pressure. Test cricket is just not their priority. I suspect like Australia their young people are losing interest in cricket also.

Would you, didn’t they just get flogged by NZ

 

[Spirit Level]

Then think about India and their world cup failure against us.....

1.4 billion yet couldn't find 11 people to beat Australia

 

[Peter Bixley]

What isn't behind a paywall in the UK? The Premier League is arguably the most popular sporting competition in the world and that sure as hell isn't free.

Every Ashes tour since 2005 has been sell out crowds every full day of every test. Yes a sell out in England is 20-30k but while I could be wrong I don't recall tours from the mid 90s to early 2000s generating as much interest. Watching on TV the games in England always seem better supported than anywhere else except here and India. Some of the tests in South Africa and West Indies look like Shield games and no one in any of the Emirates cares about Pakistan "home" tests.

I think where cricket struggles is that like anything here that isn't footy or rugby league it's fighting for column inches. England can get knocked out of the World Cup in the group stage and Man City can win the league by Christmas and every kid will still be kicking a football around the schoolyard the next day. When England are beating Australia and Stokes is making WC final 100s kids want to play but that's not the norm.

Football doesn't need as much airtime to be popular. You've narrowed your focus to the Premier League. There are FA Cup matches, international matches, etc that still get aired on terrestrial TV. Summer 2026 will see all 100+ World Cup games screened live on terrestrial TV.

Football is the first sport played at school. Kids can throw down jumpers for goalposts, they don't need to carry around heavy kit with them. There are far more football clubs than cricket clubs. It's a cheaper and easier game for people to play, and it's more ingrained in the culture and psyche of the country. You make mention of column inches but surely that's the same theme as TV access? I think we're not actually that far apart in that we both think a general lack of exposure is the problem.

Yes, I would agree that grounds in the UK are full for the Ashes but the grounds are smaller. I've also been to multiple Ashes tests at Edgbaston, Old Trafford, Lord's and The Oval since my first in 1997. It isn't full of kids by any stretch of the imagination. The crowds are also getting older they have the means to pay £100 for a ticket for one day, and they don't have to buy additional tickets for a couple of children. In 1997, an adult could take two children to a day at an Ashes test for £28. Now, the adult would be paying £200-£250. I blame Billy Bowden. If he doesn't give Michael Kasprowicz out at Edgbaston in 2005, then test cricket in England doesn't go on to be the cash vampire we see today

 

[Scotland]

Football doesn't need as much airtime to be popular. You've narrowed your focus to the Premier League. There are FA Cup matches, international matches, etc that still get aired on terrestrial TV. Summer 2026 will see all 100+ World Cup games screened live on terrestrial TV.

Football is the first sport played at school. Kids can throw down jumpers for goalposts, they don't need to carry around heavy kit with them. There are far more football clubs than cricket clubs. It's a cheaper and easier game for people to play, and it's more ingrained in the culture and psyche of the country. You make mention of column inches but surely that's the same theme as TV access? I think we're not actually that far apart in that we both think a general lack of exposure is the problem.

Yes, I would agree that grounds in the UK are full for the Ashes but the grounds are smaller. I've also been to multiple Ashes tests at Edgbaston, Old Trafford, Lord's and The Oval since my first in 1997. It isn't full of kids by any stretch of the imagination. The crowds are also getting older they have the means to pay £100 for a ticket for one day, and they don't have to buy additional tickets for a couple of children. In 1997, an adult could take two children to a day at an Ashes test for £28. Now, the adult would be paying £200-£250. I blame Billy Bowden. If he doesn't give Michael Kasprowicz out at Edgbaston in 2005, then test cricket in England doesn't go on to be the cash vampire we see today

Yes column inches is just another term for media coverage.

I'm not across how all levels of the pyramid are broadcast these days, but the Premier League, Championship and Leagues One and Two are all behind paywalls AFAIK. That's 30-40 weeks of the year. But as you said it has the level of popularity behind it to support that. I've seen NBL, A-League, Super Rugby here all wane in popularity at different points and it has a huge impact on the sports. If you told me after the 1999 or 2003 World Cups that in 2025 the average person on the street could name more Matildas than Wallabies I would think you were insane but we're probably at that point.

£100 is a lot for a day at a test, but if you can sell 30,000 tickets at that price then invariably you do. Is it more affordable to go to T20 Blast or Hundred games? The BBL has been great here for getting people along to the cricket. I love a good test match but it's pretty much just friends and family who attend Shield games. Not many have the time or interest to go and watch 4 days of cricket during the week.

 

[icyflakes]

Yes, I would agree that grounds in the UK are full for the Ashes but the grounds are smaller. I've also been to multiple Ashes tests at Edgbaston, Old Trafford, Lord's and The Oval since my first in 1997. It isn't full of kids by any stretch of the imagination. The crowds are also getting older they have the means to pay £100 for a ticket for one day, and they don't have to buy additional tickets for a couple of children. In 1997, an adult could take two children to a day at an Ashes test for £28. Now, the adult would be paying £200-£250. I blame Billy Bowden. If he doesn't give Michael Kasprowicz out at Edgbaston in 2005, then test cricket in England doesn't go on to be the cash vampire we see today

To preface, by no means am I an expert in English cricket.

But aren't the English grounds insanely small to get tickets to? Like, there's ballots and things like that. The smallest Ashes ground in Aus (barring Tasmania which is only rarely used) is at least 35K.

Of course its going to skew to adults. You need to make a sport accessible if you want kids to get into it.

 

[Peter Bixley]

To preface, by no means am I an expert in English cricket.

But aren't the English grounds insanely small to get tickets to? Like, there's ballots and things like that. The smallest Ashes ground in Aus (barring Tasmania which is only rarely used) is at least 35K.

Of course its going to skew to adults. You need to make a sport accessible if you want kids to get into it.

If you get in early enough, you can get tickets to any day at any test outside of London.

 

[icyflakes]

If you get in early enough, you can get tickets to any day at any test outside of London.

My point was if tickets are very limited (either through having to rush to get them, or paying a fortune) you aren't going to get people bringing the kids along.

Accessibility through TV rights and access (both in buying tickets and ticket prices) to matches is critical to allowing a sport to maintain and grow. England should understand that more than anyone given the TV rights saga only 20 odd years ago.

 

[Jack Mundy]

Why can't they find eleven Kents that can play cricket ?

Soccer is much bigger than cricket in England. Rugby which is much smaller than soccer is much bigger than cricket in England.

 

[A Pom]

Rugby which is much smaller than soccer is much bigger than cricket in England.

This is definitely not the case.

 

[Jack Mundy]

This is definitely not the case.

England in 2019 world cup final for both rugby and cricket. 4 million more people watched rugby final. Six nations bring much bigger numbers than cricket does for anything.

 

[A Pom]

England in 2019 world cup final for both rugby and cricket. 4 million more people watched rugby final. Six nations bring much bigger numbers than cricket does for anything.

It's not really comparable on TV viewership alone though. Put games consistently on free to air TV, make games a lot more rare and play them all in London at weekends and naturally you're going to get better peak viewership. The latest YouGov polls put the number of adults in England who follow cricket and rugby (either watching live or supporting a team) as almost identical, and the number that play cricket as almost double the number that play rugby.